• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama sees 'make or break' time for middle class

Seeing how well things are going in those minority communities, that doesn't sound like a bad thing.

it's not unlike a bankruptcy... but instead of a judge saying you have to do this ,this, and this to get your finances in order, the state appoints an emergency manager ... it's a proactive step to ward off bankruptcy and restore fiscal responsibility by reordering contracts and such.


here's a link to the whole law...section by section
Michigan Legislature - Act 4 of 2011

it's not the "great dictator and voting rights denial act of 2011" as someone here is selling ...that much is crystal clear.
 
from Thrilla

your hyperbole gets old real fast....

For a self confessed Libertarian with your history of statements in posts, that is a bit like a serial killer complaining about violence in films.

next time, include a link to your sources so we can all view the law in it's entirety.

You had a link to the entire law before you posted your goose stepping orders. My post #68.

you have still not proven that people are having their voting rights stripped... or any of the other rhetoric you spew.

Did you not read the law with the appropriate sections bolded for you?



what you are saying is akin to saying impeaching and removing an elected official is stripping the rights of voters.. which is entirely false.

No. It is what it is and nothing else. the duly elected representatives of the people are replaced in a dictatorial fashion by a decision made by a non elected State official - the Treasurer of the State - and the elected officials are relegated to simply obeying orders and being sent home without any milk and cookies if they balk at the slightest order. The people have no power to vote for those who run their city government.

Which part of the law do you fail to understand?

Do you fail to understand that the appointment is made and imposed upon the city?

Do you fail to understand that the people have no voice or say in the matter?

Do you fail to understand that the emergency manager is not elected by the people over which they rule like a dictator?

Do you fail to understand that the people cannot depose the emergency manager and are powerless and impotent against their dictates and orders?

Do you fail to understand that this is NOT a government by the people as Lincoln described our system of government to be?

Do you fail to understand that this is NOT a government of the people as Lincoln described our system of government to be?

an emergency manager is tasked with the emergency fiscal management of a local government unit... and saying the local elected official can get the boot if he is not compliant with the superior authority is not imposing a dictatorship of any kind... it's giving the emergency manager teeth... teeth given by consent of the citizens of the state through their elected state officials.
" either you work with me, or you'll get out of the way".. which makes perfect sense.

Dictators do indeed have what you describe as "teeth". Superior authority is a good way to describe it since the elected official now has no authority of any kind.



i've found the law in it's entirely... and I'm glad i did... taking your word for anything has proven to be ... less than productive.

If you knew how to follow the link on the Michigan site I provided you could have read it at that time. My post #68 which predated your post by over two hours when you complained about not having the law.




right off the bat, i see you ignore that in order for a emergency manager to exist, the local government has to call on the state government to intervene in it's finances ... but that wouldn't sit well with your rhetoric about stripping voting rights and dictatorships ans such, so i would see why you would ignore it.

Oh really? Then why oh why is Detroit frantically trying to stop this right as we speak? I quoted the law in my post... why are you impotent to do the same?

http://michiganradio.org/post/detroit-mayor-dave-bing-i-dont-want-emergency-manager

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing is addressing residents tonight about the city's financial troubles. And he answered one looming question right off the bat:

“Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I don’t want an emergency manager making decisions for my city,” Bing said.

So just who is it in local government calling upon the state to institute a dictatorship in Detroit? Please name them. In fact, the law that I linked to provides some twenty circumstances for this trigger to be pulled and many do NOT HAVE TO INVOLVE ANY REQUEST FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Again, read the law

141.1512 Preliminary review by local government state financial authority to determine financial problem; conditions; notification to local government; finding of probable stress for municipal government or school district; appointment of review team by governor; staff support; duration of appointment.
Sec. 12.

(1) The state financial authority of a local government may conduct a preliminary review to determine the existence of a local government financial problem if 1 or more of the following occur:

(a) The governing body or the chief administrative officer of a local government requests a preliminary review under this act. The request shall be in writing and shall identify the existing or anticipated financial conditions or events that make the request necessary.

