SB53:Do you think that Utah`s Domestic Animal should be the Golden Retriever?

Some Other Responses:
J: Really? This is really something our representatives are "working" on? Ridiculous.
S: Am a dog trainer, there are more labs and Shih tsus in UT than Goldens, but it is silly
C: I think that its great that school children are getting involved in the legislative process and for that reason, would not oppose its passage, but I personally don't see a need for a State Domestic animal...or see why a Golden Retriever is most deserving, but if it gives the students a good experience and they leave feeling engaged and empowered, then it would seem to be worth it. :)
J: It's worth saying this again: QUIT wasting time on stupid bills.
S: Labrador retriever
M: Keeps kids involved in learning about our legislative process

SB106:Do you support spending $10 million (or more) to reduce classroom sizes?

Some Other Responses:
I work at a charter school that has about 15 students per classroom.the benefits a smaller class sizes are invaluable.
N: How about researching the models of other countries that spend less and have better results than our nation? Politicians throwing money that they've confiscated from productive members of society and throwing it at a problem is the least efficient way to fix a problem.
J: Yes, if the money comes from current funds and not a tax increase.
C: I am always supportive of additional funds to education. My biggest concern with a lump sum for something like reducing class size, is that the ramifications of lowering class size also create a need for additional schools (because we run out of class space), creates year to year needs that one time money does not cover, and would likely cost much more than even this nice sum. I admittedly have not read the full bill.I am definitely in support of decreasing class sizes, I just want to make sure we are con
S: As an educator, to really make a serious difference, class sizes would need to be reduced in half. This bill is more of a message than having any real substance.
B: If we are going to spend more money I think it should first go to the teachers we already have who are under paid as it is.
K: Spend money already allocated to the education budget.
E: Only if there is absolutely no way this would free up money elsewhere or otherwise somehow help fund the prison relocation. I do not trust any money shuffling the legislature is doing right now.
D: Depends on how and what $$ is spent. Throwing money at this issue is not always the answer
M: yes, but don't raise taxes
S: What is it's relationship to the tax increase of 20%
J: I'm not convinced that public schools know how to handle money. I don't think throwing more money at them is the answer.
D: There is no correlation between smaller classes and improved student performance. This is an old and stupid debate that needs to end. The only people who benefit from smaller classes are the teachers who need to stop complaining and do the job they\'ve been hired to do. Consider tying welfare or tax benefits to parent involvement in education instead.
B: as long as taxes aren't raised to accomplish this.
S: head tax
M: This is the most important change that can happen to our education system. Most teachers are wonderful, but a class of 40 students in elementary school is absurd. Large classroom size is my number one concern in education.
R: I think education gets plenty of money but administrators and school districts are lining their pockets with it.
M: $10 million is a drop in the bucket

SB77:Do you support legislation making it easier for adopted children to learn about their biological parents?
(somehow the data for this question was messed up, I will go back and count the individual votes and post them later)

Some Other Responses:
O: I think it depends on the cost to other taxpayers
P: Learning about health histories can be life-saving. Actual reunions should be set up via an some type of third-party only after all parties consent. The reunions the public learns about are generally those that go well. However, I know of one which went very bad. While outsiders may not understand, there can be some very personal reasons a parent does not want to have contact with the child they gave up.
M: Only if the parents want to be contacted or tracked down.
K: This is up to the people involved. If parents/children want to be found, in this age of technology, they can be found with a little elbow grease. No need for any legislation. More important things to take care of, I think.
D: I am an adopted parent of five kids, two adoptions were open and three closed adoptions. There needs to be consent by both the biological parent or parents (if both are known) and the child. Unless there is a serious medical 'need to know', this option should wait until the child is at least 18. It should be the child searching for the biological parent, not the biological parent searching for kids. The biological parent(s) have an option to reply to the inquiry by being anonymous (privacy issues).
A: I think the birth parent should have the right to say no at the time they gave the child up for adoption. No on knows why the birth parent gave the child up but we should not cause them trauma wondering if the child would show up some time later
D: It's the biological parents' responsibility to make it easy or not.
S: just for health reasons alone

SB85:Do you support truth in advertising legislation prohibiting images that exaggerate or misrepresents a product?

Some Other Responses:
L: Where is the wasting our time selection?
N: It is the consumer's responsibility to research and compare products and their return policies in case of hyped up expectations from advertising.
D: Stop wasting time and our money with stupid bills. Anyone with half a brain doesn't expect it to be like the professional photo.
C: Here's the thing. You can't legislate morality. I feel like we have to have a law for everything these days and if people want to be dishonest, they will be. There is no end to the number of laws we could create to keep people honest. I am just not certain it is a good path to go down. We are going to legislate ourselves to death!
S: ...but within reason.
K: common sense in a person should prevail. Waste of time.
E: What are the unintended consequences of this bill?
J: No. Just silly regulation - buyer beware and educated.
D: A reasonable person knows that marketing and advertising firms frequently show images of products (particularly food) that are usually exaggerated to show their good points - such as the burger images in this survey. I would consider supporting a bill where the image is a gross and visible misrepresentation of the product or service to tempt or persuade a person to purchase or acquire the product or service. Reasonable is defined as found here legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
J: Really? We are spending money on bills like this? If I see pictures of sad depressing hamburgers on my restaurant menu I'm going to be very upset.
D: All advertising is deceptive. People need to be smart enough on their own to not be taken in by it.

HB214:Do you support my bill which outlaws using Caller ID to misrepresent who the caller or texter is?

Some Other Responses:
D: This bill is a waste of time. It is too easy to spoof, most spoofers aren't in Utah, don't care if it's illegal, and it's practically untraceable without violating rights of the innocent.
C: with the same caveat as I gave on the other question. They will find a way around the law. Till we create a new one.. and another...
K: It's easy to press the end button on the phone. Waste of time.
E: Are there unintended consequences for this bill?
J: No. I can control who calls me with other products and services.
D: Assuming this bill is to have a legal way to stop and identify spammers and similar spoofing efforts to perpetrate fraud, then there is merit to this bill. There are federal laws that address this issue. The state bill should address more than the federal law. Telemarketers in the United States are required to transmit caller ID. This requirement went into effect in 2004. Courts have ruled that caller ID is admissible. Providers are required by FCC rules to offer "per-call" blocking of caller ID to t
J: While I don't like getting misleading caller id's, I'd like to know exactly why there needs to be a law against this. And how exactly is this going to be enforced?
D: Also consider stronger state sanctions for entities that violate Do Not Call registries and other telecommunication laws.
H: This will prohibit many local businesses who use this technology for legitimate purposes. Please discuss this with my husband before proceeding. Thanks!

Views: 162

Comment

You need to be a member of DavidLifferth.com ©2019 to add comments!

Join DavidLifferth.com ©2019

Interesting Links

© 2020   Created by David Lifferth.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service