AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
The vice presidential debate...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
Thanks, Mark, for such a great quickie comparison between the states. You ARE the man with the statistics; that's for sure. You nailed what I was trying to get across originally when I first brought up Michigan at all. It really could have been most any other state; but I was comfortable using my own, at that point.


Michigan has been a Democratic Party led state for how long? Should it not, therefore, be a paradise? Bush vetoes? Uh? Bush hasn't vetoed much during his administration. There are any number of items Conservatives have been upset with President Bush over because he hasn't used his veto power. And, oh, my! How dare those waskily Republicans use the filibuster as a means to rein in the Democrats. Why, the Democrats would never do that! Oh, well, erm ... Never Mind.

Tee wrote:
LisaW, I think you have some great thoughts and are very fervent in your responses. However, the manner in which you convey them actually makes me want to assume a direct opposite viewpoint from yours. I know that's not your intention; but it's difficult for one to remain open-minded to differing opinions when posts are written that way. I can almost see your finger jabbing at me thru the screen.



OF course I irritate you ... I don't agree with you. That's par for the course, isn't it?
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:
OF course I irritate you ... I don't agree with you. That's par for the course, isn't it?

No, it's not par. Learning from people who have different viewpoints does work once in a while--not always, but sometimes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1366

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Bush vetoes and veto threats. After 6 years of Republican control of both legislature and executive with near-zero vetoes, a very slim Democratic majority has had almost all efforts to undo the damage blocked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Yes, Bush vetoes and veto threats. After 6 years of Republican control of both legislature and executive with near-zero vetoes, a very slim Democratic majority has had almost all efforts to undo the damage blocked.


Uh, that would be the same Democrats who used the 60% rule for filibusters and now complain the same's being used against them? Those Dems who are trying to "undo damage?"
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, welcome back, Lisa W. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
KathieO wrote:
Alaska's largest city may only have around 600,000 people, but we have some of the highest income per capita in the nation, and, where money flows, cosmopolitan influences will follow. . .

Lots of material you gathered here, KathieO. Good for you. I'm not sure it changed my mind, but I certainly found it interesting. However, since you're quoting figures, Alaska's largest city, which is Anchorage, has approx 280,000 people, not 600,000. Actually, the whole of Alaska has approx 670,053 people total. So as governor of that state, it still can be said that many mayors have control over cities with way more population than the whole of Alaska. I know there's big business there, as you said, so population doesn't say it all. But it says a lot, too.

For instance, here in Michigan, our total state population is approx 10.1 million. And we have big business all over the state too (going downhill fast, I know Shocked ). Just the same, governing a state which is under a million compared to one that is more than 10 times that population size, is considerable. I'm not saying Palin is not qualified, but most of us don't really know that for sure because our exposure to her has been only seven weeks. I'm not knocking her as a person, especially since I'm still getting to understand her and her thinking. She seems nice. But if she had to truly "step in," that's what hasn't been answered for me yet. Probably that will never come up within the next four years--let's hope not anyway. But why else do we bother nominating a vice president? That's their main role and function, other than break tie votes in the Senate, that is. Depending on the president and his governing tactics, you may never see the vice president again once he takes office. But he's there and will surface if needed. Is Palin the one we would like to surface at such a time? I don't know. Because I don't know her yet.


Tee:

Way late to this discussion but I think a lot of Governor Granholm. I do believe she has a very bright future beyond the governor's office. At least I hope so. I know her sister-in-law who was recently elected to the City Council in Tampa, Florida. She told us about her relationship to Jennifer when a bunch of us were attending training classes. Jennifer is married to her brother. The wife of a Rhode Island Senator also attended so it was an interesting group.

Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sandlynn



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1810
Location: Washington, D.C.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Way late to this discussion but I think a lot of Governor Granholm. I do believe she has a very bright future beyond the governor's office. At least I hope so.


I hope so too, but -- I don't know if this has been mentioned yet -- alas for us, Granholm was born in Canada, so she can't run for President or Vice-President.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe Granholm is a very capable person and governor, Karen and Sandlynn. It's not an easy time to be governor here in Michigan these days, as well as some other hot states; but I feel she's doing well under the circumstances.

