Auto Bailout Talks Collapse

I would love for you to show me where I have lied about anything? Claiming that I am a liar is a serious charge and I hope that you can back your claim up. So far you have not done anything but pouted and made claims that you have not supported.

Here is a good news story that may explain the facts of this situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucYEPLKGtPk

It might help if you actually read the posts you were responding to. If you did, you'd notice that the very next line I wrote was "I doubt it". In other words, I don't actually believe that you are lying. I was writing that as an example of someone criticizing the motives of their opponent.

The truth is that I have no proof that you were lying when you said that GOP Senators were acting out of hate. Nor do you have any proof for your serious charge that my elected representatives in the Senate were motivated by anything but love for their country rather than hate.

As for having done nothing but pouted, I refer you back to post #163 in which I posted a lengthy recitation of facts to support my view that GM is doomed to failure and that supporting it in its current configuration is a waste of money.

You'll impress me a lot more if you take the time to focus on the argument of why the bailout will help rather than hurt our country. Instead, your energy is focused on trying to cast the issue as one in which evil Republicans are acting out of hate in voting against the bill. Do you honestly think that the people here (and the majority of Amerians) oppose this bill for nefarious reasons? You'll do better to convince people to support a bailout by convincing them that it is a good idea rather then pushing ad hominem attacks. Then again, the arguments against the bill and the refusal of the Democrats to agree to the compromise offered are very difficult to make. I guess if I were in your shoes, I might want to distract people from the substance as well.
 
Todd Zywicki, a law professor at Georgetown Mason, wrote an excellent editorial in today's WSJ on why bankruptcy would be better for the US auto industry. Here are a few quotes:

General Motors looks like a financially failed rather than an economically failed enterprise -- in need of reorganization not liquidation. It needs to shed labor contracts, retirement contracts, and modernize its distribution systems by closing many dealerships.

So why do the Detroit Three managements and the UAW insist that "bankruptcy is not an option"? Perhaps because of the pain that would be inflicted upon both.

The bankruptcy code places severe limitations on the compensation that can be paid to a manager

Chapter 11 also provides a mechanism for forcing UAW workers to take further pay cuts, reduce their gold-plated health and retirement benefits, and overcome their cumbersome union work rules.

Those Washington politicians who repeat the mantra that "bankruptcy is not an option" probably do so because they want to use free taxpayer money to bribe Detroit into manufacturing the green cars favored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, rather than those cars American consumers want to buy. A Chapter 11 filing would remove these politicians' leverage, thus explaining their desperation to avoid a bankruptcy.
 
but in your case, it is what is good for the GOP is good for America.

I have not because I certainly don't believe that. The fact that some Republican lawmakers might want the same thing as me in this case (not even sure that's true) is entirely coincidental. It sounds like you are taking the position that if the GOP wants something (again, I don't even stipulate that you are correct in that) that it must axiomatically be bad. That illogical.
 
I have not because I certainly don't believe that. The fact that some Republican lawmakers might want the same thing as me in this case (not even sure that's true) is entirely coincidental. It sounds like you are taking the position that if the GOP wants something (again, I don't even stipulate that you are correct in that) that it must axiomatically be bad. That illogical.

Maybe we should have more sympathy with those trying to argue for the Democratic Party leadership's position. It's a tough argument to make based on the facts.

First, they tried to argue that, since we bailed out the financial industry, we should bail out the domestic auto industry. Even my elementary school aged children saw the problem with that logic when then asked me if that meant we were going to get a bailout as well.

Then they pushed the argument that bankruptcy would devastate the economy. Even ignoring the refutation of that argument in the article I posted above, they ruined spoiled the game themselves. When a reasonable compromise was proposed by the Republicans that would give them the bailout that they sought, they rejected it. They were concerned that the UAW would not accept a pay reduction down to the level of other auto workers in the US. I guess they decided that the jobs of three million workers (their estimate, not mine) were worth risking rather than accepting a reasonable pay cut. Sadly, that stance refuted their claim that the bill was crucial to preventing a collapse of the economy.

Given how hard it is for them to justify their blocking of the compromise, especially in light of the fact that it was eight Democrats that wouldn't vote with them that caused the need for the compromise in the first place, they are turning their attention away from the substance. Now they are trying to focus attention on hateful Republicans, leaked memos, and questions of patriotism. I sympathize with them. If my side in a debate had the facts so much against them, I'd be tempted to change the subject as well.

