Obama sees 'make or break' time for middle class

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

AdamT said:
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.

the only republican I have seen oppose it on the merits is John Kyl.. and he opposes it because it shorts Social security revenue.
others have said they wanted it paid for...but do not oppose it on the merits.

once again, partisan politics is getting in the way here... the tax cuts is being used as leverage to get other stuff from the other side.

the payroll tax cut doesn't offer any substantial benefit to the economy overall... but i support it nonetheless, i'm almost always a fan of letting people keep more of their own money... something that can't be said of Democrats or even Republicans.

Catawba · Dec 11, 2011

Thrilla said:
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.

Just the facts ma'am:

House G.O.P. Is Split on Extension of Payroll Tax Cut

"WASHINGTON — Deep rifts among House Republicans over a payroll tax break became evident Friday as rank-and-file members of the caucus told their leaders that they did not want to extend the cut in Social Security taxes for another year, as demanded by President Obama."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/politics/payroll-tax-exposes-rift-in-house-republican-caucus.html

AdamT · Dec 11, 2011

Thrilla said:
the only republican I have seen oppose it on the merits is John Kyl.. and he opposes it because it shorts Social security revenue.
others have said they wanted it paid for...but do not oppose it on the merits.

once again, partisan politics is getting in the way here... the tax cuts is being used as leverage to get other stuff from the other side.

the payroll tax cut doesn't offer any substantial benefit to the economy overall... but i support it nonetheless, i'm almost always a fan of letting people keep more of their own money... something that can't be said of Democrats or even Republicans.

As Catawba's article says, I think you're mistaken. As far as not making a difference, economists estimate that it would increase GDP by .5 to 1.5%, which is pretty huge when we're bumping along under 3% GDP growth.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

from Thrilla

.and it would only get worse if i allow myself to deal with your nonsense hyperbole.

he says as he dives back into the deep end of the pool

I made this point to you

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.

and the response from Thrilla

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...

You not reading the law in its entirety certainly did not stop you from pontificating about what it did and did not contain. You claimed that the local elected authority had to ask the state for help. I gave you the sections of the law and it is clear that you were wrong and they DO NOT HAVE TO ASK FOR THE EMERGENCY MANAGER PROCESS.

You claimed the the local citizens were not stripped of their right to vote for their government and I gave the the law to show you you were wrong and they indeed had no vote, no voice, no right at all over the government imposed upon them from the State. I asked you point blank if the citizens of those communities could vote for the government in their communities when a emergency manager was imposed upon them and you slunk away avoiding manning up an d giving a straight answer which would prove even to you that you were wrong.

I gave you my experience and knowledge about this bill and the process which produced it.

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.

You use that term and you have not provided a single instance where any one of my statements about the law is wrong. Not one. So it does not matter to me if you label it as hyperbole or anything else. You have utterly and completely failed to take one statement of mine about this law and use the law to show I am not stating the truth.

And this whole "my bad" nonsense. You make a major issue of me not providing the exact law to you - not once, but at least twice in your posts. You try to make me sound like my absence in doing so is dishonest. You try to make me sound like I am hiding the actual law because it would prove me wrong. You try to make me sound like I do not know how to write a post in debate. You did this not once, but at least twice. And the entire time you did it I had given you the law as part of my posts. And then you give me five little letters and shrug your shoulders and all those smears upon me and my ability are suppose to just magically vanish and be gone with the wind? Amazing.

You do not want race brought into this. However, I documented my statement by providing population numbers and racial demographic percentages of the impacted communities. They are what they are and nobody can pretend that they are not what they are. The fact is that every single vote for this Public Act 4 came from a Republican who represents a rural or suburban area that is significantly and predominately white. And the communities impacted by this are overwhelmingly communities of people of color. That is a fact and it cannot be disputed.

You do not like the term DICTATOR. But the Emergency Manager is exactly that having all power at their disposal. One unelected person appointed by the State who wields all legislative power AND all Executive power in that community and even usurps powers normally reserved for a vote of the people. In fact, not only do they hold those powers without any necessary checks and balances, they even are awarded expanded powers that neither the legislative branch (city council) or the executive branch (mayor) would normally have. They then dictate orders to everyone else in the city and there is no alternative but to stand tall and salute and obey.

They are indeed a dictator in the purest sense of the term. I have provided the language from the law in the next two posts. Read it carefully and not that they have both the powers of the legislative branch and the executive branch without any checks and balances upon them. Note that they also are given broad and sweeping powers that mayors and city councils do not normally have under the state laws of Michigan.

