Jul 21, 2008

Good news for Michigan: bad news for Republicans


Here’s some news you will not hear from the rightwing bloggers, actually blogger, since they have only one: Michigan was one of six states to record significant job gains between May and June, according to figures released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

We hear with glee and loud cheers from the right when Michigan has a high unemployment rate, the highest in the country they love to tell us. It’s kind of sad when they cheer when Michigan goes through hard times.

According to the BLS press release, the job gains totaled 16,700, which meant Michigan added the second highest number of jobs, statistically speaking. Texas added the most jobs with 47,700, followed by Wisconsin with 8,200, Ohio with 7,900, Oklahoma with 7,700 and New York with 7,300. This is despite the state’s largest employer starting another round of massive layoffs.

It’s hard for me to understand how the governor, any governor, can be blamed for the state's largest employer losing market share, and how a governor can be blamed for the state’s dismal economy when they cannot change or alter the two most important factors that effect the economy: trade policy and monetary policy.

Many of those jobs will come from Michigan adding 800 new jobs through a Dow joint venture and 3,798 jobs through multiple companies receiving tax incentives and brownfield development projects, but the GM layoffs will most likely offset those gains.

Despite the cheerleading from the right for Michigan to do badly, the state has had higher unemployment in recent years. The modern high of 16.9 percent unemployment was reached in November 1982. In fact, it stayed in double digits until 1985, and the unemployment rate stayed at least 8 percent until 1988.

24 comments:

The truth hurts said...

Fair enough

Why then, you as a left wing blogger have you not noted that our unemployment leads the nation 8.5% and since Jenny our DEMOCRAT Senator has taken over MI has lost 490,000 jobs.

If you would have done that you point would have been taken a little better.

Also when you are at the bottom of the barrel you can only go up.

But if these numbers prove to be correct than good for MI.

But then again the liberals want us to lose in Iraq and have as many as our soldiers killed so they can win elections, they have been pushing for a recession so they can win so please do not give us our better than though crap

The truth hurts said...

American flag disappears from Obama campaign jet
Candidate's trademark 'O' replaces stars and stripes

As part of a month-long #aircraft makeover, a painted American flag was removed from the tail of Sen. Barack Obama's official campaign airplane and was replaced with the presidential candidate's trademark "O" symbol.


Boy what a true American he is

Communications guru said...

I have noted numerous times Michigan leads in unemployment, when that has been true, like I did in this very post. I quote:” We hear with glee and loud cheers from the right when Michigan has a high unemployment rate, the highest in the country they love to tell us. It’s kind of sad when they cheer when Michigan goes through hard times. “ There is also a huge difference: I am not happy and I do not cheer when my state does not perform well like you and your party does.

I assume you are referring to Jennifer Granholm with the “Jenny” crack. Hey genius, she’s our governor, not a senator. Also, I am still waiting for you to tell me how you can blame her for the state’s largest employer losing market share and laying off people and companies all over the country moving to Third World Counties? The real blame needs to be laid at the feet of the person in charge of the country who was responsible for the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs.

“If these numbers prove to be correct?” I provided a link. Can you read?

The liberals want to lose in Iraq is one more lie. It was liberals who said we should not go into Iraq, and they were proven correct. You can’t even tell me what victory in Iraq is. We are already in a recession, and it will be Democrats who will lead us out of it.

Communications guru said...

Oh my God, his campaign jet bears his campaign logo. What a crime. Take a flying leap you idiot. This matters absolutely zero.

Brett said...

I am a Conservative that votes Republican for the most part. That being said, I defy you to find one post anywhere in which I have said with "glee and loud cheers" about our unemployment rate.

If you think that any Republican is out there cheering for our high unemployment rate, please produce the proof. This is another example of the lies you spew.

You say that we're getting another 800 jobs. Getting? I'll believe it when I see it.

If you want to blame President Bush for the sorry state of Michigan's economy, then you'll have to give him credit for the 47 states that are performing so well.

This nations economy has been stronger during the past 7 1/2 years than at any time in over 25 years.

We are not in a recession. You can claim it all you like, but it's simply not true. The facts don't back up your lies.