(b) The state financial authority receives a written request from a creditor with an undisputed claim that remains unpaid 6 months after its due date against the local government that exceeds the greater of $10,000.00 or 1% of the annual general fund budget of the local government, provided that the creditor notifies the local government in writing at least 30 days before his or her request to the state financial authority of his or her intention to submit a written request under this subdivision.

(c) The state financial authority receives a petition containing specific allegations of local government financial distress signed by a number of registered electors residing within the local government's jurisdiction equal to not less than 5% of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor within the local government's jurisdiction at the last preceding election at which a governor was elected. Petitions shall not be filed under this subdivision within 60 days before any election of the local government.

(d) The state financial authority receives written notification that a local government has not timely deposited its minimum obligation payment to the local government pension fund as required by law.

(e) The state financial authority receives written notification that the local government has failed for a period of 7 days or more after the scheduled date of payment to pay wages and salaries or other compensation owed to employees or benefits owed to retirees.

(f) The state financial authority receives written notification from a trustee, paying agent, bondholder, or auditor engaged by the local government of a default in a bond or note payment or a violation of 1 or more bond or note covenants.

(g) The state financial authority of a local government receives a resolution from either the senate or the house of representatives requesting a preliminary review under this section.

(h) The local government has violated a requirement of, or a condition of an order issued pursuant to, former 1943 PA 202, the revenue bond act of 1933, 1933 PA 94, MCL 141.101 to 141.140, the revised municipal finance act, 2001 PA 34, MCL 141.2101 to 141.2821, or any other law governing the issuance of bonds or notes.

(i) A municipal government has violated the conditions of an order issued by the local emergency financial assistance loan board pursuant to the emergency municipal loan act, 1980 PA 243, MCL 141.931 to 141.942.

(j) The local government has violated a requirement of sections 17 to 20 of the uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.437 to 141.440.

(k) The local government fails to timely file an annual financial report or audit that conforms with the minimum procedures and standards of the state financial authority and is required for local governments under the uniform budgeting and accounting act, 1968 PA 2, MCL 141.421 to 141.440a, or 1919 PA 71, MCL 21.41 to 21.55. In addition, if the local government is a school district, the school district fails to provide an annual financial report or audit that conforms with the minimum procedures and standards of the superintendent of public instruction and is required under the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852, and 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772.

(l) A municipal government is delinquent in the distribution of tax revenues, as required by law, that it has collected for another taxing jurisdiction, and that taxing jurisdiction requests a preliminary review.

(m) A local government is in breach of its obligations under a deficit elimination plan or an agreement entered into pursuant to a deficit elimination plan.

(n) A court has ordered an additional tax levy without the prior approval of the governing body of the local government.

(o) A municipal government has ended a fiscal year in a deficit condition as defined in section 21 of the Glenn Steil state revenue sharing act of 1971, 1971 PA 140, MCL 141.921, or has failed to comply with the requirements of that section for filing or instituting a financial plan to correct the deficit condition.

(p) A school district ended its most recently completed fiscal year with a deficit in 1 or more of its funds and the school district has not submitted a deficit elimination plan to the state financial authority within 30 days after the district's deadline for submission of its annual financial statement.

(q) A local government has been assigned a long-term debt rating within or below the BBB category or its equivalent by 1 or more nationally recognized credit rating agencies.

(r) The existence of other facts or circumstances that in the state treasurer's sole discretion for a municipal government are indicative of municipal financial stress, or, that in the superintendent of public instruction's sole discretion for a school district are indicative of school district financial stress.

(2) If the state financial authority determines that a preliminary review is appropriate under this section, before commencing the preliminary review the state financial authority shall give the local government specific written notification of the review. The preliminary review shall be completed within 30 days following its commencement. Elected and appointed officials of a local government shall promptly and fully provide the assistance and information requested by the state financial authority for that local government in conducting the preliminary review.

(3) If a finding of probable financial stress is made for a municipal government under subsection (2), the governor shall appoint a review team for that municipal government consisting of the state treasurer or his or her designee, the director of the department of technology, management, and budget or his or her designee, a nominee of the senate majority leader, and a nominee of the speaker of the house of representatives. The governor may appoint other state officials or other persons with relevant professional experience to serve on a review team to undertake a municipal financial management review.

