Jul 16, 2008

Newspaper sponsoring informative political debate on Thursday

The Livingston County Daily Press and Argus is again sponsoring a debate for the candidates looking to fill the open seats in the Michigan House of Representatives.

The debate is scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday July 24 at the Brighton Center for the Performing Arts, 7878 Brighton Rd.

Democrats Donna Anderson of Brighton and Milford resident Tom Crawford are facing off against Republicans Jason Corosanite and Bill Rogers for the open 66th District seat that includes the city of Brighton and the townships of Marion, Oceola, Brighton, Genoa, Green Oak and Milford.

Democrat and Hamburg Township resident Scott Lucas is are facing off against Republicans Charlie Aberasturi, Cindy Denby and Frank Portelli for the open 47th District seat that includes the City of Howell and the townships of Cohoctah, Conway, Deerfield, Hamburg, Handy, Hartland, Howell, Iosco, Marion, Putnam, Tyrone and Unadilla.

The newspaper always does an excellent job, and unlike the county GOP that recently used a debate as a fundraiser, the event is free and truly meant to inform voters, not to raise money. The Daily Press & Argus is continuing its practice of soliciting questions and areas of concern from readers. You can e-mail your questions to kkarol@gannett.com. These questions will be used to formulate those used


Anonymous said...

Thanks Democrats:

Latest Economic Numbers Confirm Failure of Status Quo

By Michael J. Hicks,
and Michael D. LaFaive

(Note: This is an edited version of a commentary that first appeared in The Detroit News on June 11, 2008.)

The Great Lakes State received "gross" news last month. Its economic performance — as measured by state Gross Domestic Product figures — declined for the second consecutive year.

Seeds of reform are often planted during times of crisis, but these reforms are not being advanced successfully. Our Legislature may be among the worst in Michigan history. It has and continues to impose everything from a $1.4 billion tax increase to a likely electricity rate hike to a massive regulatory expansion in the area of groundwater use — all policies that will do more harm to Michigan’s economy and chase more people from the state. No amount of cheerleading from Lansing, new exotic subsidies or discriminatory "economic development" programs will fix our hostile business climate.

From 2006 to 2007, Michigan’s economy contracted by 1.2 percent, besting only Delaware’s, which declined by 1.6 percent. Our nominal per-capita GDP 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 now stands 9.1 percent below the national average — even worse than during the Great Depression. The implications for Michigan, which is effectively suffering from a one-state recession, may be profound.

People are the critical variable for economic growth. People create, consume, invest and produce, as well as 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 in the union to lose population in net terms from July 2006 to July 2007. We are not surprised by these departures and, based on our newest research, believe the problem will get worse.

Research for an upcoming Mackinac Center 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 by 11.5 percent. Our model shows that for every 10 percent increase in the average personal tax burden, some 1,900 people leave their state of residence annually thereafter. Our model also shows that more than 500 people move to another state for every 5 additional days of sunshine it can claim over the states from which people depart.

These moves do not occur in a vacuum. They have a real impact on the future as people pack up their possessions, talent and children and leave the state. The Niles Public Schools superintendent recently told the Niles Daily 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 over the next year.

If this weren’t bad enough, the Legislature’s response has been to stem Michigan’s economic decline with more economic development programs, such as refundable tax credits for movie makers and other "sexy" businesses. But Legislators are doing so in the face of significant anecdotal and empirical evidence that such programs are ineffectual.

In 1999 Gov. John Engler created the Michigan Economic Development Corp., claiming it would help create and keep good jobs in Michigan. But that year was the high point of our economic vitality. 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 real GDP 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 the cause of our persistent economic malaise goes much deeper. The question that apologists for the status quo have failed to answer is why investors and job providers increasingly avoid 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. If Michigan wants to grow again it should dramatically reduce its tax burden, pass a right-to-work law, write more rational environmental regulations and adopt scores of other ideas proposed by Mackinac Center scholars over the past 20 years.

Communications guru said...

And exactly how are Democrats to blame for this? This may have appeared in the Detroit News, but the two hacks who wrote the propaganda piece work for the rightwing “think tank” The Mackinaw Center.

And what does this have to do with the debate?

Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous,

Excellent find! The article matches up with things that I find. It does no good to say anything to the writer of the blog. If you say the sky is blue, he'll pull out an umbrella...but then again, if he tells me it's going to be 90 degrees today, I'm getting out the parka. :)


Communications guru said...

Dear anonymous? Are you talking to yourself and answering yourself now? What’s s so excellent or hard about find that piece? All you have to do is go to the Mackinaw Center’s web site and you can find all kinds of garbage like that.

Sorry I’m so mean, but when you make a false statement, I’ll call you on it, I’ll make you prove yours comments and I will not let you pass off your opinion as fact.

Brett said...

I express my opinions based on the facts. I form my opinions based on the facts. I do not create facts as you do.