Quote the retired fed chairman if you like, but his "feelings" don't mean diddly. The facts are what matter. We have not had a quarter of negative growth in 7 years. You need 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth to have a recession.

Let me explain that to you better since I know you're lacking in intelligence. There are twelve months in a year. A quarter is 1/4 of those 12 months. 1/4 of 12 months is three months.

Consecutive means in a row. Two consecutive quarters would then mean 6 straight months of negative growth.

Now, just to help you even further, negative growth means something less than zero.

Now for some facts. The fourth quarter of 2007 ran from October 1 through December 31. The rate of growth during that period was .06%. Notice, that's a positive number.

The rate of growth for the first quarter of 2008 (this would be the months of January, February and March, the rate of growth was 1%. That too is a positive number.

We should be hearing the numbers for the second quarter in a day or so. The second quarter began on April 1 and ended on June 30. I expect it to come in between 2% and 3%. We'll see.

You say that you can't understand how a governor can be blamed for a bad economy in their state. Blow you away Granholm blamed former Governor Engler for the bad economy during her first five years. So if you can't understand how a governor can be blamed, how do you explain Governor (blown away) Jenny blaming Governor Engler?

There is a very good argument to show you how a governor can be blamed. When Engler left, the unemployment rate was 3%. Now it's 8.5% under blown away Jenny. There are 47 states that are doing great. Use your own source (the US Dept. of Labor). It tells you in there. One of the Dakota's are at 2.2% unemployment. New Jersey is at 7.5% unemployment (isn't the liberal Corzine Governor there?).

Didn't Corzine impose a whole new set of taxes (as did blown away Jenny) and fees on his constituents? Corzine is a little bit unique. He forces by law people to wear seat belts, but he's above the law and didn't wear them. Wonder what his fine was.

Blown away Jenny has made all sorts of promises about new jobs, but we've lost 1.1 million jobs in the past year (again, using your source).

I'm happy that Michigan gained 16,000 jobs. I'm especially happy because some of them have been my clients. But I'm not happy about how blown away Jenny has increased taxes, increased fees, made sweetheart deals with her cohorts at the expense of the citizens of Michigan.

Her tax increases didn't increase revenue to the state. Her spending habits have destroyed any chance that this state will operate in the black this year. More cuts to come.

Why are the liberals avoiding drilling for oil? A poll published today says that 72% of the people are in favor of drilling our own oil. Are the liberal morons now avoiding the people's wishes after claiming that the people wanted liberals in power because they were against the war?

The truth is that the reason the liberals won in 06 is because Republicans in Congress spent money like liberals. They were booted out for acting like liberals while professing to be Republicans.

You really need to get off the playground and stop threatening to kick others butts and spend more time in the classroom getting educated.

Perhaps you should ask your mommy to homeschool you. This government education is really dumbing you down further.

I'd suggest economics 101, but I think you might really be better off with the class "ecomony for dummies".

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

I mean Republicans in general cheer for Michigan to tank; you know that. It’s just like you making up this stuff about liberals in general. You need to read wrongmichigan if you don’t believe they report every piece of bad news with glee. But all insults aside, I believe they are so happy to see the economy in this state tank so they can take the state House back. That’s my interpretation of the situation. It’s an interpretation, not a lie.

I provided you a link about Dow Chemical Co. announcing 800 new jobs. Here's another one - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/NEWS06/807160369. But you don’t believe it? So I can interpret that as you hope the state doesn’t get the 800 jobs? I guess that’s an example of where you said with “"glee and loud cheers" about our unemployment rate.”

Sorry, the other 47 states are not doing well. We are in a recession.

Gov. Granholm is not blaming Engler for the state’s economy, and she never has. She is blaming him for the way he left the budget, and there is no doubt he left it in a mess. He cut taxes (revenue) but never cut spending to make up for the loss of revenue, and he did things like collect property taxes early to balance the budget while he was in office and let the person after him deal with it. As for Granholm’s one sentence you keep harping on, frankly I don't remember exactly what she was talking about, but I know this. She needs help, and idiotic stuff like the Senate passing a Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) of a measly and useless 7 percent is not going to help anyone.

