Jul 29, 2008

Another smear attack on Obama debunked


We have all seen the Barrack Obama smear emails making the rounds that falsely accuse him everything from being a Muslim terrorist to being a coke addict. I have only gotten a few examples of the vile garbage because I am obviously not a right-winger. But I got this one based on Obama’s successful overseas trip, and I was also surprised how quickly it was debunked and also how quickly Grampy McSame tried to use to swift boat Obama. Here’s the letter.

Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or workout in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier

Snopes is working overtime to debunk the constant smears against Obama, and this is just one more. According to Snopes, he did not even play basketball at Bagram or visit the “clamshell,” and he visited with troops from Illinois privately. The above photo is a picture of Obama “blowing off Soldiers.”

A new McSame false attack ad says Obama "made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras."

“McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation – that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time – is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier – without cameras or press – both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine,” according to Fact Check.

We can expect to see more of these as the McSame campaign and the Republicans get more desperate.

30 comments:

Brett said...

Well, gee, whom to believe here. The extremist liberal blogger or the liberal Washington Post?

Interesting that the writer of this blog claims that it's from a McCain "false attack ad".

It seems that one of Obama's campaign advisors and one of his spokesmen said that Obama decided not to go because he didn't want it to appear as a campaign event. But I'll let you read the story from the Washington Post yourself and decide who is telling the truth.

Brett
Conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Obama Campaign Cancels Visit to U.S. Service Members in Germany


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 26, 2008; Page A05

PARIS, July 25 -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama scrubbed a visit to see wounded U.S. servicemen and -women in Germany because of concerns raised by the Pentagon that the stop at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center could be seen as a political event, according to Obama's campaign.

Although the senator from Illinois visited troops in Afghanistan and Iraq on the first part of his overseas trip, those stops were part of an official congressional delegation and, therefore, deemed apolitical. The European tour, which included a speech in Berlin Thursday evening before 200,000, is funded by the campaign and as such is not official government business.

"Senator Obama had hoped to and had every intention of visiting our troops to express his appreciation and gratitude for their service to our country," retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, an Obama adviser, said in a statement. "We learned from the Pentagon [Wednesday] night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event . . . and decided instead not to go."


The Pentagon said on Friday that it did not prevent an Obama visit.

"Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously, as a sitting senator, he has an interest in that and can certainly visit in an official capacity," said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman for the Pentagon, who added that there are "restrictions on what you can do as a candidate for political office, that stems from trying to maintain political neutrality and not have the military involved in politics."

"The senator's staff was informed of the limits on what the military can do with respect to a political campaign and how we could support a senator's visit to Landstuhl and, quite frankly, I expected them to have the visit," Whitman said.

When Obama arrived in Germany on Thursday, a printed schedule said he would fly to the military hospital Friday. Asked at the time about the schedule, an Obama adviser said it was incorrect, that the stop had been considered but ultimately rejected.

Senior adviser Robert Gibbs said in a statement, "The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."

The campaign of Obama's GOP rival, Sen. John McCain, was quick to criticize the decision. "Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

Brett said...

I'd like to see some proof that McCain used this E-mail to "swift boat" Barack Hussein Obama.

I too received the E-mail that the writer of this blog decided to publish. However, I took it for what it appears to be. A fake E-mail. It could be true, but I doubt it and dismissed it for what I thought it was.

But I haven't seen McCain mention this E-mail in an interview, on an advertisement or even in lighthearted banter which he is known for.

This piece written by the blogger here seems to be lacking in facts on all aspects of the topic he chose. A little bit of research and perhaps some common sense, may have prevented him from making a fool of himself....once again.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

First, your characterization of me as an “extremist liberal blogger” and the Washington Post as liberal are inaccurate. Second, I’m not sure what you’re disputing because Fact Check said the McCain ad was false. The hospital visit was not canceled because Obama wanted to go to the gym or that he could not bring cameras into the visit. That is a lie any way you slice it. It’s kind of ironic that Bush used these kinds of dirty, false ads against McCain in 2000, and now McCain is doing the exact same thing to Obama. We really will get another Bush term if he is elected. But then again, I guess it’s no less ironic that a man who was tortured now approves of torture.

But back to the issue, you are correct when you say, “It seems that one of Obama's campaign advisors and one of his spokesmen said that Obama decided not to go because he didn't want it to appear as a campaign event.” That is true, so I don’t see what the disagreement is about.

I’m glad to see you dismissed the email as a fake. The problem is it isn’t a fake. None of it is true, but it’s not fake, as you see from the source I provided. The writer was not even there, and his accusations were completely false, but it was a real email. The problem is too many people believe these kinds of lies. I didn’t dismiss it because I “thought it was a fake,” which it wasn’t. I knew the claims were untrue, but I researched it to provide the documented proof they were untrue. The claims are not true and neither is McCain’s disgusting attack ad.

They should both apologize.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

Not relevant to this particular thread, but since Brett didn't responded to these posts in the "Good news for Michigan..." thread, I'll re-post here...

Brett said: “...Another option to taxing the politicians is to lower their pay...”
-As CG suggested, if we want competent people to serve in office, we need to appropriately compensate them...if you are dissatisfied with the legislators who make about $80,000/year...who do you think will be doing the job for $42,000/year?



“If the state cuts the funding by 20%...they'll cut their fat to be competitive with like schools from other states.”
-Typical right-wing claptrap...“cut the fat”...what “fat” would you suggest they cut? Your statement implies that you know of “fat” that has not been cut.
-As far as being competitive with “like schools from other states” - take a school like MSU for instance. For the 2000-2001 academic year tuition for MI residents was $5,432. MSU ranked third in the Big Ten behind Penn State and UM (among public universities-NW was not included). In 2005-2006, Penn State and UM were still ranked 1 and 2 while Michigan State had fallen to 5 - tuition was $8,172 (Illinois and Minnesota were ranked 3 and 4). Tuition at MSU was $90 more than Ohio State in 05-06. In 00-01, tuition at MSU was $1,043 more than OSU. Even the University of Iowa, which ranked 10th in both 00-01 and 05-06 saw huge increases in tuition - 18.5% in 2002 and 17.6% in 2003. Tuition at Iowa increased from $3,204 in 00-01 to $5,612 in 05-06...oh, I forgot, those states should just cut appropriations and then those schools will “cut the fat” too.




