Jackson Jambalaya

This is more like "Chicken Little the Sky is Falling." A little over reaction seems to prevail over the PRValley policy (which is in fact a "Tax" in sheeps clothing). A "tax" that would seem to need legislative approval since this is a State run Authority.
The "POLICY" states:
"If a charge is made by any event sponsor, for-profit or non-profit, for entrance, parking or other participation in the event, the permit fee will be the greater of the above referenced fee schedule or 10% of the gross receipts. If any for-profit or non-profit organization or event or any commercial endeavor sells any type of product (including food and beverage), an additional permit fee of 10% of gross sales will be applicable. The event sponsor will provide adequate proof of gross receipts/sales."

The "Gross Receipts" from "a charge is made by any event sponsor" ; this would appear to mean an entrance fee for spectators or sale of attendance ticket, ie. gross sales. Pepsi Pops,etc. & other non-profit events..does not have to charge an a fee for spectators which is what this wording seems to inply. They did not define gross sales any other way...and the word "sales" is pretty clear. This would certainly not imply fees for other participant charges which are not sales to the public attending. They do imply a 10% fee (tax) to concession sold.

I think the PRV Authority will gracefully retract their stiff position once they look at their own "policy" closer. Or we may throw tea in the reservoir..like Boston.

The more we insist that Taxes Shall Not Be Raised, the more we have a pay-as-you-go society. I guess that's what most people want in this state.

With money being tight, nothing wrong with pay as you go with those doing the using ,paying.

This was sprung on everyone by surprise and done after contracts were already signed and budgets set. Would've been different if they were doing it for next year and decided to have a discussion and bring everyone affected into it.

Yeah...the leaseholders should pay all the costs of cleaning up the trash left behind by the party people.

PRV should simply let anybody do anything they want and pass the costs on to leaseholders.

Seriously, why shouldn't people who use the facilities pay for the privilege?

Where did everybody get the idea that everything should be free?

Wow, 7:09 is a bright one.

People already pay to use the parks for events. Always have. The issue is the way they went about raising the prices.

Can't fix stupid.....

Agree , KF, really bad to change the rules after the contract is signed. Can they get away with that?

This fee increase is needed to purchase the latest intoxilizer 25000 model.

and y'all thought Lee Yancey did not get it

Remember now, the lawyer who drafted that one pager is the exact same one who opined that Burwell does in fact 'own the water' and can keep you from dropping a cork in waters surrounding boats moored in 'Burwell Water'.

When you're the only game in town and are managed by goofy-ass people such as John Sigman, this is what you wind up with.

While most businesses/service providers try to defer to the customer, the PRVWSD is not one of them.

Taking a non-profit's money for your corporate greed? Who do they think they are? The government?

The PRA has bigger fish they can target if they need money that bad. How about the unfinished, nothing has been built in 2 years Harbor Hotel and Casino project?

Twits.

This is taken from The Book of Kenny Stokes: "We do not answer to you underlings."

There's a little problem with " pay as you go" rather than raising taxes, though it sounds good and sells.

" Pay as you go" increases for fund raisers mean less funds raised for charities when there is less money to be given to charities by individuals and government support.

" Pay as you go" means the poor and middle class who are already hit the hardest in this economy are pay more for the same amount of goods and services. And, the cost of goods and services are rising as it is or haven't you noticed?

I don't " clean up after myself" , I'm rich. I can hire somebody. I thought that was part of how I " contributed" to the economy..."creating jobs",no?

Which all means the quality of life in this country declines except, of course, for those whose quality of life is pretty much the best in the world already.

No new taxes means that the professionals, that's lawyers and doctors and accountants and small business owners, pay the highest tax rate while those who live off investments and don't actually work pay 0-15% and corporations pay zero and that goes to " investors" if and when and after the upper management has anything left after bonuses to pay dividends,and put into research and development so the stock value /dividends increase.

It means the middle class continues to disappear and historically that is the death knell for a society.

I'm for a flatter tax rate. And, frankly, since the wealthiest among us ( and I technically count as one of those with an income over $400000 a year) benefit the most, it behooves us to pay our fair percentages. If not, like the Arab tyrants and Russian/French royalty, we'll find the hoardes at our gates eventually.

And, by the way, if Catholics object to paying for birth control for non-Catholic institutional employees ( way to go respecting the religious beliefs of others) , why should Quakers have to pay taxes for our wars? I don't want to pay for Viagra so dirty old men can have a second family while failing to support the first one and old pedophiles and rapists can get continue to do harm . That's against MY personal moral beliefs. But, there's no churches objecting to Viagra.

