View Full Version : 2021-11 Election Discussion
I got my ballot today. I am hoping this thread will be a good place to discuss and ask questions about the things we are being asked to vote upon.
eddiememphis
10-12-2021, 19:16
I used to joke with Dad, "you can never go wrong with voting no".
Now it is much less of a joke.
I have two blue books sitting to my right, waiting to be read.
First off, you will notice that both the "blue book" and whatever this "white book" is say on the front cover, in prominent words;
"Notice of Election to Increase Taxes on a Citizen Petition"
WTF is that?!
The White Book says,
"Notice of Election to Increase Debt...
We all citizens, just asking for you Government to increase our taxes and debt?!
I used to joke with Dad, "you can never go wrong with voting no".
Now it is much less of a joke.
I have two blue books sitting to my right, waiting to be read.
I'm for sure with you, and still think it is a good idea to just vote no on everything. I mean it is not like they are trying to reduce Government, or reduce taxes. You can't go wrong voting NO, to all of this.
There have been exceptions however, like TABOR, the Tax Payers Bill of Rights, which we voted for before, (YES!), but is now under attack in the current 2021-11 Election.
Looking at the Blue Book, surprisingly, I see three ballot initiatives...
Amendment 78: Legislative Authority for Spending State Money
Amendment 119: Learning Enrichment and Academic Progress Program and
Amendment 120: Property Tax Assessment and Rate Reduction
Zero of those make any sense to the layman, me, so therefore the thread to discuss them.
Will look at the "White Book" next, and see if it makes any more sense.
White Book, appears to be Arapahoe County...
Ballot Issue 1A: Continue funding for Arapahoe County's Open Spaces, Trails, and Parks, by extending the existing sales tax?
Town of Deer Trail
City of Littleton
Arapahoe Park and Recreation District
Proposed Southmoor Hudson General Improvement District
Englewood Downtown Development Authority (does anyone remember Cinderella City?!)
Strassburg Fire Protection District #6
Just opened my ballot, and I have;
City of Aurora, Council Member at Large - Four Year Term, vote for two
Candice Bailey
Hanna Bogale
Becky Hogan
Danielle Jurinsky
John Ronquillo
Dustin Zvonek
Adams-Arapahoe School District 28J - Board of Directors At-Large - Four Year Term
Anne Keke
Debbie Gerkin
Danielle Tomwing
Marques Ivey
Michael Carter
Tramaine Duncan
Christy Cummings
Then, the other three things I get to vote on are;
Amendment 78 (constitutional)
Amendment 119 (statuatory)
Amendment 120 (statuatory)
A constitutional amendment sounds pretty serious, compared to a "statuatory" amendment. I wonder if this is the anti TABOR amendment?
For those that are wondering, TABOR, is the Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment to the Colorado Constitution, that has historically protected Tax Payers from rampant Government taxation and spending.
The only tax law/bill I will vote in favor of is a repeal of an existing tax or a decrease.
They phrase these questions so the average person has no idea what the question is.
They phrase these questions so the average person has no idea what the question is.
This is by design.
TEAMRICO
10-12-2021, 21:22
You can vote how you like…..Dominion will ensure you vote how they want you to vote.
Read the details of Prop 120 very carefully. I even went online in search of more info on it. It is somehow tied to SB 21-293 and will result in a different result if the SB is not upheld. In 1 scenario it will include a reduction for single family homes. In the other scenario it will not. I would think they would drop it until they know the outcome of the SB. Confusing as hell, but just suggesting you research for yourself.
They phrase these questions so the average person has no idea what the question is.
Yep. They word all of this bullshit with buzzwords like education and open spaces and it always tricks the uneducated and those with poor reading comprehension skills to vote ?yes? on their agenda.
Hell, sometimes if I read the first couple of sentences I can see the appeal to some of it. Unfortunately when you read a little deeper you realize pretty quickly that it was all smoke and mirrors to distract voters from what they really want to do.
And like most of you any tax increase, extension of current taxes set to expire, or new taxes get a big ?no? from me. If their existing revenue was managed well and properly prioritized and was being put to use properly and they asked for a little more to better do good things with it then it might make me put a little more thought into it. Maybe.
Any downsides to 120?
I'll vote no on any tax increase on any other question, I don't give a damn what they're trying to tax. If they were asking to tax recreational heroin, I'm against it.
ETA: missed Rico's response from earlier. I'll have to dig on 120.
eddiememphis
10-13-2021, 08:16
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/category/2021-election/
Complete Colorado, Independence Institute's website, reviewing the ballots from a center right/ libertarian view.
eddiememphis
10-13-2021, 08:19
Just opened my ballot, and I have;
City of Aurora, Council Member at Large - Four Year Term, vote for two
Candice Bailey
Hanna Bogale
Becky Hogan
Danielle Jurinsky
John Ronquillo
Dustin Zvonek
Jurinsky and Zvonek claim to be pro-gun. They have warned that the current city council is ready to enact a gun ban after the election- Boulder style since the passing of that bill last year that allows municipalities to pass their own.
