  Johnberk Member Username: Johnberk Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2003 |
Gov. Granholm and President Clinton along with Senator Stabenow and fellow Democrats are rallying to Put Michigan First -- Doors open at 8am. 8am, Saturday, November 4th Matthaei Athletic Center Wayne State University For more information, contact the Granholm for Governor campaign at (517) 485-5100 or (313) 887-6564. | ||
Yaktown Member Username: Yaktown Post Number: 42 Registered: 02-2006 |
Wear your best blue dress for prime seating! | ||
Milwaukee Member Username: Milwaukee Post Number: 306 Registered: 08-2006 |
Karl's got his ticket, front and center!  | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 951 Registered: 03-2005 |
I will be there in support of my comrades.  | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 4827 Registered: 09-2005 |
I want to see how they manage "Put Michigan First" alongside "Blame America First" - and yeah, I'll be in the front row. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4631 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yeah, because America's so much better off since the GOP put America first. lol That's if you make it to the front row. These events can always use some token hecklers, though. Have fun. (Message edited by lmichigan on November 03, 2006) | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 229 Registered: 09-2006 |
Karl you should ask him whether or not he did enough to capture Bin Laden so he can go all psycho on you and I can laugh watching it on TV. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 952 Registered: 03-2005 |
Comrade Lmichigan, we are indeed in trouble. The Capitalist Bush Regime has proven that lowering taxes results in higher tax revenues. These imperialists have also managed to keep unemployment at record lows, and all without state ownership of our industries! To make matters worse, our proletarian minority voting base is beginning to turn its back on us as they are becoming homeowners in record numbers while disavowing our drive towards communal ownership of property. How are we to explain why our experiment with National Socialism in Michigan has resulted in America's worst state economy? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 2193 Registered: 02-2005 |
This should be interesting. No doubt someone will launch into a tirade on the "terrible effects of outsourcing for Michigan, caused by NAFTA, which, don't ya know it, Dick Devos supports"... and then they will look across the room and see Bill Clinton, the signer of NAFTA. It will be hard for Mr. Free Trade Clinton to hang with the likes of Granny and Stab-me-know when it comes to their protectionist rhetoric which has served as a scare tactic in their ads this fall. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 790 Registered: 11-2003 |
NAFTA includes China? | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 170 Registered: 01-2004 |
Mrjoshua: you obviously do not understand the difference between communism and socialism; although, oversimplified talking points you seem to have a handle on. As you can see from the graph below you are wrong on the “record lows” in unemployment. This comes from the US labor department, a much more credible source that Rush Limabugh or Bill O’Reilly. Also, your talking point on higher tax revenue is also incorrect; as you can see “According to The New York Times, corporate taxes, individual taxes on stock-market profits and taxes on executive bonuses are mostly responsible for the high tax revenues”……..none of these have a link to tax cuts. I suggest reading up on the affects of social policy outside the US in a comparative context and then look at who has the highest standard of living, shortest unemployment intervals, lowest childhood poverty, healthiest citizens ect……..and then ask yourself if social policy could be that determining factor. I’m afraid you will find it does. Authors I recommended (Esping-Anderson, R.E. Goodin, Walter Korpi, Richard Titmuss, Christoper Pierson and Theda Scocpol)….although, if you just want to play the typical conservative stereotype and simply get your information from conservative talk radio and pundits; I would not be surprised.  | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 2687 Registered: 10-2003 |
yes, but reality has been shown to have a liberal bias. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2439 Registered: 10-2003 |
tkelly's "reality" has a bias toward inaccuracy since s/he's wrong on both the tax and unemployment points. Tax rates were cut on personal income, capital gains and dividends so obviously two of the three sources of increased tax revenue you cited are linked to tax cuts. Also, the chart you posted is out of date. Unemployment now stands at 4.4%, not the ~5.5% shown in the chart you posted. 4.4% is pretty low by historical standards. Lower than all of the 70's, the 80's and most of the 90's. Sloppy with the facts or intentionally misleading? | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 749 Registered: 02-2004 |
I could only wish and dream that the democrats were as left-leaning as the republicrites on this board make them out to be. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 639 Registered: 10-2003 |
