Posted: 11/6/2012 10:21:11 AM EDT
| What are you voting and why? |
|
Quoted: No, because I don't feel that it deserves an amendment. It also effects all bridges in MI not just one to Canada. They want to put everything in the constitution it seems. Kind of worried about the collective barganing issue. Though with how much power unions have already, I'm not sure it would make a difference. |
| Voting no. It doesn't belong in the constitution. And Moneybags doesn't need anymore money. And Canada is paying all cost of the bridge and receives the first 50 years worth of tolls. After the first 50 years, tolls are split. Wait, what's that? We get free money after 50 years? Yup, you read that right. Why the hell would you vote yes on Prop 6 then? Guess moneybags spent his $35 million well, he'll get billions in return. That's quite the return on investment. Wish I had millions to sway people into voting for what would benefit me and me alone. |
|
How is the financing set up on a public owned bridge?
Can .gov do it more efficiently than the private sector? Is .gov more qualified to do it than the private sector? Do we even need another bridge? Do we want the government making the decision for us? I'm torn on this issue. I don't care if Hoffa's brother in law makes a shit load of money off of HIS OWN INVESTMENT. I do care if Snyder thinks he's going to take more of my money. ETA - I would also rather the money stay private, than go back to the gov't - it's not like they would reduce income tax. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, because I don't feel that it deserves an amendment. It also effects all bridges in MI not just one to Canada. +1 Looks like most of the Props are going down by the same margin. I would guess all for the same reason. These are changes to the MI Constitution not just some new bill or law. What all these Proposals should tell our legislature is that people have had it, liberals and conservatives, with their lack of action. They are next. If they dont get the job done this term, I pray people will stop wasting time with Proposals and finally vote out ALL of the incumbants, and start over. People tried to take action to get their views passed. Didnt work as a majority of voters dont want the Constitution messed with. |
|
Quoted:
How is the financing set up on a public owned bridge? Construction is 100% funded by Canada (multiple independent, non-government, sources have confirmed this through review of the contract. Canada receives all of the toll money for 50 years and Michigan and Canada split it after that. So in 50 years, Michigan gets free money. Can .gov do it more efficiently than the private sector? Not our .gov, but we're not building it. Canada is, and it doesn't matter. Is .gov more qualified to do it than the private sector? Not sure, but they can build just as good of a bridge. Do we even need another bridge? Yes, the Ambassador bridge comes out into downtown Windsor. This makes it difficult for semis that must navigate the narrow streets and multiple stop lights. It also chews up Windsor's roads with the heavy semis. A new bridge would make it easier for semis because it would connect directly to the interstates in both countries. It would reduce trucking cost which would help the Big 3, and numerous other companies, who use the bridge significantly for cargo transport. Do we want the government making the decision for us? Maybe not, but it sure doesn't need to be a constitutional right that we vote on it. I'm torn on this issue. I don't care if Hoffa's brother in law makes a shit load of money off of HIS OWN INVESTMENT. I do care if Snyder thinks he's going to take more of my money. Under the current contract agreement, Snyder isn't taking a dime from you. He's actually making you money 50 years from now. ETA - I would also rather the money stay private, than go back to the gov't - it's not like they would reduce income tax. They wouldn't reduce income tax, but why should 1 billionaire get richer when the state could use the money elsewhere? People's lack of understanding of this proposal confuses me so much... |
|
Quoted:
ETA - I would also rather the money stay private, than go back to the gov't - it's not like they would reduce income tax. They wouldn't reduce income tax, but why should 1 billionaire get richer when the state could use the money elsewhere? I never took the time to research it, and did vote no - but I am still pretty sure that: A. Money staying private is better than money going public. and B. Money leaving the U.S. for 50 years is worse than money staying here (even if with a billionaire who invests it and spends it here). |