Perhaps I'm wrong and they'll come back with a good reason why the Democrats were right in risking the entire bailout to stand up for one of their largest contributor's desire to maintain inflated wages. Maybe they'll finally make a case for how they think that a company that was so demonstrably failing in the marketplace for many years will suddenly reverse itself when given just a few tens of billions of tax dollars and become self-sustaining again. I hope so. The current situation is kind of depressing.
 

It might help if you actually read the posts you were responding to. If you did, you'd notice that the very next line I wrote was "I doubt it". In other words, I don't actually believe that you are lying. I was writing that as an example of someone criticizing the motives of their opponent.

The truth is that I have no proof that you were lying when you said that GOP Senators were acting out of hate. Nor do you have any proof for your serious charge that my elected representatives in the Senate were motivated by anything but love for their country rather than hate.

As for having done nothing but pouted, I refer you back to post #163 in which I posted a lengthy recitation of facts to support my view that GM is doomed to failure and that supporting it in its current configuration is a waste of money.

You'll impress me a lot more if you take the time to focus on the argument of why the bailout will help rather than hurt our country. Instead, your energy is focused on trying to cast the issue as one in which evil Republicans are acting out of hate in voting against the bill. Do you honestly think that the people here (and the majority of Amerians) oppose this bill for nefarious reasons? You'll do better to convince people to support a bailout by convincing them that it is a good idea rather then pushing ad hominem attacks. Then again, the arguments against the bill and the refusal of the Democrats to agree to the compromise offered are very difficult to make. I guess if I were in your shoes, I might want to distract people from the substance as well.

And of course he totally ignores the fact that it was a fairly bipartisan vote (both for and against the bill). But then we here it was only procedural. Can't keep this straight.



.
 
So I read something last night in the parade magazine which I think is causing me to about face on this whole thing.

parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_12-14-2008/Intelligence_Report

and then this

parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-10-2005/featured_0 ( I know its older but I doubt that much has changed since it was written)

Well, the site seems to be having trouble so here is a paraphrased breakdown in Foreign Aid spending:

Isreal 2.4Billion Weapons (Guess who they will probably buy from?) with 30 Bil promised over the next 10 years
Egypt 1.7 Billion Weapons 1.3 Bil, 103 for education (when we have kids here without books!) 74 mil for health care (Uh, we have people dying here) and 45 mil for human rights promotion
Pakistan 798 Million Security!?!?330 mil which includes weapons (gee what kind?) 20 mil for infrastructure (how about our bridges and roads here?)
Jordan 688 Million 326 million to fight terrorism (with, you guessed it weapons... I see a theme here) and 163 million cash payment to the government (for what I wonder)
Kenya 586 Million 586 million to fight HIV & malaria, and 5.4 to promote government accountability (WHAT the?)
South Africa 574 Million 557 million to fight TB & HIV, 3 mil for education

TO be honest, its not that I don't believe in competition anymore, my problem is how can I justify saying no to any American when MY hard earned tax dollars are apparently being funneled to Pakistan's quest for a Nuclear bomb? If we can give foreign countries Billions and Billions of Dollars no questions asked, how do we say no here? SO I guess, my mind has been changed by a totally unrelated series of facts.
 
It might help if you actually read the posts you were responding to. If you did, you'd notice that the very next line I wrote was "I doubt it". In other words, I don't actually believe that you are lying. I was writing that as an example of someone criticizing the motives of their opponent.

The truth is that I have no proof that you were lying when you said that GOP Senators were acting out of hate. Nor do you have any proof for your serious charge that my elected representatives in the Senate were motivated by anything but love for their country rather than hate.

As for having done nothing but pouted, I refer you back to post #163 in which I posted a lengthy recitation of facts to support my view that GM is doomed to failure and that supporting it in its current configuration is a waste of money.

You'll impress me a lot more if you take the time to focus on the argument of why the bailout will help rather than hurt our country. Instead, your energy is focused on trying to cast the issue as one in which evil Republicans are acting out of hate in voting against the bill. Do you honestly think that the people here (and the majority of Amerians) oppose this bill for nefarious reasons? You'll do better to convince people to support a bailout by convincing them that it is a good idea rather then pushing ad hominem attacks. Then again, the arguments against the bill and the refusal of the Democrats to agree to the compromise offered are very difficult to make. I guess if I were in your shoes, I might want to distract people from the substance as well.