They have gone to both Aurora gun stores and said they will stop the ban.
eddiememphis
10-13-2021, 08:23
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2021/10/07/sharf-amendment-78-a-welcome-return-to-basic-governing-principles/
Amendment 78
Amendment 78 would deal with all forms of so-called custodial money coming from sources other than Colorado taxpayers, from federal grants to legal settlements. It would require the legislature to designate how the money is to be spent. While it is awaiting authorization, interest from custodial money, which currently creates additional unaccountable cash for the executive to dispense at its whim, would go to the general fund, also controlled by the legislature.
In short, Amendment 78 would make sure that custodial money was subject to the same regular order as the sales taxes or income taxes that you pay, and that the governor couldn?t just use it to pay off his friends.
theGinsue
10-13-2021, 08:51
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/category/2021-election/
Complete Colorado, Independence Institute's website, reviewing the ballots from a center right/ libertarian view.
Thanks for that info. As with others, I appreciate anything that will break through the double-speak and intentionally confusing language of the ballot measures.
by extending the existing sales tax?
One of the things they love to put into the verbiage of these measures is "...without raising new taxes..." That "temporary tax increase" that they wanted wasn't enough so they want to continue getting your money. Meanwhile, somewhere else on the ballot they want you to approve new taxes too.
Read the details of Prop 120 very carefully. I even went online in search of more info on it. It is somehow tied to SB 21-293 and will result in a different result if the SB is not upheld. In 1 scenario it will include a reduction for single family homes. In the other scenario it will not. I would think they would drop it until they know the outcome of the SB. Confusing as hell, but just suggesting you research for yourself.
I saw an ad for Prop 120 on TV a few days ago. On the surface it sounded like it was a good thing for CO citizens - it isn't. When the ballot measure was initially approved, it potentially offered to reduce tax rates (by .6%) for single family homes. Sounds good; right? Except this would have only been good for 2 years. The trade off for getting 2 yrs of potentially reduced property taxes on your home? The state would have been allowed to keep $25M in excess taxes they'd collected - for 5 yrs in a row. So the citizens get a small reduction for 2 yrs while the state gets $25M each for 5 yrs. Not a good trade off. BUT WAIT... the CO Senate then passed a bill that changed how the tax break would work if Prop 120 passes and it was too late to re-write/re-submit the wording of 120. If 120 passes, the Senate bill would remove the temp tax rate decrease for single family homes and this decrease would only effect business and rental property homes (apartments). Do you think those renting apartments will see a decrease in their rent because the property owner isn't getting taxed as much - not a chance. So, there is no up side for home owners to approve this but the state will still get to keep $25M/yr for 5 yrs of OUR money that TABOR says should go back to the taxpayers.
And like most of you any tax increase, extension of current taxes set to expire, or new taxes get a big ?no? from me. If their existing revenue was managed well and properly prioritized and was being put to use properly and they asked for a little more to better do good things with it then it might make me put a little more thought into it. Maybe.
Right?! They keep asking us to approve tax increases and the sheep keep approving them under the belief that the government will use the funds the way they told us they would. We get taxed yet fail to see any improvement where they told us we would. Then, as the tax increase is due to sunset they want us to approve an extension of the tax that gave us no benefit in the first place. Problem is, the sheep think "hell yeah I want better streets, better schools and better parks so I'll vote to extend this tax". So, the tax continues.
If we can't get better accountability and transparency for the money they're already taking, I'll have to assume, based off of lack of improvement, that they wasted the money they've already gotten and will vote NO for every increase or continuation they request. No more blank checks.
ETA: As an example: MANY of the roads in Colorado Springs have been in horrible shape for many years. Popped tires, bent rims and damage to vehicles due to potholes was/is a real problem here (as I understand it is across the state). Knowing this is an emotionally charged item we had not 1, but 2 approved tax increases to pay to fix the roads. Within the last month I've finally seen *1* road that desperately needed repaving get repaved. This repaving came ~2-3 weeks after crews came in and repaired many sections of the road. Wait; what?... Yeah, they repaired the road in many sections (causing lane closures to dig out portions of the road and fill them in, etc) only to come through no more than 3 weeks later to strip out all of the pavement and re-pave the entire road. What a huge waste of money. This is the same stretch of road where patch crews would come in, dump a little asphalt in 3 of 8 potholes then move down the road 50 feet and fill in 3 of 10 potholes (always leaving the big potholes alone 'cuz, why not?)... Since they didn't do more than dump some asphalt and stomp it in, these potholes returned within a month.