I addressed that last post to the person that posted the article. I did sign my post as I always do. I don't hide behind anything.


Communications guru said...

Wrong again. Look at the name at the top of your post then look at the top of mine. See the difference?

The truth hurts said...

Yes, sure you are right the Media is conservative

3 Anchors to Follow Obama's Trek Abroad

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 17, 2008; C02

The three network anchors will travel to Europe and the Middle East next week for Barack Obama's trip, adding their high-wattage spotlight to what is already shaping up as a major media extravaganza.

Lured by an offer of interviews with the Democratic presidential candidate, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric will make the overseas trek, meaning that the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts will originate from stops along the route and undoubtedly give it big play.

John McCain has taken three foreign trips in the past four months, all unaccompanied by a single network anchor.

The media is just the press arm for the democrat party, if you think anything less you are just undercutting your own credibility.

Oh wait, never mind you undermine your own crditbility with most pieces you write (half truths and lies) and definitly with your responses.

Communications guru said...

I know, I agree with you that teh media is conservative. Just because Grampy McSame is boring and clueless doesn't mean the media is liberal. If my writing is all "half-truths and lies" then why can't you ever prove it, loser?

The truth hurst said...

Do you just refuse to see the truth. Is it in you not to see or tell the truth.

The press is totally in the tank for the liberal lazy butt's who do not want to work for anything the want, like you they want it hande to them.

That is why they go for "Barack the magic Flipper" who flips on every issue on there and craps on all you liberals and all you have to say is:

Sir may I have another one

Communications guru said...

No, I just refuse to see your version of the truth, and not only that, you have not presented fact one.

I don’t want anything handed to me, and I have worked my entire life for what I have. If you want to talk about a flip-flopper, you better look at Grampy McSame. You would be hard pressed to find an issue he has not flip-flopped on. And these are major flip-flops. He has flip-flopped on his very principals, and what he earned that ridiculous name of maverick for.

I am never going to find a candidate I agree with 100 percent, but in Barack Obama I have found a real leader who at least listen. The McCain-Feingold bill is not just the Feingold bill and the McCain-Kennedy bill is just the Kennedy bill.

Brett said...

I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama has ever led. He's taken credit for bills that have passed that he voted against. He's taken credit for bills passed that he voted "present" on, which is just another way of saying 'I don't want to take a stand'.

He's taken credit for bills tha have failed that he voted for.

I do however like the way that you deflect any questions by nicknaming John McCain and using the same complaints against him, whether justified or not. It's fun because you seem to think that McCain's failures make Barack Hussein Obama look better, when in fact, the only difference between McCain and Barack Hussein Obama is that Barack Hussein Obama is taller.

Oh, by the way, I apparently missed hitting the name button at the bottom of that one post which led your site to listing me as anonymous. However, if you just try to use your head a little bit, you'll see that I still signed my name at the bottom of my post as I do with all of them.

Just in case you did try to use your head, you may now go get some tylenol.


Communications guru said...

Sen. Obama has led as much as JFK, Truman, Lincoln, Johnson or Nixon. You’re going to have to provide somm proof or specifics of the other accusatiosn you made if you want me to address them.

As for using Sen. Obama’s mane, I guess that’s just your way of signaling to your fellow racists that he is a Muslim. I didn’t deflect anything by calling McCain Grampy McSame. I think he’s too old for the hardest job in the coutry and he has voted in lockstep with Bush’s failed policies. It don’t matter what Republician you ran agaisnt Obama he’s still the best caididate. It’s not my fault you picked McSame. There are considerable differences between McSame and Obama

When I post, here and every single blog out there, you know it’s me. You can click on my name and read my profile, and you can do that here and on wrongmichigan, before I got banned for kicking his sorry ass in debate.

I endure all of these accusations from right-wing losers like you, and I’m supposed to take your word for it that it’s you posting just because you say so. I don’t buy it. You posted anonymously, that’s all I know. Anyone could have written “brett” at the end of their rant.

Brett said...

You say that Obama has led as much as JFK, Truman, Lincoln, Johnson or Nixon yet you offer ZERO examples.

It's interesting that you call Obama a Muslim. I thought he was denying that.

I'm not sure what problem you have with using Obama's name. It is, after all, his name.

You're wrong. I didn't pick McCain. I'm still holding out some small hope that there is a way for McCain to lose the nomination before the convention so that a conservative can run against the same old tired tax and spend liberal.

I disagree with you on whether you put your name to every post on every blog you write on. I've seen some posts on my blog that were written in the same style that you write here, but you didn't have the guts to put your name to it. I stop short of saying it's definitely you because I've found most liberals are irrational, intolerant and pretty much ignorant of everything, so it may not have been you, but rather just another liberal clone of you.

You accuse me of being a racist. My first choice for candidate this year was Condoleeza Rice. She is by far the smartest woman in the political arena.

