Minnesota Fishing Communities and the Legacy Fund - Page 5

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 41 through 50 for Minnesota Fishing Communities and the Legacy Fund

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Minnesota Fishing Communities and the Legacy Fund - - - 76 messages. Showing 41 through 50. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5   6  7  8 
nofishfisherman
Moderator
Joined 06/30/2005
Posts:2448

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 41 Posted: 08:48 AM 03/10/08 (CST)
Like I said before, we are paying big prices right now becuase of the lack of foresight in the past.

The roads, bridges and yes even mass transit are needed, the tax increase was just pushed off so long that it was inevitable that we were going to get hit big at some point.


Ted
Moderator
Joined 07/18/2004
Posts:1544

Ted's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 42 Posted: 09:19 PM 03/10/08 (CST)
Hey people,

The press release just made #1 in Google when you search for Minnesota fishing in Google News. Now everyone can read our thoughts on this subject. Nothing like having your voice heard.

Way to go WebDude!


Ted

My Fishing Pals
BigBite
Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004
Posts:1550

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 43 Posted: 07:55 AM 03/11/08 (CST)
I think that the fact this is making the news sources is a good thing. Anything to educate the voters is a good thing. I am not trying to persuade people to not vote for this amendment, but I feel the voter needs to know exactly what and why they are voting for or against it. We pay a ton of our hard earned money to taxes already and I believe that every penny spent should be counted and accounted for. Leaving the legislature with the ability to pick and choose where the money goes is a joke, since most seem to divert this money to projects and special interests.

Case in point, Carol Molnau authored a bill, when she was a representative, that ensured a plan to build a new Hwy. 212. Eight days after the bill was signed by then-Gov. Jesse Ventura, Molnau and her husband, Steve, sold their 40 acres to the developer, Pulte Homes of Minnesota, for $3.3 million -- six times its estimated market value, records show. Mmmmm... She and her husband say the $3.3 million deal did not pose a conflict of interest for her at the Legislature in 2000. Mmmmm...

Our hard earned tax dollars at work. And this is just one example of the hundreds of behind the door deals that go on with our money. We need to start paying attention to this stuff.

And we wonder why businesses leave Minnesota? Mmmmm...




BigBite
Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004
Posts:1550

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 44 Posted: 08:15 AM 03/11/08 (CST)
I see we also made the Google News feed in the menu...




Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:560

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 45 Posted: 05:28 PM 03/13/08 (CST)
Nofishfisherman--

I am curious why you say that the tax increase has been pushed off too long... In 2006 (most recent I could find) per capita minnesotans payed the 6th highest taxes in the country.. This new bill I assume will put us in the top couple. We used to rank as the most liveable state in the country and at that time we were'nt near the top of the taxation list.

So where is the evidence that shows increased government spending has helped us?


On a side note- Remember when MN used to have rail cars and rail systems that were trashed? I'm not a historian but I think maybe they were torn up for metals during the war? I wonder if we would still use them if they were still available.



nofishfisherman
Moderator
Joined 06/30/2005
Posts:2448

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 46 Posted: 08:50 AM 03/14/08 (CST)
When I say tax increases have been pushed i am speaking just in relation to the transportation bill.

Everyone has known for years that our roads were falling way behind in repair. We are addind more and more cars every year to the roads and not spending the money to keep up with traffic. If all you do is repair work you aren't doing enough. You need to plan the cities to handle future traffic.

Since people knew this problem was happening why didn't they try to address the problem long ago. Small incremental tax increases designed to keep the roads up to par with the amount of traffic would have been a smarter idea. Repairs and Improvements could have been made all along. Instead now we have alot of roads that are trying to handle numbers of cars that far exceed the traffic they were designed for. It will take years worth of huge projects to get them up to par.

So as I see it there were two options.

1. Make the improvements slowly over time as traffic levels increased. Funded through small incremental tax increases.

2. Wait for the roads and traffic to get so bad that major overhauls are needed all over the cities all at once. Funded by one large tax increase all at one time.

Which one seems to make more sense to you?

One of them is easier for the public to budget into their lives, one of them addresses the problem early on and fixes it before it gets bad.