You keep telling me what a great economist you are and how stupid I am, but what are the two biggest factors that affect the economy? How do state governors affect those two factors? I don’t see anywhere in the BLS press released where Michigan lost 1.1 million jobs. Even if that were true, I would venture to say a large percentage of those jobs are in the auto industry, Michigan’s largest employer. How can she be blamed for that? The rest of the alleged lost jobs that leave Michigan are not going to other states, they are going to other countries, and how is a governor responsible for that?

The liberals aren’t avoiding drilling for oil. First, oil companies drill for oil; liberals don’t second, the oil companies have leases on millions of acres of land they can drill on. Why aren’t they exploring there before they drill in environmental sensitive areas that will not effect the price of gas for almost a decade anyway?

Wrong, the Republicans lost power in 2006 because they plunged us into a war that had nothing to do with our security, and the billons and billions of dollars Bush is pouring into that black hole is having a negative effect on our economy. The Republics scandals like Jack Abmerhoff and Duke Cunningham also helped. There is no doubt they are spending money recklessly, but the liberal attack part is not true. The last president to balance the federal budget was a Democrat.

I would love to spend more time in the classroom, but I was serving in the military and raising a family. But I still managed to carry a full load of courses for two years. While I was doing that, I got an A in Economics 101. Also, I maybe would have liked for my mother to home school me, but like many middle class families, she often worked too. Plus, public school is better, overall, for the student.

Brett said...

Your wrong. Republicans in general don't cheer for the economy to tank in Michigan. There is no evidence of this whatsover. Is it reported when things go bad? You bet. Is blame put where it belongs in opinion pages. Absolutely.

The same can't be said for liberals though. They are vested in a bad economy. Example one. When Bill CLinton was running in 92, he said it was the worst economy in 50 years. Untrue. The fourth quarter of Bush's final term in office the economy grew at 4.6%. The best Clinton could muster in his first two years was 2.7%. It improved when the Republicans took over the House in 95.

Example two: Bush removed one of the restrictions to drilling oil off the coast. The Congress refuses to remove the restriction they have in place. Bush talked about drilling last week. That day, oil prices dropped $9.00. In the week since, it's fallen over $14.00. Liberals are preventing the oil drilling. If they win Congress and the Presidency in November, they'll lift this restriction after inauguration. In other words, they are willing to let people suffer with higher gas prices to further their own agenda.

The liberals in this state talk about new jobs, but you don't see it happening. VW chose another state due to a better business climate. This means a more business friendly state. Michigan is not friendly to business under blown away Jenny.

Another of your lies. I have never said that I'm a great economist. Prove your statement.

I'd like to say that I can't believe you said that Granholm has never blamed Engler, but I do believe you said it. You don't seem to live on a place I like to call earth.

She has blamed Engler and Bush. For you to not to have seen that is to defy all logic and reality.

Sorry, I don't believe you about your military record. You keep talking about it. People who have served in the military honorably don't feel the need to constantly blow their own horn about military. I don't talk about it and I rarely see others talking about it. I don't believe you about your education and I've seen the facts regarding the poor performance of government schools alone, and in comparison to homeschooling, and private schooling. To deny the facts that are well known is to just have your head stuck in the sand refusing to look up for fear that you'd have to face how wrong you are.

The Republicans did not plunge us into war. The terrorists did that by flying three planes into buildings and one into the ground in Pennsylvania.

What you should do is look up the resolutions authorizing the war in Iraq. There are 24 reasons listed for us going to war and if you look at those that voted for it you'll find that many of your liberal heroes also voted for those resolutions.

This is not a Republican war and it's not George Bush's war. It's a war on terrorism that AMERICA has taken the lead in and we are winning.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

I’m “wrong. Republicans in general don't cheer for the economy to tank in Michigan?” That’s impossible because you just did in your last rant.

Bill Clinton is not a liberal, but the unemployment rate was pretty low during the Clinton years. Your accusation that liberals want the economy to tank is simply not true.

