Poll: Michigan 'seriously off on wrong track'

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean like back in the 70's when the peanut farmer was pres and this kind of crap happened?
Or when Blanchard was guv and unemployment was 16%?
Yeah, that's the ticket.

What you are talking about is the inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment of the 1970's. This was caused by LBJ and his "guns and butter" policy.

What Bush has done is none other than "guns and butter" also. LBJ did this with Vietnam and the Great Society programs and had the federal reserve print more money. It takes 3 years to have this counterfeit money to filter through the economy and then you have inflation. Nixon fought inflation with "wage and price controls" and failed. Ford fought inflation with "WiN buttons" and failed. Carter did not know what to do. Carter did get Paul Volcker in as head of the Fed and under Reagan raised interest rates to 21 and 1/2% on the prime. Each president suffered more inflation, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment. Through the severe recession under Reagan, inflation finally came down (that is less money in circulation-high interest rates) and for 20 years after inflation, interest rates and unemployment came down.

Bush is doing the same "guns and butter." Have the tax cuts, a war not paid for, and no cuts in spending. Now we have 400 billion dollar deficits, an added 4 trillion dollars added to the debt, and a low dollar. And also at the same time the federal reserve lowered interest rates too much (too much dollars) and now they are trapped and are fearful of raising rates which will choke the economy or lower rates for fear of inflation and losing the dollar. Any way you look at it, Bush is a complete failure.

Look for a slow, inflationary and/or stagflation in the future months and years.

You can google "LBJ guns and butter", wage and price controls, WIN buttons, and Paul Volcker.

Let's see,

1. Bringing new tech jobs here.

2. increasing educational opportunities for layed off people.

3. A budget that isn't gutted.

Yup.
we're surely on the wrong track here.

Remedy,

Six new Nuke plants. Jobs.

Drill for Natural Gas. Jobs.

New refineries in Muskegon and Bay City. Jobs.

Batch 37 Pain is Good wrote:

Remedy,
Six new Nuke plants. Jobs.
Drill for Natural Gas. Jobs.
New refineries in Muskegon and Bay City. Jobs.

Ability to throw out useless career politicians who go out of their way to oppose the above ... Priceless!

Granholm has not shown any real leadership...she is not an innovative thinker and is not good at economics. I think she has to take some of the blame for the state of affairs in Michigan.
I voted for DeVos...he at least understands the economic factors that are impacting Michigan and would have some new ideas aboutr how to get us out of this mess.

RollngGrnade wrote:

<quoted text>
Michigan (and the rest of the US) is a perfect example of the free market system left to govern itself and run amok.
The downturn in Michigan's economy specifically started years before Granholm and the Democrats took control of government (and in fact, they still don't have complete control of Michigan's government because the Senate is still republican-controlled). Trying to pin all of the blame on the "Democrats" doesn't work (especially since some of Michigan's budget problems come from the unpaid-for tax cuts Michigan passed in the 1990s under Engler - a REPUBLICAN who saw the economy tank on his watch in spite of the windfall of tobacco settlement money to buoy the economy).
The "tax increases" you speak of were necessary to compensate for the "tax cuts" that were passed when the SBT was eliminated in a GOP-initiated election-year stunt.
Slashing taxes to the bone isn't some miracle silver bullet that can universally solve all economic development problems, despite the mythology perpetuated by the right.

Ah... into ignoring the facts, huh? What flavor Kool Aid do you drink? People who are as uninformed as you should have your rights to vote stripped away forever. Thinking like yours is entirely harmful to this Nation as a whole.

Granholm's answer to the recession was increasing taxes and creating new ones... which her fellow Democrats in the Legislature passed for her to sign into law. Answer that. How are the Republicans to blame for one single, IDIOTIC, Socialist action taken by Granholm and the Democrats as THEY RAN THIS STATE INTO THE GROUND? How do you blame Engler for actions while he wasn't in office? Why not complete the circle of hate and blame Ronald Reagan for Granholm's actions? After all... he's been dead for almost all of her administration... so it must be his fault.

Save us all alot of headaches and move to Cuba already... lol.

Rich S wrote:

Let's see,
1. Bringing new tech jobs here.
2. increasing educational opportunities for layed off people.
3. A budget that isn't gutted.
Yup.
we're surely on the wrong track here.

You're right the budget isn't gutted! It has been expanded to near gluttonous proportions.

The leadership of our state and our country think that problems are solved by throwing money at them. While money is good, there needs to be real guidance- leadership, if you will, to guide resolution.

This has not occurred in the last 7-8 years, so now we find ourselves throwing out more money, and getting less in return.