You end your rant by saying you are glad you do not live in Michigan. I suspect that nearly a million people in those impacted communities join you in your sentiment. They do not want to live in a community where their right to vote for their government has been destroyed and they now live under a dictator imposed by the state. You are not alone.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

The powers given to an emergency manager are so extensive that they cannot even be placed in a single post here.
read them and not that they have both Executive branch powers and Legislative branch powers and there is no check upon them.
Note in many areas that their powers go significantly beyond what the existing government officials had by city charter.

141.1519 Additional actions by emergency manager; authority of chief administrative officer and governing body; suspension; contracts; sale or transfer of public utility.Sec. 19.
(1) An emergency manager may take 1 or more of the following additional actions with respect to a local government which is in receivership, notwithstanding any charter provision to the contrary:
(a) Analyze factors and circumstances contributing to the financial emergency of the local government and initiate steps to correct the condition.
(b) Amend, revise, approve, or disapprove the budget of the local government, and limit the total amount appropriated or expended.
(c) Receive and disburse on behalf of the local government all federal, state, and local funds earmarked for the local government. These funds may include, but are not limited to, funds for specific programs and the retirement of debt.
(d) Require and approve or disapprove, or amend or revise a plan for paying all outstanding obligations of the local government.
(e) Require and prescribe the form of special reports to be made by the finance officer of the local government to its governing body, the creditors of the local government, the emergency manager, or the public.
(f) Examine all records and books of account, and require under the procedures of 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, or both, the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, contracts, and other documents relevant to an analysis of the financial condition of the local government.
(g) Make, approve, or disapprove any appropriation, contract, expenditure, or loan, the creation of any new position, or the filling of any vacancy in a position by any appointing authority.
(h) Review payrolls or other claims against the local government before payment.
(i) Notwithstanding any minimum staffing level requirement established by charter or contract, establish and implement staffing levels for the local government.
(j) Reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing contract.
(k) After meeting and conferring with the appropriate bargaining representative and, if in the emergency manager's sole discretion and judgment, a prompt and satisfactory resolution is unlikely to be obtained, reject, modify, or terminate 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement. The rejection, modification, or termination of 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement under this subdivision is a legitimate exercise of the state's sovereign powers if the emergency manager and state treasurer determine that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) The financial emergency in the local government has created a circumstance in which it is reasonable and necessary for the state to intercede to serve a significant and legitimate public purpose.
(ii) Any plan involving the rejection, modification, or termination of 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement is reasonable and necessary to deal with a broad, generalized economic problem.
(iii) Any plan involving the rejection, modification, or termination of 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement is directly related to and designed to address the financial emergency for the benefit of the public as a whole.
(iv) Any plan involving the rejection, modification, or termination of 1 or more terms and conditions of an existing collective bargaining agreement is temporary and does not target specific classes of employees.
(l) Act as sole agent of the local government in collective bargaining with employees or representatives and approve any contract or agreement.
(m) If a municipal government's pension fund is not actuarially funded at a level of 80% or more, according to the most recent governmental accounting standards board's applicable standards, at the time the most recent comprehensive annual financial report for the municipal government or its pension fund was due, the emergency manager may remove 1 or more of the serving trustees of the local pension board or, if the state treasurer appoints the emergency manager as the sole trustee of the local pension board, replace all the serving trustees of the local pension board. For the purpose of determining the pension fund level under this subdivision, the valuation shall exclude the net value of pension bonds or evidence of indebtedness. The annual actuarial valuation for the municipal government's pension fund shall use the actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets. If a pension fund uses the aggregate actuarial cost method or a method involving a frozen accrued liability, the retirement system actuary shall use the entry age normal actuarial cost method. If the emergency manager serves as sole trustee of the local pension board, all of the following apply:
(i) The emergency manager shall assume and exercise the authority and fiduciary responsibilities of the local pension board, including to the extent applicable, setting and approval of all actuarial assumptions for pension obligations of a municipal government to the local pension fund.
(ii) The emergency manager shall fully comply with the public employee retirement system investment act, 1965 PA 314, MCL 38.1132 to 38.1140m, and section 24 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, and any actions taken shall be consistent with the pension fund's qualified plan status under the federal internal revenue code.
(iii) The emergency manager shall not make changes to a local pension fund without identifying the changes and the costs and benefits associated with the changes and receiving the state treasurer's approval for the changes. If a change includes the transfer of funds from 1 pension fund to another pension fund, the valuation of the pension fund receiving the transfer must be actuarially funded at a level of 80% or more, according to the most recent governmental accounting standards board's applicable standards, at the time the most recent comprehensive annual financial report for the municipal government was due.
(iv) The emergency manager's assumption and exercise of the authority and fiduciary responsibilities of the local pension board shall end not later than the termination of the receivership of the municipal government as provided in this act.

