12 comments for “On the Second Day of Christmas Granholm Gave to Me…

  1. Southwest Washtenaw
    December 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Of course during the first year on the graph – 2002 – John Engler was the governor and Republicans controlled both the state house and the state senate. From the spring of 2000 through December 2002 employment in Michigan fell by 217,900 – using the standard of “total nonfarm/not seasonally adjusted” according to the Mich. DLEG – Industry Employment (Establishments-CES).

    http://www.milmi.org/cgi/dataanalysis/cesReport.asp?menuchoice=ces

    During Granholm’s first term (with Republicans in control of the state house and senate), employment in Michigan fell by 182,000 – using the” total nonfarm/not seasonally adjusted” standard (4,527,700 in Dec 2002 to 4,345,700 in Dec. 2006)

    Since then, employment has fallen by another 135,100 (With Democrats in control of the state house and Republicans in control of the state senate).

    I asked DCuz and Nick on Right Michigan a few weeks ago essentially the same question I will ask you (neither of them provided an answer) …

    I’m just wondering if you actually believe what your post implies – that Granholm is responsible for these job losses and if you do believe that, do you blame John Enlger/Republicans for the 217,900 job losses from 2000-2002? How much responsibility should the Republican-controlled legislature take for job losses from 2003-2006? How much responsibility should Senate Republicans take for job losses over the past two years?

    And I will add one more question…How would the unemployment situation in Michigan be significantly different today if Dick Posthumus had been elected Gov. in 2002 and/or Dick Devos in 2006?

  2. jgillman
    December 14, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Numbers used at the end of each year as reported by MI government.

    and on..

    “I’m just wondering if you actually believe what your post implies – that Granholm is responsible for these job losses and if you do believe that, do you blame John Enlger/Republicans for the 217,900 job losses from 2000-2002?”

    A fair question. There are many places where I disagree with the Republicans and to be certain they play their parts as well. If you recall, the recession we were entering in 2000-2001 was very real. It had less to do with our state except we were the recipient as always to a certain extent. However traditionally Michigan has performed better in times of recession, and when the rest of the country started recovering, and in fact was prospering, we kept sliding into the abyss.

    To be fair I have for the most part asserted that Granholm is a complete and utter failure for not recognizing cause and effect, and under what conditions should certain policies be entertained. This speaks to your second question.

    Posthumus or Devos might have treated the shortfalls in government much differently, in that instead of siphoning off more of the resources we need as business owners actual non performing government programs would have been cut or eliminated. A concept so simple even a foriegn born San Francisco Democrat SHOULD have gotten it.

  3. Southwest Washtenaw
    December 19, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    “…and when the rest of the country started recovering, and in fact was prospering, we kept sliding into the abyss.”
    -I guess I would ask you to define “prospering” in the years following the 2001 recession and identify the point at which the recovery began. According to the U.S. Census data, Real Median Household Income is basically the same today as it was in 2001…declining from a peak around 1999-2000 and only beginning to slowly rise around 2005. The number of people in poverty has been increasing since 2000. The Poverty Rate has increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.5 % in 2007. When it comes to health insurance coverage, in 2000, 13.7% of the population was not covered. In 2007 it was 15.3% (down from a peak of 15.8% in 2006). “Employment based” and “Direct purchase” coverage has been declining since 2000 while Medicaid, Medicare, and Military Health Care has been increasing. The Unemployment Rate began rising in 2001 and reached a peak in the summer of 2003 of around 6.3 %. The lowest monthly unemployment rate of the last 8 years was January of 2001 – 4.2% (according to the BLS). And of course the Unemployment Rate doesn’t include people who have stopped looking for jobs.

    “To be fair I have for the most part asserted that Granholm is a complete and utter failure for not recognizing cause and effect, and under what conditions should certain policies be entertained. This speaks to your second question.”
    -Please elaborate.

    “Posthumus or Devos might have treated the shortfalls in government much differently, in that instead of siphoning off more of the resources we need as business owners actual non performing government programs would have been cut or eliminated. A concept so simple even a foriegn born San Francisco Democrat SHOULD have gotten it.”
    -The point of my last question was to get an explanation of how Posthumus or Devos would have prevented the massive job losses (primarily in the auto industry/manufacturing – there has been job growth in some sectors during the 2000s)…Because I would argue that those job losses would have occurred regardless of who was the governor.

  4. jgillman
    December 19, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    We can go back and forth as long as you like while you cherry pick your statistics.

    As for your last question you may be correct to some extent EXCEPT that the Union driven manufacturing losses in this state might have been a weight on the entire economy as a whole.

