Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 22nd, 2012, 01:35 PM   #1
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,293
iTrader: (39)
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default Michigan Proposals - Let's chat.

PROPOSAL 1
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 -
THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW

Public Act 4 of 2011 would:

Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.

Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.

Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.

Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.



PROPOSAL 12-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

This proposal would:

Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.

Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.

Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.

Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.


PROPOSAL 12-3
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

This proposal would:

Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.

Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.

Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.

Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.



PROPOSAL 12-4
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO ESTABLISH THE MICHIGAN QUALITY HOME CARE COUNCIL
AND PROVIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
FOR IN-HOME CARE WORKERS

This proposal would:

Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.

Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.

Preserve patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.

Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.


PROPOSAL 12-5
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT


This proposal would:

Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.

This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.

Should this proposal be approved?




PROPOSAL 12-6
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION
REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF
INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS

This proposal would:

Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.

Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 01:38 PM   #2
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,293
iTrader: (39)
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

My opinions:

1. unsure...
2. fuck no.
3. This may be the WORST proposal EVER since I've been of voting age. HELL NO
4. Union proposal... NO.
5. Makes sense to me, I'm voting yes.
6. I see both sides of this, voting yes because I don't think we need a new bridge.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 01:51 PM   #3
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,380
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:00 PM   #4
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,757
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Default

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:08 PM   #5
TJJEEP
Senior Member
 
TJJEEP's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Orchard Lake
Posts: 2,803
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TJJEEP Send a message via MSN to TJJEEP
Default

1. Yes. Cities that repeatedly fail to balance their budget need intervention
2. No.
3. No. This would increase our rates. If there is a way to offer renewable power at an affordable cost, the private sector will find it.
4. No
5. Yes. I believe this will cause the governments to reform instead of tax their way out
6. No.
__________________
If you're like me you like to talk to things. I'm Gary Busey!!
TJJEEP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:13 PM   #6
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

1. yes
2-6 No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
My opinions:

1. unsure...
2. fuck no.
3. This may be the WORST proposal EVER since I've been of voting age. HELL NO
4. Union proposal... NO.
5. Makes sense to me, I'm voting yes.
6. I see both sides of this, voting yes because I don't think we need a new bridge.
I'm surprised you're in the Kodiak camp on #6. Nothing like one guy using the constitution of the state to protect his business.

I believe #5 would also be a mess if passed.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:21 PM   #7
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,293
iTrader: (39)
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyJ View Post
1. yes
2-6 No.



I'm surprised you're in the Kodiak camp on #6. Nothing like one guy using the constitution of the state to protect his business.

I believe #5 would also be a mess if passed.


Lol. The person you're referencing is a great customer of mine.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:27 PM   #8
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 8,261
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
Default

Easy way to remember.. Proposal 1 vote YES and NO on the rest.

Keep your hands off my constitution.
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:28 PM   #9
JohnnyJ
Low Range Drifter
 
JohnnyJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Hartland, MI
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
Lol. The person you're referencing is a great customer of mine.
I'm guessing you're talking Matty Moroun, unless you've recently opened a free lawn cleanup business.

I still believe the government is for the people, by the people. Not for Matty, bought by Matty. But he won't be the first to get government for one if it passes.
__________________
Neither Skinny Nor Pretty DEAK Racing 4517 Ultra 4 Mod Class Rig
Surviving Project Car Hell - We have all been there
JohnnyJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:28 PM   #10
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,753
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?
Well, I'm not sure Bruce and I agree on everything but this time we do.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:30 PM   #11
MonkeyBiz
Master Cocksman
 
MonkeyBiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Whitehall
Posts: 8,261
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to MonkeyBiz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
1. Yes, if an EM is needed, give them the power to do what is needed.
2. No, I do not want union contracts to override state law.
3. No, even if this was a good idea it should not be added to the state constitution.
4. No, we shouldn't force the union on people.
5. No, This would place to much of a restriction on the state legislature to do it's job of managing the states finances.
6. No, no other state highway construction projects require a state wide vote, why single out international bridges and tunnels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No

Fuck.. there is an agreement between Brewmann AND Kickstand AND Whiterhino. Throw in LX4whatever his name is and the world may stop spinning.
MonkeyBiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:33 PM   #12
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 20,753
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Default

I've been mentoring my young followers.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:34 PM   #13
kickstand
sHaMoNe!
 
kickstand's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-06
Location: fenton
Posts: 30,757
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyBiz View Post
Fuck.. there is an agreement between Brewmann AND Kickstand AND Whiterhino. Throw in LX4whatever his name is and the world may stop spinning.
Give bruce the chance to play the devil's advocate on something that isn't black and white and the world will return to normal.
kickstand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:41 PM   #14
WSU JK
Senior Member
 
WSU JK's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-25-08
Location: Lowering the Per-Capita Income of Bloomfield Hills since 2009!
Posts: 2,557
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

The only one I have a strong opinion about (so far) is Prop 6. I'm voting "No".