Wow; it dropped $9. That would seem to me that people are correct when they say speculators are one of the main reasons the price is so high. But again, I’m not an economist like you. I sure hope liberals stop oil companies from drilling offshore, and I will do everything I can to stop them. When Democrats win the presidency and they retain Congress, they will not lift the restriction on offshore drilling, nor should they. Offshore drilling will do absolutely nothing to reduce the price of gasoline.

The decision to locate the plant in Tennessee is because they want to pay workers the lowest wage and least amount of benefits as possible. Michigan plans to add new 4,800 jobs. Here is the link, again - http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/NEWS06/807160369
You don’t believe that? I know Michigan improving is bad news to you, but it will.

You are right; you are not a great economist, so stop lecturing me on the economy. Well, if Granholm blamed Engler for the state’s economy then it should be no problem for you to provide a link to prove that. Your take on home schooling is your opinion, not fact. Public education has educated far more children than home-schooling has.

Are you serious? “People who have served in the military honorably don't feel the need to constantly blow their own horn about military?" Have you seen Grampy McSame’s latest TV ad, you idiot. Here’s a link - www.johnmccain.com/#tab2. Look at that ad then make that stupid statement. I’m am proud of my military service, and I do not apologize for talking about it, regardless of what a rightwing tool like you thinks.

If you were in the military, tell me what branch, where and when. Give me some proof like I did.

Yes, the Republicans did plunge us into an unnecessary war, at least Bush did. The 9/11 attack had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq fiasco. Yes, many of my liberal heroes voted to authorize force in Iraq. They were wrong, and they should not have trusted the President. That has certainly been proven. The Iraq occupation has nothing to do with terrorism, and what does winning mean? How do we know when we have won? When Bush tells us so? He has told us that before. There’s a reason America is in Iraq alone.

The truth hurts said...

Democrats and liberals like yourself want AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO DIE so you can we seats.

You know this to be true.

You should be ashamed of yourself

Granholm and the dem's run 2/3 of our government. They are too blame for this mess. If you do not agree which I assume you will not because liberals can never tell the truth or take the blame for anything. Then sure you are just plain retarted.

Communications guru said...

That is a complete lie. It was liberals who did not want soldiers to go to Iraq to be killed for no real reason to begin with.

You can blame Gov. Granholm for the state’s economy all you want, but it’s not true. Is she to blame for the country’s recession, too? By the way, genius, the word is retarded.

The Truth hurts said...

Ok Brainiac

What should the Gov and the Dem in Congress be blamed for.

According to you State Politiicans have zero effect on the state thus according to you we should not even have state governments.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

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.

Having said that I wouldn't blame Granholm or Engler for those job losses...most of those losses are the result, I believe, of our reliance on the auto industry/manufacturing. No one - Engler or Granholm, or Posthumus or DeVos would have been able to prevent the massive loss in manufacturing jobs in this state.

I think Comm Guru is correct that during the end of the Engler admin. he and the legislature used "gimmicks" to balance the budget and pass the tough decisions on to future legislators/the next governor. Unfortunately, those "gimmicks" continued to be used during Granholm's first term with the Republican controlled house and senate and by 2007 there were no "gimmicks" left.

I have yet to see any of the people (esp. Republicans in the state legislature) who are so quick to deride the tax increases of 2007 explain why they did not vote for the "all-cuts" budget that was presented in the house (it received 0 votes) or actually present an "all-cuts" budget in the Senate.

It seems to me that the biggest problem in this state is that our elected officials - Republicans and Democrats - essentially do not have the political will to make really tough decisions and solve the structural deficit - solutions that would likely involve a combination of tax and fee increases, cuts to government programs/services, and reforms. I guess this is what you get when you combine term limits and gerrymandering of legislative districts every 10 years.

Brett said...

I believe that Southwestwasht is correct about the elected officials in this state from both parties. Once they get into office, they follow those that have been there a few years and learn how to create needless programs and spend more money.

On the other hand, the 'gimmick' does continue. There is approximately $17 billion that is constantly moved. So when Blanchard left, he could claim he made something solvent, but he did so by moving that money to another area of the budget. When Engler left, he did the same thing. He moved that amount of money to another department. Nothing will change with blown away Jenny.