And, yes, she was born in Canada (came here when she was four), but educated in the US. That does prevent her from running for President or Vice President, but not to other top positions. Thanks for the feedback from both of you. Michigan may not be in the best of situations right now; but we have good people here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sterling_95



Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I hate to be a killjoy, but I share LisaW's dislike of Granholm. I know that the woman has limited power, and that forces beyond her control have shaped things in the Michigan economy and government. However, from what I have seen, she has done a limited amount to staunch the bleeding, and appears to be a nice person who is way in over her head (ironically, the same thing that they considered Palin to be). She has been in office for 5 years, and Michigan's economy keeps tanking, with no substantial change. Her tax programs, which are meant to balance the budget, hit small businesses the hardest and just lead to a "death by a thousand cuts". Among the various tax proposals: expanding the sales tax on vending machine purchases to include milk and nonalcoholic beverages, imposing a new 2% tax increase that is "not technically an expansion of the sales or use tax," but "has the same effect of a sales and use tax by taxing users and consumers on the price paid for services." Services subject to tax include, but would not be limited to, construction, repair and maintenance, legal and accounting, landscaping and lawn care, personal care, and most entertainment. Talk about being nickled and dimed

Then there's the so-called Safety law, which was meant to encourage safe driving in Michigan. Now drivers who are caught violating the law are judged on certain offenses, and a point system. Sounds reasonable, until you do the math and realize that you can easily be charged 7 points - the level at which penalties are invoked - on one charge of doing 40 in a 35 construction zone, and you have to pay over $150 to get your license back. If you are caught driving without a license, you can pay up to $650, and of course, they double the fee to get a driver's license and septupled the dealer's license fees around the same time. So, you have a lot of drivers who can't afford to pay to get their license, or can't get their license back due to fees, then they have to drive to work, and keep getting fined for having no license. It's a vicious circle.

When she was criticized for her handling of handling of contracting procedures at Detroit Metro Airport (Granholm's husband received $30,000 worth of contracts shortly after she left her position as Wayne County Counsel), she ordered a review, but she oversaw the review personally, as she was the standing Attorney General at the time and refused to remove herself from the case. She certainly outdid Sarah Palin in any conflict of interest ethics violations.

I've looked for positive records of her accomplishments to ensure that I was getting the big picture of her, and so far, all that I've been able to find is:

- She has a good education
- She removed Detroit's mayor from office
- She is trying to establish a scholarship fund for each Michigan college student. However, this is soured for me, because she previously tried to cut a scholarship fund for MEAP students, and criticized the previous governor for establishing this fund and promising money that the administration doesn't have
- She is trying to encourage green energy in Michigan. This is also soured for me by her recent pleas on the behalf of GM and Chrysler, asking for a 25 billion loan to bail them out when US automakers have been some of the worst in terms of environmental impact, and she has not included the caveat that the money is to be used for alternative energy plans. She's bailing them out for making poor choices. More welfare for big businesses while normal people starve.

Her approval rating is at 37% and she's talking about becoming the rat deserting a sinking ship? They've already asked her point blank if she plans to abandon Michigan for Washington,and at first she said no. Now that Obama has won and she may be tapped for a prestigious job, it's maybe.

There were a lot of jokes going around about Granholm being appointed to the economic advisory along with Warren Buffet and Eric Schmidt. Some people said that they'd listen to her and then do the exact opposite. Or that Obama was taking one for the team and removing her from Michigan would be enough to jump start the economy. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, since I felt that she was there to stump for the neediest, for the state that needs an economic jump the most. However, if she goes to Washington, I will strongly suspect that some sort of cronyism went on because i see nothing in her record that would merit such a promotion, and no reason for her to leave the state that was willing to put its trust in her

I realize that my view of her is unpopular, which is why my post was so long. There are reasons to dislike and distrust Granholm and I posted the specific acts which give me pause.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sterling_95 wrote:
I realize that my view of her is unpopular, which is why my post was so long. There are reasons to dislike and distrust Granholm and I posted the specific acts which give me pause.

Well, Sterling_95, you certainly provided lots of data to help support your views of Granholm. You're going to be very disappointed in my response, though; it will sound like a cop-out. And that's because it is.

In regard to the negative stuff you brought up, I don't feel I'm in a position right now to either agree with, explain or defend it. My original intent in my post bringing up the topic of governor (small "g") of Michigan was only for comparing the vast differences (one is population) in governing between the states of Alaska and Michigan. I didn't intend to compare Granholm and Palin's personal and public effectiveness in their states specifically, but only their responsibilities pertaining to being governors. In fact, in my original post, I did not mention Granholm by name, only saying "governor of Michigan" (could have been Ohio, Indiana, Connecticut, etc). So, if only for that reason, I'm not going further with this since I don't feel like debating or comparing records of accomplishments of either governor.

But I will say this. You went to great lengths in this post and I have already printed it out so that I can check it out on my own. I think your statements deserve more thorough reading, by me especially. Truly, thanks for the input.

An aside note in response to one of your postive points. At the request of the Detroit City Council (which I understand cannot be refused by the governor), Granholm began the proceedings to hear whether the accusations against Detroit's mayor was impeding his ability to perform the mayoral duties effectively. After completing one day of hearings, they never did continue on to the second day because Kilpatrick pleaded guilty the next morning (also resulting in his resignation). So, in reality, she did not put the mayor out of office; he did it himself (and should have been done much earlier and saved Detroit beaucoup monies in the process). A sham all the way around on that issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obviously, the voters of Michigan preferred Governor Granholm over Dick DeVos as she beat him handily. Even after he spent $41M on his gubernatorial campaign, they could clearly see who was the better person to serve their state. He is certainly conservative with views that were most likely out of step with the voters. He was opposed to embryonic stem cell research, abortion and Roe v. Wade so I am sure his views gave pause to many voters. These value issues can only go so far when the economy is hurting.