Consolidate or eliminate departments of the local government or transfer functions from 1 department to another and appoint, supervise, and, at his or her discretion, remove administrators, including heads of departments other than elected officials.
(o) Employ or contract for, at the expense of the local government and with the approval of the state financial authority, auditors and other technical personnel considered necessary to implement this act.
(p) Retain 1 or more persons or firms, which may be an individual or firm selected from a list approved by the state treasurer, to perform the duties of a local inspector or a local auditor as described in this subdivision. The duties of a local inspector are to assure integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the operations of the local government by conducting meaningful and accurate investigations and forensic audits, and to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. At least annually, a report of the local inspector shall be submitted to the emergency manager, the state treasurer, and the superintendent of public instruction if the local government is a school district. The duties of a local auditor are to assure that internal controls over local government operations are designed and operating effectively to mitigate risks that hamper the achievement of the emergency manager's financial plan, assure that local government operations are effective and efficient, assure that financial information is accurate, reliable, and timely, comply with policies, regulations, and applicable laws, and assure assets are properly managed. At least annually, a report of the local auditor shall be submitted to the emergency manager, the state treasurer, and the superintendent of public instruction if the local government is a school district.
(q) An emergency manager may initiate court proceedings in Ingham county circuit court in the name of the local government to enforce compliance with any of his or her orders or any constitutional or legislative mandates, or to restrain violations of any constitutional or legislative power of his or her orders.
(r) If provided in the financial and operating plan, or otherwise with the prior written approval of the governor or his or her designee, sell, lease, convey, assign, or otherwise use or transfer the assets, liabilities, functions, or responsibilities of the local government, provided the use or transfer of assets, liabilities, functions, or responsibilities for this purpose does not endanger the health, safety, or welfare of residents of the local government or unconstitutionally impair a bond, note, security, or uncontested legal obligation of the local government.
(s) Apply for a loan from the state on behalf of the local government, subject to the conditions of the emergency municipal loan act, 1980 PA 243, MCL 141.931 to 141.942, in a sufficient amount to pay the expenses of the emergency manager and for other lawful purposes.
(t) Order, as necessary, 1 or more millage elections for the local government consistent with the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.1 to 168.992, sections 6 and 25 through 34 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, and any other applicable state law. A millage election ordered for a local government pursuant to this subdivision shall only be held at the general November election.
(u) Authorize the borrowing of money by the local government as provided by law.
(v) Approve or disapprove of the issuance of obligations of the local government on behalf of the local government under this subdivision. An election to approve or disapprove of the issuance of obligations of the local government pursuant to this subdivision shall only be held at the general November election.
(w) Enter into agreements with creditors or other persons or entities for the payment of existing debts, including the settlement of claims by the creditors.
(x) Enter into agreements with creditors or other persons or entities to restructure debt on terms, at rates of interest, and with security as shall be agreed among the parties, subject to approval by the state treasurer.

Enter into agreements with other local governments, public bodies, or entities for the provision of services, the joint exercise of powers, or the transfer of functions and responsibilities.
(z) For municipal governments, enter into agreements with other units of municipal government to transfer property of the municipal government under 1984 PA 425, MCL 124.21 to 124.30, or as otherwise provided by law, subject to approval by the state treasurer.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

the list of powers is so extensive that you cannot even fit it into one post here..
here is the rest