(4) If a finding of probable financial stress is made for a school district under subsection (2), the governor shall appoint a review team for that school district consisting of the state treasurer or his or her designee, the superintendent of public instruction or his or her designee, the director of the department of technology, management, and budget or his or her designee, a nominee of the senate majority leader, and a nominee of the speaker of the house of representatives. The governor may appoint other state officials or other persons with relevant professional experience to serve on a review team to undertake a school district financial management review.

(5) The department of treasury shall provide staff support to each review team.

(6) A review team appointed under former 1988 PA 101 or former 1990 PA 72 and serving on the effective date of this act shall continue under this act to fulfill their powers and duties. All proceedings and actions taken by the governor, the state treasurer, or a review team under former 1988 PA 101 or former 1990 PA 72 before the effective date of this act are ratified and are enforceable as if the proceedings and actions were taken under this act, and a consent agreement entered into under former 1988 PA 101 or former 1990 PA 72 is ratified and is binding and enforceable under this act.

There is no mandate or demand for any local government person to ask for this and it can be IMPOSED upon them from the State level.


you are confusing constraints put upon elected officials with constraints put on voters... they are not the same.

BS in truck fulls. The people are ruled by a dictator and they have no power to elect their own officials. They have been stripped of that power.
 
Last edited:
it's not unlike a bankruptcy... but instead of a judge saying you have to do this ,this, and this to get your finances in order, the state appoints an emergency manager ... it's a proactive step to ward off bankruptcy and restore fiscal responsibility by reordering contracts and such.


here's a link to the whole law...section by section
Michigan Legislature - Act 4 of 2011

Who are you trying to fool here? Just who? I gave you this link over two hours before you posted your stuff - see my post #68. This is the same material for heavens sake. You really got a lotta nerve!
 
So what? You do realize that money invested has already been taxed once already when it was made right?

j-mac

So what? You do realize you are not being taxed on the money you invest but rather the earnings above your initial investment right?
 
Who are you trying to fool here? Just who? I gave you this link over two hours before you posted your stuff - see my post #68. This is the same material for heavens sake. You really got a lotta nerve!

ahh yes, so you did... I missed it, my bad

i'm still going over the law... and i'm still dismissing your hyperbole as the bull**** it most obviously is...it is not dictatorial in nature, it is not racist in nature, it strips no voter of any rights... you are quite simply...wrong.

for what it's worth , I don't care about Detroit or Michigan, or this law personally, I have no dog in this hunt.....
all i see is talk up there... for 2 years mayor Bing has had the helm, and he has failed in taking care of the fiscal problems... the city council hasn't dealt with them to any discernible effect... nobody at the local level has done ****.... up until the state said " if y'all won't do it, we will".. and all of sudden, city officials are scrambling to find way out of their mess (ironically, asking the state to come help)... at the very least, this law serves as a nice motivating tool to get local officials and union bosses off their ass.

hopefully Detroit can fix it's mess before emergency measures are taken... it's possible, and it's going to test the city quite a bit... but if they can't handle it, the state will step in and handle their finances for them.
 
TRick questions! lol. 45k... there aren't that many people in canada lol. Seriously though, so many canadians cross the border for HC and that IS the truth. IF their HC was superior, we'd be crossing the border to get HC from them, not the other way around. As for UHC in Europe and why many people are still clamoring to it, there really isn't much in the way of private practice in most major European coutries and most Europeans just don't make anywhere near enough to afford any type of HC at all.

"A Growing Number of American Patients are Seeking Medical Treatment Abroad
The medical tourism industry has seen a major increase in the past decade.

Researchers have confirmed that:

* In 2006, about 150,000 American citizens traveled to Latin America and Asia for medical treatment.
* In 2007, the figure increased to approximately 300,000.
* By 2010, experts say that the number could increase to well over 1 million."