Michigan's high unemployment rate is due to the problems of the automotive industry. As much as I feel for the people of Michigan, particularly the automotive workers and retirees, the industry has no one but themselves to blame. They kept building trucks and SUVs that no one wanted. They haven't been very receptive to changing trends so they are out-of-step with consumers. That's not good.

Governor Granholm is no slouch. She served as Attorney General for Michigan before running for Governor. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School so I would say she's got some chops.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sterling_95



Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
Sterling_95 wrote:
I realize that my view of her is unpopular, which is why my post was so long. There are reasons to dislike and distrust Granholm and I posted the specific acts which give me pause.

Well, Sterling_95, you certainly provided lots of data to help support your views of Granholm. You're going to be very disappointed in my response, though; it will sound like a cop-out. And that's because it is.

In regard to the negative stuff you brought up, I don't feel I'm in a position right now to either agree with, explain or defend it. My original intent in my post bringing up the topic of governor (small "g") of Michigan was only for comparing the vast differences (one is population) in governing between the states of Alaska and Michigan.

Hi Tee. You do not need to defend or explain Granholm as your governor. I have limited knowledge of her opponent, and sometimes in local politics, you're stuck in between Scylla and Charybdis. You should see the bozo that Illinois has in office right now - our sales taxes have now shot past the double digits and the moron keeps spending it on pork. I probably sound like one of those knee-jerk no taxes people, but I am fine with taxes, provided that the money is spent carefully and effectively, not in padding some no bid contractor's rear end.

Anyway, topic. I brought up Granholm's questionable record as points against her becoming Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice, not against her being governor. As I've said, a lot of this probably isn't her fault, and who knows if DeVos would have done better. However, I really don't see anything in her record that would warrant catapulting her to such a position of recognition on the national stage. There are 50 governors, and plenty of qualified Attorney generals, DAs, etc to pick from, so I fail to see what would make Obama choose Granholm, aside from the fact that she supported his campaign and coached Joe Biden. I want him to pick someone on qualification, not on cronyism. We've had too much of that already. Plus as I've said before, I'd see Granholm going to Washington as the rat deserting a sinking ship.

Quote:
But I will say this. You went to great lengths in this post and I have already printed it out so that I can check it out on my own. I think your statements deserve more thorough reading, by me especially. Truly, thanks for the input.


You're welcome. Thank you for informing me about the mayor and for being so kind and civil in your reply.

Karen S, as I said to Tee, I am arguing against Granholm going to further heights in Washington, not against her being governor. I looked up her record of Attorney General as well, but I can't find any records of landmark cases that she took on, or special writs that she produced. As for the education, Bush was a graduate of Yale and Harvard and see how well his education prepared him. Nixon graduated 3rd in his class at Duke, but apparently he slept through the ethics section.

As you pointed out, the auto industry is out of touch. Free market people would say out of touch businesses go out of business - them's the breaks. Traditional liberal thought would go against a handout to rich industries who screwed themselves over. So why is Granholm going to Washington to beg on their behalf, particularly when she's not even demanding that the money go towards alternative plants, which would create jobs and get them to shape up a little? As it is, she's hit worst of both worlds - she's bailing out the rich, and she's not fixing the root problem.

As a final aside, if DeVos ran on issues vs the economy, then yes, he deserved to lose. However, did he lose because he concentrated too much on social issues, or because these so called issues were supposedly out of step with the general public? Polls show that the US overwhelmingly supports the Partial abortion ban, but when the Michigan Congress and Senate voted in such a bill, Granholm promptly vetoed it, so he's not the only one with values that don't align with the public
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tee



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4223
Location: Detroit Metro

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
Michigan's high unemployment rate is due to the problems of the automotive industry. As much as I feel for the people of Michigan, particularly the automotive workers and retirees, the industry has no one but themselves to blame. They kept building trucks and SUVs that no one wanted. They haven't been very receptive to changing trends so they are out-of-step with consumers.

Interesting your saying this, Karen, because I feel the same way, but going one step further. In the '70s, gas prices also went high. On top of that, gas was being rationed and several gas stations would run out of gas before the day was over. Sometimes there was a lid as to how many gallons could be purchased at one place. We were asked to dial down to at least 68 during the day and more at night. I remember bundling up my babies (born in '73 and '75) as well as I could and did my duty by my country. Laughing At the time, fuel-efficient cars, as well as building smaller cars, were the talk of the day.

