Massachusetts voters.............

[npmommie]

Please vote YES on question 3

I have seen some confusing ads regarding this ballot question. So if you want to end the suffering of greyhounds vote yes to ban racing in MA

 

[gmboy95]

sorry i will not do that!!!.....i believe these things can be handled through regulation. I find this fascination with this to be ridiculous. the tax benifits and the jobs lost would be too great

 

[npmommie]

sorry i will not do that!!!.....i believe these things can be handled through regulation. I find this fascination with this to be ridiculous. the tax benifits and the jobs lost would be too great

well thats your opinion which I think will be in the minority tomorrow anyway
happy voting

just out of curiosity what is your stance on question 1?

 

[Saphire]

Please vote YES on question 3

Will do!

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Vote no on 1.

 

[gmboy95]

well thats your opinion which I think will be in the minority tomorrow anyway
happy voting

just out of curiosity what is your stance on question 1?

I will vote against this irrational question 1!!!.....I understand your issue on question 3, but i would be a hypocrite as someone who patronizes Raynham at least 2 times per year

 

[npmommie]

Vote no on 1.

agree
NO on #1
YES on #2 and #3

 

[bicker]

NO on #1 is pretty-much a given.

For #2, I've heard some compelling arguments for both YES and for NO. Leaning towards YES at this point.

For #3, I still don't the manipulative nature of the question: If there is suffering, then stop the suffering, don't kill the business. If there must always suffering, then stop horse racing first. I haven't heard anyone provide an adquate response to this. I'm leaving for the voting booth in about a half hour... convince me !

 

[beattyfamily]

Question 1 = yes
Question 2 = no
Question 3 = yes

Both DH and I are voting the same way.

 

[PattnFmly]

I also agree that this should be handled through regulation. We need more jobs not less jobs in our area. Voting No on #3.

 

[MassJester]

NO on #1 is pretty-much a given.

For #2, I've heard some compelling arguments for both YES and for NO. Leaning towards YES at this point.

For #3, I still don't the manipulative nature of the question: If there is suffering, then stop the suffering, don't kill the business. If there must always suffering, then stop horse racing first. I haven't heard anyone provide an adquate response to this. I'm leaving for the voting booth in about a half hour... convince me !

Good Morning Bicker.

As far as question 3 goes, the connection to horse racing just isn't there. You can go and see for yourself. At Suffolk Downs, the horses are relatively very well treated, the conditions for the dogs at Wonderland don't compare.

As far as the questions go, I'm a No, No, Yes guy

 

[bicker]

So why not put a ballot initiative to force humane conditions on the dog racing industry? Why manipulate voters to take such a drastic action instead of fixing what is actually broken?

 

[PatsGirl]

Question 1 = yes
Question 2 = no
Question 3 = yes

No offense to the poster, I just thought it was funny that I'm voting exactly the opposite -- you gotta love democracy.

#1 - No, not until I have more information and time to research this

#2 - Yes, absolutely, no question, it's about time

#3 - No, regulated better but not wiped out completely

 

[MassJester]

So why not put a ballot initiative to force humane conditions on the dog racing industry? Why manipulate voters to take such a drastic action instead of fixing what is actually broken?

It's not a new issue. The track owners have repeatedly refused to fix the problem, and government has not been responsive, and so the people have put forward an initiative.

This is precisely how participatory democracy is supposed to work. If not, what is the value in any such question?

 

[pyrxtc]

Not from MA anymore but I have to say that I LOVE the idea of no income tax ! I'm hoping it passes ! My DH works in MA and I hate having to pay income tax cuz his type of work is not in NH.

 

[RubySlippers]

Not from MA anymore but I have to say that I LOVE the idea of no income tax ! I'm hoping it passes ! My DH works in MA and I hate having to pay income tax cuz his type of work is not in NH.

