Hmmmmm, Another Nail in our Coffin

[candyman]

First, don't bash supporters considering that you have no idea how they really voted...were they voting along party lines or voting in what they believed in...

Second, if you have a bad economy and the shitstorm of other things going on now you have a loss of flow...post-coital pee stream if you will. For instance, the auto industry is "getting back on its feet"...bullshit. The auto industry, like every other industry, saw the closing of WAY too many shops, plants, etc...which caused a flood of qualified, out of work people. Now add the people looking for jobs. And now take into consideration WHY those places closed...there was not enough flow to keep paying everyone. So, if these places that are still open hire a new guy they are going to cut the already low business even more for their other workers...damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

What does this all mean? Well, you talk like the democrats have this magical band-aid that is 100% guaranteed to work...which it isn't...and that the magical band-aid that the republicans claim to have is going to cause a rift in time and space itself. Ok...we are going to work through this...grab a cool drink, sit on a comfy chair or couch, and partake in an activity that you like and that will take you away from all of this...or masturbate like I do.

Do I have an answer? No. Do you? No. Does any political party? No. Do they always make the right choices? No. Is Kesha a dirty, untalented piece of trash that gave me herpes over the radio? Yes. Can this be fixed? No...think about it...it is NEVER fixed...it is only swaying one way or another...try to stop it and keep it in one spot and prepare to get bitch slapped by the mother of all things confusing as hell.

But seriously...Kesha needs to be taken to a HAZMAT team to be cleaned for about a week...

Edited February 28, 2011 by candyman

[Scar My Machine]

The answer is to put more money in the pockets of the working class.

Bush tried it though in a very miniscule way. Obama is trying it by cutting taxes to put more money on people's weekly pay but it is not enough still.

We bailed out the banks (though not by our own choice) but it was done to get banks to loan money to whom? The working class - to do what? Stimulate spending which should promote growth. The banks refuse to give loans now because (as they say) people are too risky to lend to. Nice eh, the banks engaged in risky behavior and asked the federal government for a bail out, at OUR expense. But that is no matter. Right?

So now Michigan has a new Governor that out of the gate thinks he knows better than others (even though he has NO EXP. WHAT SO EVER) and I recall conservatives bashing Obama for not having experience. Seems when the shoe is on the other foot it's ok.

But still, we are being told that cutting taxes on business (except for the one business that is growing in Michigan) and taxing pensions and the already poor will help generate revenue for the states budget.

Why does it always come to, let's make it more difficult for those that are already having trouble making ends meet?

When will we ever hear a politician say "we're gonna make things better for those that are having a struggle making ends meet and place some burden on the wealthy"?

I don't know about you but it is my belief if you keep chopping the tree off at the roots to save the top branches the tree will eventually fall.

Or am I also wrong in thinking that?

[phee]

When will we ever hear a politician say "we're gonna make things better for those that are having a struggle making ends meet and place some burden on the wealthy"?

I don't know about you but it is my belief if you keep chopping the tree off at the roots to save the top branches the tree will eventually fall.

Right here.... I agree with this.

[Enishi]

I think that some of those top branches of the tree shouldn't even exist at all. Wall Street cronies and the people who run the Fed should be in jail and have their recent bonuses redistributed to those who are in need or to alternative energy research.

There are other budgetary issues which need to be addressed such as the military and end-of-life Medicare spending (along with individual City and State budgets) but the above issue is the biggest one.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Enishi

[Slogo]

I think that some of those top branches of the tree shouldn't even exist at all. Wall Street cronies and the people who run the Fed should be in jail and have their recent bonuses redistributed to those who in need or to alternative energy research.

There are other budgetary issues which need to be addressed such as the military and end-of-life Medicare spending (along with individual City and State budgets) but the above issue is the biggest one.

As far as budget concerns go the military is at the very top of the list. I believe we should have a powerful army and all but we spend more on our military than the next 16 countries combined. It's either overkill or bad fiscal responsibility

[phee]

From another thread... but seems to be relevant here.

