# Question 1



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

Hello all,

With Nov 4th rapidly approaching, I am taking the time to ask all of you who are/want to be employed in Law Enforcement in this state to take the time on election day and vote NO on QUESTION 1. For all who may not know, question 1 if passed would eliminate the state income tax which currently constitutes approximately 40% of the state budget. The "fat cats" never suffer, the impact of such cuts will fall directly on us with a hiring freeze and substantial layoffs. Inform your friends and family and encourage them to vote the same.


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2008)

I support cutting the funds giving to able bodied people who cause trouble in the community instead of working. These mutigenerational gov't check cashers drive me up the wall. I can live with the tax if it is spent appropriately.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

> ..the impact of such cuts will fall directly on us with a hiring freeze and substantial layoffs.


It's coming whether you vote yes on 1 or not...
Massachusetts government spending is out of control and unsustainable.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

Wolfman said:


> Yeah, go ahead and vote no, if someone (the govt) spends more than they can bring in just give them a bailout. A wakeup call would be downright rude.
> 
> Kind of like giving out free needles to drug addicts so they can stay alive and addicted.


I understand Beacon Hill needs a wakeup call, I'm just not prepared to do it at the expense of my own job.


----------



## nirtallica (Jul 2, 2004)

The problem is that if the tax is repealed, Massgov. won't cut the areas that should be cut and essential services will, including local aid. I am not ready for a Pro 21/2 overide because I pay enough property taxes. This will cause more forclosures and send our economy even further down the toilet.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

nirtallica said:


> The problem is that if the tax is repealed, Massgov. won't cut the areas that should be cut and essential services will, including local aid. I am not ready for a Pro 21/2 overide because I pay enough property taxes. This will cause more forclosures and send our economy even further down the toilet.


Exactly, we have to pay an estimated 1.4 billion in debt service or our bonds will fall into junk status. Public safety, local aid should also be fully funded. The same case could be made for education. But that is where the cuts will come from they will not come from the following liberal "sacred cows"

Dept. of Transitional assistance: $892 million
Dept of Children and families (DSS): $836 million
"other" human services: $347 million

if you throw in the Dept. of mental retardation who's budget is a whopping $1.27 BILLION. the total budget for "Human Services" is $3.5 billion. Yet all we will hear about is the Quinn bill, take home cruisers, and those "lucrative" Police Details


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

would like to vote yes , but i'm sure they'll just shut down fire stations and close library's like they did with prop 2 1/2

the welfare cheats will continue to get their free hand out and the pols will continue to get paid at the state house and the beat goes on


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2008)

cj3441 said:


> I understand Beacon Hill needs a wakeup call, I'm just not prepared to do it at the expense of my own job.


I am. Screw Beacon Hill.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

Jeepy said:


> I am. Screw Beacon Hill.


Your not screwing Beacon Hill, The Governor, the welfare state or any other freeloaders, your just screwing yourself.


----------



## Oscar8 (Oct 28, 2007)

I recently put in a application to a campus police position before all this financial crap hit the fan. Now they have a hiring freeze, so much for that job. So go a head and vote yes on question 1 and see how many more people don't get jobs. It will be great!


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

Already voted no...


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

I can't believe how many people I talk too are even considering voting yes on 1 without knowing what it means. Sure I'd like a little more money in my pocket but I don't want it at the expense of having to wait longer for emergency response, my kids going to overcrowded classes, no chance of an affordable public college education, crumbling street and highways, etc, etc. All while the leeches continue to collect off of the public dole and buy their flat screens and lease Escalades.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2008)

Question 1 is way too ambitious; if it rolled the state income tax back to 5% where it was before the "temporary" increase many years ago, I would fully support that. To eliminate it completely is insanity, because the people on Beacon Hill can't be trusted to do the right thing. As someone alluded to, the waste and fat in social programs will remain intact while they slash police, education, and other essential services to "teach us a lesson". 

I have more than enough seniority to never have to worry about being laid-off, but the thought of my friends & co-workers losing their jobs, along with my having to work with half-staffing on a Saturday night, isn't too appealing to me.


----------



## nirtallica (Jul 2, 2004)

Realistically, it is scary just how many people want it.


