|
|
| Post Number: 61
|
repdan
Unregistered
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 02 2004,10:09 pm |
|
   |
Guest....
Nice try, but wrong. You are not reading the data, the majority of my money comes from regular folks. If you look towards the bottom of the page you see the pac money and donations of over $100 per person.
You have to go back to 99 for a House Caucus donation. Here's the link to the state site. The one you listed is interesting, but since all 50 states have different ways of reporting it can be misleading. http://www2.mainserver.state.mn.us/cmpfin/index.htm
The MLBA by the way, also donated $1250 to the House DFL caucus in 2002. They donated $1750 to the House Republicans. Only in Hoosiers world can you by 68 votes (needed to pass or stop a bill) for $3000.
Hoosier, boy you really got me! Hey, by the way who paid for the lobbiest to come down from St. Paul to generate the local story.....
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 62
|
Repdan
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2004,10:14 pm |
|
 |
Oh, I should point out that I have given more money to the caucus then they ever gave me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 63
|
repdan
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2004,10:17 pm |
|
|
One more thing about follow the follow the money site, because donation are given to a Republican or Dem....they get lumped together. But I can tell you that I have had Rep., Dems. and lots of Ind. give to my campaign.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 64
|
minnow 
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 02 2004,10:17 pm |
|
|
So...that doesn't even begin to explain why you somehow feel it's your business to dictate where people can buy beer. Iowa doesn't have a problem...the problem is goofy nuts like you who are arrogant enough to feel it's your right to inconvenice folks because of some misguided moral objection.
You always seem ready, able and willing to punish everyone for what a few might or could do. I don't like it..I don't buy it.
Like Donald Trump says....Sir, you're fired...
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 65
|
repdan
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,11:23 am |
|
|
Minnow,
Not sure if you really care about what people post or just like to rant. You may want to read my posts, I did not offer a reason, only commented that if people were concerned about "following the money" that the pro side is spending way more.
From my view, this is not a huge issue and is not being driven by the consumer but from SuperValue and other wholesalers. I havev no problem with them doing that, it's a free country and I support them on other issues.
Had the state never been involved in this to begin with, I would not care, but there are people who invested $$$$$ in their stores and played by the rules the state set up. Now someone else is asking for us to change the rules for them. Humm not sure how fair that is.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 66
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,12:20 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | Had the state never been involved in this to begin with, I would not care, but there are people who invested $$$$$ in their stores and played by the rules the state set up. Now someone else is asking for us to change the rules for them. Humm not sure how fair that is. |
You're right, it isn't fair at all--but that's what happens when the government imposes artificial constraints.
The FAA is about to impose a requirement that affects over 80% of all the jets in the United States. The cost will be over $200,000 per airplane. The FAA SAYS that it will save fuel--but every independent study says their assumptions are wrong. It doesn't matter--they are going to put it in place anyway. If a corporation has a jet, there is NO WAY THEY CAN SAVE $200,000 in fuel. The airlines, because of their bigger engines and vastly higher number of operating hours, might save that much--but who do you suppose will pay for the new equipment? THE PASSENGERS.
Like the liquor store issue, these changing government rules open up more issues than they solve. Absent a rationale of safety, should the government be able to mandate actions for fuel economy? It's not in the FAA's charter. If the government TAKES from one party (private owners) for the benefit of others (for-profit airlines), is that right? Who holds the government accountable if their science turns out to be junk? Is it right to, in effect, make passengers pay for government edicts?
This is another issue that would mitigate damages if there were a sunset provision in the law--you would know what the law is, when it expires, and can make plans accordingly. Government touches all aspects of our lives--for example, wouldn't it be nice for farmers to know what government programs are in effect--for how long, at what rate?
Do you ever wonder why many corporations register in Delaware? Most people think it is because it is a low tax state--it is not. The ADVANTAGE of being a Deleware corporation is that they make fewer laws than most states, the laws they DO have are strictly and consistently interpreted, and consequently, people and corporations can plan for the future. Would that ALL states follow their lead!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 67
|
repdan
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,1:21 pm |
|
|
Jim.
Good points. Way too often the legislature acts before taking into account unintended results.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 68
|
BeBack
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,3:24 pm |
|
|
Look at the dairy compact. Government involvement in artifical barriers to free trade result in a tax on the public for the benefit of a very few. The Government interferance with the market has shifted the nations dairy production to Arizona. Tell me how that makes any ¢¢¢¢¢. An over reliance on Government has also recked more than a few businesses due to the fickle nature of the enterprise.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 69
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,4:20 pm |
|
|
BeBack--I was thinking of exactly that issue when I wrote my last post--more Unintended Consequences of government action. Most people are not aware that government price supports on milk DEPENDS ON THE PRODUCERS DISTANCE FROM EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN! The original thought--it will make the Midwest dairy industry the standard, and shore up the small producers on the coasts. It had exactly the opposite effect, encouraging LARGE corporate operations in Arizona and California--closer to population centers, and with more government price supports--causing a precipitous DECLINE in the Midwest dairy industry!
Save us from the "do-gooders"--or, as Mark Twain observed (in the language of the times)--"No man's purse is safe while Congress is in Session! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 70
|
To A TEE
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 03 2004,9:06 pm |
|
|
Dan Dorman is the best representative this area has ever had, period! I would like to remind the posters that to cut down every commissioner, council member, community leader, etc. does nothing more than to undermine what influence this forum may have. The inception of the peoples voice was an excellent idea but constructive criticism with positive alternatives is the order of the day, not a constant barrage of child-like bullying one liners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