“...In addition to all of this, if they lower taxes, the revenue to the state will increase. It happens everytime it's tried.”
-No it doesn’t...only right wing nuts and supply-side economists like Arthur Laffer still believe that. Tax cuts do not increase revenue...Even conservatives like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and President’s Bush’s economic advisors - Greg Mankiw among others - have stated so.
"Very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues. When you cut taxes, you gain some revenue back. We don't know exactly what this is, but it's not small, but it's also not 70 percent or anything like that."
-Alan Greenspan in 2004

Greg Mankiw stated that an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves is a "snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure"

I didn't include this in my last post, but...
In 1999 the State collected 6.343 billion at the 4.4% income tax rate. In 2000, the state collected 6.313 billion at the 4.2% rate (and adjusted gross income was higher in 2000 than it was in 1999)

Also, revenue fell from 5.3 billion in 2002 to 5.2 billion in 2003 after the income tax rate was dropped from 4.1% to 4% (again adjusted gross income was higher in 2003 than in 2002)

Brett said...

Glad to see that you recognize the problem with Barack Hussein Obama. First he blamed the pentagon then he changed his position and said he decided against it. They just can't keep their stories straight.

From the liberal ABC news:


Obama Camp Pins Scrubbed Troop Visit on Pentagon
Obama Camp says Pentagon Tried to Limit Planned Troop Visit in Germany; Pentagon Pushes Back
By SUNLEN MILLER and LUIS MARTINEZ
July 25, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign staff and the Pentagon are putting forth different versions of what happened before Obama cancelled a planned Friday morning visit to the Ramstein air base in Germany.

The Obama campaign and the Pentagon are offering different versions of why Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., scrubbed his planned trip to visit U.S. troops in Germany.
(ABC News Photo Illustration)The Obama campaign has suggested the Pentagon interfered with its decision to visit U.S. troops at the Ramstein and Landstuhl U.S. military bases in Germany -- something the Pentagon denied Friday.

In the air flying from Berlin to Paris, Obama senior advisor Robert Gibbs spent 45 minutes speaking to the press over the course of three media availabilities in an attempt to clarify what appeared to be dueling reasons for cancelling the trip.

German magazine Der Spiegel published an article Thursday saying Obama's planned trip to visit troops stations in Germany, including injured troops from Iraq, had been cancelled.

Obama senior advisor Robert Gibbs initially said the senator had decided to cancel visit out of concern that the campaign-funded trip might be seen as inappropriate. But after harsh criticism of that decision from Sen. John McCain's campaign, another Obama adviser later told ABC News that the decision was made only after the Pentagon advised the campaign that the trip would be viewed as a campaign stop.

Related
Obama Scrubs Visit to Troops in GermanyObama Draws 200,000+ in BerlinThe Note: 'Veepstakes' Heat Up"The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign," Gibbs initially told ABC News Thursday in a statement.

A staffer from McCain's campaign quickly slammed Obama over his decision to cancel the visit.

"Barack Obama is wrong," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers Thursday. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."

Then, Obama adviser Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (Ret.), who liaised with the Pentagon on the logistics of Obama's trip to Afghanistan, Iraq and Europe, later elaborated on why Obama decided to scratch the planned visit.


"We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event," Gration said Thursday. "Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go."

Clearly smarting from criticism over the cancelled visit, the Obama campaign again attempted to clarify its reasons for cancelling the trip Friday.

"The statement that I sent out and the statement that General Gration sent out are consistent in that what General Gration learned from the Pentagon, that the trip to Ramstein and Landstuhl will be viewed as a campaign stop," Gibbs said on the plane Friday morning. "The decision that Senator Obama made with that information was that we would not put our warriors in the position of being involved in a campaign stop. Therefore he made the decision not to make the stop."

Brett said...

Does the soldier exist? Prove it.
Has McCain commented on the E-mail specifically? Prove it.

You are an extremist liberal blogger and the Washington Post is liberal. To deny either only shows that you can't face the truth. Your writing, such as it is, proves beyond any doubt that you're an extremist liberal.

I stand by my characterization of both you and the Post. If that bothers you, well, I'll just lose all kinds of sleep worrying about what you think.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

I provided you the links that debunked both the false attack email and the McCain false attack ad. It’s very clear, as was Sen. Obama’s consistent position on why he canceled the visit.

The Truth Hurts said...

Wonder were we heard and saw these tactics before:

OPINION


DOW JONES REPRINTS


This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
www.djreprints.com.

• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.

The Far Left's War on Direct Democracy
By JOHN FUND
July 26, 2008; Page A9

A total of 24 states allow voters to change laws on their own by collecting signatures and putting initiatives on the ballot. It's healthy that the entrenched political class should face some real legislative competition from initiative-toting citizens. Unfortunately, some special interests have declared war on the initiative process, using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery.


David G. Klein
The initiative is a reform born out of the Progressive Era, when there was general agreement that powerful interests had too much influence over legislators. It was adopted by most states in the Midwest and West, including Ohio and California. It was largely rejected by Eastern states, which were dominated by political machines, and in the South, where Jim Crow legislators feared giving more power to ordinary people.

But more power to ordinary people remains unpopular in some quarters, and nothing illustrates the war on the initiative more than the reaction to Ward Connerly's measures to ban racial quotas and preferences. The former University of California regent has convinced three liberal states -- California, Washington and Michigan -- to approve race-neutral government policies in public hiring, contracting and university admissions. He also prodded Florida lawmakers into passing such a law. This year his American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) aimed to make the ballot in five more states. But thanks to strong-arm tactics, the initiative has only made the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.

"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place," says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). "That's the only way we're going to win." Her group's name certainly describes the tactics that are being used to thwart Mr. Connerly.

Aggressive legal challenges have bordered on the absurd, going so far as to claim that a blank line on one petition was a "duplicate" of another blank line on another petition and thus evidence of fraud. In Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan completely rewrote the initiative's ballot summary to portray it in a negative light. By the time courts ruled she had overstepped her authority, there wasn't enough time to collect sufficient signatures.

Those who did circulate petitions faced bizarre obstacles. In Kansas City, a petitioner was arrested for collecting signatures outside of a public library. Officials finally allowed petitioners a table inside the library but forbade them to talk. In Nebraska, a group in favor of racial preferences ran a radio ad that warned that those who signed the "deceptive" petition "could be at risk for identity theft, robbery, and much worse."

Mr. Connerly says that it's ironic that those who claim to believe in "people power" want to keep people from voting on his proposal: "Their tactics challenge the legitimacy of our system."

He's not alone. Liberal columnist Anne Denogean of the Tucson Citizen opposes the Connerly initiative, but last month she wrote that BAMN "is showing a disgusting lack of respect for the democratic process and the right of all Arizonans to participate in it." She detailed how members of this organization harass petitioners and film people who sign the petition, while telling them they are backing a racist measure.

The police had to be called when BAMN blocked the entrance of a Phoenix office where circulators had to deliver their petitions. "BAMN's tactics," she concluded, "resemble those used by anti-abortion activists to prevent women from entering abortion clinics."

