You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Seriously, are you people retarded?
That thing is winning with 65%.
93 is almost a 50-50 tie.
You know, for what this Prop was all about, the opponents did a great disservice by having ONE person sign off on the argument (and rebuttal) against it in the Voter's Guide. Walter Moore. No title. No affiliation. You would think that at least ONE recognized affiliation would have supported it.
I do know this . . . I just happen to be at a table last Thursday with two LAPD officers and Two LAFD firefighters, and right or wrong, true or false, they all said the same thing - if this measure doesn't pass, public safety would take the bulk of the damage.
Last edited by dgrycan; February 6th, 2008 at 01:04 AM.
I do know this . . . I just happen to be at a table last Thursday with two LAPD officers and Two LAFD firefighters, and right or wrong, true or false, they all said the same thing - if this measure doesn't pass, public safety would take the bulk of the damage.
thats their schtick everytime they want to raise taxes. The police the fire or the schools will be the ones that suffer. I am glad I don't live in LA, WTF were they thinking. I am guessing it has more to do with the appathy voters have and less with the actual issue, same with the indian gaming isues
i just read what "S" was... what was wrong with that?
The problem was that the city was ALREADY charging this tax at a higher rate. They were sued and lost in court that it was considered illegal because it wasn't taken to the voters. So the city put together a campaign to get it on the ballot, under the intention of it being a tax CUT by 1%. That was the key, I think, to get people to vote for it, thinking that the city was giving them a tax cut, when it fact it was nothing more than a way for the city to make legal what was ruled illegal. It was a very clever slight-of-hand trick.
This kind of stuff can all be linked to the big "Bush Tax Cuts", which has continually denied money to more and more local agencies and governments. They have to reach out and find their own ways, which means that the tax cuts, as expected, became nothing more than tax shifts.
Last edited by dgrycan; February 6th, 2008 at 10:29 AM.
The problem was that the city was ALREADY charging this tax at a higher rate. They were sued and lost in court that it was considered illegal because it wasn't taken to the voters. So the city put together a campaign to get it on the ballot, under the intention of it being a tax CUT by 1%. That was the key, I think, to get people to vote for it, thinking that the city was giving them a tax cut, when it fact it was nothing more than a way for the city to make legal what was ruled illegal. It was a very clever slight-of-hand trick.
This kind of stuff can all be linked to the big "Bush Tax Cuts", which has continually denied money to more and more local agencies and governments. They have to reach out and find their own ways, which means that the tax cuts, as expected, became nothing more than tax shifts.
it didn't exactly read to me that way... what am i missing?
it appears as if this 40-year old tax was amended to fit within the current technological zeitgeist, which is then where the point of contention lays... and from what i've read, it appears to still be in litigation.
this measure appears to cut the tax by 1% for the sole purpose of remaining as a buffer of sorts to keep the tax in place because opponents are looking to remove the tax altogether.
am i wrong? it wasn't on my ballot and this thread was honestly the first i had even heard about it.
If you had voted NO on S, then the entire tax would have been removed, repealed, killed, done....it was an illegal tax and by voting to reduce it by 1% by the people it was legitimized and will now be enforced, morons.
If you had voted NO on S, then the entire tax would have been removed, repealed, killed, done....it was an illegal tax and by voting to reduce it by 1% by the people it was legitimized and will now be enforced, morons.
this measure appears to cut the tax by 1% for the sole purpose of remaining as a buffer of sorts to keep the tax in place because opponents are looking to remove the tax altogether.
They succeeded in removing the tax. The Superior Court ruled the tax illegal back in 2005, I believe. It was appealed, and the Court of Appeals upheld the Superior Court ruling in May of last year. This was basically a move to legalize an ruled illegal tax.
What morons voted yes on S? 
BIG JOE
Go Kings
