Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Roark on 04-19-09
Anyway you slice it, property taxes are going up. And they are going up because neither the Rep’s or the Dem’s have the moral integrity to cut wasteful and unnecessary government spending and government growth.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By James Conner on 04-20-09
How would Roark slice it? Exactly what would he slice out of government to cut that wasteful and unnecessary spending? Exactly how much would his slicing save? And how does he know? I challenge him to name all the programs he would cut; to provide proof of just how wasteful and unnecessary they are—and not to shrug off the details with anodyne generalities.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By freemen forever! on 04-20-09
Roark would 1st cut taxes on anyone making over a million dollars - because they are over-taxed. Then he would offer huge tax cuts to the giant corporations. Because they used to pay 35% of the fed tax receipts collected - now it is 7% - WAYY too much!
Then he would get rid of any envirnomental laws - except the ones affecting a lowly citizen.
Then it would be cut medicare and social security.
Cut education budget - because only the rich and powerful should be able to go to school.
Then if you weren’t a pure blooded American (ie WHITE) you would be deported back to Mexico. It wouldn’t matter if you weren’t mexican if you have brown skin it doesn’t matter to them.
All gun laws would be outlawed so we could carry rpg’s and suitcase nukes - cause you know I need to protect myself.
Abortion would be illegal - well only for the poor who couldn’t afford their private clinics or be able to go to Canada. AND abortion doctors would be fair game to shoot and kill-
We’d build a big huge wall around the country and arm the border to the teeth.
Every road would be a toll road cause if you’re poor you shouldn’t use the roads - they are only for the rich.
AND of course he would outlaw all us liberals with our penchant for muckraking and laying out the truth.
Can you say Brave New World?
BUT luckily JB and roark are firmly in the minority of this country - although they do control the bully pulpit in the flathead….which may explain why the flathead is so far behind the rest of the state in economic numbers. Shockingly even Great Falls and Billings are much more clear headed and democratic than the flathead.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Dan Testa on 04-20-09
I made a correction to the paragraph above describing how Jopek’s original bill funded the increases in aid programs – which would not have addressed the vacant land homestead exemption, the way Sen. Kaufmann’s bill would have.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By gerald on 04-20-09
i dont know how freeman can speak for roark, but i like everything he suggested.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By mitch on 04-20-09
Roark reminds me of the very old saying “He is a legend in his own mind”
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Roark on 04-20-09
Gerald, they do it all the time.
Mr. Connor, How I would do it, or how it should be done morally, is to eliminate any State agency or program that does not involve either the national guard, police, the courts, or emergency services. Government is legal force, and as such has a monopoly on its legal use. As such her primary, and only legitimate function, is to protect rights, viz a viz the agencies which I just mentioned above.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By James Conner on 04-20-09
My challenge still stands. Exactly what would Roark cut? He needs to provide the names of the programs—not just broad categories—that he would cut or eliminate. He needs to state exactly how much money—in dollars—would be not be spent by cutting or eliminating those programs. He needs to provide proof that what he would slice away is wasteful and unnecessary.
So far, he has not provided any of that information. Why? That’s a question only Roark can answer—but I strongly suspect that his not supplying specifics is the result his not being very well informed.
Facts, John Adams observed, are stubborn things. Stubbornly refusing to supply them does not make them go away: it simply exposes the weakness of the author’s arguments. In the vernacular of the street, it’s time for Roark to put up or shut up.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Leggie Watcher on 04-20-09
Just so Roark (and others) know, the government has a few more Constitutional responsibilities than he lists. Get familiar with the MT Constitution and you will notice that Articles X and XII list a few more of our great state’s responsibilities.
I believe in our state’s constitution, our sovereignty and that lawmakers should morally (whatever that means) work to better Montana. Yes, that can mean shrinking government, and there are likely places where cuts could and should occur. However, anyone that is truly knowledgeable about the legislative process and Montana’s Constitution would know that there are many responsibilities that don’t include guns. Educate yourself before you speak!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Yosemite1967 on 04-21-09
Here’s a stinky moose: State spending should be getting cut and property taxes should be going down. We’re waaay over-taxed and have been for decades.
And when I say cut, I really mean cut—not just a cut in the increase, which is what dirty politicians mean when they say “cut”—but a decrease in the actual spending and taxes. When have they ever significantly done that? Never!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Travis on 04-21-09
People are losing their jobs at an alarming rate and this is what they can come up with!!! What a joke, they need to get real jobs, get paid the average montana salary and see what it is like to be a REAL Montanan. Enough is enough, what will they tax next, mabey a sales tax and property tax and resort tax, I give up!!!!!!!
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Kalispell Native on 04-21-09
If Bruce Tutvedt says this is a fair bill, then you know that it is only good for the wealthy. Large landowners, developers and gravel interests are tutvedts constituency.
Jopeks’ bill wasn’t perfect but it was a lot better than this current one is
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Simon on 04-22-09
So should the government enforce my property right to not have my air, water and land polluted by a corporation or a reckless neighbor Roark?
Should the government enforce my property right to not have a neighbor build a gravel pit or strip mine right next door to my house and thereby make my property without any value?
Should the government amend the Constitution to remove the General Welfare clause?
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By mooseberryinn on 04-25-09
The “sacred” budget, tome of tomes can never be decreased. It must grow and prosper always and for that to happen, taxes must always increase lest the “sacred tomes” be unsupported. Politicians will promise to decrease gov’t, decrease taxes, and look what happens! Just wait, the worst is yet to come.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
Cat-Griz: 109th Meeting Could Have Playoff Implications
A Holiday Curtain Call
Mixed Martial Arts Return to Kalispell
DOR Director Says Reappraisal Process Working
After 42 Years, Books West Closes its Doors
Comments on: Showdown over Property Tax Mitigation Comes to a Head
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Roark on 04-19-09
Anyway you slice it, property taxes are going up. And they are going up because neither the Rep’s or the Dem’s have the moral integrity to cut wasteful and unnecessary government spending and government growth.
