The Detroit News Online does not tolerate offensive language in its forums. The News will kill offensive posts. Participants can and will be denied access for violating our acceptable use policy. Notice a problem? Tell us.
Bike registration
Detroit Police are planning to step up enforcement of a 1964 ordinance requiring bicycles to be registered. Officers will begin handing out $55 fines for unregistered bikes Aug. 7. If you ride your bike in Detroit, will you register?
Patriot game
On a scale of 1 to 5, how patriotic do you consider yourself to be?
Slow down, save money
Should Michigan lower freeway speed limits as a conservation measure?
Are you in favor of the Democrats' plan to overhaul state government through a ballot proposal that would put redistricting in the hands of a bipartisan commission; cut lawmakers' and judges' salaries; trim the size of the Legislature; and eliminate two Supreme Court justices?
Airport security scanners
Are you more comfortable with body scans or pat-downs?
Traveling far?
What has the cost of gas done to your vacation?
Scratch these word out
What's on your linguistic hit list? Which words and phrases would you just as soon never hear again? No need to limit your list to governmental terms.
Is new child safety seat law necessary?
Michigan's expanded child safety seat law effective July 1 means children under age 8 and 4'9" have to use a booster seat. Do you think the law goes too far?
Mr. Howe, you've encapsulated Michigan's problem: Ignore the problem long enough and it will go away.
My mom used to tell me that when I was a kid. Didn't work then and it won't work now. Small problems ignored snowball into big problems. Ask any successful CEO.
Michigan has has it's head in the clouds for too long. The phrase "It'll turn around soon, or It'll get better" is wishful thinking which profits Michigan nada. While Herr Governor wastes more fuel biking to her cushy job with all her robber-baron friends, thousands of Michigan families are losing their homes, unable to find work in this state that is sinking faster than the Titanic did. The union leaders are culpable to the state's demise because of their unflinching denial that the economy has CHANGED. There are not so many chickens to pluck any more. The few that are left have few feathers to enjoy. No taxes, no more huge salaries. But they can't quite get that, so we continue onto ruin.
Meanwhile in Detroit, which is the engine which is supposed to run this state; the Mayor, who's administration is rather similar to Al Capone's mob, continues to rob the city blind and deprive citizens of any right to enjoy living there by taxing them to death and providing NO services. The stench has gotten so bad that it's attracted the attention of the Feds. It's only NOW that the Governor chooses to comment. Need we ask why? She still REFUSES to take any action. That's fine, Gov, let the Federal Government do what you obviously cannot do-GOVERN AND UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Unfortunately, by the time they come to the rescue there won't be much of Michigan left.
The mayor seems to be the only person in the whole state who is unafraid to take action. Unfortunately, his action is just to line his and his friends' pocketbooks. Because of FEAR, no one is willing to stand up and be a man. When the heck is some black man out there going to stand up and tell Kwame and his ghetto-fabulous crew to get lost? When is a black woman of substance going to stand up and tell that loser Monica (I married him for the mo-ney) Conyers she's a disgrace to the black community?
Obviously not the Gov. It's gonna get better, she said so. Keep on smiling, Gov, and let me know what you're gonna do when the revenues keep going down the toilet. Your union buds expect 3% raises, you know, and Kwame needs a new Bentley!
Frankly, Jenny, I wouldn't leave you in charge of a Dairy Queen in downtown Disco, you're so inept. You were right, Jenny, we're all blown away to the point of total collapse. Good damn job!
Nice listing of everything WRONG with our beautiful state. We can never have enough said about it, and thankfully there are people like you to track and catalogue it for us. You even managed to slip in some biased, righty slanted editorializing - making this piece even more of a disgusting piece of crap.
What a display of dedication on the part of the forum's paid blogger! Wow wolfman, about TWENTY SEVEN PARAGRAPHS on Independence Day! Nobody to celebrate the holiday with eh? Your Democrat pals in the metro Detroit tri-county area are more than likely running for cover, the F B I is in town...the investigation could get very interesting. Better get busy with some fund raisers for your buddies legal bills! Not to worry though, I think John McCain is a compassionate man, chances are he'll give the Kilpatrick clan a pardon at the end of his first term as President!
Jesse was a true patriot who, right or wrong, stood up for what he believed in.
Yes, he did.
He believed in letting the poor and needy go without in the name of "small government."
He said that a President of the United States, a Commander-in-Chief, would need a bodyguard if he visited military bases in his state. If someone were to say that about President Bush, the USA Patriot Act would see to it that they would disappear into the night and fog as a supposed "terrorist."
He was from the Strom Thurmond school of civil rights, including opposition to the national holiday honouring Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
He condemned Fidel Castro, but had close ties to rightist Salvadoran death squad leader Roberto D'Aubisson and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
He ran a racialist campaign against Harvey Gantt in 1990.