Don't get me wrong. I've seen a lot of places where they've been spending the road repair tax dollars. All over town since these tax increases were passed they've been ripping out curbing and replacing it. "Hey, there's a nick in that concrete. We'd better rip out 20' of curbing and replace it!". Now I don't know about you, but I generally don't drive on the curbs, preferring to stay on the actual road instead. I don't think the taxpayers gave two shits about the curbs and actually wanted the freaking ROAD where they drive to be fixed. But see, if they don't fix the roads and spend all of the money to give us the best f'ing curbs in the nation they can come back to us later and tell us they just don't have enough money to finish fixing the actual roads.
eddiememphis
10-15-2021, 10:18
... the CO Senate then passed a bill that changed how the tax break would work if Prop 120 passes and it was too late to re-write/re-submit the wording of 120. If 120 passes, the Senate bill would remove the temp tax rate decrease for single family homes and this decrease would only effect business and rental property homes (apartments).
When the Senate passed 21-293, they touted it as tax relief that makes prop 120 unnecessary. Then they added new categories of "property" so only hotels and multi families would see the tax rate reduction.
Ross Kaminsky's summary
https://tinyurl.com/fvpkucrp
If Prop 120 passes, there are a few possible paths forward for those who support limiting the harmful impacts of Amendment B: First, sue the state legislature for passing a bill (SB293) with the obvious purpose of subverting the will of the voters. That argument would be correct and in a fair world it would likely win but in a state with a Supreme Court as bad as Colorado?s I think this is at most a 50/50 proposition and the only reason it could be that high is that the Court tends to prioritize votes of the people over competing acts of the legislature; I?m just not sure this is directly competing enough for the liberal judges on the Court to do the right thing. Second, if this passes there would be massive pressure on the legislature to reduce residential property assessment rates in particular, but, I?d hope, also commercial property rates. It?s not sustainable that homeowners would pay much higher property taxes (almost 10% higher per dollar of property value) than owners of condominiums or apartments. That won?t play well in
the suburbs that both parties need to win statewide elections so even Democrats might be forced to do something.
Ginsue, I don't see where 293 would be repealed if 120 passes.
Something else to consider is the Blue Book language is written by the legislature, often trying to slant it's content. If you read the bill's text, it states "ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE STATE".
Michael Fields, one of the bill's sponsors.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2021/10/14/fields-yes-on-proposition-120-property-tax-relief-for-all/
Prop 120?s ballot language clearly states that it is a $1.03 billion property tax cut for both residential and non-residential property. That language was approved by the Colorado Supreme Court before it was officially placed on the ballot. The legislature then passed a bill to try to thwart the ballot measure. They also sent out the Blue Book ? which says the tax cut only applies to multi-family and lodging properties ? hoping that it would confuse voters enough to get them to vote no. Thankfully, the actual ballot language is what matters legally, not the Blue Book. If Prop 120 passes, we will take on the legislature in the courts to make sure everyone gets the tax cut that they voted for.
Circuits
10-15-2021, 12:09
We all citizens, just asking for you Government to increase our taxes and debt?!
I have no doubt that enough citizens signed the petition.
"Citizens" who like getting free shit are happy to ask the government to raise taxes on, basically, anyone who makes more than them, and use the money to give them more free shit. Or even on themselves, as long as they think they'll get more free shit out of it than they, personally, end up having to put in.
Does anyone in the thread know an actual person who "gets free shit" from the government? I don't. I know some people who could really use it, but don't get it.
Does anyone in the thread know an actual person who "gets free shit" from the government? I don't. I know some people who could really use it, but don't get it.
I guess I would ask you first what you define as free stuff? Does that also include discounted costs for stuff?
And not trying to be a prick or start stupid here. I see people hurting out there.
eddiememphis
10-15-2021, 14:38
Does anyone in the thread know an actual person who "gets free shit" from the government? I don't. I know some people who could really use it, but don't get it.
I have a buddy on disability. He gets some cash every month.
My parents on Social Security and Medicare.
My nephew on the GI Bill.
I got $1600 or whatever last year for pandemic relief.
I had a client this year that got PPP and CARES money that she will likely never have to pay back.
There was a woman in King Soopers a few days ago I heard arguing with the checkout girl that a rotisserie chicken can go on her EBT card.
I guess I would ask you first what you define as free stuff? Does that also include discounted costs for stuff?
And not trying to be a prick or start stupid here. I see people hurting out there.
I'm not even sure what free stuff means. It's just some term thrown around that fits whatever is in someone's head.
I have a buddy on disability. He gets some cash every month.
My parents on Social Security and Medicare.
My nephew on the GI Bill.
I got $1600 or whatever last year for pandemic relief.
I had a client this year that got PPP and CARES money that she will likely never have to pay back.