We can't get out of this mess without increases revenues. When you are fighting " no new taxes", what you have actually done is prevented tax reform and THAT is badly needed. The problem is that isn't simplistic silliness conjured up by some political strategist. Reform requires serious thought, a real understanding of economic interdepence and the existing tax structure and good reform can't be done in a few willy nilly across the board actions based on some campaign designed to work on public emotions,prejudices, and resentments.

And, somewhere, in all of this, it's been forgotten that when Bush took office there was no deficit, and we went to war, spent like drunken sailors, "deregulated" so there was no oversight on Wall Street or banking and decreased taxes so revenues were less and then tried to fix it with a TARP with zero controls built in.

How'd that work for us?

And, NO, we can't spend to stimulate without cutting the budget, but it matters where and how deep, how fast.

Politics 24/7 has made us insane...literally . The extremist control our political dialogue and are destroying this Nation.

*** YAWN ***

SSSSNNNNOOOORRRREEEE

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz

Geeze 7:58. You just get casts off both wrists, or what?

8:31 am You are the poster child for why things are in such a mess. Your brain "sleeps" through anything that challenges what you want to believe and couldn't defend your political opinions if someone held a gun to your head. All you can do is deliver childish responses you imagine are insulting and you do that because you can't face being duped by political strategists that rightly don't respect you. You ARE the 7th grade mentality they target.

We can't get out of this mess without increases revenues. .....

....And, somewhere, in all of this, it's been forgotten that when Bush took office there was no deficit, and we went to war, spent like drunken sailors

You "get out of this mess" by reducing spending and the government overreach. You talk about middle class, 50% of the people pay no Federal Income Tax now. Do you really suggest that the other half pay more while continuing to subsidize the other half with more spending?

BTW, in 1993, defense spending was 24% of the total federal budget; defense, one of the enumerated needs for the federal government. In 2003, defense spending was 22% of the total federal budget.

PRVW X resonable/unresonable tax = Bush and the War....Wow

This is the point where a competent Mayor of Jackson would be secretly courting the organizers of these events and promising everything under the sun to get them to come to Jackson. Event organizers might actually be pissed off enough to move the proceedings elsewhere.

It's unfortunate for all of us that Ken Griffin left the PRVWSD management position for much bigger and better opportunites. He possessed business acumen as well as being a successful negotiator.

You can't fix stupid and you can't fix state government - one and the same!

Lake Hico, here come the Dragon Boats! and Pepsi Pops, too! Woohooo!!!

DVDJ Commish-

Since there's contested mayoral race in Madison for the first time in decades I'd look to see some serious hustling going on, promoting the advantages of having Pepsi Pops in Liberty Park. It's large enough, has much better parking, and can handle a fireworks display afterwards.

DVDJ Commish-

Since there's contested mayoral race in Madison for the first time in decades I'd look to see some serious hustling going on, promoting the advantages of having Pepsi Pops in Liberty Park. It's large enough, has much better parking, and can handle a fireworks display afterwards.

Lake Hico comment! Ha! +1.
Dragon boat races would never end b/c the boaters would't wanna come back to the shoreline to get mugged.
And the symphony would hafta go to all woodwind instruments when the brass section was swiped and taken to the can man

Just another reason Leland Speed and Burwell need to develop the Twin Lakes proposal. Do the new High Sheruff have a pontoon?

Well...DUH... of course government spending has to be reduced.

Defense spending was in the mid 30 percent of GDP until the mortgage meltdown. Bush upped the percentage from a 3.6% buildup to 6%.

You seem to ignore that these percentages of GDP carry over from one adminstration to the next.

And, you ignore the " spent like drunken sailors" part. How much did Congressional spending increase during the Bush years? HMMMM? And, how many times did Bush use veto power? And, how did the prescription drug bill work for you when it came to increasing spending?

You seem to think you can ( trying to make it simple for you) get your family out of debt by cutting out ALL spending save for guns and ammunition and applying ALL your income to debt reduction. Certainly, you'd be out of debt faster IF you and your family survived this draconian approach. But, it'd be wiser to make some strategic cuts and get a second job for a while instead to increase revenues!

This ISN'T about partisan politics. Both political parties have created economic fictions.

If you want to get smart on the economy and stop falling for political nonsense. Start reading the Federal Reserve and GAO and OMB reports.