But BAMN proudly posts videos on its success in scaring away voters, or convincing circulators to hand over their petitions to its shock troops. "If you give me your signatures, we'll leave you alone," says a BAMN volunteer on one tape to someone who's earning money by circulating several different petitions.

What about voters' rights to sign ACRI's petitions? BAMN organizer Monica Smith equates race-neutral laws with Jim-Crow segregation laws and slavery. She told Tuscon columnist Denogean that voters are simply being educated that ACRI is "trying to end affirmative action . . . We let them know it's up on the KKK's Web site." Mr. Connerly has repudiated any support from racists.

Other opponents of Mr. Connerly deplore the blocking and name-calling. Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema told me that initiatives have been used to pass ideas such as campaign finance and redistricting reform often opposed by entrenched legislators. "People have a right to sign a petition, hear the arguments and then vote," she says. Ms. Sinema thinks Arizonans can be persuaded to vote down ACRI's measure, much as they voted down a ban on gay marriage in 2006.

The war against citizen initiatives has other fronts. This year in Michigan, taxpayer groups tried to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon after he pushed through a 12% increase in the state income tax. But petitioners collecting the necessary 8,724 signatures in his suburban Detroit district were set upon. In Redford, police union members held a rally backing Mr. Dillon and would alert blockers to the location of recall petitioners. Outsiders would then surround petitioners and potential signers, using threatening language.

Mr. Dillon denied organizing such activity. Then it was revealed two of the harassers were state employees working directly for him. Another "voter educator" hired by the state's Democratic Party had been convicted of armed robbery. After 2,000 signatures were thrown out on technical grounds, the recall effort fell 700 signatures short.

Ever since voters in virtually every state with direct democracy passed term limits in the 1990s, state legislators have been hostile to the process. Now Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Colorado have all passed legislation to prohibit people from out-of-state from circulating a petition, and also to ban payment to circulators on a per-signature basis.

To his credit, Colorado's Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed such curbs. In March, a Sixth Circuit federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that an Ohio law barring per-signature payment violated the First Amendment. Similarly, a Ninth Circuit panel just voted unanimously to strike down Arizona's residency law for circulators.

Some judges think the "blocking" of signature gatherers has gone too far. In 2006, Nevada Judge Sally Loehrers decreed a "civility zone" that barred opposing sides from coming within arms' length of each other at petition signing sites. "The blockers were off the streets within two days," says Paul Jacob, the head of Citizens in Charge, which promotes the initiative process.

Last year, Mr. Jacob was charged with conspiracy to defraud the state of Oklahoma in a bizarre prosecution that claimed he brought in out-of-state signature gatherers in violation of the state's residency requirement. Yet local public sector unions opposed to Mr. Jacob hired out-of-state outfits such as the Voter Education Project, an AFL-CIO offshoot that specializes in harassing signature drives.

Representative government will remain the enduring feature of American democracy, but the initiative process is a valuable safety valve. So long as elected officials gerrymander their districts and otherwise make it nearly impossible for voters to oust them, direct lawmaking will be popular. That's why attempts to arbitrarily curb the initiative, or to intimidate people from exercising their right to participate, must be resisted. It's a civil liberties issue that should unite people of good will on both the right and left.

The Truth hurts said...

Southwestwashtenaw

Boy or boy your theory was blown out of the water this year.

You say "Greg Mankiw stated that an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves is a "snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure"

I didn't include this in my last post, but...
In 1999 the State collected 6.343 billion at the 4.4% income tax rate. In 2000, the state collected 6.313 billion at the 4.2% rate (and adjusted gross income was higher in 2000 than it was in 1999)

Also, revenue fell from 5.3 billion in 2002 to 5.2 billion in 2003 after the income tax rate was dropped from 4.1% to 4% (again adjusted gross income was higher in 2003 than in 2002)"

But then this year states taxes were increased by 12% and tax revenue is falling faster than a liberal sticking to the facts.

See the following:

" The result is that once again lawmakers and the governor are facing off over what to cut. Revenues are $472 million short of the forecasts made in January, and next year's budget is already $400 million in deficit"

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080603/OPINION01/806030309

Now what do you have to say?

Communications guru said...

I don’t see the relevance to this post, nor did I see that the Michigan group or any other group mentioned in the article did anything illegal. It was nice, though, to see Michigan described as a liberal state. I knew there was a reason I love this state so much. I would suggest that if you want to print entire articles like that you start your own blog. I can show you how if you would like.

Communications guru said...

I really don’t want to answer for Southwestwashtenaw because he, or she, has provided some excellent commentary and points backed up by lots of research. What you provided was a June 3 editorial that is clearly outdated. You must not be aware of this, but the state legislature has passed all of the budgets for the upcoming budget year that begins Oct. 1 with the exception of the Transportation budget. That’s just being held up because Alan Cropsey is playing politics and carrying water for a Michigan billionaire over the location of the new Detroit to Windsor Bridge.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

-I'm not sure what "theory" of mine you are referring to...please explain.

-Actual state revenue may in fact not match the forecast - that is not uncommon - it could even happen when times are good...the revenue forecast is basically just an educated guess at what revenues will be. If revenues are less than projections, changes to the budget have to be made. Municipalities, for example, make these corrections all of the time - often with a 6 month budget review/adjustment, etc.

-It appears that the item you cited is talking about projected revenue from all sources, not just income tax revenue...but I'm sure you knew that. Projections have to be used (and adjusted accordingly) unless you know exactly how much the state will collect in income taxes, sales taxes, vehicle registration fees, how many lottery tickets will be sold, etc. for the rest of 2008 and for 2009...

Brett stated "if they lower taxes, the revenue to the state will increase. It happens everytime it's tried.”
-I pointed out that the income tax was cut and income tax revenue declined. If, for example, you look at total state revenue for 1999-2000, it was 23.9 billion. In 2000-2001 it was 23.4 billion....tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

-If you have a link to the current state income tax revenues please post the link. I perused the state website and according to the House Fiscal Agency for the second quarter of the fiscal year 06-07, income tax revenue was 1.079 billion. For the second quarter of 07-08, income tax revenue was 1.322 billion.

-While we're at it, you never responded to the following from a previous thread...

the truth hurts said: "...and since Jenny our DEMOCRAT Senator has taken over MI has lost 490,000 jobs."

Could you provide a source for that number? I checked out MI.gov and looked at the seasonly adjusted, total nonfarm number of employed from Jan. 2000-June 2008 and found the following numbers:

When Granholm became gov. in Jan 2003 the total number employed was 4,453,100. In June 2008, the number employed was 4,221,500. According to that data, since Granholm became governor the number of employed in MI has fallen by 231,600.

