Michigan Votes Forum

 those on the left say that 'more government' is the answer to our problems.

our governor has increased the amount of government in michigan steadily, increasing intrusion, increasing taxes, and increasing obstruction to businesses.

now we are asked to believe that throwing money at our economy, paying particular attention to leftist projects, is going to stimulate our economy.

these things haven't worked yet. history tells us that, IF you take the time to really look at it, and NOT take the word of those on the left.

so, please tell us why we should believe that our governor, who has done nothing for almost two terms will get on the stick and raise us out of this mess in the next few months?

please tell us how the failure to accomplish the job up till now should be giving us ANY confidence that the job will be done in a relative heartbeat?

The real question is, why do we believe what either the left or the right wings of American politics spiels at us?

Neither has proved itself as being especially respectful of truth, real American founding principles, or common sense.  The situation gets worse as you move farther out toward the extremes in either direction.  

In fact, middle-of-the roaders are the ones who get it right most often, cherry-picking smart and effective policy ideas from both sides of the aisle, but very, very seldom from the right or left extremes.

 so, why did these 'cherry-pickers' elect one of the farthest left?

could it be the extravagant promises made, but not delivered?

 the honeymoon is over. the 'cherry-pickers' are tired of what they see in washington already. vast numbers of 'middle of the roaders' have jumped ship and are not supporting the bailout. the more they hear, the less they like it.

the first bailout of the banks failed miserably because in the haste to pass it, they forgot to put the 'strings' on it to control what the spending went to. they spent the money on BUYING MORE BANKS. NOT ON MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE.

the current bailout bill is SO FULL OF PORK that even the most liberal senators cannot stand to see it pass. the news media has had a terrible time covering this, they don't know which way to turn. the walls are crumbling around them, their world is coming apart. their candidates are talking about TAX CUTS...

Left, center, right. Which way to go. We take a chance on who we put in office every time we vote.

I really get a kick out of reading the solutions offered by the right now. The dust hasn't even settled from the whirlwind destruction wrought by eight years of the right's tax cuts and derugulation, and their crying the left has failed. Failed? Failed to magically extract us from the last eight years. Yes. But heh, it's only been a few weeks into the new administration. What's your hurry?

And where is the center? The center shifts with each move from right to left or visa versa.The center is a product of the two extremes.You should understand this sane.

As for Granholm, she has done a good job of shepherding us through the rapid decline of our auto industry, and a trying transition period. To blame her for Michigan's ills is too easy, and wrong.

The first bailout bill, the tarp bill, was a disaster. What did you expect from Bush? The intention was good, the results horrible. Like Iraq. Good intentions, no planning, bad results.

 okay... she did what any good sheep (lap) dog has done... helped us wander a LITTLE LESS AIMLESSLY THROUGH THIS.

if that's what you call LEADERSHIP, we have to buy you a much better dictionary.

her promise wasn't to take us by the hand and shepherd us through these trying times...

it was to CURE THE ILLS OF MICHIGAN. TO BRING US BACK TO PROSPERITY.

TO TAX US BACK FROM THE BRINK.

none of her plans worked because she hasn't worked hard enough to get any of her plans implemented.

i'm still waiting to hear what wonderful things she has done in the last two terms.

Your wait is over. Enjoy.

Shrinking the Size of Government, Protecting the People's Priorities:  Securing the future - and growing the economy - starts with putting the state's financial house in order. Governor Granholm has gotten rid of $4 billion in left-behind deficits by making tough choices and by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. The Granholm Administration is doing more with less and protecting citizens' critical priorities without raising taxes.  Under Granholm, the state bureaucracy is smaller and   taxpayers' dollars are being spent more efficiently than ever before. The result: education spending is up, more citizens have health care and thousands of seniors have access to cheaper prescription drugs - all without raising general taxes.  That's why Michigan was called the third best-managed state in the nation by Governing magazine, which gave the Administration high marks for fiscal responsibility.

I especially like that part about seniors having access to cheaper drugs.

Gee, third best. Where is Louisiana on that list? Probably first or second eh?

And who left Jenny that huge deficit? $4 billion!

 so, what did she do about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost? NOTHING. we STILL have the highest unemployment rate in the nation.

what did she do about the high taxes? NOTHING. her own legislature (democrat controlled, by the way) is PASSING a bill that will cut the business tax. a lot of those dems voted FOR the bill.

what did she do about the big three? NOTHING. she waited for the feds to bail them out at our expense.

and by the way, jenny's deficit has been over a billion dollars a year, times seven years equals SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS.

that's pretty steep for having made improvements. she's had to shut down the state police already. engler never had to do that.

she's had the entire government shut down. engler never did that.

you call THIS an improvement????

you've let your KOOL-AID ferment... haven't you?

As I've stated in other post, it takes time to clean the mess up after you repubs. Kind of like blowing up a building. It goes up in a second, but takes a long time to clean up the debris and rebuild.

