Comments on: 1033 Snafu

By: ConserveSeattle

ConserveSeattle — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:43:11 +0000

Per the quote from Forrest regarding the initiative… The legislature’s discretionary allocation determines ultimately what is impacted assuming there is an imbalance between excessive spending and collected tax pertaining to the general fund. Any local M&O levy is not in scope for this initiative. As far as the many supporters, take a look at the polls. You would see more here if this forum focused more on the issue and less on assumptions, desire to censor, and referring to those not conforming (aka. diverse) opinions as short sighted people not wanting to pay their share. Despite that, I’m glad to see all of you speaking your opinions here. I’m voting yes on 1033. There is a lot of misinformation about the initiative. For example, we can locally vote for an increase tax to cover our local needs as they arise.

Things are tough in a down economy. I expect many here work in companies that have been through significant downsizing with the economy now re-set to a slower pace. I understand the passion and concern. I-1033 would necessarily cause some of this downsizing roll into the public sector. We need to think a bit longer term (aka. not the short sighted SeattleAlan refers to) to build a sustainable economic environment that will encourage businesses to start and grow. Money that would have gone to the general fund after I-1033 passes will contribute to more business, jobs, commerce, and charitable giving.

By: SeattleAlan

SeattleAlan — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:38:46 +0000

It is simply the folk that don’t want to pay their share of supporting their community, yet they will be the first to cry out when school classes bloat, needy families aren’t getting the aid they need or the roads or bridges don’t get repaired.

There is a segment of society that is very short sighted – probably belong to the party of “No” – and probably never support anything out in the community with their time or money. They just want to complain about the government helping “those people”, until they need the aid for some reason.

By: Forrest

Forrest — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:05:53 +0000

Also, I hate the content: “The initiative reduces state general fund revenues that support education; social, health and environmental services; and general government activities by an estimated $5.9 billion by 2015. The initiative also reduces general fund revenues that support public safety, infrastructure and general government activities by an estimated $694 million for counties and $2.1 billion for cities by 2015.” There. If you agree and support, I would like to hear from you. If you wanna read up, see for yourself: http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/PreviousElections/2009/GeneralElection/Pages/OVG_20091103.aspx#ososTop

By: Forrest

Forrest — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:54:35 +0000

Um, Hey CoSea… I’m still waiting to hear from the “many”. So far, they’re outnumbered by what I like to call “reality”.

By: ConserveSeattle

ConserveSeattle — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:06:34 +0000

I encourage all of you to vote on the content of the bill rather than the desire of some to censor the source. For those of you that have not yet read the bill, rest assured there are many in Wallingford that agree with and support this initiative.

By: DOUG.

DOUG. — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:16:09 +0000

I’m hoping that anyone dumb enough to vote for this initiative will simply be too stupid to find it on the ballot.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:37:50 +0000

Can we write a citizen’s initiative to eliminate citizen’s initiatives?

By: SeattleAlan

SeattleAlan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:42:25 +0000

Tim Eyman is a tool….
There has to be some way to censor him.
The best way is to vote all of his selfish initiatives down soundly.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:37:18 +0000

You’re too kind to Mr Eyman. I bet he doesn’t even know if the population in King County is greater or lesser than the last budget cycle.