    Ultimately I cannot blame the guv on the entire US troubles but as she has been pressing for ALTERNATE economies in the state of Michigan she has caused the manufacturing sector to flounder. There ARE things which are within her power.. “planned” industry is not working as we have seen.

  5. jgillman
    December 19, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    And further… What if I told you that the very reason the BAD numbers were increasing DUE to the socialist policies supported by Granholm, and every other liberal politician out there… would you believe me?

    Would it matter to you that increasing the government weight on business causes business to cut costs where they can? Does it matter to you that more government control of health care dollars actually reduces the number of professionals in that field??

    Poverty comes when people cannot find work.. right? So what about a Minimum wage increase which allowed the UNIONS to increase the cost to their “partners,” yet left TENS OF THOUSANDS of summer workers without opportunity.

    Save your pity for your fellow man until you are ready to do the RIGHT thing to help. The very policies Granholm and Big Labor, and the Capitulating CROOKS in congress support are the very reason we have increasing troubles. They merely consider it “Job Security.”

  6. Southwest Washtenaw
    December 19, 2008 at 9:19 pm

    “We can go back and forth as long as you like while you cherry pick your statistics.”
    -Hilarious…so tell me, how do you measure “prosperity”? Apparently you don’t want to measure it by median income, poverty rates, health insurance coverage or unemployment rates.

    “As for your last question you may be correct to some extent EXCEPT that the Union driven manufacturing losses in this state might have been a weight on the entire economy as a whole.”
    -Ah yes…blame the union (and we should make sure workers earn as little as possible too). So when the Big 3 were making billions of dollars in the late 1990s and at the times when we experienced job growth, are you suggesting that success was driven by the U.A.W./unions?

    “… There ARE things which are within her power.. “planned” industry is not working as we have seen.”
    -Starting in 1999-2000 the state began cutting the State Income Tax and the SBT (eliminating it in 2006 without a plan for replacing it) and neither move stopped manufacturing job losses or provided adequate revenue for the state to provide the services/programs that citizens apparently want. Not to mention all of the other tax breaks communities offer to businesses.
    -According to the BLS the U.S. lost around 3.2 million manufacturing jobs from 2000-2007(June)…for the overwhelming majority of that time we had a Republican (Socialist?) President and a Republican (Socialist?)-controlled Congress. According to data from the National Association of Manufacturers published in 2003, from July 2000 to the December 2002, 49/50 states lost manufacturing jobs totaling over 2 million jobs lost. Were these job losses the results of “socialist” policies as well?

    “And further… What if I told you that the very reason the BAD numbers were increasing DUE to the socialist policies supported by Granholm, and every other liberal politician out there… would you believe me?”
    -Of course not…I don’t believe the rantings of those on the lunatic fringe. I am always suspicious/dismissive of claims that one politician, party, or political philosophy is the cause of all of our problems…I think people who are so certain that “liberals” or “conservatives” are exclusively at fault are delusional. I do love it though when right-wing ideologues start throwing around the word “socialist”.

    “Poverty comes when people cannot find work.. right?”
    -Poverty can result from people not being able to find work or it can exist when people work but do not earn enough.

    “Save your pity for your fellow man until you are ready to do the RIGHT thing to help. The very policies Granholm and Big Labor, and the Capitulating CROOKS in congress support are the very reason we have increasing troubles. They merely consider it “Job Security.”

    -And I imagine that you would argue that the “RIGHT” thing to do is to implement virtually every policy proposal of ideological propaganda mills like the Mackinac Center.

    -Ideological rants are not an effective way to accomplish much of anything productive and being devoted to a particular ideology as opposed to being pragmatic is certainly no way to govern in my opinion. It is entertaining to read/listen to the fringe, but blogs like yours, RightMichigan (and those on the far left too) merely further marginalize you (in a addition, I guess, to providing a forum for other like-minded “tin-foil hat wearing” ideologues to vent).

  7. jgillman
    December 20, 2008 at 1:50 am

    Prosperity in this case was an unemployment rate which was the best in decades nationally.. Up until the effects of Reid and Pelosi took hold. Add to this, the Piper came calling for payment on the “lets put the poor into housing they cannot afford” racket.

    The Unions lobby powerfully for the very people in power who are DESTROYING our way of life.. I give them ample credit .. yes.

    1999-2001 the Clinton card house began falling. Add to this, a hit in 2001 where the economy STOPPED for a week.. All things considered, Michigan actually did OK for a while. And the country boosted by lowered taxes for a bit actually pulled itself up a little. However though there are complexities which could extend TOMES beyond this discourse, the fact remains that as the NATION gained in employed persons Michigan did not. Manufacturing Jobs are lost to other countries when it is TOO EXPENSIVE to create them here. You libs tend to forget who actually OWNS the businesses.