The question being asked of the American public is flawed. It should be "Are you in favor of 3 million more American workers losing their jobs next year, or should we take steps to stop that from happening?"

Or, "Are you OK with 30 percent unemployment in some areas of the country?"
 
/
Maybe we should have more sympathy with those trying to argue for the Democratic Party leadership's position. It's a tough argument to make based on the facts.






-sustaining again. I hope so. The current situation is kind of depressing.

Let's see. I see BOTH Prez Bush and Prez-elect Obama think the bailout should happen. And yet you fail to conced for a moment that YOU might be wrong.
 
The question being asked of the American public is flawed. It should be "Are you in favor of 3 million more American workers losing their jobs next year, or should we take steps to stop that from happening?"

Or, "Are you OK with 30 percent unemployment in some areas of the country?"

Huh? The question that the Senate was voting on was, should we put the current bill to a vote of the full Senate or should we continue to discuss. The Republican's were advocating a change that would reduce UAW worker's compensation to be on par with non-UAW autoworkers in the country.

For your questions to be relevant, we need to make the following assumptions:

1) The Republican proposal doesn't count. It's either the Democrats bill or no bill at all.
2) If the bailout doesn't happen, the US Automakers will go bankrupt.
3) If the US automakers go bankrupt, 3 million Americans will lose their jobs, regardless of what actions follow.

Of those three, only the second seems relatively certain. I'll even argue that it is so certain that it will happen pretty soon after the taxpayer gravy train stops anyway, so all you are doing is delaying #3.

It seems somewhat presumptious to say that we should ignore all of these issues and focus solely on what you see as the worse case scenario. You are asking people to accept your conclusions without questioning any of your assumptions. Is that really different than me saying something like "The question we should be answering is whether we should commit US taxpayers to pay a perpetually increasing burden to maintain inflated wages for auto executives and laborers?" That question seems just as fair. It just assumes that you accept all of my assumptions instead of yours.
 
Let's see. I see BOTH Prez Bush and Prez-elect Obama think the bailout should happen. And yet you fail to conced for a moment that YOU might be wrong.

Now you are replacing ad hominem attacks with the argument that if these two (hardly objective observers or experts on the subject) believe it, it should be so.

I'm not insisting that I'm right. I'm arguing several specific positions:

1) The Republicans opposed the Democrat's bill because they thought it was the wrong thing to do, not because they are hateful. In evidence, I stated that their reasonable sounding counter-proposal shows a desire to reach a compromise.

2) The bailout bill is inherently flawed because even with the money, GM is not going to become profitable or self-sustaining without going through the major restructuring that bankruptcy would bring.

There are certainly valid arguments that can be made against the Republicans compromise position. You could try to argue why the unions should be entitled to taxpayer support of their elevated wages.

I'd be perfectly happy to revise my view of the efficacy of the bailout if someone would produce some argument against it. Surely if you believe that GM can survive after we keep handing them taxpayer money, you have a reason for doing so. Try providing reasons rather than just claiming that people opposed to you are motivated by hatred or that some politicians agree with you.

I'd even be happy to see arguments that show that my conclusions are flawed. You could make an argument that even if GM in its current configuration is not sustainable, it makes sense to pour tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into it to keep it alive for a couple of years. Then the economy will hopefully be better and we can manage its collapse in a more orderly fashion. I don't think that's a good idea, but it's a reasonable counter argument.
 
TO be honest, its not that I don't believe in competition anymore, my problem is how can I justify saying no to any American when MY hard earned tax dollars are apparently being funneled to Pakistan's quest for a Nuclear bomb? If we can give foreign countries Billions and Billions of Dollars no questions asked, how do we say no here? SO I guess, my mind has been changed by a totally unrelated series of facts.

This is another variation of the same "why not throw good money after bad" argument. So now I've been told that we should bailout the auto companies because we wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, because we bailed out the financial institutions, and because we spend so much money on foreign aid.

It doesn't follow logically. If these were/are bad uses for our money, shame on us. Stop wasting money. Don't use that waste to justify more. If your spouse wastes $10,000 on a gambling spree in Vegas, does it follow that you should waste $10,000 on a party? God help you if you run your personal finances that way.