Barf! | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 640 Registered: 10-2003 |
Barf! | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 171 Registered: 01-2004 |
Sloppy facts are a staple in the Bush administration; who can trust any of the facts floating around right now: I got the chart from the department of labor…..I did not find anything more recent: but regardless, unemployment is cyclical and it would be irresponsibility to give any president credit for low unemployment; be it Clinton o Bush. What is misleading is the sickle a hammer in mrjoshua’s post. (Message edited by tkelly1986 on November 03, 2006) | ||
Madanthonywayne Member Username: Madanthonywayne Post Number: 36 Registered: 03-2006 |
 | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 24 Registered: 10-2006 |
4.4% unemployment? What difference does that make when the "new" employment consists of salary cuts, slashing benefits, platinum parachutes, and disappearing 401k and pension plans? How can anyone brag about high employment when a large part of that are people only making $7 an hour while health insurance premiums spin out of control during this "race to the bottom". | ||
Detroit_stylin Member Username: Detroit_stylin Post Number: 3143 Registered: 10-2003 |
Say thst 'Vette... When people tend to talk about how gravy everything is, more than likely they arent a part of that group that has to rob peter to pay paul when it comes to basic neccessities (i.e. those that toil in service industry jobs)... | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 6964 Registered: 12-2003 |
Any of you look into the definition of unemployment? One of the major factors is whether a person has called in that week seeking employment, if they've given up...and thousands join in this deflation of hope as their 'benefits' run out...then those unemployment figures will be very low indeed. The numbers have to be skewed by the amount of individuals overseas on temporary Military work permits (heh), those Army Reserve and Army National Guard left positions that have to be filled by somebody while they're gone. Remove the total of injured-beyond-employable that they are suspiciously NOT counting...and the pool of available workers on our shores is reduced even more. We have not even begun to see layoffs from the Housing Sector declines yet...many mortgage firms are not yet contracting, and too many builders are in the middle of projects that were started well before this current tightening. I wouldn't go boasting about any unemployment figures on either of the false sides of the political equation...too many unknowns to raise a banner of praise, blame, or shame for anyone. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2441 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, and I explained it on this board several times, probably at least once in response to a previous post by you. The 4.4% number is based on a survey. Not on unemployment claims. Not on business payroll reporting. The BLS site explains this all in one of their FAQs. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2298 Registered: 10-2003 |
It is also a comparable number collected the same way over time. So while the real number may not be 4.4% it is statistically comparable to the number from the Clinton administration and every other administration it has been calculated for. So if you have issues with the current number, you need to also question the number from the Clinton Administration. The previous numbers all had the same errors. | ||
Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 956 Registered: 03-2005 |
"Sloppy facts are a staple in the Bush administration; be it Clinton o Bush. What is misleading is the sickle a hammer in mrjoshua’s post." Comrade Tkelly, you would make Father Stalin proud by hammering back against the Capitalist Imperialists with equal propaganda. For even when you lose argument, you spin cycle and provide baseless commentary that refuses to address statistics. You would make good Communist surely. But we must find other source besides New York Times as publication is now laughing stock worldwide! They not even mention Comrade Kerry on front page after he tell bad joke and then try to cover with bad lie. We must create better propaganda than this, so I call upon you, comrade, to continue to fight the good fight. Workers unite! | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 4829 Registered: 09-2005 |
News flash! Performing during breaks in the rally on Saturday will be Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, featuring: Devil With The Blue Dress On | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4634 Registered: 10-2003 |
"yes, but reality has been shown to have a liberal bias." Barnesfoto, that was the funniest line I've seen on here in months. lol I'm going to remember that one. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 4833 Registered: 09-2005 |
Yeah Lmich & Barnes - truly a joke. | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 1171 Registered: 01-2004 |
