Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for giving us a little wider range of voting options.

Posted by destiny (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DITTO, OldGrandDad.

Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not hard for our leaders to do it. By the percentages in this pole over 1/3 of Natchez is a bunch of bums with no shame.

Posted by grrbrts (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I noticed, a few weeks ago, how the grass/dirt up to the curbs of the medians were leveled/dug back along both Highway 61 South and North. But, not all the medians were worked upon. I wonder why? The work looks appealing! Still yet, there must be some way (long term) to have them (all curbed medians) remodeled in such a way, that the grass/weeds can't take root within the cracks. Whatever was done to those at some of the rest areas/stops along the Natchez Trace Parkway are working. They are noticeable, in that they are black.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree Gramps and Destiny!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(NatchezEnema) Good Humor! Made my day?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A better poll question OldGrandDad would go something like:

Should Natchez support a state tax structure that removes money from our community we need to provide basic services for ourselves?

Because the question really is why should local money be shipped off in taxes and then be shipped back. That transfer is inefficient in itself, consuming some of the money. Each town having a local income tax would be a preferrable system to a state income tax system. Then each town could decide for itself how much it was willing to pay for what it wanted.

Posted by NatchezEnema (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These poll numbers bring to light what's wrong with this town and how these beggers get into office. People wanting handouts (without shame) electing people wanting handouts (without shame). Better yet, BUMS ELECTING BUMS.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, Sorry, but there ain't NO WAY that I would support a "local income tax". Some years back while I was ranting to a friend about federal government growth and inefficiency he stopped me long enough to explain that local governments were worse. Since then I've observed and I believe him to be correct.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No argument here OGD. Income taxes of any kind are an overall bad idea.

But I am curious about what your friend felt made local governments worse in terms of efficiency than federal government. It just seems like local government would have to be more responsive to the people than government far away. Theoretically anyway.

Have you read today's article about the Leadership 2008 graduates?

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Enkikur , If you believe income taxes of any kind are not a good idea ,then apparently you are not an Obama supporter . I am surprised at you !

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKiKur, The population of our town has shrunk but the city limits have expanded and they desire to expand evern more. The streets have holes but monster buildings are built for government use. Supervisors used to be part-time, but not now. Just quick examples. Local governments grow unchecked. And from what I read here, many of the locals want it. I hear them screaming for recreation. I'm headed back out......

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is funny southernbelle! I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm not going to vote, I am not a collectivist of either right or left wing persuasion. I think there are ways to address the social problems we have without forced collective efforts. I also think there are ways to pay for what society needs in a collective sense without income taxes.

People just don't understand what the real reasons for having an income tax are and who and how they hurt.

Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And exactly what ways do you have in mind , Enkikur ? I'm all for any sound reason that would benefit this wonderful nation of ours .

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have to go back to a system of sound money instead of a debt monetary system southernbelle. The Congress needs to take back it's constitutional job of coining money, issuing currency, and regulating its value. If Congress issued the money there would be no need to pay interest on it and this alone would eliminate the income tax as the income tax goes solely to service the interest payments on the national debt. We need to severely restrict the power of Congress to borrow money.

Under our present system Congress acts in a sort of partnership with the Federal Reserve that allows the private Federal Reserve to regulate the value of our currency and gives the Fed a monopoly on the paper currency. Congress is able to get money pretty much anytime it wants by borrowing it from the Fed, who prints it up in exchange for Treasury Notes bearing interest, or by selling Treasury Notes directly. In essence this is a hidden form of taxation that allows Congress to make tax increases with only about one in a thousand people realizing what is going on. The hidden tax comes in the form of inflation, because there is a lot more money and credit in the system than there is actual value,

The reason Federal Reserve Notes are called legal tender is because by law the FRN's are the only money people are required to accept as discharge of debt, and FRN's are the only money you can pay your taxes with. Lawful money is something different, and that is why after the early early sixties the words "redeemable in lawful money" were removed from the nation's currency.

This is the root of our monetary and tax problems. I want to help you understand this, I am tired right now and may not have explained it clearly, but if the issue interests you I will make a better effort to help you understand.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here, southernbelle, read this and see if you can understand what the judge and jury are talking about in this case. A hundred years ago the simplest farmer would have understood, but today there are brokers working on Wall Street who don't.

http://www.6towns.com/driving/Credit%20R...

Posted by picture_music101 (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HELLO PEOPLE ITS *NEW* STREETS!!!!!