He sang "Dixie" to black colleague Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun in a Senate elevator with the express purpose of bringing her to tears.
Yes, he had his beliefs, firmly rooted in the Old South (and before anyone accuses me of Southerner-bashing, my maternal grandfather was from Tennessee and my maternal grandmother from Kentucky, so sit on it).
Let us all hope they are cast onto the same ash heap as the Confederacy.
As a Christian, I deeply hope he repented before his death.
The most racist politician of this era outside of Strom Thurmond. For those that like to go after Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrahkhan, this is the real racist.
Client#9 in a psychiatrist's office. You PUT me out of the country. ROTFLOL. You are the one making threats, that everyone laughs at. No one is leaving this country for a twit, and you don't have the ---- to put anyone out. The TRUTH? You can't handle the TRUTH. I see you are another Clinton attacker, yet Clinton is DADDY BUSH's "best Buddy". BUSH and CLINTON, closer than two Senators in a men's room. So tell me all about how they are philosophical, ideological, opponents. Bigger government!? NOBODY in history has expanded government and government DEBT more than BABYBush. Auburn Hills .......... a Chrysler worker bout to lose yer job ....... and pension. TATA, loser.
Recon wrote this lie, claiming that Reagan turned this economy totally around out of disaster and most of all Americans being proud to be an America Patriots once again.
According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.
There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.
To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead.
But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours.
Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods).
As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.
Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s.
If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman's term, the difference between the two parties' contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties' debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.
Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party's presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.
Recon wrote this lie, claiming that Reagan turned this economy totally around out of disaster and most of all Americans being proud to be an America Patriots once again.
According to conservatives, increasing taxation and regulation under Carter stifled the economy. Reagan's 1981 budget (the only one not to be declared "Dead on Arrival" by House Democrats) contained across-the-board, supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, unshackling the entrepreneurial spirit of American business.
There are several problems with this historical spin. First, total federal taxation under Carter rose by an insignificant 1.7 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.
To claim that such a minor increase could produce crippling stagflation is to ascribe to the economy an extraordinary sensitivity to taxation. Although many conservative laymen would gladly accept such a notion, it is not one entertained by serious economists. West Germany in the 1980s, for example, had a total taxation rate of 39 percent of its GDP (compared to 29 percent of combined government taxes for the U.S.), and during that decade Germany was an economic powerhouse. If even a few percentage points are the difference between Carter's stagflation and Reagan's boom years, then by all rights West Germany should have been dead.
But that's only the general level of taxation -- what about the top rate? Although the top rate for income taxes was 70 percent under Carter (where it had always been, since Kennedy), Carter gave the rich the most sacred tax cut they hold dear: a capital gains tax cut in 1978, from 39 to 28 percent. Thus, Carter gave the rich their first tax cut in 15 years. According to conservative theory, this should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Conservatives also criticize Carter's promotion of expanded government regulations. But Carter actually began deregulating during his term; in 1978, he deregulated airlines; by 1980, he was deregulating trucking, railroads interest rates and oil. All are fundamental to the economy's operations. Carter also set up the deregulatory machinery that Reagan would later use to slash regulations almost in half by the end of his second term. Again, Carter's actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not sent it into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
And yet, there is no evidence that regulation was even the cause of the period's stagflation. The economies of Western Europe are far more regulated than the U.S., and their productivity has been growing faster than ours.
Furthermore, Reagan systematically slashed and burned government regulations, but individual worker productivity grew no faster in the 80s than it had during the late 70s (about 1 percent for both periods).
As for the claim that Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were responsible for "the greatest peacetime expansion in U.S. history," a few grains of salt are in order here. The timeline better fits the liberal explanation than the conservative one. Volcker expanded the money supply in late 1982, and a few months later the economy took off. However, Reagan's tax cuts were passed in 1981, and were already in effect by 1982 -- but, as we have seen, 1982 was the year of the horrific recession.
Tax cuts were supposed to have spurred economic recovery by liberating the tax dollars of entrepreneurs and allowing them to invest them in greater productivity and jobs. However, such greater investment never occurred. It appears that the rich simply pocketed the savings, because investment fell during the 80s.
If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman's term, the difference between the two parties' contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties' debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.
Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party's presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.
Note:
For every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53.
For every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99.
About 35,000 fans will witness this music festival. A similar number of fans attend a sell-out Tigers game or a concert at the Palace of Auburn Hills. About twice that number watch a Lions game at Ford Field. Three times as many attend games at Michigan stadium. So why does the festival warrant day after day of front-page coverage?
Click here to read and share tributes about Michiganians killed in the Iraq war.