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, "Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."

[torn asunder]

The answer is to put more money in the pockets of the working class.

Bush tried it though in a very miniscule way. Obama is trying it by cutting taxes to put more money on people's weekly pay but it is not enough still.

We bailed out the banks (though not by our own choice) but it was done to get banks to loan money to whom? The working class - to do what? Stimulate spending which should promote growth. The banks refuse to give loans now because (as they say) people are too risky to lend to. Nice eh, the banks engaged in risky behavior and asked the federal government for a bail out, at OUR expense. But that is no matter. Right?

So now Michigan has a new Governor that out of the gate thinks he knows better than others (even though he has NO EXP. WHAT SO EVER) and I recall conservatives bashing Obama for not having experience. Seems when the shoe is on the other foot it's ok.

But still, we are being told that cutting taxes on business (except for the one business that is growing in Michigan) and taxing pensions and the already poor will help generate revenue for the states budget.

Why does it always come to, let's make it more difficult for those that are already having trouble making ends meet?

When will we ever hear a politician say "we're gonna make things better for those that are having a struggle making ends meet and place some burden on the wealthy"?

I don't know about you but it is my belief if you keep chopping the tree off at the roots to save the top branches the tree will eventually fall.

Or am I also wrong in thinking that?

please, (and this applies to anyone who's complaining about snyder's methods) tell us your suggestions or ideas to close a billion+ dollar gap in the budget.

everyone loves to bitch, but nobody really has any solutions that aren't just bandaids on a bullet hole...

Edited March 1, 2011 by torn asunder

[Enishi]

New York Times: You Fix the Budget

[torn asunder]

New York Times: You Fix the Budget

i've already run that, and solved it, as a matter of fact. how, you ask? by taking a little bit from almost everything available. it's really the only way to do things without eliminating programs.

[Enishi]

Out of curiosity I went onto that list and cut only the military spending while greatly raising taxes on corporations and the top earners.

On a mathematical level it solved the deficit, but the problem with such a approach is that if you greatly increase taxes on the top earners, many of them will end up moving their capital (and possibly themselves) to other countries. The only way of preventing that is to pass increasingly draconian measures which make it difficult for people to expat and transfer their funds. Increasing transnational global governance is another method, but that's opening up a whole other can of worms, lol.

"How things should be" is not the same as "what can realistically be done in the present without causing negative side effects on the needy", especially during a recession when people are reluctant to invest.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Enishi

[Enishi]

My fix entailed:

-cutting foreign aid

-eliminate farm subsidies

-cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent

-reduce military to pre-Iraq size

-reduce navy and air force fleets

-cancel or delay some weapons programs

-Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013

-enact medical malpractice reform

-reduce tax-break for employer provided health care insurance

-cap Medicare growth starting in 2013

-Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes

-Return rates to Clinton-era levels

-Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year

-Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million

-Bank Tax

[torn asunder]

"How things should be" is not the same as "what can realistically be done in the present without causing negative side effects on the needy", especially during a recession when people are reluctant to invest.

agreed

[candyman]

On the military thing...partly because I am in it...we need to stop calling for cuts. NOT because they are not needed...but because the cuts they impose don't reduce what you think. They will still build more ships, more planes, more equipment, and more missiles...they will also continue to waste money on weapons research programs that will help nothing.

What they really cut is:

1. Our benefits...don't talk because even with full coverage our pay isn't that good at all.

2. Care for wounded veterans...maybe you don't like them being over there but they are already struggling to get by...and that is just the bills.

3. Troops that deserve to be in...yeah the constantly overweight soldiers and the number or lazy or stupid high rankers will stay...they already started cutting and we are losing some excellent soldiers that know their job better than their superiors.

4. Out personal protection equipment if we are not combat arms units...here...these cloth doors work just as well as those armored ones and we are sorry but you are going to have to share these ballistic plates for your body armor.