    Your lunatic fringe comments are close to earning you the unwelcome mat. Socialism is what it is. You can pretend you play both sides, but you have show you desire only to inspire emotional response. I noted at first you would likely ignore real cause and effect like most of your liberal brethren. Sooo.. not surprised.

    The Mackinac center at least provides solutions that have basis in fact and historical premise. Emotion will tie you up, and likely by the end of this thread you will call me names like some of your predecessors because they or you cannot logically present reasons why liberal policy can work.

    Ideological is different from principled. We are principled. Your vision of pragmatism can be attributed to laziness. Consensus of the uninformed/unenlightened can be dangerous.

    “Blogs like mine” OK if you don’t have one already.. start one. You have your right to make your own statements. And as for a forum, did I not allow you to post freely? Did I edit your comments? I wouldn’t be able to even say “Nobama” on the lefty trash sites. Double standards are in vogue now with the liberal ideologues.

  8. Southwest Washtenaw
    December 22, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    “Prosperity in this case was an unemployment rate which was the best in decades nationally…”
    -Even though wages were stagnant and the unemployment rate began to rise after GWB took office, not to mention a greater number of Americans living in poverty, etc…sounds like “prosperity” to me.

    “The Unions lobby powerfully for the very people in power who are DESTROYING our way of life.. I give them ample credit .. yes.”
    -How are unions/people in power “DESTROYING our way of life” if we have been prospering for much of the last 8 years?

    “1999-2001 the Clinton card house began falling…”
    -Using your standard of a “low unemployment rate”, we were prospering during the last few years of Clinton’s Presidency. The highest monthly unemployment rate during Clinton’s last two years was 4.4% in Feb. 1999. By Dec. 2000 it was 3.9%.

    “Your lunatic fringe comments are close to earning you the unwelcome mat.”
    -Oh, I’m so disappointed…a blog which seems to get comments (if any) from about a dozen or so like-minded people might lay out the “unwelcome mat” for someone who challenges their assertions…the “lunatic fringe” comment must have struck a nerve.

    “Socialism is what it is.”
    -I’m not sure you know what socialism is…I think you may define it as any belief slightly to the left of yours/Mackinac Center/Libertarian Party Platform.

    “You can pretend you play both sides, but you have show you desire only to inspire emotional response.”
    -Talk about trying to “inspire emotional response”… You assert that I am a “Lib” even though I haven’t articulated what my actual positions are. With the name-calling, demagoguery, and cheerleading from like-minded fringe elements on your blog (and others on the right and left) it is no wonder that so many of these sites have so little traffic and so little influence.
    -My “desire” has been to get an honest, consistent answers from the right wing on the questions I ask…and I rarely seem to get them.

    “I noted at first you would likely ignore real cause and effect like most of your liberal brethren. Sooo.. not surprised.”
    – As I said in my last post…I am always suspicious/dismissive of claims that one politician, party, or political philosophy is the cause of all of our problems…I think people who are so certain that “liberals” or “conservatives” are exclusively at fault are delusional.

    “The Mackinac center at least provides solutions that have basis in fact and historical premise…”
    -The Mackinac Center is a propaganda mill…there are well-educated, articulate people who work there, but they are still a propaganda mill. I can pretty much tell you what their position will be on an issue without them issuing a “study” or a “report”. If you think they are objective, you are delusional.

    “Ideological is different from principled. We are principled”
    -If that is how you rationalize being an ideologue, so be it.

    Consensus of the uninformed/unenlightened can be dangerous.
    -As evidenced by the “rightwing blogosphere”.

  9. jgillman
    December 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    -Even though wages were stagnant and the unemployment rate began to rise after GWB took office, not to mention a greater number of Americans living in poverty, etc…sounds like “prosperity” to me. Clueless. you are completely clueless.. Employment up IS prosperity.. Jobs were created and unemployment DOWN. The numbers of those in poverty up is meaningless unless you include a time frame and see next..

    -How are unions/people in power “DESTROYING our way of life” if we have been prospering for much of the last 8 years?
    They are successfully electing people who destroy the economy by taking wealth out of it at a greater rate than it is being created. Even the GWB Tax cuts couldnt keep up once the Dems had the reigns more firmly in hand.

    -Using your standard of a “low unemployment rate”, we were prospering during the last few years of Clinton’s Presidency. The highest monthly unemployment rate during Clinton’s last two years was 4.4% in Feb. 1999. By Dec. 2000 it was 3.9%. History tells what happened WHEN look at this chart: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm The last years of the Clinton presidency when the internet bubble burst. THEN add to it a week where “time stood sill” after the attack.. I’ll let the people draw their own conclusions.. oh and was NEVER 3.9%.. ever.