Term limits is a non issue. The people of the state voted for it. I was against it at the time. I'm all for it now. Not because it's a good thing, but because it prevents people from taking and holding a seat for decades. They become kings of their district and stay until they are too old to know where the drool rag is, or they die in office. Term limits ended that.

I'd like to find a way where anyone can be elected or drafted to be elected without having to have served an apprenticeship under another Rep/Sen. before getting his/her "turn" to grab the seat.

We are stuck with the two choices handed us. Once they get in, they don't know who the people are until they are within six months of re-election.

The people of this state have bailed out the moronic politicians too much. It's time for the politicians to start taking the hits. Cut each area of the budget by 20% and do not raise taxes. If it costs state jobs...well, that's too bad. Let the workers find out what it's like in the private sector. They might be surprised.

The people have been taxed more than enough. It's time to start taxing the politicians. That would probably weed out those freeloaders.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

Ah, a voice of reason. Thank you so much for your comments Southwest Washtenaw. Welcome to my blog. I agree with you 100 percent, and it is so nice to open an email with comments and not see a personal attack.

A big part of the problem is term limits, and politicians of both parties are almost always looking to their next office. You saw what happened to the ones that had the courage to vote for the tax increase and stop a government shutdown: we got the likes of Leon Drolet.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

"Once they get into office, they follow those that have been there a few years and learn how to create needless programs and spend more money."
-Just for the record, that is not what I was saying. What “needless” programs are you referring to?
-About the only part of the budget that the legislature has complete control over is the general fund budget - about 9.5 billion out of the total budget of about 44 billion - much of the revenue the state receives is restricted for specific purposes like school aid, transportation, etc.


“Term limits is a non issue...”
-I am actually a supporter of term limits, just not in their current form. With only 6 years in the state house, the turnover in legislators results in the loss of institutional knowledge and fewer opportunities for legislators to develop relationships/trust with people on the other side of the aisle. With gerrymandering you end up with legislators driven by ideology - when all you have to do is win your primary, candidates tend to emerge from the extreme wings of their party because it is the ideologues who tend to vote in primary elections . I think term limits should remain, but they should be extended...perhaps 12 years total in the legislature...but not for anyone currently serving in the legislature. 




“The people of this state have bailed out the moronic politicians too much...It’s time to start taxing the politicians”
-What do you mean?
-Michigan already has fewer state employees than at anytime since the early 1970s and our population is significantly higher today than it was in the early 70s.
-Cutting 20% of the budget (general fund) would be irresponsible. GVSU will raise tuition for next year by 13% and I believe all MIchigan public universities are raising tuition at a rate greater than the rate of inflation as they have been for years because of reductions in state appropriations. Cutting 20% out of the higher education budget will only result in higher tuition and may make a college education unaffordable for some at a time when we are trying to encourage more people to go to college. Cut 20% out of the department of corrections budget and you will have to close more prisons/release thousands of prisoners. Cutting revenue sharing will probably result in fewer police officers at a time when many police departments are understaffed. Cut 20% of Human Services...well you get the idea.
-Michigan already has a reasonable limit on the amount of revenue it can generate...the Headlee Amendment. State tax revenue can’t exceed 9.49% of personal income. If it does, the excess funds are returned to taxpayers. Currently revenue is around 7% of personal income. If we want to make college affordable, fix, maintain, and improve the transportation infrastructure, keep dangerous criminals off the streets, etc. we have to pay for it. Just yesterday, for example, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation Funding reported that the state needs to double spending (to 6.1 billion) on transportation infrastructure for “good” improvements. To bring the system into “better” condition would require spending 12.6 billion a year...Where do you propose the additional 3-9 billion for transportation infrastructure come from if you cut spending 20% and will not raise taxes?

Communications guru said...

It seems kind of funny. “Brett” refers to Govs. Engler and Blanchard by their last names, but he refers to Gov. Granholm by her first name. I wonder if you can add sexist to his already racist views.

Engler had lots of money to work with because the national economy was doing so well. Only Blanchard and Granholm have had to make real cuts, and the steady decline of state employees over the years is proof of that.