There was a woman in King Soopers a few days ago I heard arguing with the checkout girl that a rotisserie chicken can go on her EBT card.
For example, none of this seems like it'd be enough to sway anyone's vote.
eddiememphis
10-15-2021, 16:59
For example, none of this seems like it'd be enough to sway anyone's vote.
Maybe the last one I mentioned, but she didn't strike me as informed about much.
Which, I suppose, would make her more likely to swayed by the offer of "free shit".
Free shit doesn't mean shit without specifics. What are people getting? If someone is getting free stuff, but is still on EBT cards, is their live improved enough to keep going down that path. I doubt it.
eddiememphis
10-15-2021, 17:32
To the uninformed or lazy it absolutely is.
Why do poor and gullible vote Democrat? The promise of the government giving you things. Or, the fear of Republicans taking existing free things away.
Remember, half the population is below average.
Many voters either don't care or are not smart enough to delve deeply into issues. I guarantee the EBT woman has never heard of Milton Friedman or Tom Sowell. And even if she is a supply side adherent, she would fight to keep what she feels she is entitled to. Theory don't feed them babies.
Well....
There's Colorado Indigency something something..... (CICP IIRC) basically free medical care for up to some multiple of federal poverty. I believe it's 4x the federal poverty limit. They can walk into a hospital and pay something like $20-$45 TOTAL for E.R. care. They might pay $75 for a MRI. Meanwhile there are people with jobs that earn say just $2,000 over the threshold, yet they have a $4,500 deductible, 50% coinsurance, AND they pay a couple hundred a month for it, they end up paying $6,000 if they need a MRI. I know one with cancer in that exact circumstance. Honestly it would be in her best interest to earn less.. or nothing.
Then there is the EBT, for those unaware, they were maximizing the payments to anyone qualified during the pandemic, might still be for all I know. So say someone earns $50k/ year with a 3-5 person family, they could in theory qualify for only $5 in EBT a month, but they've nevertheless been getting something like $800/month this entire time. I think there is even additional payments for god-knows what. School lunches? I don't know. Conservatively though, they might have gotten $10-15,000 in benefits they were not qualified for (legally).
Then you have the eviction protection. Some stopped paying out of need, many others simply because they could. When they eventually get evicted they will hop into another place. $10,000-$25,000 richer than their responsible neighbor.
I know people that use CICP and EBT anyway, including a mother of five. They can afford 5 kids on a single income, near minimum wage.
Others too that really need it but don't qualify. And there's a lot of resources out there I'm not aware of.
And think of it this way... yeah that $400 or $800 or whatever is going onto an EBT card, but these are wage earning people. So, that's $400 or $800 or whatever that they were ordinarily paying with their income, now paying with EBT. It absolutely provides an extra $400-$800 or whatever in disposable income to wage earners. Same with CICP and all the other stuff. It's not just unemployed trailer park people getting this stuff... even $20/hour people or more for all I know. It certainly would motivate those near the thresholds not to jump up levels of income unless it was massive jumps.
Oh another one, don't forget the child tax increase, which may surprise some families when they owe taxes at the end of the year. It's a $1,600 a year increase AFAIK, but they pay out $300 a month. So in other words, by tax time there is no tax credit at all, they've already received the refund split out over the year. STILL, parents especially parents with a lot of children are going to vote for whoever keeps that, or expands it, little question.
5 kids = $1,500 a month.
ETA: So this will be quite inaccurate, but I'll do an example.
5 Kids, $1,500 tax credit every month (employment is not required)
EBT: $1,000-$1,100 a month ish (even if they are earning $60k a year during pandemic)
CICP: Medical insurance unnecessary, nearly free E.R. care (worth at least the $200 deductions everyone else gets, + the avg. ~$300 a month amortized medical costs)
So... they get $3,000 in free shit every month. If they make say, $70k a year, the free shit cuts in half at a loss of maybe, $7,000 -10,000 in purchasing power from when they made 60k.
JUST AN EXAMPLE. Thresholds are all over the place I admit I'm guessing here.
I just don't think people's willingness to use/abuse government provided services/funds correlates with how they vote.
Firehaus
10-15-2021, 18:50
I just don't think people's willingness to use/abuse government provided services/funds correlates with how they vote.
Depends on where they live. How many Inner city welfare recipients vote conservative?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Voting is not a linear algorithm. If it were, Howard Dean might be president if not for a HYAAAAAA
You'd be correct to say it's not the only reason to vote. But it certainly would be a contributing thought in voters minds. Does is sway the individual? Many times no. Many times, it may. There are probably not many voters that it would be a "single issue" for, but if they are politically moderate and getting free cash every month, they may be less inclined to worry about borrowing against their children's future than someone who isn't receiving "extra help" and slightly more inclined to vote for politicians that want to spend the treasury like a 16yo with a credit card.