----------



## Sampson (Nov 25, 2006)

I'm strongly leaning to yes on Question 1. My experience is that the police, and often the fire services, are almost always used by the ones that suck the system dry everywhere else anyways. Very seldom do we, the police, have calls for service to the average, tax paying, middle class Joe. Usually just for mva or they see something suspicious etc. It's the domestics, drunks, parties, noise, and stealing from each other, at the projects or other low income housing that tax our service. I think that they'll suffer the most from the lack of police response. 

As far as the schools go, it's probably high time to think about sending yours to private school, or home schooling as the trend is becoming. 

The only real service I'll miss is the snow blowing, which they suck at anyway. I've seen ambulance transports for ridicules issues that the person or family could have transported themselves, and again it's usually the same people that the police deal with.

The less government in our lives, the better. Not only do tax payers save money, but the citizens have more freedom from government control, as it has always been intended since 1776.


----------



## nirtallica (Jul 2, 2004)

Sampson said:


> I'm strongly leaning to yes on Question 1. My experience is that the police, and often the fire services, are almost always used by the ones that suck the system dry everywhere else anyways. Very seldom do we, the police, have calls for service to the average, tax paying, middle class Joe. Usually just for mva or they see something suspicious etc. It's the domestics, drunks, parties, noise, and stealing from each other, at the projects or other low income housing that tax our service. I think that they'll suffer the most from the lack of police response.
> 
> As far as the schools go, it's probably high time to think about sending yours to private school, or home schooling as the trend is becoming.
> 
> ...


 doubt that you are a cop.


----------



## csauce777 (Jan 10, 2005)

nirtallica said:


> doubt that you are a cop.


+1


----------



## Sampson (Nov 25, 2006)

20 yrs. of municipal police service in Mass.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

Sampson said:


> I'm strongly leaning to yes on Question 1. My experience is that the police, and often the fire services, are almost always used by the ones that suck the system dry everywhere else anyways. Very seldom do we, the police, have calls for service to the average, tax paying, middle class Joe. Usually just for mva or they see something suspicious etc. It's the domestics, drunks, parties, noise, and stealing from each other, at the projects or other low income housing that tax our service. I think that they'll suffer the most from the lack of police response.
> 
> As far as the schools go, it's probably high time to think about sending yours to private school, or home schooling as the trend is becoming.
> 
> ...


While I agree that the people who suck the tit of society dry and don't put anything into the system are usually the ones who also use (overuse) our services the most, I have to disagree on your logic towards voting yes on 1.

You should probably take a scalpel and cut your balls off, maybe your johnson too. You may just be taking your own job off the table, and like Delta said, I'm too senior to be cut, but I really don't want to be taking a two man call on my own or showing up to a bar fight down three bodies.


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

It'll work out great.

First they will cut State Hospitals, and have MORE skitzos and messed up people roaming the street. 

Then they will cut jails (who needs jails)

Then schools,

So on and so forth.

Take 40% out of your budget and tell me how far it goes.

Vote No

Even if it passes, it won't go anywhere somehow it'll get lost in the wash like the income tax reduction did.


----------



## bbelichick (Aug 25, 2002)

Sampson said:


> 20 yrs. of municipal police service in Mass.


Department of Public Works?


----------



## Sampson (Nov 25, 2006)

bbelichick said:


> Department of Public Works?


Exactly. Picking up the trash at night, and dropping it off at court in the morning.


----------



## Mass (Jan 21, 2006)

"Question 1 is way too ambitious; if it rolled the state income tax back to 5% where it was before the "temporary" increase many years ago, I would fully support that. To eliminate it completely is insanity, because the people on Beacon Hill can't be trusted to do the right thing. As someone alluded to, the waste and fat in social programs will remain intact while they slash police, education, and other essential services to "teach us a lesson".

I totally agree.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

The Yes on 1 crown is using the arrest of Wilkerson as a rallying call. If you enjoy being employed Remember to vote no on the 4th!


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

> Does anyone think Wilkerson will bring others down with her?
> 
> 
> > Without a doubt...where theres smoke theres fire....and she doesnt seem like the type to go down wihout a fight or she would have resigned by now.


----------



## cj3441 (Oct 14, 2004)

Those that wish to take our jobs are showing up to vote. We need everyone to hit the polls and Vote No on 1!


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

Q1 Rejected


----------



## csauce777 (Jan 10, 2005)

Looks like Question 2 passes...

Smoke em' if you got em'


----------



## PBiddy35 (Aug 27, 2004)

No by a 70/30 vote. Don't get me wrong I'm excited but I'm suprise at the wide margin. Maybe people are smarter than I thought...


----------