(aa) Enter into agreements with 1 or more other local governments or public bodies for the consolidation of services.
(bb) For a city, village, or township, the emergency manager may recommend to the state boundary commission that the municipal government consolidate with 1 or more other municipal governments, if the emergency manager determines that consolidation would materially alleviate the financial emergency of the municipal government and would not materially and adversely affect the financial situation of the government or governments with which the municipal government in receivership is consolidated. Consolidation under this subdivision shall proceed as provided by law.
(cc) For municipal governments, with approval of the governor, disincorporate or dissolve the municipal government and assign its assets, debts, and liabilities as provided by law.
(dd) Exercise solely, for and on behalf of the local government, all other authority and responsibilities of the chief administrative officer and governing body concerning the adoption, amendment, and enforcement of ordinances or resolutions of the local government as provided in the following acts:
(i) The home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.1 to 117.38.
(ii) The fourth class city act, 1895 PA 215, MCL 81.1 to 113.20.
(iii) The charter township act, 1947 PA 359, MCL 42.1 to 42.34.
(iv) 1851 PA 156, MCL 46.1 to 46.32.
(v) 1966 PA 293, MCL 45.501 to 45.521.
(vi) The general law village act, 1895 PA 3, MCL 61.1 to 74.25.
(vii) The home rule village act, 1909 PA 278, MCL 78.1 to 78.28.
(viii) The revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852.
(ix) 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772.
(ee) Take any other action or exercise any power or authority of any officer, employee, department, board, commission, or other similar entity of the local government, whether elected or appointed, relating to the operation of the local government. The power of the emergency manager shall be superior to and supersede the power of any of the foregoing officers or entities.
(ff) Remove, replace, appoint, or confirm the appointments to any office, board, commission, authority, or other entity which is within or is a component unit of the local government.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this act, during the pendency of the receivership, the authority of the chief administrative officer and governing body to exercise power for and on behalf of the local government under law, charter, and ordinance shall be suspended and vested in the emergency manager.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any contract involving a cumulative value of $50,000.00 or more is subject to competitive bidding by an emergency manager. However, if a potential contract involves a cumulative value of $50,000.00 or more, the emergency manager may submit the potential contract to the state treasurer for review and the state treasurer may authorize that the potential contract is not subject to competitive bidding.
(4) An emergency manager appointed for a city or village shall not sell or transfer a public utility furnishing light, heat, or power without the approval of a majority of the electors of the city or village voting thereon, or a greater number if the city or village charter provides, as required by section 25 of article VII of the state constitution of 1963. In addition, an emergency manager appointed for a city or village shall not utilize the assets of a public utility furnishing heat, light, or power, the finances of which are separately maintained and accounted for by the city or village, to satisfy the general obligations of the city or village.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

and if all that were not bad enough, the legislature has given the Emergency Manager complete and total immunity from any harm they may do duringtheir tenure

141.1525 Emergency manager; immunity from liability; costs; insurance; legal expenses.
Sec. 25.

(1) An emergency manager is immune from liability as provided in section 7(5) of 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1407. A person employed by an emergency manager is immune from liability as provided in section 7(2) of 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1407.

(2) The attorney general shall defend any civil claim, demand, or lawsuit which challenges any of the following:

(a) The validity of this act.

(b) The authority of a state official or officer acting under this act.

(c) The authority of an emergency manager if the emergency manager is or was acting within the scope of authority for an emergency manager under this act.

(3) With respect to any aspect of a receivership under this act, the costs incurred by the attorney general in carrying out the responsibilities of subsection (2) for attorneys, experts, court filing fees, and other reasonable and necessary expenses shall be at the expense of the local government that is subject to that receivership and shall be reimbursed to the attorney general by the local government. The failure of a municipal government that is or was in receivership to remit to the attorney general the costs incurred by the attorney general within 30 days after written notice to the municipal government from the attorney general of the costs is a debt owed to this state and shall be recovered by the state treasurer as provided in section 17a(5) of the Glenn Steil state revenue sharing act of 1971, 1971 PA 140, MCL 141.917a. The failure of a school district that is or was in receivership to remit to the attorney general the costs incurred by the attorney general within 30 days after written notice to the school district from the attorney general of the costs is a debt owed to this state and shall be recovered by the state treasurer as provided in the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772.

(4) An emergency manager may procure and maintain, at the expense of the local government for which the emergency manager is appointed, worker's compensation, general liability, professional liability, and motor vehicle insurance for the emergency manager and any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager as may be provided to elected officials, appointed officials, or employees of the local government. The insurance procured and maintained by an emergency manager may extend to any claim, demand, or lawsuit asserted or costs recovered against the emergency manager and any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager from the date of appointment of the emergency manager to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitation if the claim, demand, or lawsuit asserted or costs recovered against the emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager resulted from conduct of the emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager taken in accordance with this act during the emergency manager's term of service.

(5) If, after the date that the service of an emergency manager is concluded, the emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager is subject to a claim, demand, or lawsuit arising from an action taken during the service of that emergency manager, and not covered by a procured worker's compensation, general liability, professional liability, or motor vehicle insurance, litigation expenses of the emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager, including attorney fees for civil and criminal proceedings and preparation for reasonably anticipated proceedings, and payments made in settlement of civil proceedings both filed and anticipated, shall be paid out of the funds of the local government that is or was subject to the receivership administered by that emergency manager, provided that the litigation expenses are approved by the state treasurer and that the state treasurer determines that the conduct resulting in actual or threatened legal proceedings that is the basis for the payment is based upon both of the following:

(a) The scope of authority of the person or entity seeking the payment.

(b) The conduct occurred on behalf of a local government while it was in receivership under this act.

(6) The failure of a municipal government to honor and remit the legal expenses of a former emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager as required by this section is a debt owed to this state and shall be recovered by the state treasurer as provided in section 17a(5) of the Glenn Steil state revenue sharing act of 1971, 1971 PA 140, MCL 141.917a. The failure of a school district to honor and remit the legal expenses of a former emergency manager or any employee, agent, appointee, or contractor of the emergency manager as required by this section is a debt owed to this state and shall be recovered by the state treasurer as provided in the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772.