Depends on where they live. How many Inner city welfare recipients vote conservative?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that a free stuff thing, or a broader narrative of "only we care about you?" Perhaps the disengagement is the reason to keep voting one way more than the free stuff angle.
I guess I just wonder if that particular narrative actually exists in reality, or people just continue it because it's easy to think about and move on.
Vote all you want, it does not matter, the uniparty has already picked a winner in every race.
theGinsue
10-15-2021, 20:42
I just don't think people's willingness to use/abuse government provided services/funds correlates with how they vote.
I believe that perspective is naive.
I worked with 2 sisters a few years ago. One of the two was particularly vocal about her politics and her belief that the Dems are the only ones who care to give the "free stuff" to people in "need". She related how they and their mom got Food Stamps (EBT) as they were growing up and felt there should be no limitations on what products you could buy with that free money. She felt it was appropriate that those receiving EBT should be allowed to buy all of the steak and lobster (specifically discussed those two items) that they could afford since "they need some joy in their lives". I say get out and work for it and when you can afford it, then you an buy the steaks and lobster. I'm all for programs like WIC which strictly enforce what types of products it can be used for; all of it nutritious, wholesome food. I think EBT should be limited the same way.
There are plenty of people out there who WILL abuse the system as long as thy can. I have a neighbor couple who has 2 daughters (the husband is not the father of the 2 girls). They vote Democrat strongly and proudly every time (put up yard signs, etc. leaving no doubt who their preferred candidate(s) is/are). One of the 2 daughters is a crack whore. She's sold her body to get money for drugs repeatedly through the years. This has resulted in producing 4 kids all of whom went into grandmas care. Grandma, my neighbor, received thousands of taxpayer dollars every month for these kids. The 2 oldest kids, both boys, have had some really nice cars through the years. The oldest boy has had nicer/newer Cadillacs, and Lexus vehicles. The youngest of the boys still lives "at home" and has been in trouble with the law repeatedly through the years. He now has a minimum wage job yet he can afford to drive a very nice, slightly used yet still less than 5 year old Mercedes Benz. I can't afford to buy a Mercedes - at least not without having to sacrifice someplace else in my life. The boy totaled his first Mercedes a few months ago. After 2 months he's now driving another one. The money for these cars didn't come from grandma or grandad (she's a retired school teacher and he works janitorial for the school district). The money didn't come from any legitimate job this kid works at minimum wage. The money didn't come from a baby daddy since no one knows who they are. The money came from taxpayer funded government entitlement programs that are endorsed by the Democratic government servants they've helped elect into office. Gotta keep the government teat flowing with milk and honey so the Mercedes can keep getting purchased.
Maybe some day I'll relate my experience at a Safeway while I was in college. That's where I learned just how horribly broke the "free stuff" system actually is (remains so today).
My own son works slightly above minimum wage. He can't afford health insurance. Two years ago we went into the Obamacare health exchange system to get him insurance. We settled on something a couple of levels up from the bottom, but far from the top. He couldn't even afford the lowest option but I wanted to ensure he had something decent "just in case". I'm making the monthly payments of ~$250 for him to have this coverage since he can't afford it at all. "Affordable" health care my ass. But hey, the Democrats fixed the healthcare system for everyone; right?!
Keep being naive about how the programs get used and how folks are voting to ensure the programs continue. The more folks stay willfully ignorant about it the longer it gets to continue without reform to fix a broken system.
Think of it this way too... a small family earning $40k, it is not impossible they were clearing $36,000 / year in government "assistance" during the pandemic, e.g. still currently. Which, as per my math, you'll realize is very real. I'm not shitting out an inflated number. That's the equivalent of a whole income earner.
Now, imagine one political party says "we want to give you a little more" and another political party says "we want to take it all away".
The one wanting to take it all away is the equivalent, mentally, of having to vote for someone that will permanently lay off 50% of the employment or income in your family. You never get it back.
How can anyone think that DOESNT factor into voting decisions? It would CERTAINLY be on your mind if you were considering halving your family income, simply for sake of a candidate you agree with on some other issue...
An old friend of mine currently gets over $1300 in EBT a month. 3 kids. He buys steak regularly (at least twice a week) and goes fishing at least 4 days a week on his console boat. He owns both next-gen game consoles from Sony and Microsoft and has large flat-screen TVs in every room of his house. He, his wife, and 2 of their kids all have the latest gen deluxe phones. He once showed up at my house in Obama shoes.
I'd say that it plays a part. He doesn't look at politics at all, but when ol' Sniffer was up, he rooted for that guy on the premise of getting another stimmy check
Anecdotal experiences are pretty powerful and I doubt I could put up an argument that would change minds. Fortunately, that's not what I'm trying to do. My anecdotal experience is that I don't know anyone personally that is actively abusing any system like that. Of course those people exist, but how many are there really? I bet I do actually know people like that, but just don't realize it because they aren't telling me.
