• Concerned Citizens of Lakeland TN

Want proof Bunker is maxing out the credit card? Featured

One important note - when a bank calculates this figure they look at monthly income vs monthly expenses.  We will comparing the total debt vs the total income for the entire 2017 year based on the audited financials of Lakeland vs the competing cities of Arlington, Bartlett, Germantown and Collierville.  If someone tells you that is invalid they are incorrect - we are comparing the SUM of 12 months that actually occurred vs the total accrued debt, and the calculation is the same for all cities.  Rather than debate the meaning of the numbers the other side has a history of trying to pick out one small detail and say it invalidates the entire article.  They will also only have this discussion at this point in places that are entirely friendly to them where no one will oppose what they say or will be removed.  

  Collierville Arlington Germantown Bartlett Lakeland Lakeland w/40M more in debt**
Total Revenue 2017  $144,518,396.00  $57,024,134.00  $111,663,387.00  $158,735,622.00  $22,050,806.00 $26,339,406.00*
Total Debt 2017  $140,075.00  $14,524,351.00  $31,990,000.00  $50,267,270.00  $31,690,136.00  $71,690,136.00
Debt to Income Ratio 0.1% 25% 29% 32% 144% 272%

No matter what side of the debate you are on, this is YOUR money, this will impact YOUR HOME VALUE (your largest investment), this will impact you and your family.

Do you really believe a ratio TEN TIMES HIGHER than any other competing city is a good idea? Especially for something we DO NOT NEED RIGHT NOW?

Do not stick your head in the sand, do not believe simple answers like "they lie" from career politicians.

This is what happens when a city has NO DEBT LIMITS, a CAREER POLITICIAN RAISED BY A CAREER POLITICIAN realizes it, moves to your city and runs up YOUR CREDIT CARD.

He is using YOUR credit card to pay for his "accomplishments".

If you are still buying into "PFM said we could afford this" - you need to read this article.  Lakeland avoided a vendor selection process and chose them for a reason. 


One final thought about the schools and the CCL hates kids and schools non-sense.

Do you consider your self a conservative?

Wyatt Bunker's key strategy has been to demonize and try to bully, intimidate, harass, and character assassinate anyone that stands in his way.

The key weapon in all of this resolves around labeling opponents as anti-school, anti-child.

This is non-sense and is one of the oldest or most commonly used tactic by a politician.  Do something that benefits you as well as children, and if people oppose you use the the "think of the children argument".

What did Ronald Reagan and his son Michael Reagan think of this tactic?

In his 2015 syndicated article "Think Of The Children", Michael Reagan criticized the phrase's use by politicians. According to Reagan, politicians needed to stop using children as tools when arguing for favored governmental programs. He called the tactic an illogical argument, an act of desperation by those who felt they had a weaker case with reason-based arguments. Noting that it has been used by Democrats and Republicans alike in the United States, Reagan called the tactic "obvious political BS". [1]

What do others say about this tactic?

In their 2002 book, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, John Meany and Kate Shuster called the use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion. According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion. They provide an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?" Their assessment was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, with Borschke calling its use a rhetorical tactic.

Ethicist Jack Marshall described "Think of the children!" as a tactic used in an attempt to end discussion by invoking an unanswerable argument. According to Marshall, the strategy succeeds in preventing rational debate. He called its use an unethical manner of obfuscating debate, misdirecting empathy towards an object which may not have been the focus of the original argument. Marshall wrote that although the phrase's use may have a positive intention, it evokes irrationality when repeatedly used by both sides of a debate. He concluded that the phrase can transform the observance of regulations into an ethical quandary, cautioning society to avoid using "Think of the children!" as a final argument.

Its time to realize Bunker is doing all of this for himself - not for you.  With term limits he will certainly not be here when we are forced to raise taxes even further.  


*Note The revenue number assumes 80% or 523 of the 661 Lakeland Kids enrolled to Arlington High School transfer to Lakeland.  This would result in an additional  $4,288,600.00 of revenue (as well as a lot of additional costs that are outside the scope of this article)

** Some people will say but we are applying for a loan of 40 million and plan on spending less.  Did they spend the savings from the extra money saved on the Middle School or spend it on a field.  We are assuming they will do what they did in the past and find a way to spend it.  Why not? It isn't Bunker's money - its your money.  Why not use it to rack up more accomplishments for the resume?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Login to post comments