"For many people who require medical treatment, the last thing they want to do is travel. However, due to the high cost of medical treatment in the USA, many American patients are going abroad for medical treatments. Their purpose is to save 50% to 80% on medical treatment conducted by doctors who are often trained in the United States, at hospitals that maintain the precise standards of patient care and safety."

Medical Tourism USA - Americans Seek Medical Treatment Abroad
 
one thing i've learned in being active in politics for 40+ years is .... just before any election, it's always "make or break time" for some thing or some one.

it's a timeless and time tested tactic.... "elect me and i will save you.. vote for the other guy and you will be doomed"... politics 101

one day it might actually be true, but i'm not holding my breath waiting on that day.
 
ahh yes, so you did... I missed it, my bad

i'm still going over the law... and i'm still dismissing your hyperbole as the bull**** it most obviously is...it is not dictatorial in nature, it is not racist in nature, it strips no voter of any rights... you are quite simply...wrong.

for what it's worth , I don't care about Detroit or Michigan, or this law personally, I have no dog in this hunt.....
all i see is talk up there... for 2 years mayor Bing has had the helm, and he has failed in taking care of the fiscal problems... the city council hasn't dealt with them to any discernible effect... nobody at the local level has done ****.... up until the state said " if y'all won't do it, we will".. and all of sudden, city officials are scrambling to find way out of their mess (ironically, asking the state to come help)... at the very least, this law serves as a nice motivating tool to get local officials and union bosses off their ass.

hopefully Detroit can fix it's mess before emergency measures are taken... it's possible, and it's going to test the city quite a bit... but if they can't handle it, the state will step in and handle their finances for them.

MY BAD!?!?!?!?!? Was there ever a more lame phrase invented which means I SCREWED UP ROYALLY AND MDE A FOOL OF MYSELF AND WILL NOW ATTEMPT TO SHRUG IT OF BY PRETENDING TO BE COOL?

You now pretend to get away with telling us that you do not care what Mayor Bing says but just hours ago tried to wiggle your way out of this telling us that an official from the city had to request the State help. ... which they clearly DO NOT as is in the law I reproduced for you.

Quote the law to us and explain what you think the law is. I gave you the law and the relevant sections which are clear and unmistakable. Why do you treat it like it is a leper in a highly infectious colony?

Put aside your partisan interpretation.

Put aside your deep need to absolve conservatives from all evil.

Put aside your lame attempt to confuse financial management with basic citizen rights.

Put aside your aversion to truth and facts.

Answer truthfully one question: do the people of these towns and cities get to vote for the government over them?
 
Last edited:
MY BAD!?!?!?!?!? Was there ever a more lame phrase invented which means I SCREWED UP ROYALLY AND MDE A FOOL OF MYSELF AND WILL NOW ATTEMPT TO SHRUG IT OF BY PRETENDING TO BE COOL?

You now pretend to get away with telling us that you do not care what Mayor Bing says but just hours ago tried to wiggle your way out of this telling us that and official from the city had to request the State help. ... which they clearly DO NOT as is in the law I reproduced for you.

Quote the law to us and explain what you think the law is. I gave you the law and the relevant sections which are clear and unmistakable. Why do you treat it like it is a leper in a highly infectious colony?

Put aside your partisan interpretation.

Put aside your deep need to absolve conservatives from all evil.

Put aside your lame attempt to confuse financial management with basic citizen rights.

Put aside your aversion to truth and facts.

Answer truthfully one question: do the people of these towns and cities get to vote for the government over them?

you are the first person i've met that, when offered up an admission of being mistaken, you still find a way to whine about it and attack me over it...but that's ok, I'll still continue to admit when i'm wrong.

when i regain a bit of my civility, I may entertain your arguments further... but right now, I don't feel any civility towards you whatsoever, so i'll defer to another time.

be careful in what you say in reply to this post.
 
you are the first person i've met that, when offered up an admission of being mistaken, you still find a way to whine about it and attack me over it...but that's ok, I'll still continue to admit when i'm wrong.

when i regain a bit of my civility, I may entertain your arguments further... but right now, I don't feel any civility towards you whatsoever, so i'll defer to another time.

be careful in what you say in reply to this post.

But Thrilla you have not shown any civility so far.