People abusing the system is definitely a problem. I'm trying to ask if the story we tell ourselves is bigger than the reality though. There is obviously more to the story. I don't like talking about family at all. The current situation Ginsue's son is in sounds like he should be voting left and collecting checks. But, I can confidently assume he's not. So there must be something else besides "free" stuff that keeps people in that mind set. It just seems lazy to assume the equation is that simple, and being lazy leads to all kinds of other problems. From losing people from your political side, to not being able to convince/teach people to take care of themselves.
I'm getting side tracked. Of course those people exist, just like the loud political extremes exist. But they aren't MOST people, and aren't MOST of the problem.
I recall years ago that we were dangerously close to 50% of the population that was receiving more in benefits from the government than they were paying in.
After Covid, I would imagine we jumped over that mark by a fair margin.
Anecdotal experiences are pretty powerful and I doubt I could put up an argument that would change minds. Fortunately, that's not what I'm trying to do. My anecdotal experience is that I don't know anyone personally that is actively abusing any system like that. Of course those people exist, but how many are there really? I bet I do actually know people like that, but just don't realize it because they aren't telling me.
People abusing the system is definitely a problem. I'm trying to ask if the story we tell ourselves is bigger than the reality though. There is obviously more to the story. I don't like talking about family at all. The current situation Ginsue's son is in sounds like he should be voting left and collecting checks. But, I can confidently assume he's not. So there must be something else besides "free" stuff that keeps people in that mind set. It just seems lazy to assume the equation is that simple, and being lazy leads to all kinds of other problems. From losing people from your political side, to not being able to convince/teach people to take care of themselves.
I'm getting side tracked. Of course those people exist, just like the loud political extremes exist. But they aren't MOST people, and aren't MOST of the problem.Just because you don't see/experience it in the circle you operate in doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It definitely happens on a grand scale, and as stated above, the system is rife with endemic/systematic abuse.
Generations of it, actually.
It is a learned behavior brought about by a continued abuse of the system, allowed by hopeful candidates (incumbents as well as new), that play on those dependencies.
Is everyone that receives government assistance bad, lazy or worthless?
Certainly not. There are many people that truly benefit from assistance programs, because they need and even deserve the help.
The greater problem lies in the culture that has developed around the system currently in place, which pols are intrinsically aware of and copiously use to their "electability" advantage.
The entire system was supposed to be temporary in nature, not a career path. (You can apply that to politics and food stamps, btw. )
.gov assistance was originally meant to be a hand up, not a handout. (though that statement in itself may be a bit Pollyanna-ish in and of itself, as I'm sure there were deeper and darker intentions from the get go considering the originations)
Sent from somewhere
I never said that abuses don't happen, of course they do.
I'm not trying to debate whether government assistance programs should exist either.
theGinsue
10-16-2021, 16:29
Is everyone that receives government assistance bad, lazy or worthless?
Certainly not. There are many people that truly benefit from assistance programs, because they need and even deserve the help.
Agree with this 100%.
I honestly believe that for every 1 person/family that legitimately needs assistance there are at least 5 people/families that are abusing the system.
Government assistance programs drastically need significant reform in the form of skills/capability evaluations, training programs and employment and childcare assistance. Make participation mandatory to receive the benefits unless physical or mental incapacity are factors preventing participation. Have established goals/standards with a "2 strikes and you're out" policy. If you are capable of, yet unwilling, to work for your own future and success then you don't deserve benefits. And stop incentivizing the breeders who continually add to their brood in order to increase their benefits.
Anyone know who the conservatives are for school board in Castle Rock? Usually I just vote against the names I see on the back of SUVs and minivans but I am pretty sure I have seen this on both sides this time around.
Anyone know who the conservatives are for school board in Castle Rock? Usually I just vote against the names I see on the back of SUVs and minivans but I am pretty sure I have seen this on both sides this time around.
Here ya go:
https://www.vote4kidsfirst.com/
*All the candidates answers to basic questions.
*Except one Justin V Mathew who is on the ballot. Ive been unable to find ANY information on him aside from he is running.
https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/stories/election-2021-qampas-douglas-county-school-board,383119/p/stories/election-2021-douglas-county-voters-guide,383148
Found this. He might be an intentional divide the vote candidate. https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CandidateDetail.aspx?SeqID=50860
Awesome, thank you, yeah it seems the Peterson/Winegar/Williams/Myers is the conservative choice. The others are trying to defend equity education and CRT in a few cases.
It is amazing how difficult it is to find quality information on these school board races. It's like they all try their best to use buzzwords and not say anything real other than "we are for the kids". No shit, I don't think the "hates kids" candidate is going to do very well.