From Jan. 2000-Jan.2003 (The last 3 years of the Engler admin. with a Republican controlled state house and senate and cuts to the state income tax and SBT) the number of employed fell from 4,655,500 to 4,453,100 or a total drop in the number of employed of 201,900.

-How could that be? I though that tax cuts always lead to more revenue, more jobs, prosperity, rainbows, free lunches, world peace, etc.

The truth hurts said...

Your theory - raise taxes and more money comes in WRONG

My theory - lower taxes and more taxes come in RIGHT

Now to CG

Glad you think that being labeled as a liberal state is great, becasue that is why we are the laughing stock of the rest of the nation. MI Proves the liberalism ia a total failure.

Oh yeah how about this guys:

As Michigan’s unemployment rate recently climbed to 8.5 percent, budget officials estimated the state treasury will collect nearly $400 million less next year than what had been projected just a few months ago, despite the huge new business and income taxes the Legislature imposed in late 2007.

(Click to enlarge)


Those tax hikes were expected to bring the treasury an additional $1.4 billion. The falling revenue projections prove the obvious: When government plots to soak the taxpayer, many taxpayers don’t wait around to get wet. They leave the high-tax jurisdiction, and new businesses never locate there in the first place.

Nevertheless, Michigan politicians pretend this doesn’t happen — even though 30,500 Michiganders left the state last year — and that there are no consequences to making Michigan’s tax and regulatory climates ever more burdensome. Perhaps this "hostage-holding" mentality accounts for the disconnect between the actions of the current Legislature and the real economy


Man facts really hurt don't they

Communications guru said...

Who says Michigan is the “laughing stock of the rest of the nation?” I know Michigan Republicans cheer every piece of bad news simply because they want the House and governor’s mansion back. The country is in a recession, so the entire country is hurting. I don’t think anyone is laughing.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

-What "facts" did you present? That revenue projections were incorrect? Are you suggesting that 30,500 (I will assume that number is correct) left the state last year because of tax increases? I'm sure the massive problems in the auto industry (which have basically nothing to do with Michigan's tax rates/policies) and the direct impact that those job losses, etc. have had on other industries/small businesses had nothing to do with people leaving the state.
-Again, if you have a link to the current state income tax revenue, total revenue, etc. that shows that revenue has declined from last year, please post it.

-In just quickly checking MI.gov, I was able to find info from the House Fiscal Agency that shows that income tax revenue increased from the second quarter of 06-07 (before the tax increase) to the second quarter of 07-08 (after the tax increase) by $243 million (a 22.5% increase). From 06-07 to 07-08, the YTD change is a 15% increase...man facts really hurt don't they?
-For 07-08, second quarter total revenue is 424.9 million higher than the second quarter of 06-07. Total revenue collections YTD are up 625.7 million (up 6.6%)...man facts really hurt don't they?

-YTD, from 06-07 to 07-08 there has been $80 billion decline in revenue from the lottery, casino wagering, real estate transfer tax, tobacco tax, and state education tax.

-The projected revenue increases were wrong for this year and are now apparently projected to be wrong for next year as well ...but that doesn't mean that revenue hasn't increased...and this is not entirely surprising as some predicted that the budget deal made in the fall of 07 would not provide sufficient revenue.

-According to a 2006 CRC report, Michigan ranks 25th in per capita taxes. Alaska, California, Minnesota, Illinois, Wyoming, Ohio, Maine, Kansas, Nevada (just to name a few) all rank higher.
-For corporate taxes, New York, New Jersey, Alaska, California, New Hampshire (among others) all rank higher...and yet those on the right often state that Michigan is in a "one-state recession" and they often cite our tax rates/policies as the major reason (as if taxes are the only consideration individuals and businesses make when choosing where to live/operate a business). If what you imply is correct - that higher taxes leads people to leave a state and businesses will not locate there - why have states with higher overall and corporate taxes not experienced the same (or greater) difficulties that Michigan has? My guess is that those states are not as reliant on one major industry like Michigan has been.

Again...the truth hurts said: "...and since Jenny our DEMOCRAT Senator has taken over MI has lost 490,000 jobs."

Could you provide a source for that number? I checked out MI.gov and looked at the seasonly adjusted, total nonfarm number of employed from Jan. 2000-June 2008 and found the following numbers:

When Granholm became gov. in Jan 2003 the total number employed was 4,453,100. In June 2008, the number employed was 4,221,500. According to that data, since Granholm became governor the number of employed in MI has fallen by 231,600.

From Jan. 2000-Jan.2003 (The last 3 years of the Engler admin. with a Republican controlled state house and senate and cuts to the state income tax and SBT) the number of employed fell from 4,655,500 to 4,453,100 or a total drop in the number of employed of 201,900.

-How could that be? I though that tax cuts always lead to more revenue, more jobs, prosperity, rainbows, free lunches, world peace, etc.

Brett said...

Michigan's economic growth news worsens
State's economic indicators drop; status quo promises more decline
Michael D. LaFaive and Michael Hicks
The Great Lakes State received bad news last week. Its economic performance -- as measured by state gross domestic product or total economic output statistics -- declined for the second consecutive year.

Seeds of reform are often planted during times of crisis, but the correct reforms are not being advanced. While the problems of the Big Three automakers make a big impact, other big manufacturing states like Ohio are still doing better than Michigan.

The $1.4 billion tax increase, along with a likely electricity rate hike and a massive regulatory expansion on groundwater use, will harm Michigan's economy by imposing higher costs and chasing more people from the state. So far, no amount of cheerleading from Lansing, new subsidies or discriminatory "economic development" programs have fixed our hostile business climate.

From 2006 to 2007, Michigan's economy contracted by 1.2 percent, besting only Delaware, which declined by 1.6 percent. Michigan's nominal per-capita gross domestic product ranking among the states now stands at 41st, down two spots from this time last year and down from an all-time high of 16th in 1999.

This data comes just months after the federal government reported that the income of Michigan residents stands 9.1 percent below the national average -- even worse than during the Great Depression. The implications of our effective one-state recession may be profound.

People are the critical key for economic growth. They create, consume, invest, produce and pay taxes that support vital functions of government.

But Michigan's poor economy is chasing away our human resources. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Michigan lost 30,500 residents and was only one of two states to lose net population from July 2006 to July 2007. Based on our newest research, we believe the problem will get worse.

Our research in an upcoming study demonstrates that, on average, from 2000 through 2006, Americans tended to move to states with lower personal tax burdens, more flexible labor laws, abundant sunshine and higher expected future incomes. Does that sound like Michigan?

Ominously, these numbers were calculated before the state raised the personal income tax 11.5 percent. Our model shows that for every 10 percent increase in the average personal tax burden, about 1,900 people a year subsequently leave their state of residence. Our model also shows that more than 500 people move to another state for every 5 additional days of sunshine it boasts over the departure state.

