Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"]So, can someone please help me understand this. Voting YES allows the governor and legislature to borrow, without voter approval, MORE money to A. pay debt on the money they already borrowed B. And to create new "entities" that can authorize more debt? Voting NO ensures the voters get the last say on approving increased debt? And if it passes, the current sales tax will be used to pay the refinancing on this currently $37 billion debt, which will necessitate increasing taxes to pay for those items that the sales tax currently pays? What is "unenforceable debt" issued by shell-entities? Without completely understanding it, it sounds like a shell game, and as usual, the taxpayers will be left with a bill. If I cannot understand it, I will vote NO. The onus should be on the government to fully explain this.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 9:36 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Q
Quote:
No voter approval shall be required . . . authorizing the creation of . . . debts . . . for the refinancing of all or a portion of any outstanding debts or liabilities of . . . an autonomous public corporate entity." "
THIS IS HUGE - VOTE NO!
Guest
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 4:16 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Q
So, can someone please help me understand this.
Voting YES allows the governor and legislature to borrow, without voter approval, MORE money to
A. pay debt on the money they already borrowed
B. And to create new "entities" that can authorize more debt?
Voting NO ensures the voters get the last say on approving increased debt?
And if it passes, the current sales tax will be used to pay the refinancing on this currently $37 billion debt, which will necessitate increasing taxes to pay for those items that the sales tax currently pays?
What is "unenforceable debt" issued by shell-entities?
Without completely understanding it, it sounds like a shell game, and as usual, the taxpayers will be left with a bill.
If I cannot understand it, I will vote NO. The onus should be on the government to fully explain this.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 1:07 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Q
Guest wrote:
Why do lawyers get away with such terrible grammer. That question is a massive run-on sentence. Lawyers love to turn paragraphs into single sentences that then require them to be read about 8 times to flow chart all the mean from the construction of the paratheticals, etc. You'd think they never took 4th grade English.
I agree with you 100%. The reason they do this is so we glaze over and tune out to what they are writing with the hope we will only read the summary and vote as they want us to.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 12:38 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Q
Guest wrote:
Why do lawyers get away with such terrible grammer. That question is a massive run-on sentence. Lawyers love to turn paragraphs into single sentences that then require them to be read about 8 times to flow chart all the mean from the construction of the paratheticals, etc. You'd think they never took 4th grade English.
Job security.
Guest
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 12:23 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Q
Why do lawyers get away with such terrible grammer. That question is a massive run-on sentence. Lawyers love to turn paragraphs into single sentences that then require them to be read about 8 times to flow chart all the mean from the construction of the paratheticals, etc. You'd think they never took 4th grade English.
Cranbury Conservative
Posted: Fri, Oct 31 2008, 12:18 pm EDT
Post subject: IMPORTANT ALERT from Steve Lonegan to Vote "No" Next Tuesday for Quest
Next Tuesday we will not only be voting on the national and local level for elected officials. We the residents of New Jersey will be asked to vote on several questions. One of the questions is garnering allot of media attention here at the eleventh hour before the election.
The question is as follows....
"QUESTION
Do you approve the proposed amendment to the State Constitution which provides that, after this amendment becomes part of the Constitution, a law enacted thereafter that authorizes State debt created through the sale of bonds by any autonomous public corporate entity, established either as an instrumentality of the State or otherwise exercising public and essential governmental functions, such as an independent State authority, which debt or liability has a pledge of an annual appropriation as the ways and means to pay the interest of such debt or liability as it falls due and pay and discharge the principal of such debt, will be subject to voter approval, unless the payment of the debt is made subject to appropriations of an independent non-State source of revenue paid by third persons for the use of the object or work bonded for, or are from a source of State revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of the Constitution?"
According to Steve Lonegan...
"The devil is in the fine print of Senate Concurrent Resolution #39 which will replace our current constitution if State Ballot Question #1 is approved.
First, voter approval will NOT be needed if a proposed project has "an independent non-State source of revenue" or "a source of revenue otherwise required to be appropriated pursuant to another provision of this Constitution".
Any Enron accountant or Abbott lawyer can drive a truck through those loopholes.
But here is the real kicker: "No voter approval shall be required . . . authorizing the creation of . . . debts . . . for the refinancing of all or a portion of any outstanding debts or liabilities of . . . an autonomous public corporate entity." "
Mr Lonegan's complete statements can be found on the Americans for Prosperity web site at
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=6656&state=nj
At the very least Mr. Lonegan's position on this issue has to make everyone stop and think before they vote next Tuesday.