Turner: BOK to punish North Tulsans tax stand

[Conan71]

Well FB, we won, so go back to hibernation until the next tax vampire crisis.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Well FB, we won, so go back to hibernation until the next tax vampire crisis.

A lengthy Hibernation Cycle is a customary End-of-Tax-Vampire-Campaign for a friendly bear.

However, that was before PowerGlade and RedBull became available!

[:X]

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

I'll take that as a "no," you really don't get it.

Oh, and my problem with predatory lending, Mister Fodder, is that it makes things worse for people of all economic classes.

I agree that it makes things bad for everyone.  I just do not see an effective and fair way for the government to regulate it.  Sorry I am not following this thread too closely, its just really degraded to the point that I'm checking it every now and then and scanning for my monicker.

[Townsend]

Paul?

[TheArtist]

Isnt it interesting to see how on the one hand people complain about how people cant understand an adjustable rate mortgage, then the same people complain that the "yes" river vote people were saying they didnt understand, or were suggesting they were ignorant, about the benefits of the river plan.

We need protection because we cant be expected to know. How dare you insult us by suggesting we dont understand.

[guido911]

USRufnex: "Wow. Can someone please give me a towel because my head just exploded... I find myself in complete agreement with Guido-doh-doh..."

It's okay. This is just an aberration. I will be getting under your skin soon enough.

BTW, if you have looked through this thread, you can see I have agreed with several of my typical adversaries: RW, Bruno (a little) and I think Chicken Little.

I believe this is so because I am not a toe the line conservative, specifically as to economic policy. In my opinion, there is a place for public funds (yes, obtained through tax) to improve the quality of life for everyone. As to the River Tax, we have been listening to the "we want river development crowd" whine loudly since 2025. Although I was not overjoyed with this particular plan for the river, the fact that the private sector ponied up more that 100 million dollars merited I give the idea serious attention.  Now, we have people assaulting the integrity of those giving away their personal wealth so my family, your family, and even the ingrate FB's family could have river development.

There are no words for this abject lack of appreciation for what the KFF would have given this county. It's sickening.

[USRufnex]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070827/ai_n19488741

"He has invested a great deal of his fortune in early-childhood initiatives, saying once that, "America hasn't fulfilled its social contract that everyone has an equal opportunity at birth. I've wrestled for years with how we might do something to change that - to provide for a more mobile society."

[rwarn17588]

<guido wrote:

BTW, if you have looked through this thread, you can see I have agreed with several of my typical adversaries: RW, Bruno (a little) and I think Chicken Little.

I believe this is so because I am not a toe the line conservative, specifically as to economic policy. In my opinion, there is a place for public funds (yes, obtained through tax) to improve the quality of life for everyone. As to the River Tax, we have been listening to the "we want river development crowd" whine loudly since 2025. Although I was not overjoyed with this particular plan for the river, the fact that the private sector ponied up more that 100 million dollars merited I give the idea serious attention. Now, we have people assaulting the integrity of those giving away their personal wealth so my family, your family, and even the ingrate FB's family could have river development.

<end clip>

Funny ... it just occurred to me that people assume that I voted for the river tax.

I did not. I didn't make up my mind until the night before the election, but I did mark the "no" part of the ballot.

My reasons for doing so are fairly complex and multipronged ... certainly not the simplistic "all taxes are regressive" argument that doesn't hold water at further examination. I'm not about to get into the myriad reasons, as I'm tired and am very busy right now.

But please note that I did not attack the "yes" voters. I thought their reasons were well-thought-out and sound.

But I thought my reasons were, too.

[Chicken Little]

Point of clarification on my part.  People who voted no, voted no...I can accept that.  What I can't stomach are people who complaining about the $117 million in private donations.

It's not your money.  You are not entitled to it.    And by whining and trying to smear a guy simply for making a generous offer, you prove that you don't deserve it.  

You turned down $117 million, either you care about that our you don't.  Regardless, at least have the dignity to stop rattling your tin cup in our ears.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Point of clarification on my part.  People who voted no, voted no...I can accept that.  What I can't stomach are people who complaining about the $117 million in private donations.

It's not your money.  You are not entitled to it.    And by whining and trying to smear a guy simply for making a generous offer, you prove that you don't deserve it.  

You turned down $117 million, either you care about that our you don't.  Regardless, at least have the dignity to stop rattling your tin cup in our ears.

You're offering Revisionist History on the Kaiser River Tax.

Please supply any documentation that the $117 million being raised from the private contributors were actually an unconditional donation to the newly established County River Parks Authority.

The $117 million was in fact planned as an investment by various wealthy local interests to fund entertainment, housing, and shopping venues along the River, primarily on the east side of the Arkansas River.

Various "hubs" were envisioned along a 6-7 mile stretch.

It wasn't a donation, although the River Tax promoters frequently used that term.  It was a FOR-PROFIT investment with an implicit but unpublished ROI.

They promised to "invest" $117 million if we forked over a minimum of $282 million and probably more likely in the neighborhood of $400 million in new sales tax dollars at the rate of $0.004 for seven years.

[:O]

[USRufnex]

Tulsa needs to invest in itself.  Was this the best way to go about it?  Dunno.  Political efforts are rarely the best way to do anything... but they can certainly be better than the alternative... ?  

Somehow OKC can do these things and most Republicans can vote for it as an investment in their city.