You are completely wrong about term limits, and the budget fiasco last fall was the perfect example of the problems with term limits. Lawmakers hold the purse strings to a $50 billon budget and vote on some 3,000 complex bills a year, yet we want novices doing it. It’s sad lobbyists are the experts on many issues, and if they burn a lawmaker and lie to them on an issue there’s no worries because he will be gone soon anyway before the lawmaker catches on. When a second term Representative is the speaker of the House and Freshman chair committees there is a problem. The perfect term limits are the voters.

Your budget scheme will not work, nor has it ever. You cannot cut your way out of the problems we fact, and we will never, ever win a race to the bottom. More importantly why would we even want to try?

What makes you think politicians aren’t taxed?

Brett said...

Tax the politicians: Charge them fees for their bathroom use, for parking, rent on their offices, and any other bill we can put on them. Those bills are not to be paid from tax dollars, but from their pay.

Another option to taxing the politicians is to lower their pay to the median income of the state. Approximately $42,000 per year. They represent the people, they should be living like the people that they represent.

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.

You've become too dependent on government for everything. You want the government to build roads, feed the poor, pay for your health care, pay for your kids health care and so on. The state doesn't pay for that. The people do. The state doesn't earn money, they confiscate money.

What the people want, they will find a way to get it. If the roads need improving, they'll hire construction companies. If they want education to get better rather than the slide down to idiocy that they are taking now, they'll demand better teachers, less government involvement in the curriculum and start taking charge of the school boards again to see that their children get the quality education.

In addition to all of this, if they lower taxes, the revenue to the state will increase. It happens everytime it's tried. Rather than forcing people who don't believe in abortion to pay for other people's abortions, along with other programs to give away tax dollars of those that do the work, they can instead return the excess money they receive due to the lower taxes.

Raising taxes has failed. Funding schools has failed. Funding roads has failed. Giving money from one taxpayer to another citizen that isn't working hasn't worked either. If it did, there wouldn't be anyone needing money from the state any longer. Throwing money at a problem, as the state has done for years, has failed, is failing and will continue to fail.

People can do for themselves better than any government can ever do for them.

The ONLY thing the government has handled correctly and successfully is the military. Amazingly enough, that is their charge. Everythign else they have done nothing but fail at the expense of the people of this state.

Brett
Conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

The problem with taxing rent on their offices is taxpayers are paying for them, as they should. The bottom line is this, if you want good people you have to pay them a decent wage. I don’t want average or median people as this state and country’s leaders I want above average people.

Of course I want government to fix roads. That is a function of government. Government is when people consent to banding together to acomplish things they cannot do by themselves or can accomplish better by pooling resources. Instead of one person paying a million dollars to repair or build a road everyone uses, a million people pay a $1 to pay for a road they all use or benefit from. Who is going to hire and pay that contractor to fix the road?

If lowering taxes were simply the answer, it would be easy to correct the problems we face. It’s not. We will never win a race to the bottom, and why should we try?

Funding schools has not failed. Funding roads has not failed. Do I understand you do not want to fund schools? You only want the rich to get an education?

“The ONLY thing the government has handled correctly and successfully is the military?” Unlike you, I have been in the military, and it runs no better than state and federal government. Do you remember the $300 or some similarly priced toilet seats? The fact Halliburton is ripping off the government is proof that you are wrong.

In case you were not aware of this, the government is the people. Your dislike of government is ridiculous.

Brett said...

There are three forms of education in this country. Government, private and homeschooling. Government has th worst record in education of the three. Homeschooling has the best results and private schooling is not far behind homeschooling.

People complain about the roads. The tax on gas is supposed to fund the roads. People complain about the profits oil companies made.

The oil companies earn a profit of 9 cents per gallon. The federal government takes double that and the state takes 33 cents per gallon. If the oil companies are making billions in profits from their 9 cents per gallon, what are the feds and states doing with the money they recieve that is much higher? We should be driving on roads paved with gold for the amount of money confiscated by the government.

As for my military experience, you've shown you know nothing of my military background.

