Mr. Moroun, please stop the lying

**Richard** · September-18-12, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Shollin

I'm a grand child from when the Mackinaw Bridge was built. Apparently I'm still paying for it. How is it effecting me?

Mack bridge was built with state funds , the 4 billion is coming from the Feds adding to the national debt , any way you look at it a debt is a debt paying on a debt takes from advailable funds in your pocket , more debt is more taxes . It effects everybody.

**Hermod** · September-19-12, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by leapfrog

And to answer your question, example two is clearly the ad that is "lying"

Which just proves my point. If you agree with an ad or a blog, it is "truth" ad if you disagree it is a "lie" and should not be allowed to be stated.

Both examples are "opinions" and neither can be proven by the facts.

**ndavies** · September-19-12, 09:56 AM

Our grand children will not be paying for the bridge. It will be built with bonds that will be repaid through the bridge tolls. Just like the Blue Water bridge and the Makinac Bridge. The Blue Water bridge was financed by the US side since the Canadians at the time didn't have the money. The new bridge will be financed by the Canadians since this time the US doesn't want to cough up the money.

**Bham1982** · September-19-12, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by ndavies

Our grand children will not be paying for the bridge. It will be built with bonds that will be repaid through the bridge tolls. Just like the Blue Water bridge and the Makinac Bridge. The Blue Water bridge was financed by the US side since the Canadians at the time didn't have the money. The new bridge will be financed by the Canadians since this time the US doesn't want to cough up the money.

Our grandchildren likely will be paying for this stupid proposal, and the commercial, notwithstanding the motives, is correct.

We are still paying enormous costs for the second span of the Blue Water Bridge, which was supposed to be repaid quickly, with 12 million annual crossings. Unfortunately, they only average 5 million annual crossings, and so Michigan taxpayers are stuck with an enormous bill.

Obviously yet another crossing will further indebt Michigan taxpayers, as the existing crossings [[which all have excess capacity) suffer drops in usage, and as the liabilities for the existing bonds grow.

We will directly pay for the new toll plaza and new interchange. Canada will own the bridge outright. Our huge recent investments in the existing crossings [[the massive Ambassador-area rebuilding) go out the window, and the one vibrant poor Detroit neighborhood is destroyed.

Doesn't sound like a good deal for the U.S. taxpayer.

**Bham1982** · September-19-12, 10:37 AM

Another thing- it is true that Canada is paying 100% of Michigan's cost of the bridge itself, BUT, they are paying 0% of the federal matching funds.

Michigan residents pays federal taxes, obviously, and they are paying for the federal matching funds [[which are 1:1). So you are paying directly for the bridge, notwithstanding the governor's claims.

Shollin · September-19-12, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

Mack bridge was built with state funds , the 4 billion is coming from the Feds adding to the national debt , any way you look at it a debt is a debt paying on a debt takes from advailable funds in your pocket , more debt is more taxes . It effects everybody.

The tax rates are much lower now than in 1957 when the Mackinaw Bridge was built. I like how people make a boogey man out of debt and spending and no one can really tell how it effects them.

**ndavies** · September-19-12, 11:48 AM

The add is pure bullshit and the Maroun flunkies kinow it.

http://michigantruthsquad.com/the-pe...bridge-tv-ads/

**Gorath** · September-19-12, 11:55 AM

Moroun'a ads are distortions of the truth or plain outright lies.

http://michigantruthsquad.com/the-pe...choices-tv-ad/

**Detroitdave** · September-19-12, 04:30 PM

Thank you NDavies and Gorath

From the Michigan truth squad
"
OVERALL IMPRESSION:
The battle over a second bridge is about money – the Moroun family’s money. The expectation is that a second bridge will reduce traffic on the existing Ambassador, thereby costing the Moroun family money. There is a reason that the family interests have spent millions in campaign contributions, lobbying efforts and TV ads in recent years to stop the NITC project – not to mention what sums have been spent by Moroun interests in legal challenges to the project.

Michigan voters may want to ask themselves one question : Why are Moroun family interests spending millions to “protect” the average taxpayer?
TRUTH SQUAD CALL:
Flagrant foul. These ads repeat claims, or advance new variants of old claims, that do not match available documents. The agreement with Canada puts the financial onus on Michigan’s neighbor, not Michigan, for paying the bills, including interest. Since Michigan is not appropriating construction dollars, no dollars are being diverted away from other public uses. Michigan is not increasing its debt load with the NITC project."

also from Michigan Truth Squad
"a June 15 agreement between Michigan and Canada to build the bridge calls for Canada to pay the entire cost of the bridge, including Michigan’s $550 million share for building a connection to the bridge from Interstate 75,"
you know what , just read the report LOL I'm not going to cut and paste all that stuff LOL !
enjoy !
:-)

**Richard** · September-19-12, 10:15 PM

Who funds the truth squad.

$850.000 costoms plaza. Fed funds

Building the bridge brings another 3 billion in highway funds for the state from the Feds what is the real prize ? A bridge ? Acess to the 3 billion or useing the bridge and the 3 billion to fund a private Areo .

Fed funds are not free.