I shutter to think people that can mangle an issue so thoroughly work in government....

And that is but one example of the tone you set.



You have attempted to ignore my actual posts, ignore the content, ignore the links, and ignore the reality and facts. You tell us what the law says which is wrong and when I give you the actual wording in the law you pretend it is not there or you ignore it. You make assertions of fact about this law, get proven to the contrary and then just attempt to reframe your opinion with nothing behind it in the way of facts about the law.

Allow me to explain one thing to you. I was in the room when this bill was debated before committee. I was in the room when the arguments were framed and written against it. I wrote one of the major floor speeches given against it. I helped write press releases exposing what it would do. I know this bill very very well having seen it conceived, born and placed into effect.

And in case you didn't get it - a pet peeve of mine is the lame phrase MY BAD. Make me the world Emergency Manager for a day and I would abolish it - even if you voted to keep it... but then you couldn't do that could you since I would have all the power. ;)
 
Last edited:
one thing i've learned in being active in politics for 40+ years is .... just before any election, it's always "make or break time" for some thing or some one.

it's a timeless and time tested tactic.... "elect me and i will save you.. vote for the other guy and you will be doomed"... politics 101

one day it might actually be true, but i'm not holding my breath waiting on that day.

The only way Obama has any kind of chance is to market himself as a messiah. It's how he got elected the first time.
 
Obama says no vacation till payroll tax cut extended; Republicans advance bill

"President Barack Obama vowed to delay Congress' year-end vacation as well as his own Thursday for "as long as it takes" to extend Social Security payroll tax cuts and long-term jobless benefits, his second challenge in as many days to conservative Republicans."

Obama says no vacation till payroll tax cut extended; Republicans advance bill - 12/8/2011 4:15:08 PM | Newser

So, you're saying that the American people are going to be bought off for 10 bucks a week? :lamo
 
So, you're saying that the American people are going to be bought off for 10 bucks a week? :lamo

Yeah, raising working class taxes by $1,000 is a good strategy for the Republicans. Go for it.
 
Yeah, raising working class taxes by $1,000 is a good strategy for the Republicans. Go for it.

I doubt anyone will even notice. It'll just mean there tax refund will be bigger. :lamo
 
I doubt anyone will even notice. It'll just mean there tax refund will be bigger. :lamo

Is that how it works? You raise taxes and the refund goes up? :2rofll:

If the GOP succeeds in blocking it you may notice that your paycheck is $40 lighter.
 
Is that how it works? You raise taxes and the refund goes up? :2rofll:

If the GOP succeeds in blocking it you may notice that your paycheck is $40 lighter.

If you qualify for a refund--which most middle classers do--sure.

So, tell us where you got the 40 buck figure from. It's only a 7% hike. For someone to pay another 40 bucks, that person would have to be making $4,000 a week.
 
But Thrilla you have not shown any civility so far.
..and it would only get worse if i allow myself to deal with your nonsense hyperbole.



You have attempted to ignore my actual posts, ignore the content, ignore the links, and ignore the reality and facts. You tell us what the law says which is wrong and when I give you the actual wording in the law you pretend it is not there or you ignore it. You make assertions of fact about this law, get proven to the contrary and then just attempt to reframe your opinion with nothing behind it in the way of facts about the law.
I said i would comment further when i have read the law in it's entirety( no , i will not take your word for anything, you have no credibility with me )....but yes, i have ignored and dismissed your hyperbole as nonsense.
let's not pretend you are simply bringing facts and information to the table.. you are bring hyperbole about dictatorships , racism , and stripping of rights...

Allow me to explain one thing to you. I was in the room when this bill was debated before committee. I was in the room when the arguments were framed and written against it. I wrote one of the major floor speeches given against it. I helped write press releases exposing what it would do. I know this bill very very well having seen it conceived, born and placed into effect.
I don't care where you were or what you did... your hyperbole is horsepuckey.
if you want people to see things as you do, I would advise not engaging in extreme hyperbole.
to think that you are actually instrumental in public policy literally scares the bejeezus out of me and causes me to distrust government even more... i'm extremely happy I don't live in Michigan right now.