Agree on the Mathew guy, he is fishy!
Oh and the CommUNITY group with Lueng Watkins Martinez and Holtzman is the crew with the minivan paintings on the back.
Scroll to the bottom: https://www.dcsdcommunitymatters.com/
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360-in-depth/proposition-120-is-a-complicated-question-thanks-to-a-new-colorado-law-and-a-potential-lawsuit
Ok, I am no on everything since Dems seem to want most if not all of this stuff and I am sure they thought it all up. The one I am stumped on is Prop 120. Polis is for it but all the other Dems seem to be against it. Then I read the article above and it talks about a lawsuit that can revert it if it is passed. Seems like it will help the Denver area most since property values went up here so much but then the money that would be no longer spent on taxes tends to be what rural areas depend on so a Yes vote seems to hurt rural areas more than front range areas.
I am trying to read this on and off today during downtime at work and it is a shame that they can't make this more simple. Question should just be do you want to reduce property taxes by 7%? The end, let the gov feel the squeeze and have to figure out what to cut. I'd vote for that but anything more than two or three sentences allows for them to put too much pork in it. Screw it, going with NO.
88006
Yep, that's the enemy!
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360-in-depth/proposition-120-is-a-complicated-question-thanks-to-a-new-colorado-law-and-a-potential-lawsuit
Ok, I am no on everything since Dems seem to want most if not all of this stuff and I am sure they thought it all up. The one I am stumped on is Prop 120. Polis is for it but all the other Dems seem to be against it. Then I read the article above and it talks about a lawsuit that can revert it if it is passed. Seems like it will help the Denver area most since property values went up here so much but then the money that would be no longer spent on taxes tends to be what rural areas depend on so a Yes vote seems to hurt rural areas more than front range areas.
I am trying to read this on and off today during downtime at work and it is a shame that they can't make this more simple. Question should just be do you want to reduce property taxes by 7%? The end, let the gov feel the squeeze and have to figure out what to cut. I'd vote for that but anything more than two or three sentences allows for them to put too much pork in it. Screw it, going with NO.
2 year minimal tax break to allow the thives to keep $25 million per year for 5 years if passed. I don't care if it funds the homestead exemption. A no vote on this is easy. Same for the MJ tax. I don't use, but allowing a new government office to form is a big NO.
eddiememphis
10-20-2021, 09:44
Colorado GOP voters guides
https://www.cologop.org/
Go to the top right dropdown and the guides by county are towards the bottom.
I looked at the Democrat site and didn't find a similar guide.
2 year minimal tax break to allow the thives to keep $25 million per year for 5 years if passed. I don't care if it funds the homestead exemption. A no vote on this is easy. Same for the MJ tax. I don't use, but allowing a new government office to form is a big NO.
What bothers me the most about the Marijuana tax is that they single out a single "group" to pay for their pet project. Yeah, the pet project may have good intentions, it's for the children after all, BUT if they were to single out a group that I was a part of, oh let's say they wanted to tax ammo. for their pet project, I'd be pissed. I don't use any MJ products, never have, but to single out a group like this amendment does is a bunch of crap. If they want their pet project to get funded, let everyone that pays taxes pay for it!!
Yeah, but if you?re going to single out a group I?d rather it be people who choose to indulge in a federally illegal substance than some other group.
sbgixxer
10-20-2021, 15:34
That's what the left would say about guns/ammo though, "best industry to kill". It won't be federally illegal much longer. It was inevitable anyway (too much tax money to be made) but now Bezos is funding lobbyists to speed it up. Watch, Amazon will be delivering weed in the near future.
eddiememphis
10-20-2021, 15:40
Yeah, the pet project may have good intentions, it's for the children after all...
Any tax increase hiding behind children is bad policy.
This is not only a tax increase on pot, it also diverts $20 million from the general fund. It is not subject to state constitutional spending limits.
It creates a new agency that is not under the oversight of the State board of education or the department of education (I have no idea what the difference is).
We don't need more agencies to spend more money to poorly educate kids in public school.
whitewalrus
10-20-2021, 17:56
Yeah, but if you?re going to single out a group I?d rather it be people who choose to indulge in a federally illegal substance than some other group.
The hardcore potheads will just get MMJ permits so they don?t have to pay the taxes. I?m fact I would think many already do this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Vic Tory
10-20-2021, 21:10
I find www.Ballotpedia.org to be really helpful. Just put in your address and they'll show you what they have on your ballot.
My ballot this year has two issues which exemplify the adage, "politics makes strange bedfellows." The proponents and opponents are a crazy mix.
Little Dutch
11-01-2021, 20:36
These things are due tomorrow. Just a reminder...
tick tock, today is the day
Ready to watch the Virginia circus...
And pick up free targets today from the right of way
Ready to watch the Virginia circus...