We're working on it.

 bull...

she is just piling more rubble on the mess and hoping no one notices.

we have lost more jobs quicker with HER in office than engler. i'd say that was failing to do SOMETHING...

we have lost more businesses quicker with HER in office than engler. i'd say she failed to do something about that too.

our schools are still among the poorest performing in the nation. poorer NOW than when engler was in office. i'd say she failed to do something about THAT as well.

seems like you guys picked a REAL WINNER with this one. why didn't you pick someone who COULD do the job, instead of the person who just SAID SHE COULD DO THE JOB?

you have chosen.... poorly.

 how long do you think that unions could survive if we were a right to work state?

uber-liberal:

 how long do you think that unions could survive if we were a right to work state?

 ???  Your statement makes no sense.  As usual.

"Right to work"  state means  destruction of the unions, destruction of labor laws that took decades to establish.

 In "Right to work"  States, the employee has NO rights.

Can be fired for ANY reason.  Has no recourse for "wrongful" termination.

Are classified as "part-time" even if they work 40 hours or more.

Its called "right to work"  but more accurately it should be called  "screw the working person".

Another idiot republican Idea that will have everyone working for minimum wage with NO benefits whatsoever.

The republican "right to work" laws are just another example of how republicans have RUINED this country !

PERIOD !

Filthy republican criminals !

 all those words, all that tirade, and no answer. most right to work states are southern, as is the majority of the 'non-coastal' democrats in this country. thus the term 'southern democrat'. they seem to be doing quite well with it. in fact, the number one auto manufacturer is doing quite well manufacturing cars in a 'right to work' state. nissan is the number one car company in the country, and tennessee is where they build their cars. a non union state. go figure.

now, insult your way out of those facts, if you can. tell us that the non-union workers in tennessee are not producing a superior product to what we make here. tell us that only union auto workers can build the best cars in the country. lie to us some more, true, and insult us some more.  

 it's not a statement, trueblue, it's a question. a very simple question. a civil question. one deserving of an answer.

right to work has neither destroyed unions, nor 'screwed the working person' anywhere it has been implemented. rights are protected as they have always been, by law, not by some paid union watchdog. what right to work has done is slimmed down the roster of unions considerably, lessening the political impact of union PAC contributions, and thus, leveling the playing field for other candidates. your predictions of 'doom and gloom' don't fit the facts as they are in the several states that have implemented right to work.

using terms like "idiot republican idea" and "filthy republican criminals" shows that you believe that any idea from any republican is worthless, which shows a position of ideological superiority that is totally undeserved. democrats have been 'in charge' here for decades, and our state is in a sorry state. democrat ideas have not worked, but are still being tried in the hopes of a different outcome.

Ad hominem remarks, demeaning another member of this forum for his or her views or affiliation, sneering, name-calling, etc. are prohibited on this web site.

More than anything else, the presumption of goodwill must be granted to all other commenters on this web site. You are free to respectfully characterize another’s views as misguided and describe in detail specifically why you think so, but characterizing any participant on this forum as  being motivated by anything other than goodwill is prohibited. Comments must also adhere to basic standards of civility, decorum and good manners. This is a family site.

where is that presumption of goodwill in that type of posting?   

Right to work laws are nothing more than an attack on working men and women's right to organize in unions to bargain for better wages and working conditions. Unions have proven their ability to raise the standard of living for working people. Right to work laws don't protect rights, they take rights away. In numbers is strength.

silence dogood:

 it's not a statement, trueblue, it's a question. a very simple question. a civil question. one deserving of an answer.

right to work has neither destroyed unions, nor 'screwed the working person' anywhere it has been implemented. rights are protected as they have always been,

Pardon me but I have to ask.......are you a complete idiot????

Have you EVEN READ the "right to work LAWS" ??????

They BAN employees right to even THINK about unionizing.

Your entire comment is a bunch of incorrect blather.

You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about sooooo  until you do, it would be ignorant for ANYONE to engage you in a discussion about something you are completely unknowledgeable about.

Google it !  Educate yourself before you look like a BIGGER Buffoon !

And dont give me crap about your sensitivities.  I am being honest about your stupidity, you should thank me for telling you you look like an idiot.

Either YOU are an idiot, or you are intentionally lying in  your post.  Why dont you tell us which.

Pfft !    Waste !

 please list the states where it is illegal to organize or join a union.

 hey trueblue.

you may want to read this before you spout off again.

"In certain organizations workers may be required to join a union after they are hired; such workplaces are called union shops. Twenty-two states have enacted right-to-work laws that prohibit union shops, and most are located in the South and Midwest. Right-to-work states, as of January 2006, include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. This means that to get or hold a job in these states, workers do not have to join a union if one exists. Closed shops, in which only union members in good standing can be hired, are illegal in right-to-work states.

By law, all workers in a bargaining unit are entitled to the benefits gained through union collective bargaining, whether they are union members or not. Nonunion workers employed by a unionized company get the same benefits as union members, even if they do not join the union."