The government of today has decided that they can do a better job of spending my money than I can. I disagree with that assessment. For every dollar that the government spends, 20 cents is wasted. I can honestly say that I only waste about 10 cents on the dollar, so my spending is more efficient.

The problem with tax and spend liberalism (there is no such thing as a conservative in office anymore), is that they spend government funds to try and "stimulate the economy." The problem is that in order to have that money to begin with, they have to take it from the very people that have been driving the economy from the star (you and me).

All money that I have goes to bills and taxes now. I have no more disposable income. Now they think that they need to take more from me than that.

Won't be long until I am seeking government assistance from the very SOBs that took my money from me to begin with. Only difference is that I will be living in a cardboard box instead of my own home.

Saif wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right the budget isn't gutted! It has been expanded to near gluttonous proportions.
The leadership of our state and our country think that problems are solved by throwing money at them. While money is good, there needs to be real guidance- leadership, if you will, to guide resolution.
This has not occurred in the last 7-8 years, so now we find ourselves throwing out more money, and getting less in return.
The government of today has decided that they can do a better job of spending my money than I can. I disagree with that assessment. For every dollar that the government spends, 20 cents is wasted. I can honestly say that I only waste about 10 cents on the dollar, so my spending is more efficient.
The problem with tax and spend liberalism (there is no such thing as a conservative in office anymore), is that they spend government funds to try and "stimulate the economy." The problem is that in order to have that money to begin with, they have to take it from the very people that have been driving the economy from the star (you and me).
All money that I have goes to bills and taxes now. I have no more disposable income. Now they think that they need to take more from me than that.
Won't be long until I am seeking government assistance from the very SOBs that took my money from me to begin with. Only difference is that I will be living in a cardboard box instead of my own home.

Correction: You will be renting a cardboard box from the government... lol. Don't forget the empty pickle jar. Bathrooms are important to a well stocked box/home.

Just remember, it is EVERYONE ELSE to blame for Granholm's flubbery. And don't forget to blame the Republicans for the overall scheme of Democrats to tax all property and wealth to a point where private property is only a distant memory as we celebrate MAY DAY.

Keep voting Democrat, stitch that yellow star just below the breast pocket of your gray striped flannels, and bid a fond farewell to celebrating July 4th.

OH!!! And Lansing will soon be known as Vladisboshtok... lol.

Saif wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right the budget isn't gutted! It has been expanded to near gluttonous proportions.
The leadership of our state and our country think that problems are solved by throwing money at them. While money is good, there needs to be real guidance- leadership, if you will, to guide resolution.
This has not occurred in the last 7-8 years, so now we find ourselves throwing out more money, and getting less in return.
The government of today has decided that they can do a better job of spending my money than I can. I disagree with that assessment. For every dollar that the government spends, 20 cents is wasted. I can honestly say that I only waste about 10 cents on the dollar, so my spending is more efficient.
The problem with tax and spend liberalism (there is no such thing as a conservative in office anymore), is that they spend government funds to try and "stimulate the economy." The problem is that in order to have that money to begin with, they have to take it from the very people that have been driving the economy from the star (you and me).
All money that I have goes to bills and taxes now. I have no more disposable income. Now they think that they need to take more from me than that.
Won't be long until I am seeking government assistance from the very SOBs that took my money from me to begin with. Only difference is that I will be living in a cardboard box instead of my own home.

Good to see some intelligent life left in MI.

The thing I find interesting is how short peoples memory's are. The democrats have been running this state for darn near my whole life. Maybe they didn't have a governor, but even most of the (r) governors were pretty liberal. Engler is in office for a few years because the people of the state could no longer live with the policies of Blanchard, and all Granhole can say is it's fatass Engler's fault...The bureaucracy has been EFn the people of this state since I was born. I only moved back so my children would know their grandparents. I had forgotten how oppressive the government bureaucracy was here, and will be moving as soon as the kids are grown. Beautiful State....God AWFUL bureaucracy. You people don't even know how bad you are being dooped because most of you have lived nowhere else.

Funny I talk about how short people's memories are and then admit I forgot...lol...

Granholm...I'll huff an I'll puff an I'll blow you away. Gee these vodka tonics bring out my creative side...lol.

Ann wrote:

Granholm...I'll huff an I'll puff an I'll blow you away. Gee these vodka tonics bring out my creative side...lol.

Granholm... in a news conference after 3,300 new jobs were created in Kalamazoo, and less than 2 weeks after the news that the previous quarter lost over 300,000 jobs... "I am excited about the good things we're doing in Michigan".

She must have been depressed as all get out, and hiding it with rhetoric... lol.