So why does Matty the one everybody loves to hate even bother spending the 5 million so far against the bridge when all he has to do is get the word out that 4 billion in fed funds are being spent with the support of automakers that are also in a love hate relationship on a bridge that may even not be able to meet expectations,it would not cost him a dime to light that powder keg.

So he is spending 5 million so far to keep this all within the state fully knowing the other options but also understanding the impact of what could happen,seems to me anyways he may just have a little soft spot after all.

**Enduro** · September-20-12, 08:19 AM

People should start to complain to the TV stations that are profiting from these bogus ads. There is nothing truthful in that damn Proposal 6 ad. It's shameful that they would air it without some kind of disclaimer about Moroun's intentions and the facts, this is not a subjective morality question or a left right issue, this is straight up lies.

If anything, he should be airing this in Canada, they're the ones on the hook. The whole thing is despicable. I've already posted on channel 7's Facebook how disappointed I am that they would air such garbage.

**Bham1982** · September-20-12, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Enduro

If anything, he should be airing this in Canada, they're the ones on the hook. The whole thing is despicable. I've already posted on channel 7's Facebook how disappointed I am that they would air such garbage.

No, he should be airing it in the U.S., because they need U.S. approval. and Maroun, despite being sleazy, is the only one protecting the taxpayer.

The fact is that Michigan taxpayers will lose on this deal. It's a bad deal. Yes, it hurts Maroun, but it also hurts Michigan taxpayers. We're paying for the Ambassador improvements, the tunnel improvements, and the Blue Water twin span, and traffic is lower than expected.

Blue Water was projected at 12 million crossings, and is currently at 5 million crossings. Yet another span will further harm Blue Water, and cost Michigan taxpayers, who will be paying for that second span for decades [[which was supposedly going to to be paid back by tolls from the increased volume, which hasn't happened).

**JBMcB** · September-20-12, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

have you looked at the business plan? It is being paid for by bonds that will be paid by tolls, bonds guaranteed by the Canadian government, not us.

According to the business plan [[on their web site) MDOT money will be used to pay for the connections to local roadways, and a few other things.

Shollin · September-20-12, 11:32 AM

I think it's embarrassing that the United States, once the country of innovation and had the best infrastructure in the World, can't stop bickering and get something done. That one man with money can buy out politicians. Canada is sitting waiting with money and the mighty US can't get their act together. I hope Canada decides to ditch Detroit and bring the jobs to Buffalo.

**drjeff** · September-20-12, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Bham1982

No, he should be airing it in the U.S., because they need U.S. approval. and Maroun, despite being sleazy, is the only one protecting the taxpayer.

The fact is that Michigan taxpayers will lose on this deal. It's a bad deal. Yes, it hurts Maroun, but it also hurts Michigan taxpayers. We're paying for the Ambassador improvements, the tunnel improvements, and the Blue Water twin span, and traffic is lower than expected.

Blue Water was projected at 12 million crossings, and is currently at 5 million crossings. Yet another span will further harm Blue Water, and cost Michigan taxpayers, who will be paying for that second span for decades [[which was supposedly going to to be paid back by tolls from the increased volume, which hasn't happened).

If all of that is true, then why the hell does Maroun HIMSELF want to build another bridge? Oh yeah, because that's not true.

**Bham1982** · September-20-12, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by drjeff

If all of that is true, then why the hell does Maroun HIMSELF want to build another bridge? Oh yeah, because that's not true.

For the same reason Canada wants to build yet another bridge. To control market share.

The difference is that we already have tremendous investments in the existing facilities. Construction of additional capacity makes no sense; construction of entirely new infrastructure, separate from existing crossings, makes even less sense.

Shollin · September-20-12, 12:37 PM

Canada wants a new bridge to divert truck traffic from the streets of Windsor.

**hhockey** · September-20-12, 12:38 PM

If everyone truly believes what the Governor says or for that matter the government in general, then i have some lake front property in the Mojave Dessert Ill sell you.

Shollin · September-20-12, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by hhockey

If everyone truly believes what the Governor says or for that matter the government in general, then i have some lake front property in the Mojave Dessert Ill sell you.

If everyone truly believes what Matty Moroun says, I have an abandoned train station I'll sell you.

**hhockey** · September-20-12, 12:48 PM

I may not approve of Matty, but i have heard many times how it wont cost me anything, or its only a temporary tax, to still be taxed 20 years later. It may not cost us a dime for the bridge to be built, but it will cost us plenty to buy up the properties, redo the roads and freeways. It will become apparent that we just wasted a ton of money on the Ambassador bridge freeways and entrances. Which we tax payers paid for.

**rb336** · September-20-12, 12:51 PM

And where do you hear that? Matty's minions

**RaumVogel** · September-20-12, 12:55 PM

Ahem....if you believe any of todays politicians, I have a bridge to sell you.

**hhockey** · September-20-12, 01:04 PM

I have heard it many times from our own government. I really don't give a crap what Matty says. You know yourself that we have been promised many times no cost to us, temporary tax , in so many ways. I hope it doe's not cost us a dime but i wouldnt hold my breath.