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We need your vote EnKiKur!

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I already voted no rushingjr. I just believe a city with a 30 million dollar budget can find some way to pave its own streets. I suggest an additional street maintenance tax on gambling since the gamblers are helping to wear out the streets.

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good points and I agree with the additional tax on gaming!

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All government grows unchecked OldGrandDad when it has access to unlimited borrowed money, or to money that comes as gifts with just a string or two attached.

If government ignores basic problems like streets in favor of things that are not necessary that the people want, in time the basic things are in a crisis state requiring even more tax money to repair. I think this article is really the machine probing to see how receptive the people would be to more local taxes supposedly slated for street repair.

I am glad you bring up those recreation centers. I have good reasons for suspecting the push for those centers did not erupt locally. I think that idea came from somewhere else because of the language used in talking about them. About the one across the river it is said it is needed because "in the future all progressive towns will have one". These centers will cost a lot to build and require a lot to maintain and operate once opened, and require more people on city payrolls.

Notice how the centers are referenced in the paper. Who wants an ice cream cone!? Of course everyone wants an ice cream cone. The question is never can we afford an ice cream cone.

Public infrastructue all over the United States is being sold to private companies. If the recreation centers become too burdensome, like the convention center, they too will be sold.

I wonder what will be done with whatever is left of the sale proceeds once NRMC is sold. What do you think the chances are that money will be allocated to the Adams County recreation complex?

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I worry about the whole concept of "the people" asking "the government" for recreation (entertainment). If the voters show no restraint, we cannot expect restraint from the politicians.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OGD, I will just go ahead and say it. The ice cream of recreaton centers is being used to introduce the people of the area to the concepts of collectivism expressed in the Sustainable Development ideology. The people will trade our traditional form of government for an internationally planned government that seeks to control all resource in return for what seems to be benefits, just like the Indians traded valuable land for shiny trinkets.

I am certain about this. The stories are in the paper all the time but the people don't know what they mean. The Leadership 2008 story currently in the paper is about training people to lead in this effort. The AP story about the Prince of Wales coming to Jackson to hand out medals is related to this as well.

Google 'sustainable development recreation complexes' if you think I am in left field on this.

Visit http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/... to learn how the Chamber of Commerce is used to further global socialism.

if all these things are so good, why don't we just have some open local and national debates about whether or not we want to become global socialists?

Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good Points EnKi! Be on "Guard"!

Posted by acedog (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

last i check natchez was in mississippi.that little casino generates a lot of tax dollars for the state of mississippi as well as natchez. so if the state see it fit to give some of that money back to the community from which it came. whats wrong with that. for you guys to find something negative out of something so postive I REALLY QUESTION THE LEADERSHIP AND THE MOTIVATION OF THE NATCHEZ DEMOCRAT

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The casino makes millions of dollars a year for its owners doing something it is illegal for any other business in town to do. It operates due to a law making it legal for it to do something that is illegal for others. It provides no useful service; even the entertainment it provides is a disservice to humantiy. It cannot be taxed enough.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our casino still has entertainment? I never hear about it. The casinos in Shreveport and on the coast are always featuring well known entertainment. Maybe once the competition moves in......

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some people justify the casinos by saying it is just entertainment. To be consistent I have to say people have a right to gamble if they want, I just find it morally objectionable. On the other hand, I am not opposed to brothels and opium dens, which can also be good sources of tax revenue and add a touch of historical correctness to the town.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Then back to my suggestion some time back - Do not allow the monster casinos to have a monopoly on gambling. It should also be allowed for small establishments like the Under the Hill Saloon (only for example). This gambling stuff seems to be all in favor of the "big guys". I've never been in a brothel or opium den, but I question laws that prohibit such since the laws rarely work. I'm definately in favor of decriminalizing most of our illegal drugs for the same reason. But our politicians aren't exactly lining up to support me.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 9:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've never been in a brothel either, especially not an untaxed one on North Rankin Street, nor an opium den for that matter. Brothels offer entry level jobs to young women, and opium dens offer solace to the troubled heart. I am not opposed to them for the same reasons you are... prohibiting them doesn't seem to stop them. And I agree, the little guys should be allowed to gamble if the big guys are. Used to be the gambling was more spread out in Natchez, had a more family atmosphere in the convivial conclaves of friends who met in secret for games of chance.

Posted by firefly (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't care who pays for it....our streets are a disgrace!