Bailing out the auto companies and the conditions that we do or don't attach to such a bailout should be justified by its own merits. It would make sense to say that we would benefit more from spending on the auto companies than on foreign aid, so we should move money from foreign aid to the auto bailout. It would make sense to say that we cannot afford to bail out the auto companies because it would leave us with too little money for foreign aid. It doesn't make sense to say that because we spent money on things that I think are stupid, I should have the right to spend money on things that are stupid. You still need to convince people that the bailout isn't stupid.
 
This is another variation of the same "why not throw good money after bad" argument. So now I've been told that we should bailout the auto companies because we wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, because we bailed out the financial institutions, and because we spend so much money on foreign aid.

It doesn't follow logically. If these were/are bad uses for our money, shame on us. Stop wasting money. Don't use that waste to justify more. If your spouse wastes $10,000 on a gambling spree in Vegas, does it follow that you should waste $10,000 on a party? God help you if you run your personal finances that way.

Bailing out the auto companies and the conditions that we do or don't attach to such a bailout should be justified by its own merits. It would make sense to say that we would benefit more from spending on the auto companies than on foreign aid, so we should move money from foreign aid to the auto bailout. It would make sense to say that we cannot afford to bail out the auto companies because it would leave us with too little money for foreign aid. It doesn't make sense to say that because we spent money on things that I think are stupid, I should have the right to spend money on things that are stupid. You still need to convince people that the bailout isn't stupid.

I agree with you 100% philosophically. However, I am quickly coming to the realization that there is no-one in Washington, or in any position of authority for that matter, who is content to let Lassiez Faire do its thing. IF we are willing to give all this money to other countries year after year, decade after decade, then how is it possible to say 'The Buck Stops here' on my neighbors doorstep.

Sure, I'd like to see all of it stop. In my version of the world, the strong proliferate and the weak keep working at it until they come up with a viable way to too become strong. This is the American way, the Capitalist way. But somewhere along the line our country zigged when it should have zagged and we stopped being a Capitalist society. It appears as though our government, or better put, our Lawmakers, at some point started bartering away the American Dream and just like millions of us at home, they started to bank their futures on credit... to the tune of trillions. At some point we will need to pay the piper, or crush the piper... but either way I do not think helping the auto industry will be the tipping point. I would rather see us withdraw 100% foreign spending and fix up shop here before we worry about the rest of the world...who by the way would like nothing better than to see us all crash and burn IMHO so I'm having a real hard time trying to make myself care about people beyond our borders who hate us all.
 
The question being asked of the American public is flawed. It should be "Are you in favor of 3 million more American workers losing their jobs next year, or should we take steps to stop that from happening?"

Or, "Are you OK with 30 percent unemployment in some areas of the country?"

I agree:

I think perhaps we who live in Michigan, & other auto dependant states are more concerened about The possible effect of a disorderly bankruptsy of GM and /or Chrysler because we have wittesed the effects of an orderly auto slowdown first hand.

Over the last several years the Detroit 3 have been downsizing. Many thousands of auto employees were let go. Some were given early retirements others were laid off.
As a result Michigan's job loss is the longest since the Great Depression.

Here is an article that supports my claim:

Michigan's job-loss streak is the longest since Great Depression and that title was taken from an article which was written in Nov. 2006.

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=1069

Nov. 17, 2006

Michigan's job-loss streak is the longest since Great Depression

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Michigan has endured six straight years of job losses and the next two years will see even more—the longest stretch of employment loss in the state since the Great Depression, say University of Michigan economists.


Since mid-2000 to the end of this year, the state will have lost 336,000 jobs and it will lose another 33,000 jobs in the next two years, they say. Most of these losses are in manufacturing.


Moreover, unemployment in Michigan is projected to rise from an average of 6.8 percent this year to 7.5 percent next year and 7.7 percent in 2008—the highest rates since 1992.



Our unemployment was 8.5 in May of 2008. By October 2008 our employment was 9.3.

Link: http://www.bls.gov/EAG/eag.mi.htm

Many, many small businesses and local stores as well as many chains have closed.
Many of shopping centers have vacant stores. Many of our neighborhoods have vacant homes.

Cutbacks of many of our State services have taken place :



From this article:

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1697311-Police-cutbacks-rock-Michigan/



Police cutbacks rock Michigan

By Tim Martin
The Associated Press

May 21, 2008
DETROIT — Michigan's law enforcement agencies are fighting crime with about 1,800 fewer police officers than in 2001, and the consequences are showing up on city streets and country highways.