You say cut and they cut...only you are telling people outside of the military to cut things that they deem unimportant or "wasteful" when they really have no clue. I am a mechanic with no parts and the worst collection of tools...and that is how our whole company is and so are many others...if something is broke I have a basic tool set from Sears and alot of 10w40 and that is about it...

Yeah we need to cut shit but be specific because every industry has already taken a pretty good hit...and while more cutting is needed a cut in the wrong stop could really cause some problems.

[FarrIL]

Yet again, Republicans cutting where we need money most. The less money going towards schools ends up promoting a huge jump in drop-out rates, less people going to school and higher crime rates.

I say we start blaming Republicans for crimes. Especially when it comes to juveniles. Thanks a lot, Mr Snyder!

[candyman]

Crime isn't about education or wealth...and looking at crime all over the world it has no political or religious bias either...

[Scar My Machine]

please, (and this applies to anyone who's complaining about snyder's methods) tell us your suggestions or ideas to close a billion+ dollar gap in the budget.

everyone loves to bitch, but nobody really has any solutions that aren't just bandaids on a bullet hole...

Michigan lawmakers, ect. all can start by doing away with free health coverage that we are paying for them to have (how nice they tell us how in dept this state is but they still accept the perks this state can no longer afford)....

If they are looking for ideas, they could start with House Bill 4080, introduced last week by Rep. Marty Knollenberg. The Oakland County Republican proposes that lawmakers give up health-care benefits for life — which they can collect after only six years on the job.

A state lawmaker who spends six years in Lansing will earn somewhere around $500,000 in salary, plus money for retirement. That should be enough. It is time to end the practice of offering health care for life.

And secondly, since they are on average earning about half a million in just six years I'm thinking they can take a pay cut since, Michigan can no longer afford such high salaries.

Critics of this plan may argue that reducing legislators’ salaries and benefits will barely make a dent in Michigan’s looming deficit. However, a reduction in salary from $71,685 to $38,461 ($33,224 times 148 legislators), is a savings of $4.9 million. Reducing expense accounts from $10,800 to $90 (teachers’ yearly supply allotment is an additional savings of $1.6 million.

Michigan senators and representatives, this is my challenge to you: reduce your salary for one year to that of a first year public school teacher. Cut your salaries. Cut your perks. Cut your retirement benefits just as you would cut those to every other citizen in Michigan. If the people of Michigan can live with the cuts you propose to the budget, then so can you. Don’t ask us to do what you will not.

Seems that if this salary cut were implemented we would be damn close to solving our budget deficit.

Question is.............are those lawmakers going to do it themselves and show the tax payers they are willing to share in the "shared sacrifice" they talk about or do we the people need to put it on the ballot and force them by voting to take salary cuts?

I'm thinking we'll have to vote their salaries down because, they haven't been willing to take pay cuts over the last umteen years so why should they do it voluntarily now?

See, I do offer a solution that is directed at both sides. Not one over the other.

[Scar My Machine]

Soooo wait, lemme see if I have this. He cutting business tax. How could that EVER be construed as a negative thing? I think I missed something. Cutting business tax helps all classes, rich and poor. Rich people own the business and the workers collect the checks. Lower business tax means MORE businesses coming to Michigan, not less, and therefore more lower-class citizens being employed.

Did I miss something...? Like I said, don't understand how any sound logic could construe tax cuts of any kind as negative. Now ANY increase in taxes? That would be stupid, especially taxing the upper class because the trickle down effect occurs. When the upper class get taxed they leave state (sometimes country) and take their both their businesses and checkbooks with them.

Seems that what you missed Cher is that the business tax cut is being paid for by the tax increase so they cancel each other out.

1.8 m (or is it billion?) in tax breaks coming from the 1.8 m/b tax increase.

How is that good? Our budget deficit wont be solved doing that will it?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Scar My Machine

[Destroit]

Seems that what you missed Cher is that the business tax cut is being paid for by the tax increase so they cancel each other out.

1.8 m (or is it billion?) in tax breaks coming from the 1.8 m/b tax increase.

How is that good? Our budget deficit wont be solved doing that will it?