Let's see; whom should I trust?

A Tulsan who has an MBA from Harvard who is trying to invest in/help Tulsa by donating millions of dollars and raising millions of dollars more from other organizations.... or should I trust a naysaying, trollific internet predator who characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax to make the river a lot nicer than it ever was before.... a person who refuses to shutup even after he's  proved himself to be a racist bigot... and FB, you ARE politically correct... your posts read like a cartoon-character's tribute to the Tulsa Beacon... a paper that makes the Daily Oklahoman look liberal...

You know, Kaiser could have done this for OKC... or if a Tulsan didn't take over and build BOk into what it is today, it could have been someone from KC or Dallas or Little Rock or Springfield, MO, running BOk from those cities while giving millions in either outright donations or investments to their respective municipalities... so I'm glad he's on our side and would gladly pay .004 in extra sales taxes to send a certain bear to KC or Dallas so he can see where all those "tax-vampire" conspiracies get him there...

Unfortunately, a certain Bear can't tell the difference between self-deprication and self-defacation... [!]

Pity.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

You're offering Revisionist History on the Kaiser River Tax.

Please supply any documentation that the $117 million being raised from the private contributors were actually an unconditional donation to the newly established County River Parks Authority.

The $117 million was in fact planned as an investment by various wealthy local interests to fund entertainment, housing, and shopping venues along the River, primarily on the east side of the Arkansas River.

Various "hubs" were envisioned along a 6-7 mile stretch.

It wasn't a donation, although the River Tax promoters frequently used that term.  It was a FOR-PROFIT investment with an implicit but unpublished ROI.

They promised to "invest" $117 million if we forked over a minimum of $282 million and probably more likely in the neighborhood of $400 million in new sales tax dollars at the rate of $0.004 for seven years.

[:O]

Talk about revisionism.  "...implicit but unpublished ROI"?  Your paranoid junk is wearing thin.  He had no stake in the developent

quote: "None of the contributors has anything to gain from the expenditure of public or private funds other than the general enhancement of our city," Kaiser said.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You are an idler that spits on the back of anyone who doesn't fill your cup.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Tulsa needs to invest in itself.  Was this the best way to go about it?  Dunno.  Political efforts are rarely the best way to do anything... but they can certainly be better than the alternative... ?  

Somehow OKC can do these things and most Republicans can vote for it as an investment in their city.

Let's see; whom should I trust?

A Tulsan who has an MBA from Harvard who is trying to invest in/help Tulsa by donating millions of dollars and raising millions of dollars more from other organizations.... or should I trust a naysaying, trollific internet predator who characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax to make the river a lot nicer than it ever was before.... a person who refuses to shutup even after he's  proved himself to be a racist bigot... and FB, you ARE politically correct... your posts read like a cartoon-character's tribute to the Tulsa Beacon... a paper that makes the Daily Oklahoman look liberal...

You know, Kaiser could have done this for OKC... or if a Tulsan didn't take over and build BOk into what it is today, it could have been someone from KC or Dallas or Little Rock or Springfield, MO, running BOk from those cities while giving millions in either outright donations or investments to their respective municipalities... so I'm glad he's on our side and would gladly pay .004 in extra sales taxes to send a certain bear to KC or Dallas so he can see where all those "tax-vampire" conspiracies get him there...

Unfortunately, a certain Bear can't tell the difference between self-deprication and self-defacation... [!]

Pity.

Where did I ever say, and I quote you, that I:  

"characterizes as "tax-vampires" everyone who supported a .004 tax."

The Tax Vampires are only the connected local construction companies, and an associated small connected crony coven of architects, engineers, accountants, bond underwriters, attorneys and sub-contractors who feed off of the tax blood of their fellow citizens, freely funding without limit new Tax Campaigns, and employing fully disposable political mouth-pieces, like Randi Miller, to prostitute their message to the public.  

Political mouthpieces whose credibility and therefore their usefulness, when extinguished by serial lies and half-truths, become instantly discardable.

Again, show me where the $117 million Investment was an unconditional DONATION to the Tulsa County River Parks Authority?

It never was.  It was an "investment" in FOR-PROFIT ventures along primarily the East side of the Arkansas River to achieve financial gain, and conditional only on the voters approval of the seven year $0.004 River Sales tax.

An investment is not a DONATION, although the promoters used the terms interchangeably.

The EXACT wording in last week's Tulsa World article one day before the election referred to the $117 million in private "donations" as:

"If the plan wins approval, private individuals have pledged $117 million for enhancements and gathering spots along the river and $5 million for Tulsa pools and parks.

The gathering spots would be built at 31st, 36th, 41st, 61st and 71st streets and at Turkey Mountain.

A signature bridge over Crow Creek is also planned."

The deal was about certain connected local Oligarch families making money, while everyone else's families PROVIDED the tax money so the Oligarch families could build their fortunes.

Overall, the Kaiser River Tax was another tax-and-spend scheme along the lines of Great Plains Airlines to benefit a tiny few at the cost to the MANY, but this time on steroids.

[Conan71]

This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

This doesn't even have legs anymore, it's starting to grow mold.

I'm more than happy to retire this thread, and "just move on", BUT, not in the face of blatant Revisionist History being posted by certain others who been drinking the MetroTulsaChamberPot Kool-Aid.

Long Live Winston Smith!

[!]