By James Conner on 04-20-09
How would Roark slice it? Exactly what would he slice out of government to cut that wasteful and unnecessary spending? Exactly how much would his slicing save? And how does he know? I challenge him to name all the programs he would cut; to provide proof of just how wasteful and unnecessary they are—and not to shrug off the details with anodyne generalities.
By freemen forever! on 04-20-09
Roark would 1st cut taxes on anyone making over a million dollars - because they are over-taxed. Then he would offer huge tax cuts to the giant corporations. Because they used to pay 35% of the fed tax receipts collected - now it is 7% - WAYY too much!
Then he would get rid of any envirnomental laws - except the ones affecting a lowly citizen.
Then it would be cut medicare and social security.
Cut education budget - because only the rich and powerful should be able to go to school.
Then if you weren’t a pure blooded American (ie WHITE) you would be deported back to Mexico. It wouldn’t matter if you weren’t mexican if you have brown skin it doesn’t matter to them.
All gun laws would be outlawed so we could carry rpg’s and suitcase nukes - cause you know I need to protect myself.
Abortion would be illegal - well only for the poor who couldn’t afford their private clinics or be able to go to Canada. AND abortion doctors would be fair game to shoot and kill-
We’d build a big huge wall around the country and arm the border to the teeth.
Every road would be a toll road cause if you’re poor you shouldn’t use the roads - they are only for the rich.
AND of course he would outlaw all us liberals with our penchant for muckraking and laying out the truth.
Can you say Brave New World?
BUT luckily JB and roark are firmly in the minority of this country - although they do control the bully pulpit in the flathead….which may explain why the flathead is so far behind the rest of the state in economic numbers. Shockingly even Great Falls and Billings are much more clear headed and democratic than the flathead.
By Dan Testa on 04-20-09
I made a correction to the paragraph above describing how Jopek’s original bill funded the increases in aid programs – which would not have addressed the vacant land homestead exemption, the way Sen. Kaufmann’s bill would have.
By gerald on 04-20-09
i dont know how freeman can speak for roark, but i like everything he suggested.
By mitch on 04-20-09
Roark reminds me of the very old saying “He is a legend in his own mind”
By Roark on 04-20-09
Gerald, they do it all the time.
Mr. Connor, How I would do it, or how it should be done morally, is to eliminate any State agency or program that does not involve either the national guard, police, the courts, or emergency services. Government is legal force, and as such has a monopoly on its legal use. As such her primary, and only legitimate function, is to protect rights, viz a viz the agencies which I just mentioned above.
By James Conner on 04-20-09
My challenge still stands. Exactly what would Roark cut? He needs to provide the names of the programs—not just broad categories—that he would cut or eliminate. He needs to state exactly how much money—in dollars—would be not be spent by cutting or eliminating those programs. He needs to provide proof that what he would slice away is wasteful and unnecessary.
So far, he has not provided any of that information. Why? That’s a question only Roark can answer—but I strongly suspect that his not supplying specifics is the result his not being very well informed.
Facts, John Adams observed, are stubborn things. Stubbornly refusing to supply them does not make them go away: it simply exposes the weakness of the author’s arguments. In the vernacular of the street, it’s time for Roark to put up or shut up.
By Leggie Watcher on 04-20-09
Just so Roark (and others) know, the government has a few more Constitutional responsibilities than he lists. Get familiar with the MT Constitution and you will notice that Articles X and XII list a few more of our great state’s responsibilities.
I believe in our state’s constitution, our sovereignty and that lawmakers should morally (whatever that means) work to better Montana. Yes, that can mean shrinking government, and there are likely places where cuts could and should occur. However, anyone that is truly knowledgeable about the legislative process and Montana’s Constitution would know that there are many responsibilities that don’t include guns. Educate yourself before you speak!
By Yosemite1967 on 04-21-09
Here’s a stinky moose: State spending should be getting cut and property taxes should be going down. We’re waaay over-taxed and have been for decades.
And when I say cut, I really mean cut—not just a cut in the increase, which is what dirty politicians mean when they say “cut”—but a decrease in the actual spending and taxes. When have they ever significantly done that? Never!
By Travis on 04-21-09
People are losing their jobs at an alarming rate and this is what they can come up with!!! What a joke, they need to get real jobs, get paid the average montana salary and see what it is like to be a REAL Montanan. Enough is enough, what will they tax next, mabey a sales tax and property tax and resort tax, I give up!!!!!!!
By Kalispell Native on 04-21-09
If Bruce Tutvedt says this is a fair bill, then you know that it is only good for the wealthy. Large landowners, developers and gravel interests are tutvedts constituency.
Jopeks’ bill wasn’t perfect but it was a lot better than this current one is
By Simon on 04-22-09
So should the government enforce my property right to not have my air, water and land polluted by a corporation or a reckless neighbor Roark?
Should the government enforce my property right to not have a neighbor build a gravel pit or strip mine right next door to my house and thereby make my property without any value?
Should the government amend the Constitution to remove the General Welfare clause?
By mooseberryinn on 04-25-09
The “sacred” budget, tome of tomes can never be decreased. It must grow and prosper always and for that to happen, taxes must always increase lest the “sacred tomes” be unsupported. Politicians will promise to decrease gov’t, decrease taxes, and look what happens! Just wait, the worst is yet to come.