Maybe if we can keep the dead from voting we will be able to kick the Dems out of office. If not, we better practice pronouncing the word "commrade"... lol.

In 2000 MiSDU was incepted in response to both federal and Michigan laws that were legislated requiring the centralized processing of child support payments. The cost to do so was enormous! The Michigan Child Support Enforcement System Report to Legislature, dated January 1, 2006 confirms this on the final page of the 16 page report. The total program cost fiscal years 1996-2000(pre MiSDU) of $181,966,927 skyrocketed fiscal years 2001-2005(post MiSDU) to $490,202,186. That’s $182 MILLION increasing to $490 MILLION, equating to more than a 150% increase in program cost over the same time period.

To be fair, some of the increase between pre and post MiSDU was due to higher development and implementation costs, which according to the same report, ceased accruing after 2003. One would assume that after the implementation of a centralized program, operational costs would be less or at a minimum, on par with Pre MiSDU operational costs. It stands to reason that in consolidating, operating costs are reduced. However, when you take out development and implementation costs, being left only with operational costs, from that same report you get something entirely different than the expected cost reduction. The Pre MiSDU program operation cost of $55,052,852 jumped to $201,373,670, Post MiSDU. So…operating through a centralized program caused an INCREASE of $146 million, or roughly a 275% increase to taxpayers in program operations cost to perform the same task. It’s hard to justify or understand this type of increase to disburse funds that were previously being managed through a more efficient and more cost effective decentralized program.

The $25 fee being levied on child support payments is done so through a federal piece of legislation titled The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. 66% of all fees collected from Michiganders will be forwarded to the federal government to fund child support programs throughout the nation. At the time this was signed into law on the federal level it was touted as "...an important piece of legislation to restrain federal spending" It seems the portion of the act as it relates to this topic was in fact to pay for increased spending not restraint!

It gets better though…!

The requirement for assessing the fee is outlined in section 7310 of The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It’s kind enough to exclude those not receiving more than $500 annually in child support, and does exempt for life any family who has EVER relied on public assistance programs, or those currently receiving food stamps. In part it reads the fee is to be "...PAID BY THE INDIVIDUAL APPLYING FOR SERVICES..." when in fact we’ve all ready established NO ONE in the system "APPLIES" for the services in Michigan. As I mentioned earlier, our local court mandates it in support orders when a family enters the system! It begs this question: How can child support proceeds legally have a fee levied upon them when the services said fees are for are force fed from the courts to begin with? I suspect the answer will involve some sort of opt out clause or form that no one is aware of and that the Courts don’t share with you. Should such an opt out exist, that information is certainly not shared on the Midland County Friend of the Court web site or half a dozen other county web sites I browsed while writing this.

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Years?...not accurate. Absolutely was headed down as Engler left, but if she were effective we would have pulled out of this long ago....Cool cities and tax increases are hardly incentive for companies to enter this market

BTW - How can anyone be effective when dealing with an obstructionist Senate controlled by rabidly anti-tax one-termers (thanks to our idiotic term limit laws) who won't take any risks on anything lest they offend the corporate campaign contributors they're going to rely on when they inevitably leave for higher office?

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Years?...not accurate. Absolutely was headed down as Engler left, but if she were effective we would have pulled out of this long ago....Cool cities and tax increases are hardly incentive for companies to enter this market

Yes, YEARS. The downturn began in 2000; Granholm didn't take office until 2003. As of 2006, the statistic was that 57 percent of the jobs lost in Michigan were lost between 2000 and 2003. Michigan's revenue peaked in 2000, and has been declining ever since (most precipitously between 2000 and 2003).

In point of fact, Michigan has been trying to stimulate the economy all this time with tax cuts ("tax credits") for the past few years and all it's done is lower the state's revenues:

"From 2000 through 2005, the percentage changes diverged dramatically. Personal income grew 13.9 percent and sale tax revenues grew only 5.1 percent." ... "Between 2000 and 2005, personal income grew 13.9 percent while net income tax receipts, adjusted to reflect a constant tax rate, dropped 7.1 percent." ("Michigan’s Budget Crisis and the Prospects for the Future," Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 2006)

The state (like all states) has also had spending burdens passed off on it by the Federal Government to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts and for the simultaneous ongoing wars - so structural spending has increased too (making tax increases necessary just to keep the same level of service).

Cool Cities isn't an incentive for companies to enter this market; they're an incentive to keep young professionals from departing for other, more attractive cities.

http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2006/sb...

Mark wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, for crying out loud, enough of the blame it on Engler crap. Then we can blame the MidEast mess on Clinton. Tax cuts are just like abstinence, they work every time they're tried.