Well, as you know, the gas crunch eased and what happened? It wasn't too long before we Americans had short memories and people once again began calling for larger cars and men became entranced with trucks (the bigger the better). The families chucked station wagons for vans and SUVs. "Gas crunch? Whoever heard of that? Can't you see the prices are down and the gas supply is unlimited once again?" So, yes, I blame the auto companies; but I also think Mr/Ms Average Consumer had a hand in that too. As long as the vehicles were being bought, they were being made.

Now here's the sad part, Karen. We're all talking fuel efficiency in cars now, along with other items. If we're still on these message boards in a couple of years, I'd like to revisit this conversation and see where the American public is in regard to this concept. If things ease up, how steadfast will we be to it? I'd like to think we will remain consistent in this thinking; past experience has taught me that this will not necessarily be true.


Last edited by Tee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:55 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tee wrote:
KarenS wrote:
Michigan's high unemployment rate is due to the problems of the automotive industry. As much as I feel for the people of Michigan, particularly the automotive workers and retirees, the industry has no one but themselves to blame. They kept building trucks and SUVs that no one wanted. They haven't been very receptive to changing trends so they are out-of-step with consumers.

Interesting your saying this, Karen, because I feel the same way, but going one step further. In the '70s, gas prices also went high. On top of that, gas was being rationed and several gas stations would run out of gas before the day was over. Sometimes there was a lid as to how many gallons could be purchased at one place. We were asked to dial down to at least 68 during the day and more at night. I remember bundling up my babies (born in '73 and '75) as well as I could and did my duty by my country. Laughing At the time, fuel-efficient cars, as well as building smaller cars, were the talk of the day.

Well, as you know, the gas crunch eased and what happened? It wasn't too long before we Americans had short memories and people once again began calling for larger cars and men became entranced with trucks (the bigger the better). The families chucked station wagons for vans and SUVs. "Gas crunch? Whoever heard of that? Can't you see the prices are down and the gas supply is unlimited once again?" So, yes, I blame the auto companies; but I also think Mr/Ms Average Consumer had a hand in that too. As long as the vehicles were being bought, they were being made.

Now here's the sad part, Karen. We're all talking fuel efficiency in cars now, along with other items. If we're still on these message boards in a couple of years, I'd like to revisit this conversation and see where the American public is in regard to this concept. If things ease up, how steadfast will we be to it? I'd like to think we will remain consistent in this thinking; past experience has taught me that this will not necessarily be true.


Tee:

I feel equal blame should be spread amongst the consumer, government and the oil companies for the lack of a decent energy policy. Other carmakers around the world did step up and create fuel efficient cars but the American carmakers didn't follow through. I do believe the lowering of fuel prices helped to create forgetful memories of long lines and gas rationing. It was certainly in their best interest that American consumers wanted gas guzzling vehicles. The government didn't help when it reversed its fuel efficiency standards by caving in to the carmakers. So here we are again. Somethings gotta give. Either the American carmakers go out of business or they build vehicles that will be competitive with their foreign counterparts.

In some ways I don't think it would be a bad thing if they went out of business. Their time just may be over. If that happens, hopefully, the employees will find new and better jobs and won't be left behind.

We're at a turning point in America. Change is happening and decisions regarding the future need to be made. Old businesses need to either innovate or die while new businesses grow and develop. It's a scary time but it's also exhilarating. I am hopeful the new economy will create decent jobs and decent pay for all.

So it looks like your state, your friends and your neighbors are going to lead the way.


Karen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sterling_95



Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It was certainly in their best interest that American consumers wanted gas guzzling vehicles. The government didn't help when it reversed its fuel efficiency standards by caving in to the carmakers. So here we are again. Somethings gotta give. Either the American carmakers go out of business or they build vehicles that will be competitive with their foreign counterparts.

In some ways I don't think it would be a bad thing if they went out of business. Their time just may be over. If that happens, hopefully, the employees will find new and better jobs and won't be left behind.


Karen S, change may be in the air, but it's going to take a whole lot longer than we anticipated. As I said above, Granholm and the state legislature could take one of 2 approaches:

A. The Democratic approach: tighten government regulations on fuel efficiency vehicles, which would force the auto industries to change and adapt
B. The Republican approach: let the free market take over and industries that don't adapt to the needs of the populace will go bankrupt

They don't appear to be doing any of these. The Republicans may be in bed with the industries, but the Democrats are often in bed with the unions, and it's a symbiotic relationship.You have to keep the business chugging along, or the unions lose their nice cushy contracts as well. Hence, Pelosi and Reid are already drafting a bill to approve the transfer of $25 billion to the auto industry. Towards health care costs, mind you, not alternative plants. Then there are issues like the infamous Jobs Bank, which pays workers $31 per hour...not to work. They are getting a blank check and no pressure to reform

The system is broken, and unfortunately, we're going to help it limp along
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group