These moves have a real impact on the future. The Niles Public Schools superintendent recently told the Niles Star that enrollment is down approximately 42 students this year, and most of them moved out of state.

The Senate Fiscal Agency projects that the number of school-age children in Michigan will decline by 25,000 during the next year.

The Legislature's response has been to look to more economic development programs, such as refundable tax credits for movie makers.

The state is now attracting more film productions. But the question is whether all of the state's economic policies will create enough jobs across various industries. So far, they haven't.

In 1999, Gov. John Engler created the Michigan Economic Development Corp., claiming it would help create and keep good jobs in Michigan. The state's jobs creation department has since presided over one of the worst periods of economic decline in Michigan history.

Moreover, it has done so while the rest of the nation enjoyed several years of robust growth. From 1999 through 2007, the United States averaged 2.5 percent inflation-adjusted gross domestic product growth. By contrast, Michigan shrunk by one-tenth of a percentage point.

Yes, the restructuring of the Big Three automakers is hitting Michigan harder than other states. But why are investors and job providers increasingly avoiding Michigan?

Perhaps they view Michigan as a bad place to do business because of its toxic tax, regulatory and labor climates.

Until those are fixed, all the subsidies and "Pure Michigan" advertising campaigns in the world won't save us.

Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, while Michael Hicks is director of the Bureau of Business Research at Ball State University in Indiana. Mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com.

Communications guru said...

Perhaps this entire piece from the conservative think tank the Mackinac Center might go better on your “blog.” Generally, when people comment on a post they use their own words.

Brett said...

Definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. The United States has not had even one quarter of negative growth with the exception of right after the attacks on September 11, 2001 and then it was just one quarter, not two. Therefore, the United States of America has not and is not in a recession.

The state of Michigan just suffered it's second straight YEAR of negative growth, as the copy of the article provided in my last post shows.

There is only one thing that the liberals in this state cannot do to help the state from losing its' citizens. They cannot control the sunshine.

All of the other things listed in that article can be done to stave off the one state recession. These liberals might want to start by coming up with an idea, as they have, and then doing the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, the only thing that liberals seem to know how to do is to create another program, spending more money on that program, which is doomed to failure but at least they've collected what little money there is left in this state.

They've taxed us and spent us into a recession that has now lasted for two years. So I stand by my position stated earlier. Lower taxes, decrease spending by 20%.

People make a country strong. Government saps the people of their resources and drags them down with their failed policies.

The country thrived for seven years economically. The country is in a slowdown currently, but not a recession. The state is in a recession for two years with no prospects of improvement until Government steps out of the way and let's people do what they do best. LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES FREE FROM GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Brett said...

It's your blog. You're free to remove the post if you don't like it.

Unlike you, I don't read just one position on any subject. I know that you dismiss things that you consider written by a conservative. However, I look at the Conservative side and the arguments against and form my own opinions. I don't follow in lockstep with what I'm told.

It's interesting that I copied one article from a liberal publication showing two of Barack Hussein Obama's people saying he chose not to because he didn't want it to appear as a campaign event and you thought it was great.

But then I show another article by a liberal publication showing that Barack Hussein Obama originally blamed the Pentagon for his missed trip to the wounded soldiers and you dismiss it and claim that Obama's position has been consistent.

You prove yourself inconsistent and intolerable of competing stories (both liberal) that show two sides of Barack Hussein Obama.

The facts, once again, don't back up your statements. Even facts presented by the left of center media.

When I copy an article that doesn't fit your little wishes and hopes, you then tell me that it really doesn't belong here. If you don't like it, or can't face the facts, remove it.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

Of course you should read/listen to "both sides"...I do as well...I just wouldn't use anything by a propaganda-mill like the Mackinac Center to support any position I take. Anyone with half a brain can figure what the Mackinac Center will reveal in just about any "report" or "study" they publish. Their purpose (along with other right wing/conservative and libertarian think tanks and the few liberal think tanks that exist) is not to provide objective analysis on any issue, but to promote an ideology.

-Hmmm...Mackinac Center research suggests that Michigan should lower taxes and have "more flexible labor laws (RTW) in order to attract people/businesses...did you actually have to read the article/report to figure out that they would suggest something like this? Mackinac Center research always comes to the conclusion that taxes should be lowered, unions should be weakened, there should be fewer regulations, etc.

I wonder how they would explain Michigan's strong economy in the 1990s when the state income tax rate and main business tax was higher than it is today...and we still had fewer sunny days than southern and western states? It probably had nothing to do with the Big Three having a greater market share and selling tons of profitable trucks and SUVs.

Since you haven't addressed the specifics, I'll post this yet again...

Brett said: “...Another option to taxing the politicians is to lower their pay...”
-As CG suggested, if we want competent people to serve in office, we need to appropriately compensate them...if you are dissatisfied with the legislators who make about $80,000/year...who do you think will be doing the job for $42,000/year?



“If the state cuts the funding by 20%...they'll cut their fat to be competitive with like schools from other states.”
-Typical right-wing claptrap...“cut the fat”...what “fat” would you suggest they cut? Your statement implies that you know of “fat” that has not been cut.
-As far as being competitive with “like schools from other states” - take a school like MSU for instance. For the 2000-2001 academic year tuition for MI residents was $5,432. MSU ranked third in the Big Ten behind Penn State and UM (among public universities-NW was not included). In 2005-2006, Penn State and UM were still ranked 1 and 2 while Michigan State had fallen to 5 - tuition was $8,172 (Illinois and Minnesota were ranked 3 and 4). Tuition at MSU was $90 more than Ohio State in 05-06. In 00-01, tuition at MSU was $1,043 more than OSU. Even the University of Iowa, which ranked 10th in both 00-01 and 05-06 saw huge increases in tuition - 18.5% in 2002 and 17.6% in 2003. Tuition at Iowa increased from $3,204 in 00-01 to $5,612 in 05-06...oh, I forgot, those states should just cut appropriations and then those schools will “cut the fat” too.




“...In addition to all of this, if they lower taxes, the revenue to the state will increase. It happens everytime it's tried.”
-No it doesn’t...only right wing nuts and supply-side economists like Arthur Laffer still believe that. Tax cuts do not increase revenue...Even conservatives like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and President’s Bush’s economic advisors - Greg Mankiw among others - have stated so.
"Very few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues. When you cut taxes, you gain some revenue back. We don't know exactly what this is, but it's not small, but it's also not 70 percent or anything like that."
-Alan Greenspan in 2004

Greg Mankiw stated that an economist who says that tax cuts pay for themselves is a "snake oil salesman who is trying to sell a miracle cure"

I didn't include this in my last post, but...
In 1999 the State collected 6.343 billion at the 4.4% income tax rate. In 2000, the state collected 6.313 billion at the 4.2% rate (and adjusted gross income was higher in 2000 than it was in 1999)

Also, revenue fell from 5.3 billion in 2002 to 5.2 billion in 2003 after the income tax rate was dropped from 4.1% to 4% (again adjusted gross income was higher in 2003 than in 2002)

Brett said...