More than 2,000 trucks from Chrysler and Ford cross the bridge each day (plus about 200 from GM). If something were to happen and the bridge were shut down for a few days, that could be disastrous for the Big 3. (Plus the impact to the companies sending the other 5,500 trucks across each day)

The Blue Water Bridge is already at capacity so re-routing traffic up there for an extended period of time is not a viable solution.

This isn't just a Detroit or Michigan issue - $63 billion in trade cross the current bridge each year originating from Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.

When the Ambassador Bridge renewed their bonds in 2009 even they projected significant growth in traffic through 2025. So either they are lying in their ads against for Prop 6 or they lied to their investors.

Nobody has yet to show anywhere how the new bridge will cost Michigan taxpayers any money. Yes, U.S. tax payers will need to build the customs plaza and staff that, but that will come out of money already marked for customs and transportation upgrades, is spread out across all U.S. taxpayers, and would be spent on those types of projects regardless so we may as well work to get that spending done here than let it go to another proposed crossing on the Niagara Peninsula.

Michigan will be able to leverage Canada's expenditure on the bridge project into $2.2 billion dollars of extra road funding for the state from the federal government through matching funds. Again, these are funds that would be spent somewhere in the U.S. so lets get them here where infrastructure upgrades are badly needed.

The current bridge is a security concern - because of space restrictions, in-depth secondary screenings of large trucks on the American side must be done about 7 miles south of the bridge and 5 miles away on the Canadian side. If somebody did have some bad intentions, they could have ample time and opportunity while traveling through Detroit or Windsor.

I don't think decisions on infrastructure should really come down to a vote of the public. This is one area where the professionals who live and breath transportation engineering, planning, logistics, etc. should be making the decisions.

If the the Blue Water Bridges or Ambassador Bridge were to suddenly collapse, because of the way Prop 6 is worded it would require a lengthy ballot initiative to get the ball rolling on rebuilding the old bridges. "Bridges" as defined in the proposal also includes any rail crossings or tunnels; and because of more badly worded language and ambiguity could also be used to hold up bridge construction that is not crossing an international border.

There is currently a plan to widen the rail tunnel in Detroit to accommodate double-stack cars, this proposal could put a halt to that as well.

Legally, it is undetermined whether or not Prop 6 would even have an effect on the new proposed bridge across the Detroit River because the inter-local agreement has already been signed and the presidential permit already granted but you better believe that if Prop 6 does pass, Matty Moroun will waste countless more taxpayer dollars fighting it in court (he has already won exactly 0 of the lawsuits he has brought to try and stop it).
WSU JK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:46 PM   #15
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,380
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kickstand View Post
Give bruce the chance to play the devil's advocate on something that isn't black and white and the world will return to normal.
I'm sure that I could come up with arguments for the other side for all of these, but that's how I intend on voting on them.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 02:53 PM   #16
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,418
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Like I said in the other thread, yes on 1, no on the others.
kerryann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 03:00 PM   #17
deerebowtie
Unchained
 
deerebowtie's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-04-09
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,739
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

For #1, I'd reference the Katrina fiasco and say aw naw. I'd rather watch people burn in a fire than give some government r-tard overwhelming authority.


yes on #5, no on everything else. I pay enough in taxes as a middle class single white dude, lick my balls.
deerebowtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 03:07 PM   #18
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,380
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deerebowtie View Post
For #1, I'd reference the Katrina fiasco and say aw naw. I'd rather watch people burn in a fire than give some government r-tard overwhelming authority.
If there had been a single person with authority maybe it wouldn't have been such a fiasco.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deerebowtie View Post
yes on #5, no on everything else. I pay enough in taxes as a middle class single white dude, lick my balls.
The problem with that is that if they wanted to change the tax laws so that us "middle class single white dude[s]" paid less and some other group paid more that would also require a 2/3 majority.

Last edited by brewmenn; October 22nd, 2012 at 03:12 PM.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 22nd, 2012, 03:20 PM   #19
deerebowtie
Unchained
 
deerebowtie's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-04-09
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 1,739
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

can I say I'd rather maintain status quo than allow them to change the tax rates without people saying yea/nay? even if that means paying obnoxious rates for the time being..
deerebowtie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.24848 seconds with 50 queries