Right to work laws do not ban unions, they negate them by allowing an "open shop" to exist. This divides workers into those who pay dues and join the union, and those who don't, but still reap the benefits of any collective bargaining gains the union makes. This has the obvious effect of dividing the work force, which is it's purpose, making union organizing nearly impossible. The foreign automakers in the south that are not organized enjoy almost identical wages and benefits as their northern counterparts, simply because the unions in the north have raised the wage levels and benefits over many years, and many battles, for it's union members, while seeing the automakers make healthy profits. The foreign automakers do not have the legacy cost of the big 3, by virtue of their younger work force.

Autoworkers are now having to give many of these gains up, due in large part to the globalization of the auto industry. This has been the driving force behind Michigan's declining economy and high unemployment.

 trueblue says it does.

"They BAN employees right to even THINK about unionizing.

Your entire comment is a bunch of incorrect blather.

You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about sooooo  until you do, it would be ignorant for ANYONE to engage you in a discussion about something you are completely unknowledgeable about.

Google it !  Educate yourself before you look like a BIGGER Buffoon !"

trueblue thinks he is right. he always thinks he is right. once again, proven wrong. and it didn't take a crazycajun to do it. perhaps if he educated himself before spouting off, he wouldn't look quite so ignorant.

thank you for clarifying his point. i understand your frustration at losing the death-grip on labor the unions have enjoyed here for decades, but unions aren't doing as badly down south as you might think. the unions there are also very careful as to how they spend the member's money, being very open about political PAC's and who they donate to. giving every union member the option of 'opting out' if they wish.

Right to work laws do not ban unions, they negate them by allowing an "open shop" to exist. This divides workers into those who pay dues and join the union, and those who don't, but still reap the benefits of any collective bargaining gains the union makes. This has the obvious effect of dividing the work force, which is it's purpose, making union organizing nearly impossible. The foreign automakers in the south that are not organized enjoy almost identical wages and benefits as their northern counterparts, simply because the unions in the north have raised the wage levels and benefits over many years, and many battles, for it's union members, while seeing the automakers make healthy profits. The foreign automakers do not have the legacy cost of the big 3, by virtue of their younger work force.

Autoworkers are now having to give many of these gains up, due in large part to the globalization of the auto industry. This has been the driving force behind Michigan's declining economy and high unemployment.

From a study done at the Economic Policy Institute by Lawrence Mishel:

"We find that the mean effect of working in a right-to-work state results in a 6% to 8% reduction in wages for workers in these states, with an average wage penalty of 6.5%. Controlling for regional costs of living reduces this amount to approximately 4%. We find that previous research reporting real wage gains associated with right-to-work states is almost purely the result of border cities that benefit from their proximity to a non-RTW state."

 what is the percentage of the worker's paycheck that is not paid into union dues. i'm willing to bet that it's higher than 10%. dropping union dues would give every michigan union worker a payraise equal to that percentage. it would certainly give them a boost in the 'take home pay' department.

uber-liberal:

 what is the percentage of the worker's paycheck that is not paid into union dues. i'm willing to bet that it's higher than 10%. dropping union dues would give every michigan union worker a payraise equal to that percentage. it would certainly give them a boost in the 'take home pay' department.

 Since you asked, my union dues for the year are approximately 1% of my gross salary. It's worth the 1% to gain the rights for which the union negotiates.

 how much would it increase your 'take home' if you quit paying them today? certainly more than one percent.

if it is so low, how do they get those billions of dollars to elect democrats? they must be following the hillary clinton invenstment strategy, buy $100.00 worth of cattle futures, and make $10,000.00 dollars in a month.

you would still be able to be a union member if we went 'right to work', that would not change if you didn't want it to, but it would allow those that don't want to join the union to work at any job you can work at. it provides fairness. isn't that what you guys keep saying is most important?

 why should we believe what the left says? the truth is, we shouldn't.

The author of this thread needs to define what he/she considers the "left", and then explain what they believe. The "right"?

 don't you understand the difference?

Yes.

 what do you need a definition for?

What is the "left" and what is it saying?

 don't you know? i do.

Share it with us.

 if you don't know, how can we discuss and debate intelligently?

If you won't devulge what you think the left is saying, the discussion will certainly be limited.

 it's not a matter of what i think the left is saying. it's a matter of what we all know the left is saying. and if you don't know that, our conversation will certainly be limited.

 the question of the post is 'why should we believe what the left says'. no one has posted one good reason to believe them.

here are a few reasons we should not.

1. the left tells us that government can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves. this is only true if government forcefully takes your money for this purpose. the fact that the left chooses who gets money taken, and who gets money given is proof that they lie about equality.

Who are you saying from the left says government can take better care of us than we can?

 welfare. afdc. 90% taxes on bonuses.

Those are programs passed by the Congress and state legislations, composed of both parties, and both political ideologies.