Being a right wing think tank doesn't make them wrong. I see their ideas as workable. Right to work states are doing better.

There is nothing that anyone can do about the amount of sunshine in a state, although I'm sure that the liberals think they can, just as they think they can stop global warming.

One problem with that. Global warming hasn't happened since 1998.

I have addressed your questions in previous posts. There is something wrong with a system that charges people tuition that don't have children in college. Prior to the tax increase, I said that we should cut spending across the board by 10%. They've now "raised 1$1.4 billion" in taxe. Cut spending by 20%. I'm sick and tired of our state going into tough economic times and the so-called fix is put on the backs of the people while the representatives in government decide that they'll create more programs.

They raised taxes causing people to tighten their budgets, yet the state increased their spending. This is wrong.

Education is failing and as "the truth hurts" said, we're losing citizens. As the think tank said with references, we've lost 30,500 people in this state. Cut funding for education.

We've always thrown money at problems in this state. Still we're in a 2 YEAR ONE STATE RECESSION.

Cut spending 20%. If something is that important to you, then you'll have to justify the expense by eliminating other things.

We can't afford the Mercedes on a Pinto income.

You sound remarkably like CG. When you dismiss one side just because they are right wing, then you'll have to dismiss the left wing as well.

Finally, $80,000 income representation is incompetent. They are a large part of the problem. Lower their pay to the median income. If this means we lose the "elite" so be it. It's time real people were running things rather than these professional morons anyway.

I'm about one fingernail away from suggesting we need a revolution to replace all politicians.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

SouthwestWashtenaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SouthwestWashtenaw said...

Oops...I didn't mean to delete that...here it is again...

Brett said..."Being a right wing think tank doesn't make them wrong."
-Being a right wing think tank basically makes them a propaganda mill...people should be suspicious of the policy proposals of any think tank that is committed to a particular ideology...the Mackinac Center is not objective in their analysis of basically any subject, but they are often cited as if their proposals are based on objectivity.

-I would guess that many people see the Mackinac Center (or any think tank for that matter) and assume that because a report is well written, the author has academic credentials, and it is cited in the media, etc. that the conclusions are unbiased.

-I don't care if you or anyone else agrees with the Mackinac Center on any particular issue, but they and their supporters should be open and honest about what they are trying to accomplish.

-I don't really care to get into the global warming debate, but I will make a quick comment since you brought it up...global warming itself is not really debated. The basic argument from most "global warming naysayers" is basically that human activity is not a major cause of global warming. I do find it interesting that some of people who claim that science doesn't support the notion of global warming caused by human activity are some of the same people who want our schools to teach things like intelligent design or creationism (which aren't science) in science classes...Some of these people can't recognize basic, well-established science and yet we are supposed to believe that they are right about the science of global warming?


Brett said..."I have addressed your questions in previous posts."
-Not really...For example I asked what “fat” would you suggest they (universities) cut? Your statement implies that you know of “fat” that has not been cut.
-Where did you explain what you want universities to cut...you simply say cut the budget by 20%...If you believe that is responsible, explain precisely where those cuts will come from. How will that impact services, tuition, etc.? How will that result in more people attending/graduating from college? etc.
-You say "There is something wrong with a system that charges people tuition that don't have children in college."...and you call legislators "morons"? Tuition is the fee you pay to take a class/receive instruction at a university/college...If you (or a person who you are financially supporting) is not taking a class, you are not charged tuition. Tax dollars support our public colleges and universities because the State Constitution requires that the state financially support them and the overwhelming majority of people in this state see the value in supporting such institutions.
-If you disagree, you should start a petition drive to change the State Constitution so it prohibits tax dollars being spent on public universities (in essence, turn them all into private schools)...I think you would be quite successful in such an effort (That would be sarcasm)

-If the state cuts revenue sharing by 20%, what impact will that have on local communities esp. for emergency services/police protection? Over the last 8 years or so as revenue sharing has been cut to help balance the budget, the costs have simply been passed on to local communities...the state cuts your income taxes but you may pay more in local taxes to fund the police force (or you cut police services).
-Which prisons will you close and/or which criminals will you release from prison if you cut 20% out of the Department of Corrections budget?

Brett said..."I'm sick and tired of our state going into tough economic times and the so-called fix is put on the backs of the people while the representatives in government decide that they'll create more programs."
-The budget problems the state faces now have largely been self-inflicted. Term-limited state legislators (led by the Republican majority in both state houses at the time) in the late 1990s cut taxes when times were good without addressing the long-term impact on the budget, and they then proceeded to balance budgets using "gimmicks" pushing the problems to future legislators. Had the income tax rate remained at 4.4% over the past 8 years and if Michigan had sentencing policies similar to neighboring states, the budget problems the state has been facing recently would probably not have materialized.
-And what did that tax cut get the citizens of this state? Once the income tax rate was dropped from 4.4% to 3.9% a tax filer with a $50,000 taxable income paid $250 less/year...of course if you had kids at a school like MSU your tuition in some of those years increased by about $1,000 as did room and board...in order to maintain police services, you may be paying higher local taxes, and our infrastructure is crumbling,etc.

-I also asked...if you are dissatisfied with the legislators who make about $80,000/year...who do you think will be doing the job for $42,000/year?
-Your response basically results in name-calling..."Finally, $80,000 income representation is incompetent. They are a large part of the problem. Lower their pay to the median income. If this means we lose the "elite" so be it. It's time real people were running things rather than these professional morons anyway. "
-Most of our legislators I believe are quite intelligent, competent people...I think they lack political will or are more committed to their political party or a particular ideology than to the overall best long-term interests of the state...but they are not "morons" as you suggest. If you lower salaries as you suggest and expect competent people to work full-time as legislators I think you are delusional.

"They raised taxes causing people to tighten their budgets, yet the state increased their spending. This is wrong."
-In 2000 the state collected just over 9 cents out of every dollar of personal income. Today the state collects about 8 cents out of each dollar.

"Education is failing...Cut funding for education."
-Please be specific.

You sound remarkably like CG. When you dismiss one side just because they are right wing, then you'll have to dismiss the left wing as well.
-I don't "dismiss one side just because they are right wing"...I will dismiss the suggestions of people/groups, etc. if those people are incompetent, or if they are unwilling or unable to provide actual evidence to support their extreme (or vague) positions on issues, or if they are propagandists and are committed more to ideology than to practical solutions, etc.