Problem with all unemployment stats is that they are measuring recently unemployed individuals who are collecting unemployment benefits. You could theoretically have 100% of a populace with no job, and if they are all out of unemployment benefits, the "unemployment" statistic will show 0%. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 31 Registered: 10-2006 |
Is anyone here really comparing today's economics to the boom times of the 90's??? Come on, guys. Politics aside, you have got to be kidding!!! Do a freakin' simple internet search (unless you think Yahoo and Google are both left wing, radical, commie search engines!) | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 117 Registered: 02-2006 |
Last chance to see Dangerous Debbie until she disappears for five and a half years. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 4635 Registered: 10-2003 |
Karl, are personal attacks the best you've got? Did I ever call you a joke? Are you just pissed that Clinton was a more popular and effective president and so loved by so many people, than Bush will ever be? Seriously, what's the deal? (Message edited by lmichigan on November 03, 2006) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 4836 Registered: 09-2005 |
Lmich, sorry, I didn't realize it was your time of the month. I thought it was funny - "reality has a liberal bias" - ya know? Ha ha, funny. Personal attacks? Only in your mind. PO'd at Clinton? Never. Truly a standard against which all other presidents can be compared. There'll never be another like him. Loved by so many? Yeah, by historians. Another good joke, Lmich. Haha, ROFL. Loosen up a bit, it's Friday night. | ||
Fortress_warren Member Username: Fortress_warren Post Number: 116 Registered: 10-2006 |
Gannon, you got the aluminum foil shiny side out?" | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2443 Registered: 10-2003 |
Not so, Mauser. From http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq .htm#Ques5
More on the CPS survey: That comes from http://www.bls.gov/lau/lauhvse .htm#hvse I don't understand why so many people believe that unemployment claims are what the unemployment rates are based on. It's a common but fundamental misconception. | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 172 Registered: 01-2004 |
Mrjoshua; you prove your ignorance over and over again; very Rush Limbaugh and typical fascist. (Message edited by tkelly1986 on November 04, 2006) | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5165 Registered: 02-2004 |
YAY CLINTON!! The defender of the Democrats. | ||
Warriorfan Member Username: Warriorfan Post Number: 558 Registered: 08-2005 |
When Clinton left office, his approval rating was 66%. Two out of every three Americans liked the job he did as President, to get that high of an approval rating means he won the approval of the moderates and the Independents as well as some Republican voters. Bush's approval rating is somewhere around ~38% today. That means that not only do the Democrats not like him, but the Independents and the Moderates also disapprove of him. And to get an approval rating that low, there must be even a percentage of Republicans that don't like the man. When you are in the 30's, that means the only people left who actually approve of the job you are doing is the hardcore base, he has alienated everyone else in America except for the Evangelical crowd in flyover country who hate gays more than they do the terrorists. (Message edited by warriorfan on November 04, 2006) | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2006 |
From what I hear, he's losing the support of some evangelicals also. They seem to have a problem with coverups of child sexual predators, support for illegal aliens, and gays within their own party. (p.s. Did anyone here actually attend the rally this morning?) | ||
Innercitydoc Member Username: Innercitydoc Post Number: 14 Registered: 09-2006 |
I was in attendance. Wasn't as large of a rally as anticipated but gratifying all the same. | ||
Cjdb16 Member Username: Cjdb16 Post Number: 149 Registered: 11-2003 |
I did. Clinton shook my son's hand! The rally was loooooong, and a lot of work with a 10 moth old, but I am glad we went. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2006 |
Cool. I would have went if I wasn't allergic to getting up at 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Geez, what clod came up with that time frame on a college campus of all things! | ||
Cjdb16 Member Username: Cjdb16 Post Number: 150 Registered: 11-2003 |
You could have walked in at 10 and sat right next to us, plenty of room, and you still would have seen all the good stuff. Of course we were in line at 7:30... | ||
Rocket_city Member Username: Rocket_city Post Number: 130 Registered: 04-2006 |
I was there right in the front row in front of the podium! It was so great to hear what these politicians had to say and have them come together with such a positive initiative. I got to shake the hand of Bill, Jenn, and Deb too. It was definitely worth the wait out in the cold and putting up with the tragedy of the anti-abortionist protester outside. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 620 Registered: 11-2005 |
So Karl really did fly in for this event? | ||