BigBite
Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004
Posts:1550

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 47 Posted: 09:53 AM 03/14/08 (CST)
nofishfisherman,

I agree with you totally on the roads, upkeep and building new roads. The problem is that they have now lumped light rail into anything that has to do with transportation. What this means is that, yes... they say we need to build new roads and maintain existing roads. Then they will want to pass bills to do so, but a percentage of anything passed goes into the building of light rail. So the real problem is that the legislature has taken away the ability for people to choose one or the other. Transportation bill? Yes... I would like to see better roads and new roads. Light Rail bill? No, I don't think we need it! It is another sly way for the legislature to get money for what they think WE need. It's just like the Dedicated Funding bill... funding for the environment? I am all for it. Funding for the arts? I am totally against it. This is the problem. I cannot choose one or the other, I either have to vote yes for both or no for both.

Like I said before... if this was a separate bill for just the arts, it would never pass. Just like I believe if a transportation bill is just for light rail, it would never pass.

So now I have to ask... do we really have a choice? Well, no, if we can only vote for how the parameters are set up.

"Need to pass one thing? Well then, let's tack on a bunch of other stuff that would never pass then, that way we can get more money coming in." That is your legislature speaking.

I said it before and I will say it again... what a convoluted way to run the state crazy smiley




nofishfisherman
Moderator
Joined 06/30/2005
Posts:2448

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 48 Posted: 10:25 AM 03/14/08 (CST)
Why wouldn't you include Light Rail in a transportation bill? After all it is very much transportation related.

Maybe I am in the minority but I think the light rail is a good idea. It takes a ton of cars off the road every morning and with the proposed extensions the number will only climb.

I don't know if you ever use the current light rail but it is extensively used and does generate revenue.

A well developed rail system that serves a large metro area is a very beneficial thing to have. Now maybe you don't use it but thousands of people do. I am not one that uses it for my morning commute as it does not go where I need it to yet but if and when it does I will ride it. Fewer cars on the roads mean they require less repair, which means less tax money needed for repair. And that doesn't mention that ennironmental impacts of elimating car exhaust or the fact that it gives us another option to not rely on foreign oil.


BigBite
Senior Member
Joined 08/17/2004
Posts:1550

BigBite's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 49 Posted: 11:20 AM 03/14/08 (CST)
The issue is not whether or not you are for light rail, the issue is that it gets lumped together. What of those who oppose light rail... they will not have thier voices heard. This is fine for you, since you approve of both, but what about me?




nofishfisherman
Moderator
Joined 06/30/2005
Posts:2448

nofishfisherman's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 50 Posted: 08:38 AM 03/17/08 (CST)
Expecting separate bills for every single issue is not practical. Doing so would take 1 bill and turn it into 10 or 15-maybe 20 different bills. How is that going to make government more efficient? Who gets to decide when an issue has to be put into a separate bill?

If a bill was only allowed to contain a single issue our ballots in November would be 60 pages long. It just is not a practical way of doing business. Can you imagine a more convoluted way of running the state?

It’s not always going to be perfect for you. You don’t vote for a presidential candidate because they hold 100% of the same beliefs that you do. You pick the one that most closely aligns with what you think. It’s never going to be perfect, unless you vote for yourself.

If a bill contains issues relating to the bill topic I am fine with it being lumped together. Light rail is 100% related to transportation so I am fine with it being in there regardless of my opinion on the issue.

If the transportation bill also included something allowing tax money to be used for the building of a library then I don’t think it should bet here as it is a separate issue. It doesn’t matter if I am for or against it; it should still be voted on within the context of a related bill. Perhaps a bill to increase the literacy rate or something like that.

I think that including the arts in the dedicated funding bill increases its chances of being passed. As an outdoors man you only see value in the outdoors, while at the same time an artist in Minneapolis sees only value in the arts. You won’t vote for an arts only bill and the artist won’t vote for an outdoors only bill, but a bill including both is something you can both vote for and be happy with since your interest is getting money. I think two separate bills would be doomed from the start since each would have large opposition to them but put together both sides should be working together to get it passed. If people can’t see the overall benefits then what can you do? Some people will only vote to make sure they aren’t paying to help someone else, when in reality they are also voting to not help themselves at the same time.

On more of a side note…Can you tell me more why you do not support light rail, I am just curious as it seems to offer a lot of good to MN?



Minnesota Fishing Communities and the Legacy Fund - - - 76 messages. Showing 41 through 50. Go to page: 1  2  3  4  5   6  7  8 
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    dittohead     freebyL     GoofFishing     HellYa     John H.     mork    
Users Online:6
Guests Online:25
Total Online: 31


Terms and Conditions