Oh, I forgot, why do that when you can let someone on TV who never took an economics course and who is a paid talking head paid to oppose the other talking head explain it to you?

Good LORD please save JJ from these preaching aholes.

Amen. Please do.

Defense spending was in the mid 30 percent of GDP until the mortgage meltdown.

Total federal gov't spending never reached 30 percent of GDP, much less DoD spending.


You seem to ignore that these percentages of GDP carry over from one adminstration to the next.

What is this supposed to mean? Spending relative GDP is a product of the annual budget vs gross domestic product.


And, you ignore the " spent like drunken sailors" part. How much did Congressional spending increase during the Bush years? HMMMM? And, how many times did Bush use veto power? And, how did the prescription drug bill work for you when it came to increasing spending?

I didn't ignore that part. I pointed out its inaccuracy. From 2001-2009, total spending increased by 6% of GDP. Of that 6% increase in spending relative to GDP, 4.5% was from welfare and social security programs and 1.5% was from defense spending.


You seem to think you can ( trying to make it simple for you) get your family out of debt by cutting out ALL spending save for guns and ammunition and applying ALL your income to debt reduction. Certainly, you'd be out of debt faster IF you and your family survived this draconian approach. But, it'd be wiser to make some strategic cuts and get a second job for a while instead to increase revenues!

Cute straw man. It belies your attempt at displaying intelligence. I realize it's easier for you to use black and white to paint your argument, but life is full of shades and color. Try it.


If you want to get smart on the economy and stop falling for political nonsense. Start reading the Federal Reserve and GAO and OMB reports.

I'm already "smart on the economy". But thanks otherwise


Oh, I forgot, why do that when you can let someone on TV who never took an economics course and who is a paid talking head paid to oppose the other talking head explain it to you?

ever heard the psychological term "projection"?

From 2001 until 2006 according to the OMB:
Discretionary spending went from 6.3% to 7.8%. Programmatic spending went from 10.6% to 11.9% of GDP.
The budget had a surplus of $128billion in 2001 and a deficit of $-248 billion in 2006.
Revenues were $1820 billion and increased to $2311 billion and still we had a deficit because $2639 billion was spent. Our GDP increased from an actual of $10060 billion to $13023 billion.
DEFENSE discretionary outlays went from $306.1 billion in 2001 to $520 billion.
Social security remained unchanged at 4.3% of GDP. Medicare rose for 2.4% to 2.9%, Medicaid from 1.3% to 1.4% SSI/Food Stamps/Foster care etc went from to 1.5% to 1.4% and retirement and other disability programs remained unchanged.
Now do you want to discuss how Wall Street, the banking industry and mortgage failures happened? We could start with the Dallas Federal Reserve warning in 2006. Or how about the GAO warnings? Want to talk about the problems with hedge funds hasn't been addressed?
I'm sorry my little analogy didn't work for you, but the fact is, whether it's your home budget or corporate budget or the federal budget, you should have a sound rationale for where to make cuts and you need to avoid adversely affecting current revenues .You need to increase revenues to get out of debt.
The notion that you can take yank everyone off the government teat without consequences to revenues is ridiculous . " Weaning " them off. What do you think , really, would happen in Mississippi if suddenly tomorrow all government assistance stopped? Do you really think that would affect the grocer, for example?

9:40 said:

You need to increase revenues to get out of debt.

Millions of people and businesses prove that statement inaccurate. You need to increase profit to get out of debt. That is through increasing revenues and/or decreasing expenses.

People everyday cut their spending in order to lower their debt while on a fixed income.

You answered your own quagmire. You said "Revenues were $1820 billion and increased to $2311 billion and still we had a deficit because $2639 billion was spent. Our GDP increased from an actual of $10060 billion to $13023 billion."

With tax cuts and all, revenues increased. But the .gov still spent even more (mostly on social programs). Spending was the problem. Cut the spending back and the problem can get handled. The only way to increase revenues is to increase people's incomes. In a recession, taking more money out of the economy for taxes simply kills growth.

Federal government has grown entirely too big. Federal spending has increased from $500B to over $3T in 30 years. An increase of over 500% during the same time period that the population only grew by 36%

this shit makes me tired.

For the second year in row, Timothy Geithner admitted before the Senate Budget Committee that President Obama’s budget takes no action to meaningfully reform entitlement programs, putting us on an “unsustainable” fiscal course.