Innercitydoc Member Username: Innercitydoc Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2006 |
She was really and earful. Even went so far as saying that she would keep a child fathered by her father. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2050 Registered: 12-2004 |
Actually, NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. Clinton was the guy who got it ratified after negotiating a series of side-agreements to protect workers' rights and the environment. And, of course, unemployment was a lot lower when he was President. The stock market was doing better. The U.S. Treasury was on track for a balanced budget. Too bad the Shrub couldn't keep it up. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 124 Registered: 03-2006 |
Quote "And, of course, unemployment was a lot lower when he was President." Incorrect, the current rate is lower than the average of the Clinton years. Quote "The stock market was doing better." Incorrect, the DOW has been setting record after record in the last month. Qhote "The U.S. Treasury was on track for a balanced budget." Tax receipts to the treasury are at record highs. Quote "Too bad the Shrub couldn't keep it up." Considering we have been attacked and are involved in 2 wars, we have done quite well, except of course for this state. Whatever "side agreements" Clinton negotiated are meaningless at this point. The fact is Clinton signed it and also fought to give Most Favored Nation status to China which is killing us here. Levin also supported NAFTA and MFN for China. It is great to see that Stabenow is a trade hawk, but her cohorts must share a large part of the blame for the current state of affairs in Michigan. The fact is that if there were a Democrat president the media would be touting this as a great economy. They are in the tank for the libs so all we hear is bad news or nothing. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 932 Registered: 12-2005 |
Wow. That was really  . | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 3226 Registered: 10-2003 |
Nice spin attempt Perfect Gentleman, but I know you are wise enough to know that you are grasping at straws. Quote "And, of course, unemployment was a lot lower when he was President." Incorrect, the current rate is lower than the average of the Clinton years. >Your mumbled use of the word average shouts out to my ears. Clinton inherited a Bush 1 recession and turned it around completely. Bush 2 inherited a Clinton era boom and sent the economy and deficit in the pits with handouts to wealthy friends. This present 'recovery' is falling apart as we write and new job creation is not keeping up with labor market growth. Quote "The stock market was doing better." Incorrect, the DOW has been setting record after record in the last month. >And what record did that break? Six years in the tank and stocks [only on the Dow, not Nasdaq which you conveniently omit] have regained their Clinton years numbers. Apparently you don't have a stock portfolio or you would know that you would have been better off sitting in CDs during the Bush2 years. Again you take a momentary shaky snapshot and try to find comfort. In fact all portfolios other oil and defense have taken a beating in the past six years. Quote "The U.S. Treasury was on track for a balanced budget." Tax receipts to the treasury are at record highs. >So is spending at record heights and far in excess of of your record receipts. Two trillion in debt has been accumulated in the past six years and the full debt for the Iraq disaster has not been paid for. Quote "Too bad the Shrub couldn't keep it up." Considering we have been attacked and are involved in 2 wars, we have done quite well, except of course for this state. >Attacked once by twenty men with box cutters. Hardly the Pearl Harbor 2 the scare-orrists have spun it to be. We have done miserably militarily and economically. One war was totally unnecessary and is a money and blood sucking disaster whose full bill will come due long after Bush skulks back to Texas. The other war could have been won but is now an uncertain struggle. No matter how you try to make silk purse out of the sow's ear, this country is skating on very thin ice, militarily, economically and spiritually. It has record national, balance of trade and personal debt and is served by incompetent and increasingly corrupt leadership. I really wish I could join your celebration, but harsh reality is otherwise. And that ^ doesn't even get to Katrina. | ||
Cjdb16 Member Username: Cjdb16 Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2003 |
Hopefully we will have something to celebrate on Wednesday, Lowell. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 125 Registered: 03-2006 |