Violent crime is up in some areas, but arrests are down in part because police departments — with about 21,300 positions statewide, an 8 percent drop — can't keep up with the increased workload. During the same time frame, the state's population has stayed roughly the same.


The cuts have been most severe in many of the state's largest cities and smallest towns, according to data from the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.

Citizens sometimes wait hours for an officer to respond to a property crime and more state highways go unpatrolled for long stretches at night. Support staff has been slashed, too, so police officers working high priority cases sometimes face a tougher time getting experts who can help build cases by giving polygraph tests or investigating questionable fires.

State crime labs often have a four-to-six month turnaround time on DNA evidence found at crime scenes, and it takes a few months longer in some cases. It's a shorter average delay than a few years ago but still long enough to leave many investigations that rely on forensic evidence hanging.

The state's 16 law enforcement agencies that employ 100 or more officers collectively have lost 15 percent of their law enforcement positions since 2001, according to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.

Some cities are looking at cutting police staffs even further as local governments struggle to pay for patrols. Tight tax revenues - caused in part by Michigan's long-struggling economy - are blamed for police layoffs from southeast Michigan's big cities to small, rural communities in the Upper Peninsula.

"We're stretched thin," said Sheriff Brian McLean of Houghton County, which pokes north into Lake Superior. "A lot of criminals, the halfway bright ones anyway, are realizing that."..........

Here is an article about Michigan's troubled schools:

Thursday, February 1, 2007
State cuts could push 20% of school districts into the red

Jennifer Mrozowski / The Detroit News

Nearly one-fifth of Michigan's school districts could be in deficit by the school year's end if the state cuts per-pupil funding by $224, according to a survey by the Michigan School Business Officials.

The statewide organization, which represents more than 1,800 school business officials, surveyed districts this month.

It found that about 120 districts would fall into deficit if cuts are made to address a state shortfall of about $1 billion this year.


"Part of the frustration is that here we are in the middle of the school year, trying to educate kids and now we have to focus on cuts," said Tom White, executive director of the Lansing-based association.

If a district falls into deficit, it has to create a reduction plan outlining how to eliminate the shortfall. Districts in deficit often face teacher lay-offs, higher pay-to-play fees, larger class sizes or less money for programs.

White said his office sent surveys to the state's 524 K-12 public districts and some charters.

Richard Witkowski, superintendent for Garden City Schools, said his district ended the 2005-06 year with a $1.3 million deficit. The 5,400-student district's budget for this year is $46 million.

Since 2001, the school system has closed a middle school, privatized food and custodial services, reduced administrative and clerical staff and cut ninth-grade sports and elementary band.

"Trying to cut back another $1.1 million would be devastating to our district," Witkowski said. <snip>



The survey also found that if there is no increase in the foundation allowance for the 2007-08 year, 28 percent, or 168 districts, would be in deficit. In addition, 53 percent -- 318 districts -- would cut their workforce by five percent or more and 70 percent, or 420 districts, would reduce programs for students.

Hildy Corbett, spokeswoman for Utica Community Schools, said the reduction in per-pupil aid could mean cutting $6 million from the district's $255 million budget.

The school system has been chipping away at its fund equity for the last four years, and has already had a series of layoffs that trimmed more than 60 staff members, including teachers. The 30,000-student system also closed a building that was being used for preschool.

"At this point, we don't have a plan to deal with any additional reductions," Corbett said. "We're still crying the cry that we need stable revenue for districts and children."

The system is weighing all options, she said.

In Detroit Public Schools, the per-pupil reduction could mean a loss of around $20 million, said Dori Freelain, the district's chief financial officer. The system already is trying to eliminate a $200 million deficit.

"We would be in a very severe situation," Freelain said. She could not say what areas the district would cut. But the system doesn't have much leeway with staffing because of employment and labor contracts and because the cuts would not be in response to a greater decline in enrollment, she said.

"It would generally mean we would take a hard look at current spending and place some serious controls on spending patterns and spending levels by year's end," Freelain said.

You can reach Jennifer Mrozowski at (313) 222-2269 or jmrozowski@detnews.com.


From the Govenor's FAQ website:

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--81249--,00.html


Frequently Asked Questions About the Budget

How large is the budget deficit and why do we have another deficit after the Governor just cut $1 billion from the current budget?