I agree with gunfreezone.net, it'll be Younkin until the mail-in ballots are counted.
O2
https://gunfreezone.net/im-calling-it-now/
wow - monster lines here in Col Springs - oh wait; drop off was kind of quite - but that is why I dropped it off between lunch and after work.
I think we are well past the classic bozo the clown world into something even passed S. Kings "IT" and heading into The Stand.
.455_Hunter
11-02-2021, 15:12
I agree with gunfreezone.net, it'll be Younkin until the mail-in ballots are counted.
Yup- All from "disenfranchised", "disadvantaged", and "marginalized" urban areas.
Vic Tory
11-02-2021, 15:17
Ready to watch the Virginia circus...
I agree with gunfreezone.net, it'll be Younkin until the mail-in ballots are counted.
Yup- All from "disenfranchised", "disadvantaged", and "marginalized" urban areas.
I'm "+1" for each of these.
[plant bomb]
buffalobo
11-02-2021, 15:27
I agree with gunfreezone.net, it'll be Younkin until the mail-in ballots are counted.
O2
https://gunfreezone.net/im-calling-it-now/
Yup- All from "disenfranchised", "disadvantaged", and "marginalized" urban areas.Where there will be more ballots than registered voters.
Results will be posted here...
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CO/111056/web.278093/#/summary
They say "So far, 1,208,926 ballots have been returned."
Looks like good guys winning DougCo Schools.
This Virginia thing is nice if it holds. Maybe some foreshadowing for next few years.
Looks like good guys winning DougCo Schools.
This Virginia thing is nice if it holds. Maybe some foreshadowing for next few years.
I personally believe results should never be released before all polls are cliseed so to not encourage a rush or supress later voting voting. I mean why should Hawaii bother votinv knowing who won before lunch. Nor should vote counting start.
Vic Tory
11-02-2021, 21:24
The counting of votes is ... stalled ... in Virginia. Gee. I wonder what could possibly go wrong...?
Looks like good guys winning DougCo Schools.
This Virginia thing is nice if it holds. Maybe some foreshadowing for next few years.
Yup . . . looks like all the progressives got the boot in DougCo.
Doing crib math, it appears that for McAuliffe to win, of the remaining expected votes, a minimum of 120,000 would have to go (D) vs no more than 30,000 (R), or in other words, 80% of the votes would have to be counted as (D).
Doing crib math, it appears that for McAuliffe to win, of the remaining expected votes, a minimum of 120,000 would have to go (D) vs no more than 30,000 (R), or in other words, 80% of the votes would have to be counted as (D).
Basically everyone just called it for Youngkin . . . MSNBC, CNN, NBC, NPR, Fox.
Amazingly . . . NJ governor is also in play. Nobody really saw that coming.
Bailey Guns
11-03-2021, 05:55
Doing crib math, it appears that for McAuliffe to win, of the remaining expected votes, a minimum of 120,000 would have to go (D) vs no more than 30,000 (R), or in other words, 80% of the votes would have to be counted as (D).
"Hold my beer..." - Dems in VA
Seattle ousts police-hating, criminal coddling DA.
If past protestors were released without prejudice, lets hope a message starts being sent and some see some jail time.
O2
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/republican-ann-davison-leading-abolitionist-nicole-thomas-kennedy-in-seattle-city-attorney-race/
"Hold my beer..." - Dems in VA
I thought the same thing after remembering the update overnight in MI of over 100k votes, and about 97% being for Biden.
JohnnyDrama
11-03-2021, 17:31
I've kinda enjoyed the overall tone of today's news blurbs....
JohnnyDrama
11-03-2021, 17:35
I didn't really get into this article. I mostly liked the headline.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/liberals-cry-racism-following-success-of-white-brown-and-black-gop-candidates/ar-AAQhJMW?ocid=msedgntp
I did get far enough to read "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail."
hollohas
11-03-2021, 18:15
Ed Durr, NJ truck driver who spent $153 on his campaign ($66 of which was on Dunkin) has beat 20 year incumbent Dem NJ state Senate president.
This guy!
I hope he encourages hundreds of other regular Joe's to run.
Vic Tory
11-03-2021, 20:08
Love it!
Ed Durr, NJ truck driver who spent $153 on his campaign ($66 of which was on Dunkin) has beat 20 year incumbent Dem NJ state Senate president.
This guy!
I hope he encourages hundreds of other regular Joe's to run.
.455_Hunter
11-07-2021, 11:39
And right on cue...
NJ Dem leader refuses to concede to GOP truck driver, says thousands of ballots 'recently found'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-jersey-dem-leader-steve-sweeney-refuses-concede-ballots-found
The magical uncounted ballots strike again. Where were they hiding? Who hid them? What is the chain of custody?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.