Check out this link. It will give youl some info of why this is not a good idea.

http://http://www.mybackyardnews.com/blog/2008/10/22/elders-could-lose-12-billion-in-home-care-if-question-1-passes/

Ruby

 

[bicker]

This is precisely how participatory democracy is supposed to work. If not, what is the value in any such question?

I don't see manipulation as participatory democracy. It was asserted that the problem wasn't gambling or racing, but rather safety and living conditions. I haven't see any ballot initiatives ordering specific improvements, specific regulations, involving safety and living conditions. Let's do that. If officials refuse to enforce the regulations, then fire them (i.e., impeach the elected officials who refuse to fire them).

 

[pyrxtc]

Check out this link. It will give youl some info of why this is not a good idea.

http://http://www.mybackyardnews.com/blog/2008/10/22/elders-could-lose-12-billion-in-home-care-if-question-1-passes/

Ruby

From the MA website

"IN FAVOR: "41% waste in Massachusetts state government," reveals survey. Eliminating government waste is one reason to vote "Yes."
Your "Yes" vote cuts your state income taxes 50% starting this January 1st - and eliminates the last 50% next January 1st. For you and for 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers.
Your "Yes" vote gives back $3,700 each to 3,400,000 Massachusetts workers and taxpayers - including you - on average when we end the state income tax. $3,700. Each worker. Every year.

Your "Yes" vote will create hundreds of thousands of new Massachusetts jobs.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes.

Your "Yes" vote will NOT cut, NOR require cuts, of any essential government services.

Your "Yes" vote rolls back state government spending 27% - $47.3 billion to $34.7 billion - more than state government spending in 1999.

3,400,000 Massachusetts workers, taxpayers and their families need your help. Please vote "Yes."

There is no 100% argument that any of this will or will not happen in your link or my quote. But it can't all happen and if MA is wasting 41% of it's spending then when they spend the money they need to on essentials, they won't the extra money for waste.

hey, if they just eliminated income taxes for out of state wokrers, I'd be happy with that too. We already pay a crazy property tax and if we wanted to pay income tax, we would move to MA.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

#1~ I'm not sure how I'm going to vote yet. I'm wanting to vote yes, but at the same time I want to vote no. I'm afraid that if it does pass the politicians will just just raise other taxes to compensate. Why even bother, the politicians will just ignore it anyways, just like they've ignored lowering the income tax to 5%. Our politicians ignore the voters anyways so I don't even know why I bother sometimes.

#2~ I'm going to vote yes on this one.

#3~ I'm going to vote no.

 

[bicker]

From the MA website:

AGAINST: This legally binding initiative would slash state revenues by more than $12 billion a year - nearly 40 percent of the state budget.

It would force dramatic cuts in state aid to cities and towns, driving up property taxes and reducing funding for vital local services.

It would mean a drastic reduction in state funding for local public schools - leading to teacher layoffs, school closings and other cutbacks that would harm our children's education.

It would threaten public safety by cutting funds for police, fire protection and emergency medical services.

It would prevent us from making badly needed repairs to the state's aging roads and bridges, or making other investments needed to attract businesses and create jobs.

And it could force the state to raise other taxes and fees that would hit moderate-income families hardest.

Times are tough enough. Let's not make them worse. Vote NO.​

Regarding the assertion that voting Yes has anything to do with "eliminating government waste" -- it does nothing of the sort. Read the Proposition; it lists no programs to cut whatsoever. This goes back to what I said about Proposition #3: It is manipulation. If the problem is waste, then have the ballot question address waste! Say exactly what will be cut, so people know what they're voting for.

hey, if they just eliminated income taxes for out of state wokrers, I'd be happy with that too. We already pay a crazy property tax and if we wanted to pay income tax, we would move to MA.

This relates to something I suspected, that Proposition #1 is supported substantially by NH people, folks many of whom actually moved to as state without many jobs figuring that they can take advantage of the better business environment we MA folks foster with our taxes, without actually paying into the system which provides them the opportunities they take advantage of!

If anything, I would like to see higher taxes on out-of-state workers, so as to reduce MA resident unemployment.