Answer: The budget deficit in the General Fund and the School Aid Fund combined is currently about $920 million. Yes, the Governor just recently approved budget cuts for the current fiscal year that totaled more than $1 billion. The main problem is that the current budget was written based on economic forecasts that showed the nation rebounding from the current economic slump sooner. The country still has not recovered, and Michigan’s manufacturing-based economy is still suffering. Michigan has lost more than 300,000 jobs since 2000, including 170,000 manufacturing jobs. When workers lose their jobs, the state loses funds from two important sources of revenue – the income tax and the sales tax.

This is result of orderly cutbacks of 170,000 Michigan manufacturing jobs which mostly effected Michigan and it's surrounding states.

A disorderly bankruptcy of GM and /or Chrysler most likely will result in millions of job losses which will effect our whole nation!
 
I can only speak for myself but I would be on board IF, and only IF, the union agrees to concessions and the executives ALL give up their bonus'.... after all beggars can't be choosers - as the saying goes.

I do not think anyone in this country wants to see millions out of jobs if it can really be helped. BUT, I also am in no mood to hear about Mr. Executive bringing his family on a trip around the world or redoing his house on my dime or Mr. Joe the line worker bringing his kids on vacation while many of my friends may lose their homes.

I demand Temperance from the auto industry.
 
This cartoon is both amusing and very accurate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCMRFeO6s0

Amusing, yes. Accurate, of course not. Once again, Democrats are unable to argue for their bill and their rejection of the Republican compromise, so they are stuck with demonizing their opponents.

A disorderly bankruptcy of GM and /or Chrysler most likely will result in millions of job losses which will effect our whole nation!

That's a good reason why the bankruptcy should be orderly. The feds should back debtor-in-possession financing. They should guarantee the warranties to instill consumer confidence. They should provide transition assistance to the laid off workers to minimize the disruption. They should help in ways that lead to a better future, not pour money into preserving an unsustainable status quo.

minnie61650's lengthy post just reinforces my sense that we should not prop up the status quo. Michigan has been a state in decline for as long as I can remember. During that time, they've learned nothing from the parts of the country that are growing. They haven't passed Right-To-Work laws. They haven't lowered their tax burden. They've continued to promote a labor-friendly but owner-hostile business environment. I don't want to subsidize that. I want them to reform it and I'll happily pay to help them with the transition.

The Democrats say they are worried about the millions of jobs they say are on the line, but they can't explain why they felt it was better to have no bailout than to have one in which the Unions took a reasonable pay cut. I haven't seen any explanation. All I see are lies about Republicans being filled with hate and being unpatriotic for not wanting non-union factory workers to send some of their tax money to subsidize union workers.
 
..... They haven't lowered their tax burden. They've continued to promote a labor-friendly but owner-hostile business environment....

I would like to know what you mean by labor friendly but owner hostile business environment....?

My DH owns (for the past 40 some years) a multi million company which employes just over 50 people.

His business is not auto related and is not Union.
His business has NEVER been approched to become union.

Why do you say Michigan is hostile to the business environment?

I am trying to understand.




I also am not sure what you mean by lowering our tax burden because our state deficit has been lowered.


From this website:

http://www.milhs.org/Media/EDocs/StruDefCon03.pdf
Between 1992 & 1999 the Michigan auto industry was doing fairly well.

Through the year 1999 Michigan had a surplus.



In 2000 our budget was -.02 billion $
In 2001 our budget was - 1.06 billion $
In 2002 our budget was -1.70 billion $

So when Governer Granholm took office we already had about a 2.78 billion $ deficit.

From this website:

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--81249--,00.html

The budget deficit in the General Fund and the School Aid Fund combined is currently about $920 million.
----------------------------------

Governor Grandholm is cutting our deficit but it is also effecting some of our very important services such as our schools and our police protection.


Just my 2 cents.
 
This is a good story on the pure bull that tax breaks and subsidies should not be used for the big three http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hQC3oQUqU4The transplant automakers in the states represented by these hateful and partisan GOP senators are the beneficiaries of some major tax breaks and incentives.
 
I've owned Chrysler and GM cars within the past 5 years and they all stunk!! Quality problems up the wazzooo! Have a Honda for three years with no issues.

You make junk cars and you go out of business.
 













Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top