AdamT · Dec 11, 2011

Yeah, that's small government conservatism at its best: a full-on government takover.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

AdamT said:
Yeah, that's small government conservatism at its best: a full-on government takover.

And yet they stand and cheer when anybody quotes President Ronald Reagan about the nine most dangerous words in the English language

I'm from the government and I'm here to help

They are happy to impose top down big government solutions on others despite their ardent proclamations about small government. This is a great example of hypocrisy at its worst.

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

AdamT said:
Yeah, that's small government conservatism at its best: a full-on government takover.

well.. sorta... it's the superior government taking receivership of the local government.
it's a government takeover of government....something that liberals generally support when it comes to the federal government usurping states powers.

in any event... this whole scenario is one of receivership... not a dictatorship, racism, or stripping voters rights... it's a measure to stave off a worse alternative.. that of bankruptcy.

I have been incorrect on a couple of statement regarding the letter of the law, sure ( concerning triggers and consent).. because I hadn't fully read it yet.
I am certainly not immune to talking out of my ass from time to time.. especially in the face of extreme hyperbole.

that said, i'm generally supportive of this emergency measure on a practical basis..... I understand what receivership is , what it entails, and the pros and cons.

the State government is superior in jurisdiction, it makes perfect sense that they would be the entity to handle receivership of a local government who has failed to keep it's financial house in order.
there exists a fiduciary responsible of each government ( except the federal government, obviously) and if an inferior government cannot meet that responsibility, I think it wise to place it in receivership until a course of action is implemented... bankruptcy , again, is a alternative that should and can be avoided.
now, if that makes sense, it would be necessary to confer upon the receivership authority sweeping powers to do the job.... and these powers are what seems to have Haymarket in a tizzy.
I get it, i do... when I strip away his hyperbole, I can somewhat find a rational argument hidden in there somewhere... and a whole host of valid concerns.

if we strip away all context of the issue, I might even agree with his concerns... but unfortunately, we can't strip away context... we can't strip away the nature of receivership.. we can't strip away the failures of the local government to fulfill it's responsibilities.. and we can't strip away the natural inclination, of the local government, to not remand powers to the state.

this law is an emergency act.. which by their nature, are generally more stringent and wider in scope than non emergency measures.... hell, it wouldn't be an emergency if **** was running smooth.
of course there is going to be some bad feeling about conferring powers like this bill does... but for the sake of containing and rectifying emergency financial conditions, it seemingly is bent towards ensuring an efficient and timely handling of the emergency.

I think it is a bit heavy handed ( but it isn't a dictatorship)... but then again, a heavy handed approach isn't necessarily wrong or bad in certain emergency circumstances... and such heavy handedness isn't really unprecedented in our system.

the race baiting element we have going on is really troublesome though.... it really doesn't matter what the demographics of the local population are.. this law does not discriminate against any race color or creed. ... all of that is irrelevant to the financial emergency of the local government.... it's an unnecessary and silly distraction from the issue at hand.. it's simple race baiting, and it's abhorrent.

AdamT · Dec 11, 2011

Thrilla said:
well.. sorta... it's the superior government taking receivership of the local government.
it's a government takeover of government....something that liberals generally support when it comes to the federal government usurping states powers.

It's central government taking over local government, which is the exact opposite of what conservatives preach.

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

AdamT said:
It's central government taking over local government, which is the exact opposite of what conservatives preach.

well,I guess if you are interested in striping away all context and dumbing down the issue down to basic ideological tenants, I guess you may have a point.

I don't think i've ever had a discussion that surrounded a state government usurping powers of a local government, so i can't say for sure what the consensus among conservatives is.... every discussion i've seen surrounding issues like this have to do with the federal government usurping state powers.

If conservatives are the ones who oppose such government takeovers.. why are liberals/progressives throwing fits here?.. what causes the competing ideologies to switch sides over this particular issue?... maybe is not so simple as basic perceptions of ideological tenants after all <shrugs>

in any event, maybe there's a lesson to be learned here... in that it's best to keep a keen eye on your local government to make sure they do their jobs as to stave off state intervention... handling your business correctly, as i see it, is the best course of action... undesirable consequences can happen if you don't.

edit to add.... a state government is not a central government, btw... a central government usually pertains to the national government.
if we are to accept that a state government is the central government, then you would have to concede that state government are , indeed, sovereign.
(sovereignty is at the heart of the definition of a central government)

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

from Thrilla

well.. sorta... it's the superior government taking receivership of the local government.
it's a government takeover of government....something that liberals generally support when it comes to the federal government usurping states powers.

in any event... this whole scenario is one of receivership... not a dictatorship, racism, or stripping voters rights... it's a measure to stave off a worse alternative.. that of bankruptcy.