Lowell, I am neither an apologist for the Bush administration or the Republican party, and certainly mistakes have been made. I am a conservative and do not drink the kool-aid of either party as you obviously do. It is troubling that people such as yourself make your arguments by distorting the facts. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that could be made of Bush and the Republicans, yet the left cannot seem to get away from their worn-out templates. The fact that the stock market is at an all-time high is a fact. It is not some sudden burst or anomaly, it has been rising steadily based on market fundamentals for years. The nation was already in recession when Bush took office, albeit for a few months. 9/11 certainly had an impact as well. The technology boom that drove the market in the Clinton years (now referred to as the “tech bubble”) was an anomaly, with companies trading at multiples that were totally unjustified based on their earnings (or lack of). “Irrational Exuberance” as Greenspan aptly put it. The financial scandals in corporate America were discovered when Bush was in office but mostly occurred when Clinton was president. I would rather have an economy based on real earnings, real consumer demand, and low interest rates which have allowed record numbers of people to own a home than a bunch of companies that had no earnings and just lied on their financial reports to manipulate their stock price. Of course Clinton made lying a fashionable thing back then didn’t he? A 4.4% unemployment rate is damn near full employment by historical standards, which is exactly what the liberal media was saying about that level when Clinton was in office. The fact that the government spends too much money is a fact, and the Republicans have been guilty of this to be sure. Unfortunately, the Democrats still propose far more spending then do the Republicans even to this day according to the National Taxpayers Union. To think that electing more liberals is going to reduce government spending is preposterous. We will surely have tax increases though, as they leaders of the Democrat party have made clear. The fact that you feel the enemy we face consisted of only “twenty men with box cutters” is the most troubling of your flawed conclusions. I know that those on the left do not want to deal with it, but we are facing an enemy that exists world-wide and seeks our destruction. It will not go away by ignoring it. We even have people in our own community who openly support the sworn enemies of this country and who actively seek the destruction of the Jewish state. This battle is upon us whether we seek it or not. It started decades ago when the hero of the left Jimmy Carter stood idly by while Iranians held American hostages for 440 days. Reasonable people can disagree on the approach the current administration has taken in the war on terror, but at least we are not sitting around hoping the threat would go away. We have not been attacked on our shores since 9/11. Regime change in Iraq was the stated policy of the Clinton administration, and the overwhelming majority of Democrat supported the authorization of force in Iraq. Of course when the battle gets tough, the libs bail out and begin making statements that only undermine the war effort. The same way they did in Viet Nam, a war that was started by Democrats, but who later abandoned the effort and undermined our troops who were in harms way. It amazes me that liberals claim to support human rights, yet seem to favor leaving oppressive, murderous regimes in power. The liberals seem to avoid the discussion of what THEY would do in Iraq, and what the consequences would be if we just withdraw and allow chaos to ensue in the region. To say now that we should not have gone to war in the first place does no good now. They should have made a more forceful case prior to the war if that was true, but instead Democrats voted for the war, probably for political reasons, not because they believed in it. Some liberals I know have even taken the position that Muslims are basically unfit to handle freedom so trying to liberate them is ill-advised. If that is true, then I guess we shouldn’t allow them in this country as they clearly don’t share our values. Which brings me to my final point, liberals are always in favor of unfettered immigration and support illegal immigrants who come here and break our laws. The only reason we do not have amnesty for the millions of illegals who are here is because the Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed it, the very people that will probably be thrown out on Tuesday. If the liberals really think that it is a good idea to export poor people to another country as the Mexican government is doing, maybe we should send all of our welfare recipients to Canada! Sad to say, as bad as some of the Republicans have been, the Democrats are far worse. I guess we will get a reminder of that when Speaker Pelosi takes over! | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4118 Registered: 10-2003 |
Jan 8, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL ITICS/01/07/bush.immigration/ | ||
Bussey Member Username: Bussey Post Number: 307 Registered: 12-2003 |
Clinton shook his hand...! Wow thats awesome CJDB. If I hadn't been at work I would have seen you there. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 4845 Registered: 09-2005 |
Perfectgentleman, good post. Here's a link you might be interested in, perhaps you've already seen it. http://www.citizenlink.org/cit izenMag/A000002301.cfm | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 126 Registered: 03-2006 |
Thanks Karl - that is a great article! |