"I'm about one fingernail away from suggesting we need a revolution to replace all politicians."
-Yikes...you should probably seek some professional help if you really feel that way.

Brett said...

Again, if you don't like the think tank, then refute their facts. One example. They took their information regarding the number of people leaving the state from the 2000 census. Being a think tank doesn't automatically make that figure wrong. You make your position weaker when you dismiss facts just because they came from a think tank that you call right wing.

You "guess" that people believe it because it's well written or because it's printed in the press? I'd suggest that you prove that before citing it as a reason for dissing a think tank.

I believe they are open and honest about what they want. If they weren't and they only cited facts without giving alternatives that you complain about because they are from the "right' you'd have a reason to complain about them being from the "right".

Science has not proven man made global warming. Al Gore and his ilk claim a consensus, but science is not driven by consensus. It's driven by provable fact. FACT: The temperature of the earth has not climbed since 1998. FACT: The temperature cooled just in the past year. These undisputed facts. Man made global warming is not a proven fact.

You asked what "fat" I'd trim from education. It didn't apply to what I had said earlier. First of all, I didn't say "fat in education". I said cut the state budget 20% across the board. You chose to focus on education and ignore the rest of the state budget. Second, I don't particularly care about any one aspect of the budget. I'm for cutting it all by 20%. My thoughts were 10% before the tax increase. It's now 20% because the liberals (along with just three Republicans) decided to put the burden on the citizens paycheck while showing us that the states "paycheck" is more important than the people.

If you truly want to share the pain, cut spending by 20% across the board.

Since you chose to call me a moron, I guess it's okay for me to return the favor especially in light of what you said about people not paying for education if they aren't, or their family that they may be responsible for is not attending, then to turn around and say that tax dollars support public colleges and universities. Those tax dollars come from the people of this state and those that visit here and spend money. The state doesn't pay for squat. The people pay. It's just the state that writes the check after they've confiscated our money.

That was a neat little trick inserting term limits into the discussion. So I'll bite on this one.

The people voted for term limits. I am not one of them that voted for it. I thought it was a good idea, but not ideal. I also didn't vote against it. I chose to leave it blank because I could go either way with it. Once the decsion was made however, the people got what they wanted. Leave it alone. For all the trouble it's caused, it's accomplished one thing that I consider very appealing. Diane Byrum is no longer in government (the downside is she is now in charge of trying to change the constitution so that there is no more competition from Republicans). The other elected officials will change over as well over time.

This has stopped people from getting a lock on power and trying to get things done for themselves rather than for the people.

An example I use often is my divorce. I have children. They don't want to live with their mother. One of those children is a teenager. This means that he's more interested in getting his way. So he tries to play his mother off of me. I refuse to play that game. So if he comes to stay with me, an agreement will be struck that says that he will remain with me for 18 months before getting mad at me and wanting to go back with his mother. If he violates that agreement, he will never be allowed to live with me again.

You don't vote for term limits, find it doesn't work for one side (especially since everyone was warned of that) so they want to switch it back.

Term limits made things difficult. It did not make it unworkable. Those against term limits should find other ways to govern efficiently for ALL citizens rather than whining about how they've been screwed because of term limits.

I completely disagree with you about taxes. Cut taxes, cut spending. Tax cuts work each time they are tried because they free the people to work, to be entrepreneurs, to better themselves. It puts more money into the economy. The only problem with tax cuts is that the politicians cannot bring themselves to cut spending. If you quit giving people an excuse for not working, they will work. Like it or not, it's true and been proven by Reagan and Bush the Younger. JFK espoused this in the early days of his presidency. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't like to give up their power by returning money to those that they confiscated it from. The funny thing is that if they ever learn from history, they would actually have more money to spend if they were just to start being and acting responsibly.

You believe our legislators are intelligent. Good for you. I wonder if you'd say the same thing when the Republicans hold the House, Senate and Governorship. I suspect you wouldn't say that. If that were the case, which I also believe you alluded to earlier in this when you tried to lay the fault at the feet of the Republicans in the 90's, you'd also think they were intelligent.

You also say that you think they lack political will or are more committed to party ideology or political party. Yet, in your first paragraph, you said that the Mackinac Center is a right wing think tank that basically makes them a propoganda mill. Here's the quote: "Being a right wing think tank basically makes them a propaganda mill...people should be suspicious of the policy proposals of any think tank that is committed to a particular ideology...the Mackinac Center is not objective in their analysis of basically any subject, but they are often cited as if their proposals are based on objectivity."

So now you have just contradicted yourself. A right wing think tank is not objective due to their ideology, but you think that a politician is intelligent despite not having the political will, or
being too aligned with their political party or ideology.

This disproves your next statement that you don't dismiss one side because they are right wing. You're not being honest in your own words. But nice try anyway.

Please show me your qualifications for recommending professional help.

Interesting little sidenote here. The word verification that I have to fill out to send this is ULPAY. Sounds an awful lot like "you'll pay". That shouldn't surprise me when speaking to extremist liberals on an extremist liberal website.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

Sorry, we are in a recession, David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's in New York, said “The United States is in a recession but the downturn is expected to be mild because consumer spending is not expected to fall precipitously.”
Here’s a link - http://www.cnbc.com/id/24294314

Michigan has ben in worse times in my lifetime. We had double digit unemployment, and the joke was “would the last person leaving Michigan please tunr the lights out.” Michigan and the country will recover, and that has always happened under Democrats.

Communications guru said...

I have a strict policy of not censoring, so I will never delete a comment. My writing can stand up to any scrutiny.

The false, disgusting email has been debunked, and I provided the links. The false McCain attacked ad has also been debunked as well with a link. There’s nothing more to say about it.

Brett said...

You're using CNBC as your source? That ultra liberal network? You'll have to do better than that.

This is not a comparison between times of recessions in the state of Michigan. A recession is always bad whether you're living it in the late 70's early 80's or 2006, 2007 and 2008.

As for Democrats getting us out that's laughable (as just about everything you say is). Blanchard left with double digit unemployment and Engler brought it down to 3%. It only took Granholm a year to start inching it up until it burst up in the past two years. The only question now is will unemployment be below or above 10% when she leaves.

Oh, there is one more question. Is it possible to get through the next two years of blown away Jenny faster than the two years it takes to be rid of her?

Fortunately, you don't have the answer to that one, so I won't have to wait on that answer.

As for your second post, I have no response to your constantly repeating your lies. I can get a horse to water, but I can't teach him which end to drink with, so you're on your own figuring that one out.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

Yes, I am using a respected news source as a source. Governor’s have very little effect on unemployment rates, especially on the state’s largest employer losing market share.