Why are you intentionally and purposely trying to ratchet down what is happening by applying some benign phraseology to this? You can call rape merely sex but if it is forced it fits the definition of rape. And that is what this is. Local government is not merely being handed over to a receiver or something so innocent sounding. It is being forcibly and purposely being taken over by the State and all local governmental powers and many many more normally denied to local government are being given to one person who can dictate what happens in that town. And the people have no voice. The people have no say. The people have no vote. The people have no power.

You, like many on the right, seem to be actively trying to remove the very use of the word RACISM from political discussion. You seem not to be upset about actual RACISM, but you sure as heck do not like it to be invoked. Get used to it. Its there. The law was passed by ALL Republican votes and all represent very white areas of the state mostly in the rural areas and in the suburbs. The communities hit by this law have been communities of people of color represented by Democrats in the Legislature. You don't like the racial implication of that and guess what? Nobody else does either but its there as sure as the sun sets in the west tonight.

The fact is that if the process is completed in Detroit and Inkster, that a majority of African American citizens in Michigan will be living under local governments which were imposed upon them in a dictatorial fashion by the state without their consent or without their vote.

I have been incorrect on a couple of statement regarding the letter of the law, sure ( concerning triggers and consent).. because I hadn't fully read it yet.
I am certainly not immune to talking out of my ass from time to time.. especially in the face of extreme hyperbole.

Well thank you for admitting you were wrong about some of what you claimed was in this law. As to your excuse of responding to hyperbole, any errors you made were not forced upon you but made of your own power. As to hyperbole, you have yet to show that any one thing I said about this law is not true as I stated it.

that said, i'm generally supportive of this emergency measure on a practical basis..... I understand what receivership is , what it entails, and the pros and cons.

Of course you are. You do not live in that community and it is not your right to vote for your own local government that has been stripped from you.

I think it is a bit heavy handed ( but it isn't a dictatorship)... but then again, a heavy handed approach isn't necessarily wrong or bad in certain emergency circumstances... and such heavy handedness isn't really unprecedented in our system.

Again, because it is not in YOUR community and is NOT happening to people like yourself.

the race baiting element we have going on is really troublesome though.... it really doesn't matter what the demographics of the local population are.. this law does not discriminate against any race color or creed. ... all of that is irrelevant to the financial emergency of the local government.... it's an unnecessary and silly distraction from the issue at hand.. it's simple race baiting, and it's abhorrent.

Actually, it does matter what the demographics are. It matters significantly what the demographics are. We soon will have a majority of African American citizens in Michigan denied the right to vote for their local government and forced to live with a government imposed upon them in a dictatorial fashion. And the people who did this are Republicans from the suburbs and rural areas who do not receive the votes of African Americans in elections. What is abhorrent is NOT the facing of this reality but rather the reality of its ugliness and the denial of American rights of citizenship to these citizens.

Again, every single claim I made about the law was true and is true. You have not been able to take one thing I said about it and show it was not part of the law that I provided for you. You don't like my choice of words and wish to soften them to ratchet down the horrible implications of this naked rape of the citizenry. I see the same thing in the state capitol for the past few months and am used to it from Republicans.

If conservatives are the ones who oppose such government takeovers.. why are liberals/progressives throwing fits here?.. what causes the competing ideologies to switch sides over this particular issue?... maybe is not so simple as basic perceptions of ideological tenants after all <shrugs>

You have it all wrong and are operating from a false premise. Conservatives - at least those here in Michigan- do not oppose government takeovers. They engineer them. They authorize them. They make them legal. Nobody is switching sides or ideologies. Your rather weak effort to turn this into a game of three card montie goes nowhere.

As to why progressives are throwing fits here? President Abraham Lincoln said it best - America enjoys "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" . And Republicans in Michigan are denying that basic right to many people in this state.

I suspect Honest Abe is spinning in his grave in Springfield.

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

haymarket said:
from Thrilla

Why are you intentionally and purposely trying to ratchet down what is happening by applying some benign phraseology to this? You can call rape merely sex but if it is forced it fits the definition of rape. And that is what this is. Local government is not being handed over to a receiver or something so innocent sounding. It is being forcibly and purposely being taken over by the State and all local governmental powers and many many more normally denied to local government are being given to one person who can dictate what happens in that town. And the people have no voice. The people have no say. The people have no vote. The people have no power.