And in case you didn't get it - a pet peeve of mine is the lame phrase MY BAD. Make me the world Emergency Manager for a day and I would abolish it - even if you voted to keep it... but then you couldn't do that could you since I would have all the power. ;)
I don't care what your pet peeves are..
you are not obliged to maturely accept a concession of mine, but it is certainly the polite and civil way of going about it... launching another attack on me when i say I was wrong is simply immature... and although i will continue to say when i'm wrong.. i will certainly give pause the next time i do so to you, and i'll be forced to word it in a fashion that will disarm your subsequent juvenile attacks.... i have your number now, I now know what your character consists of.
i'm not surprised you would attempt to utilize powers not conferred upon you to censor other people according to your whims.
 
Obama says no vacation till payroll tax cut extended; Republicans advance bill

"President Barack Obama vowed to delay Congress' year-end vacation as well as his own Thursday for "as long as it takes" to extend Social Security payroll tax cuts and long-term jobless benefits, his second challenge in as many days to conservative Republicans."

Obama says no vacation till payroll tax cut extended; Republicans advance bill - 12/8/2011 4:15:08 PM | Newser
....didn't Obama just get back from Hawaii?

anyways, yeah, he didn't have much of a choice but to delay his vacation... Romney was ripping into him for planning to take it.... politics as it is, he was left having to delay it.
 
Yeah, raising working class taxes by $1,000 is a good strategy for the Republicans. Go for it.

I find it highly ironic the position the GOP has put themselves in- they are willing to do anything at all to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy, but are ready to throw the middle class tax cut under the bus, and truly seem surprised that the middle class is tired of being **** on.

What an easy choice the majority will have next November!
 
....didn't Obama just get back from Hawaii?

anyways, yeah, he didn't have much of a choice but to delay his vacation... Romney was ripping into him for planning to take it.... politics as it is, he was left having to delay it.

Nope, he is waiting to get the middle class tax cut extended. Good on him for standing up for the middle class. Romney and the other candidates only care about continuing the tax cuts for the rich!

Why are the GOP so opposed to continuing the tax break for the middle class???
 
If you qualify for a refund--which most middle classers do--sure.

So, tell us where you got the 40 buck figure from. It's only a 7% hike. For someone to pay another 40 bucks, that person would have to be making $4,000 a week.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The payroll tax holiday reduces payroll taxes by 2%, which amounts to about $1,000/yr. for the average family. That adds up to about $40 extra in a family's bi-weekly paycheck, or $80/month.
 
Nope, he is waiting to get the middle class tax cut extended. Good on him for standing up for the middle class. Romney and the other candidates only care about continuing the tax cuts for the rich!

Why are the GOP so opposed to continuing the tax break for the middle class???

ugh.. political propaganda...i'm so over it....

the GOP is not opposed to continuing the middle class tax break.. it's other items in the Dem bills they are opposed to( surtax on the rich).... same with the Dems, when the GOP offered their plan to continue the payroll tax break, they balked at other stuff in the GOP plan( pipeline plans, freeze on government wages, etc).

neither side is opposed to the payroll tax break.. both have different ideas on how to pay for it and both sides are injecting unrelated stuff into the mix.


this stuff is common political knowledge ... you just have to get away from propaganda outlets to gain access to it.
 
ugh.. political propaganda...i'm so over it....

the GOP is not opposed to continuing the middle class tax break.. it's other items in the Dem bills they are opposed to( surtax on the rich).... same with the Dems, when the GOP offered their plan to continue the payroll tax break, they balked at other stuff in the GOP plan( pipeline plans, freeze on government wages, etc).

neither side is opposed to the payroll tax break.. both have different ideas on how to pay for it and both sides are injecting unrelated stuff into the mix.


this stuff is common political knowledge ... you just have to get away from propaganda outlets to gain access to it.

Oh BS. The Republicans have opposed the payroll tax holiday all along th line. They are trying to tie it to the pipeline because they know Obama opposes it. Dems proposed the surtax because Republicans insist that it must be paid for.
 
Back
Top Bottom