    “Your lunatic fringe comments are close to earning you the unwelcome mat.”
    -Oh, I’m so disappointed…a blog which seems to get comments (if any) from about a dozen or so like-minded people might lay out the “unwelcome mat” for someone who challenges their assertions…the “lunatic fringe” comment must have struck a nerve.
    If that is what you want be my guest.. No nerve hit here, but if I spend my time arguing with mindless automatons?? well I guess I cannot spread the good news nearly as efficiently. Anyhow, this is not the liberal stumping site anyhow… Cya Bye.

    I would be interested in seeing that you practice what you preach on the other sites.. Point out to me an example where you have equally “critiqued” a liberal slanted blog. Messenger, KOS, BFM or other.. you are what you are.. Likely a socialist troll who cannot handle that people actually have the right to manage their own affairs without the “management” of government. Unions are an excellent example of the use of “Government Management.”

    Free Markets SOLVE economic problems. Free Markets CREATE opportunities. Sadly there will always be parasites who like yourself make the claim that the wealth I create takes away from your ability to do so as well. Hogwash.

  10. Southwest Washtenaw
    December 23, 2008 at 12:18 am

    “The numbers of those in poverty up is meaningless unless you include a time frame and see next..”
    -I did include a time frame…on Dec. 19th I posted the following: According to the U.S. Census data…The Poverty Rate has increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.5 % in 2007. Here is the link to the graph

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty07/pov07fig03.pdf

    -The percentage of people in poverty in 2007 was higher than it was when the recession ended. Apparently, according to you, prosperity exists when more people are in poverty.

    “History tells what happened WHEN look at this chart: http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm…I’ll let the people draw their own conclusions.. oh and was NEVER 3.9%.. ever.
    -As I said…The highest monthly unemployment rate during Clinton’s last two years was 4.4% in Feb. 1999. By Dec. 2000 it was 3.9%…apparently it did reach 3.9%. Actually it had reached 3.8% in April of 2000 and was 3.9% for the last 4 months of 2000.

    http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

    -And your BLS chart shows that the unemployment rate declined every year Clinton was in office reaching an annual average unemployment rate of 4% in 2000 – his last year in office. The unemployment rate declined every year of Clinton’s 2 terms and the unemployment rates in his last 3 years were better than any year of the GWB Presidency.

    -“Mindless automatons”…Wow…the pot calling the kettle black.

    “Likely a socialist troll …Sadly there will always be parasites who like yourself make the claim that the wealth I create takes away from your ability to do so as well. Hogwash.”
    -Who was it that said “…and likely by the end of this thread you will call me names…”? Oh yeah, that was you.
    -You seem to believe that people who disagree with you/challenge your assertions are “socialists” or “Libs”…You come across as angry and bitter…no wonder Libertarians have had such electoral success. When did I make the claim that the wealth you create takes away from my ability to do so? Again, I haven’t presented my position on the issues…I have merely challenged yours…perhaps we are in agreement on some issues and I’m just playing the devil’s advocate.
    -And one more time… I think people who are so certain that “liberals” or “conservatives” are exclusively at fault are delusional. And I will add to the list of the delusional, those who assert that their ideological positions are a panacea.

  11. jgillman
    December 23, 2008 at 8:46 am

    The First Chart shows the RATE of poverty remaining pretty much the same. The INTERESTING thing about these graphs is the heavier swing in numbers as compared to rate. Does this suggest we grew as a country (population) 10 times as fast? Methodology is a funny thing. For example, I routinely hang up on pollsters. So will that slant the polls to the left? Bottom line is that Employment opportunities were greater and being filled. Its what happens when job creators (NOT the Govmnt) have the maoney for, and the say on how THEIR businesses are run.

    Unemployment..per the chart I stand corrected 3.9% as you say for four months. And then the UPWARD trend begins BEFORE any GWB policies in effect…

    Socialist Trolls. – I will never apologize for calling socialists …Socialists. As for agreeing on issues, we might, but how we get there? I am not seeing constructive participation I agree with… Yet?

    This blog stands on the assertions that manipulating social policy through increased government intervention is a moral failure by its leadership and that taking the wealth out of the hands of the creators prematurely and unnaturally is damaging to society.

    And as for a Panacea.. we have examples of exclusively “liberal” philosophies in place is such successful havens as Cuba, Russia, and now Venezuela.. I don’t believe we have ever had the opportunity for a truly free example yet.. so who might you be.. to say it is delusional to be completely… “right?”

  12. jgillman
    December 23, 2008 at 8:54 am

    Oh yeah.. and on poverty.. an interesting take on methodology.. (found after the comment)

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...