I utilize the terms i do because they are accurate .. and I do not wish to engage in hyperbole while simultaneously denouncing it.

it is absolutely correct and accurate to state that local governments are being handed into receivership.

the people never possessed the power to make decisions over the financial house of the city.. the people do not vote on contracts, wages, benefits, services, or collective bargaining agreements... you cannot say they are stripped of a power they did not possess.. it would be entirely inaccurate to state as much.
the people, did however, vote into office those state officials who work towards their benefit by putting their city into receivership.
the people are free to vote for whomever they like in the local and state elections... but upon entering into a receivership, those elected officials are relegated to the inferior position , by law.
nothing in the law precludes the local officials from working with the emergency manager, in fact, it requires they do so.
again, this is an emergency situation... were the local officials to do their job properly, they can effectively stave off the emergency and preclude state intervention.
there is ample opportunity to do the right thing, there is ample incentive to do the right thing... doing the wrong thing will have consequences.

You, like many on the right, seem to be actively trying to remove the very use of the word RACISM from political discussion. You seem not to be upset about actual RACISM, but you sure as heck do not like it to be invoked. Get used to it. Its there. The law was passed by ALL Republican votes and all represent very white areas of the state mostly in the rural areas and in the suburbs. The communities hit by this law have been communities of people of color represented by Democrats in the Legislature. You don't like the racial implication of that and guess what? Nobody else does either but its there as sure as the sun sets in the west tonight.

racism has nothing to do with the issue... race has nothing to do with the issue.. you are simply unneccessarily race baiting

The fact is that if the process is completed in Detroit and Inkster, that a majority of African American citizens in Michigan will be living under local governments which were imposed upon them in a dictatorial fashion by the state without their consent or without their vote.

..are there no white people in Detroit?... is the government any different for white citizen than black citizens of Detroit?... do the black citizens have to live under the emergency manager, but the whites get to live under their usual government?... if the law, as imposed, does not discriminate , that you have no argument.
the demographics of the cities in question are irrelevant... the financial situation is all that is relevant.

Well thank you for admitting you were wrong about some of what you claimed was in this law. As to your excuse of responding to hyperbole, any errors you made were not forced upon you but made of your own power. As to hyperbole, you have yet to show that any one thing I said about this law is not true as I stated it.

you're welcome.

Of course you are. You do not live in that community and it is not your right to vote for your own local government that has been stripped from you

.
this is true, i don't live there... and I really really hope that the people who do live there keep their local government accountable , as to stave off any emergency measures imposed on them by the state government that also represents them.

Again, because it is not in YOUR community and is NOT happening to people like yourself.

... true again.. i'm able to hav a more objective look at the issue when i don't have a dog in the hunt.

Actually, it does matter what the demographics are. It matters significantly what the demographics are. We soon will have a majority of African American citizens in Michigan denied the right to vote for their local government and forced to live with a government imposed upon them in a dictatorial fashion. And the people who did this are Republicans from the suburbs and rural areas who do not receive the votes of African Americans in elections. What is abhorrent is NOT the facing of this reality but rather the reality of its ugliness and the denial of American rights of citizenship to these citizens.

demographics to no matter, they are irrelevant.... when you can show that this law pertains to blacks and not whites, you'll start to have an argument, until then.. you don't have one... you have nothing more than race baiting.
maybe you can show us in the law where it states that the racial demographics of a city are relevant in any shape form or fashion.. i can't seem to find such a thing.

Again, every single claim I made about the law was true and is true. You have not been able to take one thing I said about it and show it was not part of the law that I provided for you. You don't like my choice of words and wish to soften them to ratchet down the horrible implications of this naked rape of the citizenry. I see the same thing in the state capitol for the past few months and am used to it from Republicans.

you are free to defend your hyperbole as you deem fit... but I do not have to accept it as valid, nor will I.
i'm glad to hear that Republicans in the legislature aren't engaging in hyperbole.. I would expect Democrats to do as much too... it's the mature responsible thing to do.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

What hyperbole am I engaging in?

What have I said about this Public Law #4 that you have found to be proven false?

You and I can go a thousand posts back and forth about the racial implications of this law without resolution.

Are you ever going to answer the key question here that I asked you a long time ago.....

Do you people of these communities who have a emergency financial manager get to vote for the people who are their local government or not?

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

haymarket said:
What hyperbole am I engaging in?

.. you're joking.. right?

haymarket said:
Do you people of these communities who have a emergency financial manager get to vote for the people who are their local government or not?

.. yes, they do.... I see no provisions of delaying or preventing elections in the law.

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

No I am no joking. What have I said that I cannot back up with either the law itself or facts about the results of the law.

YOu are being dishonest in the extreme. The people who were elected by the people ARE NO LONGER THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT. The actual government, the one who holds ALL THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, both legislative and executive as well as many new powers normally NOT held by government, is the emergency manager. That is the local government. And the people most certainly DO NOT get to vote for them.