You keep calling it lies, but you can never prove it. The difference between you and I is I proved links to prove my point; You don’t.

Brett said...

http://www.investorwords.com/4086/recession.html

www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

"Again, if you don't like the think tank, then refute their facts..."
-I didn’t “dismiss facts”. I dismiss the conclusions and policy proposals they present because they are not really objective in their analysis.
-The Mackinac Center claims on it’s web site that they are “a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. The Mackinac Center assists policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues. The goal of all Center reports, commentaries and educational programs is to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options.”
-Even you referred to them as “right-wing” ...apparently you don’t think they are non-partisan or objective either...Do you seriously think the Mackinac Center is “non partisan” and “objective”?
-When did I “dismiss” the number they cited leaving the state? I questioned the implied causal relationship between the tax increases and tax rates in general and the reasons people are leaving the state.



“You "guess" that people believe it because it's well written or because it's printed in the press?”
-I “guess” that people believe that based on numerous political discussions I have had over the years with friends, family, co-workers, and in blogs like this...many people cite “think tanks” without really knowing much about them, who funds them, and what their underlying ideology is.



“I believe they are open and honest about what they want.”
-Read the passage I quoted directly from their web site...They claim to be non-partisan and provide “objective analysis”...you actually think they are being “open and honest about what they want”? What a joke.
-Any think tank that basically always comes to the same conclusion...taxes should always be lowered, fewer regulations are always desirable, unions should be weakened, etc. are propagandists (as would a liberal think tank that refuses to be critical of unions, or fails to see that some regulations may be burdensome, etc.) ...they aren’t being objective...but I’m not surprised by your response.




“You asked what "fat" I'd trim from education. It didn't apply to what I had said earlier. First of all, I didn't say "fat in education". I said cut the state budget 20% across the board.”
-Yes it did apply to what you said earlier...Do you read your own posts? You said “If the state cuts the funding by 20%, it's possible that the tuition will increase the first year. However, when they no longer are getting students because their costs are too high, they'll cut their fat to be competitive with like schools from other states.”
-Again what “fat” do you think colleges and universities should cut?


“I'm for cutting it all by 20%...If you truly want to share the pain, cut spending by 20% across the board.”
-So explain how you are going to cut 20% across the board...be specific and explain how cutting 20% of the education budget, the department of corrections budget, revenue sharing, programs for the elderly, DNR, DEQ, etc. will impact the state. Will you close state parks, reduce the state police force, close prisons? It is easy to just suggest a cut and not explain the impact of those cuts.



“Since you chose to call me a moron, I guess it's okay for me to return the favor especially in light of what you said about people not paying for education if they aren't, or their family that they may be responsible for is not attending, then to turn around and say that tax dollars support public colleges and universities.”
-Your sentence doesn’t really make any sense...I pointed out what you said...“There is something wrong with a system that charges people tuition that don't have children in college” and I then pointed out that you referred to legislators as “morons”...apparently you don’t/can’t see the irony in that...You called legislators stupid and then said something stupid yourself...you suggested that we have a system where people who don’t have children in college are charged TUITION. I have news for you...If you (or your kids) aren’t taking colleges classes YOU DO NOT PAY TUITION. I haven’t paid tuition in well over a decade...once I graduated, I stopped paying tuition...when my kids begin taking college classes, I’ll probably be paying tuition for them. Revenue from the general fund, collected through taxation (NOT TUITION) is used by the state to support colleges and universities as required by the state constitution.


“That was a neat little trick inserting term limits into the discussion. So I'll bite on this one... You don't vote for term limits, find it doesn't work for one side (especially since everyone was warned of that) so they want to switch it back.”
-Mentioning term limits was not a “trick”...term limits, in my opinion, as they currently function in Michigan have not been beneficial. As I said earlier, I don’t oppose term limits, but a 3 term/6 year limit in the house is part of the reason we have a dysfunctional state legislature - there is a lack of institutional knowledge and there is a lack of trust (which in the past developed over time). With only six years (max) in the house, legislators make decisions that will have long term consequences and they won’t be around to deal with them...it has encouraged irresponsible decision-making.
-Actually you can support an idea like term limits and then change your mind if you don’t like the outcome...ending or altering term limits is not really a partisan issue...many, if not most, pundits and politicians on both sides agree that Michigan’s term limits have been detrimental...but we can have a more lengthy discussion on that some other time.

-On the impact of tax cuts, I’ll stand by my earlier statements (and the data I presented) along with the statements of conservative economists like Greenspan, Bernanke, and Mankiw that indicate that tax cuts do not pay for themselves...they do not generate more revenue than would have been generated without the tax cuts. If you believe otherwise, please provide the actual data...just because you say tax cuts generate more revenue, doesn't make it so.

“You believe our legislators are intelligent...I wonder if you'd say the same thing when the Republicans hold the House, Senate and Governorship.”
-I have personally met Republicans John Pastor and Randy Richardville, and I think both are intelligent...I disagree with them on many issues and I think they, like many of their Republican and Democratic colleagues, have lacked the political will to do what is in the best long-term interests of the state. I think John Engler is an intelligent guy...I disagree with him frequently, but I still think he is intelligent.

“I suspect you wouldn't say that. If that were the case, which I also believe you alluded to earlier in this when you tried to lay the fault at the feet of the Republicans in the 90's, you'd also think they were intelligent.”
-The tax cuts of the late 1990s are at the root of the recent budget crisis...under Republican leadership (I think the income tax cut may have been Richardville’s legislation) along with some Democrats, tax cuts were passed with no plan as to how they would deal with the long-term budget problems without that revenue. Almost immediately, beginning in 2000, employment began to fall in Michigan, budgets got tighter and the legislature and governor balanced the budget with short-term gimmicks and passed on the structural deficit problems to future legislators...that was irresponsible.



“You also say that you think they lack political will or are more committed to party ideology or political party...So now you have just contradicted yourself...”
-That isn’t a contradiction...you can be intelligent and lack political will. You can be an intelligent person and still promote a particular ideology. You can be an intelligent person and still make irresponsible decisions.


“This disproves your next statement that you don't dismiss one side because they are right wing. You're not being honest in your own words. But nice try anyway.”
-I dismiss (or just ignore) the policy proposals of the Mackinac Center because they are not objective...I don’t even need the Mackinac Center to produce a “report” and make suggestions on policy...I already know what they will suggest.

"

Please show me your qualifications for recommending professional help."

-I didn’t say that I had “qualifications” for recommending professional help...that was just a suggestion because your statement “I'm about one fingernail away from suggesting we need a revolution to replace all politicians” (along with some other statements) sounds like the ranting of someone who might not be stable.