I'm spreading the blame around where it belongs. Engler isn't solely to blame, nor have I implied that he is. There's a whole lot of structural factors in Michigan's economic crisis as well that are just a fact of life that no one could really control (like the decline of manufacturing in the US that hit us really hard). If you want to blame someone for that - blame the decades of Michigan politicians that didn't see the writing on the wall in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and didn't do much to diversify our economy to minimize the impending mess.

The same goes for the Mideast. Clinton shares some blame, but the true blame goes back decades and is entirely tied to our imperialist desire to control strategic oil reserves to hamper our economic competitors (which dates back to the 1920s or before).

Tax cuts don't always work; our current economy is a perfect example. The Bush tax cuts didn't trickle down, and even though productivity increased - they did nothing for unemployment or wages (a reality that mystified economists). Michigan's 1990s tax cuts (and the tax credits we've implemented since 2000) didn't work either.

RollngGrnade wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW - How can anyone be effective when dealing with an obstructionist Senate controlled by rabidly anti-tax one-termers (thanks to our idiotic term limit laws) who won't take any risks on anything lest they offend the corporate campaign contributors they're going to rely on when they inevitably leave for higher office?

Gas tax, Cig tax, User fee tax, Licensing taxes, more gas tax, MBT....I'm sure there is more that I'm leaving off the list. Rabidly anti tax? I'd say our republicans have been acting just like tax and spend liberals

RollngGrnade wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, YEARS. The downturn began in 2000; Granholm didn't take office until 2003. As of 2006, the statistic was that 57 percent of the jobs lost in Michigan were lost between 2000 and 2003. Michigan's revenue peaked in 2000, and has been declining ever since (most precipitously between 2000 and 2003).
In point of fact, Michigan has been trying to stimulate the economy all this time with tax cuts ("tax credits") for the past few years and all it's done is lower the state's revenues:
"From 2000 through 2005, the percentage changes diverged dramatically. Personal income grew 13.9 percent and sale tax revenues grew only 5.1 percent." ... "Between 2000 and 2005, personal income grew 13.9 percent while net income tax receipts, adjusted to reflect a constant tax rate, dropped 7.1 percent." ("Michigan’s Budget Crisis and the Prospects for the Future," Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 2006)
The state (like all states) has also had spending burdens passed off on it by the Federal Government to pay for the Bush Tax Cuts and for the simultaneous ongoing wars - so structural spending has increased too (making tax increases necessary just to keep the same level of service).
Cool Cities isn't an incentive for companies to enter this market; they're an incentive to keep young professionals from departing for other, more attractive cities.
http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2006/sb...

Michigan's budget spending has went up every year since Granhole has been in office. You present rubbush

Left Michigan wrote:

I, for one, am not losing any sleep over your having left the state. We have enough whiners as it is.

1. How was Granholm "ineffective?" Care to explain? I hear all of this mindless jabber about how she and the legislature should have been "doing something" as though cutting $4 billion out of the budget wasn't "doing something." Granholm is the 3rd highest paid governor in the US. Big whoop. She makes $177k/year - and she gives back 5 percent of that.

2. So it's Unions and the Union mentality that are to blame for the automotive industry's decades of building a business model on gas-guzzling SUVs in spite of increasingly scarce oil supplies? I suppose we should all lie down and accept the slave wages and unsafe working conditions of places like China and India so that we can compete with them to retain manufacturing jobs??

3a. Don't strikes fit under the "unions" category? Besides - with the overreaching power that Reagan gave to the government to break strikes - exactly how can you complain about strikes anymore?

3b. Michigan does not have the highest paid teachers - that's a lie. Detroit has the highest average salary of metro areas, but the state of Michigan as a whole has an average salary number that is barely in the top ten (8th last time I looked). Only poverty-stricken areas like Detroit have low graduation rates. Around the state as a whole the rate is around 75 percent - one of the highest in the nation.

4. Michigan's taxes are not some of the highest in the country; even with the new tax increases we're still in the middle of the pack.

5. Kwame Kilpatrick has long been a sore spot but he was elected and has a right to due process so we have to follow the rule of law in removing him (which, unfortunately, takes time).

6. Poverty-stricken cities are dangerous? Shocker. So we should slash taxes and eliminate aid to the poor because that's going to solve the problem?

7. Yes, Michigan has led the country in its unemployment rate; that's what happens in a structural economic shift. The good news is that we're starting to add new jobs in emerging industries to compensate.

7. How is Michigan to blame for US trade policy (IE isolationism/protectionism)?

8. In 2007 Michigan's population dropped by 30,500. In a state of 9,938,444 people, that amounts to a .3% decline, not 11% like the statistic you "read."