I don't care how many accusations your "endure". I don't really care if you know that I signed my name or not. I have not one concern if I'm believed by you, or not. I'm sure the other three people that read this blog don't care either. Well, maybe your mom and dad, but the other guy that signs anonymous probably doesn't care if you believe it's actually my signing a post I make.

You have no credibility and have proven that over and over. So I'm quite certain that of all of the things to worry about from one day to the next, you're not high on the list and I dare say, you don't qualify to be on the list.

But you have a great day anyway.


Brett said...

Oh, okay. I'll answer your one comment that I'm sure you are itching to make. That would be "why do you bother to post here if my thoughts don't rate on your list?"

The answer is, it's Sunday, I'm bored and I've got too much time on my hands right now.

Gee, you really got me on that one.


Communications guru said...

Examples? They were all in Congress when they took over the presidency, like Obama, with the exception of Nixon, who was a Vice-President with no role.

I never said Obama was a Muslim, but that’s what you’re trying to infer by constantly using his middle name. That’s a signal to your fellow racists who will never vote for a Muslim. Frankly, I could care less what his religion is because it does not matter.

So you’re not a Republican and you’re not voting for Grampy McSame? “Tax and spend liberal?” Are you trying to deny conservatives do not tax and spent tax dollars? You would be wrong, as usual if that were the case.

I’m getting a little tired of your baseless accusations. Where I come from, if someone made the disgusting accusations you make against me they would get their butt ,kicked. Every post I make is from Communications Guru. Period. Plus, I have never, ever commented on your so-called blog. That would be a total waste of my time. Not only does no one read it, the writing is so bad it’s unreadable. Also, I don’t think anyone has ever commented on that thing you call a blog. If you have some proof it was me, then present it or shut the hell up, loser.

Yes, I am accusing you of being a racist.

I have lots of credibility because I have never lied, and, unlike, a coward like you, I stand by what I write and can and will defend it. It makes you so frustrated that you not only cannot prove a lie, but you can’t even defend your weak positions, that it causes you to throw these baseless accusations around.

Communications guru said...

If you’re so bored then why don’t you try and do something with that thing you call a blog?
I think you have commented more than jsut today, loser.

The truth hurts said...

I have not shown one fact.

Take another hit of that weed you smoke and read the article.

Also look how MI is pretty much dead last in pretty much everything.

Ever since your beloved liberals have taken over.

BO (Barack the magic Flipper) has not morals, no ethics, no core.

He flipps on every issue out there and you just open you big mouth and say sir please take another big dump in my mouth, I love it.

Oh and do not worry about getting it on my shirt my Mom is really good at getting poop stains out of my underwear so I assume she can get it out of my shirt.

Comrade, you are a


A Concerned Liberal said...

The Ever-Malleable Mr. Obama

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 27, 2008; A17

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

-- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping.

Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico and threaten unilateral abrogation.

Today the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.

Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.

Obama's long march to the center has begun.

And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the past eight years.

Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.

Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting evinced only the mildest of disappointment.

Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a preemptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.

True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.

As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.

The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.

When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.

Communications guru said...

I agree, you have not shown one fact. You are a sad idiot, and you just proved it again.

A concerned Liberal said...

Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

Communications guru said...

Who wrote this for you? You’re not even smart enough to put a complete sentence together, so you stole this from somewhere. Obama has written two best-selling books, you idiot.

A concerned liberal said...

Hey dumb ass

You just proved my point, both books about "HIMSELF"

Man are you stupid.

So then you are saying if all you did was write a best selling book you to can be president.

Boy your a smart one. How old are you 18?

Communications guru said...

The best-selling books are about his life, so what? What does that prove? If I’m so stupid and a dumb ass, then why can’t you ever beat me in a debate? At least I can spell and put a proper sentence together. He has a lot more than two bestselling books to his credit, and you know it. You just go right ahead and vote for Grampy McSame. If you’re a liberal like you claim then you will have no problem.

It’s funny; an idiot like you calling anyone else stupid. Try buying a dictionary, genius.

Brett said...

Good Lord. What you? 12 years old? You threaten to kick my butt? LOL

Oh well, that explains alot about you.

So you think being a Senator is enough to be called a leader. You have much to learn little boy.

By the way, there is no counter on my blog and I don't see one on yours either. So you're hoping that nobody is reading it, but you haven't got a clue.

Kick my butt? LOLOL What next? Are you going to threaten to tell the teacher on me too?


Communications guru said...

You know how old I am. It seems to me that it’s wrong for somebody to constantly attack a person’s integrity and character and then expect no consequences for doing so.

Do I think a Senator is enough to be called a leader? Yes, and so do many, many other people. A large percentage of U.S. Presidents were Senators before they were elected as president. There is a counter on my blog, but how many people have commented on that unreadable rubbish you write?

As for your last sentence, again, I am willing to not only defend what I write with facts and examples, I know that if I insult someone's character I am ready to deal with the consequences of doing that. You, clearly, are a coward who is not.

LOL? How old are you?