They're decreasing taxes for business but raising them for citizens? Sounds logical to me. Sounds like more jobs in the long run. Now, they could have done it without raising taxes on citizens, but I have a feeling the real reason they did it was for a "softener", so that there would not be a huge vacuum effect with money. While it might temporarily make our economy crappy, in the LONG run it should actually work out fine when businesses want to stay in MI and then people actually have jobs. Smart guy. Too bad everyone else in the state can only see five minutes into the future instead of years ahead.

They're decreasing taxes for business but raising them for citizens? Sounds logical to me. Sounds like more jobs in the long run. Now, they could have done it without raising taxes on citizens, but I have a feeling the real reason they did it was for a "softener", so that there would not be a huge vacuum effect with money. While it might temporarily make our economy crappy, in the LONG run it should actually work out fine when businesses want to stay in MI and then people actually have jobs. Smart guy. Too bad everyone else in the state can only see five minutes into the future instead of years ahead.

[Scar My Machine]

They're decreasing taxes for business but raising them for citizens? Sounds logical to me. Sounds like more jobs in the long run. Now, they could have done it without raising taxes on citizens, but I have a feeling the real reason they did it was for a "softener", so that there would not be a huge vacuum effect with money. While it might temporarily make our economy crappy, in the LONG run it should actually work out fine when businesses want to stay in MI and then people actually have jobs. Smart guy. Too bad everyone else in the state can only see five minutes into the future instead of years ahead.

That scenario has been told time and time again. It was told to us during Engler's administration and if memory serves correctly, Michigan started losing jobs during his time in office. Before Granholm came in. But somehow, it is a common belief among conservatives that, if you continue to over tax the poor and continue to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations that they will create jobs.

That is a false reality and the evidence is all the jobs that were shipped from Michigan to Mexico during Engler's term in office. The evidence is all the residents leaving Michigan.

How will doing the same thing again be different or actually work the way it is described?

[Destroit]

ame='Chernobyl' date='13 March 2011 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1300038697' post='723420']

They're decreasing taxes for business but raising them for citizens? Sounds logical to me. Sounds like more jobs in the long run. Now, they could have done it without raising taxes on citizens, but I have a feeling the real reason they did it was for a "softener", so that there would not be a huge vacuum effect with money. While it might temporarily make our economy crappy, in the LONG run it should actually work out fine when businesses want to stay in MI and then people actually have jobs. Smart guy. Too bad everyone else in the state can only see five minutes into the future instead of years ahead.

That scenario has been told time and time again. It was told to us during Engler's administration and if memory serves correctly, Michigan started losing jobs during his time in office. Before Granholm came in. But somehow, it is a common belief among conservatives that, if you continue to over tax the poor and continue to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations that they will create jobs.

That is a false reality and the evidence is all the jobs that were shipped from Michigan to Mexico during Engler's term in office. The evidence is all the residents leaving Michigan.

How will doing the same thing again be different or actually work the way it is described?

Well then I give up. What do you say we should do? Tax business? Actually, btw, the jobs were shipped from Michigan to Mexico because of unions, not because of the government.

Well then I give up. What do you say we should do? Tax business? Actually, btw, the jobs were shipped from Michigan to Mexico because of unions, not because of the government.

[torn asunder]

How will doing the same thing again be different or actually work the way it is described?

so seriously, then, wtf do you propose be done differently? and be specific...

all i hear anyone ever do is bitch and moan. if it was so easy to fix this problem, it would be fixed already.

[Vater Araignee]

so seriously, then, wtf do you propose be done differently? and be specific...

all i hear anyone ever do is bitch and moan. if it was so easy to fix this problem, it would be fixed already.

I have the solution.

I say fuck me and my comfort now, I'm looking for a better place for those that haven't been born yet.

Instead of slowing the problems down lets speed them up, the sooner it comes to a head, the sooner we can pop it.

So encourage the corporate sponsored politicians to fuck shit up worse so that eventually the people will...