I never thought I'd live to see the day that a self proclaimed military man would say that the military runs no better than any form of government....but then, I suspect that I still have not heard a former military man say that.

Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com

Communications guru said...

Public education has educated far more children and has been more effective than any form of education.

I’m not going to take your word for the profit margins of the oil companies. They are receiving record profits, and the tax revenues for roads are down.

I know nothing of your military background? I know, I’ve asked you repeatedly where you served and you continue to ignore the question. The people are the government and the military is the government. For anyone to say the military runs perfectly or better than any other branch has obviously never been in the military. I have shown you my proof of my military service, yet you still continue to insult me but at the sane time give me the song and dance about how much you support the troops.

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

Brett said: “Tax the politicians: Charge them fees for their bathroom use...”
-These ideas are so breathtakingly stupid they don’t warrant any further comment.



"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.


“The state doesn't earn money, they confiscate money...What the people want, they will find a way to get it. “
-I never said the state “earns” money - they use their constitutional authority to tax to generate the revenue deemed necessary to provide the programs, services, etc. that the people of the state of Michigan expect, want, etc. “The people” have found a way to get what they want - They formed a government, wrote a constitution, etc.



“...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"

“Raising taxes has failed.”
-When adjusted for inflation and population, income tax revenues grew at a faster rate in the 1990s after the Bush and Clinton Tax increases than they did after the Reagan tax cuts of the early 1980s.

"Funding schools has failed."
-If you mean that we don’t adequately and equitably fund schools, I would say yes...but I don’t think that is what you mean.
-Although there are districts with serious problems, public education in this country is much more successful than critics suggest. SAT and ACT scores, for example, have generally risen or remained consistent over the last 20 years or so. In 1980 SAT Math and Verbal scores were 492 and 502 respectively. By 2007 they were 515 and 502 respectively. ACT Math and English scores in 1991 were 20.0 and 20.3 and the Composite score was 20.6. In 2007, the Math and English scores were 21.0 and 20.7 and the composite score was 21.2. Furthermore the percentage of students scoring 27 or higher has risen and the number of students scoring 18 or below has fallen.

“Funding roads has failed.”
-Again, if you mean we don’t adequately fund infrastructure, I would agree...but I get the sense that isn’t what you mean.

Anonymous said...

Good posts Brett.

I was just reading an interesting article where the states are having a rougher time bringing in tax revenue from gas as people are moving to more fuel conservative vehicles. Isn't that funny, something the tree hugger politicians didn't forsee.

Every time taxes are lowered in an economy, tax revenue goes up. The CBO has some great stats on this if anyone feels like researching this.

Communications guru said...

This makes no sense. The “tree thugger politicians” certainly did forsee this. We want people using less gas, because it saves the environment and it’s a security issue in that it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. It would seem to me if less people are using the roads, there is less wear and tear and less maintenance required.

Where in this equation is the “Every time taxes are lowered in an economy, tax revenue goes up” proven?

Besides, how do I know this is not Brett patting himself on the back?

SouthwestWashtenaw said...

"Every time taxes are lowered in an economy, tax revenue goes up. The CBO has some great stats on this if anyone feels like researching this."

-Please provide specific links/titles of CBO reports.

-Like this excerpt from the CBO issue paper (Dec. 2005) titled “Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates”

Budgetary Effects
The various economic estimates imply changes in government revenues and interest payments. As noted above, the conventional estimate (without macroeconomic feed-backs) is that the tax policy, if implemented, would reduce revenues by a total of $466 billion over the first five years and an additional $775 billion over the second five years.

Or this Conclusion from “The Long-Term Economic Effects of Some Alternative Budget Policies” (May 2008)

Conclusions
The United States faces serious long-run budgetary challenges. If action is not taken to curb the projected growth of budget deficits in coming decades, the economy will eventually suffer serious damage. The issue facing policymakers is not whether to address rising deficits, but when and how to address them. At some point, policymakers will have to increase taxes, reduce spending, or both.

-Why would the CBO suggest policymakers potentially "increase taxes" to deal with rising deficits if cutting taxes will generate more revenue as you claim?