Public Act #4 is very very clear about this.

I taught high school government for over three decades. I am sensitive to the cement that holds our delicate system of representative government together... and that is the vote of the citizens for the government making decisions for them. That is the glue that holds it all together and gives it legitimacy. Once you remove that, you have no better than a dictatorship imposed upon the people against their will.

The timeless wisdom of Niemoller seems to fit you and others perfectly

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It is not your right to vote for your government that is lost - so you find excuses for it.
It is not your community which has been taken over by the State against your will - so you attempt to downplay the significance of it.
It is not a majority of your race which is the most impacted by this usurpation -so you look the other way.

And then we still have Honest Abe spinning in Springfield as his own party destroyes the very concept of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

FilmFestGuy · Dec 11, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Negative.

Nope, see you don't even know what Obamacare will do. Not a shock really.

No, you cannot.

No, PEOPLE like free stuff. period. That's human nature.

You are factually incorrect about EVERYTHING in this post. Except that people like free stuff. That's largely true.

It's worthless to argue with someone who doesn't even begin from a fact-based perspective.

Provide me the PROOF that under the healthcare act, that you are going to be forced to take one insurance policy and have no choice in what policy you take.

Provide the proof of that and we can debate a point. Simply saying, "They tell you what to do" isn't proof of anything. You are making a false assertion and then responding, "Nuh-uh" as a retort when someone tells you that your assertion is wrong.

Now, I shouldn't be surprised because this is basically the same debate tactic that is used by almost all of the presidential candidates being offered up by the right, so those who are beholden to voting for them would obviously pick up on those tactics.

Renae · Dec 11, 2011

FilmFestGuy said:
You are factually incorrect about EVERYTHING in this post.

No, you just cannot accept Obamacare is a horrible infliction of statism on the American people.

FilmFestGuy said:
It's worthless to argue with someone who doesn't even begin from a fact-based perspective.

Are you saying I shouldn't bother responding to you?

FilmFestGuy said:
Provide me the PROOF that under the healthcare act, that you are going to be forced to take one insurance policy and have no choice in what policy you take.

I never said ONE policy, I said you wouldn't be able to choose the policy that is right for you, you will be FORCED to take a policy, that has been decided by others.

FilmFestGuy said:
Provide the proof of that and we can debate a point. Simply saying, "They tell you what to do" isn't proof of anything. You are making a false assertion and then responding, "Nuh-uh" as a retort when someone tells you that your assertion is wrong.

Huh?
You can either take the Obamacare mandated coverage or you can pay the IRS a "penalty" for refusing.

FilmFestGuy said:
Now, I shouldn't be surprised because this is basically the same debate tactic that is used by almost all of the presidential candidates being offered up by the right, so those who are beholden to voting for them would obviously pick up on those tactics.

What silly nonsense you write. I could say that those beholden to the Left are incapable of debating Obamacare honestly. But that would be just silly.

AdamT · Dec 11, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Huh?
You can either take the Obamacare mandated coverage or you can pay the IRS a "penalty" for refusing.

There is no *particular* coverage mandated. You just have to have *some* coverage that meets minimal requirements so that I don't have to pay for your medical care.

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

haymarket said:
No I am no joking. What have I said that I cannot back up with either the law itself or facts about the results of the law.

.. sure, you can back up your arguments.. except for the arguments about naked raping, dictatorship, stripping voters rights and being racist.

YOu are being dishonest in the extreme. The people who were elected by the people ARE NO LONGER THE ACTUAL GOVERNMENT. The actual government, the one who holds ALL THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, both legislative and executive as well as many new powers normally NOT held by government, is the emergency manager. That is the local government. And the people most certainly DO NOT get to vote for them.

no, i'm not being dishonest to any degree....
can you cite where this law suspends or delays elections?.. if not.. then the people can still vote for their local government... their voting rights are still wholly intact.
what you are talking about is the emergency managers, appointed by the state government, legally usurping the powers of the city government... which is very very different from stripping voters rights away.
as far as I can see, the powers that are usurped all revolve around financial decision making.. and yes, that does get pretty broad, but it does not include all powers of local government.

I much prefer to see a local government act in accordance with it's fiduciary responsibilities... that would be the best case scenario for me.... but when faced wit ha situation where they do not, what are we supposed to do?.. just say **** it and let the city collapse under it's own weight?
I don't necessarily mind the duly elected state government stepping up and setting things right when the local government either won't or can't.... for gods sake, somebody has to.

I taught high school government for over three decades. I am sensitive to the cement that holds our delicate system of representative government together... and that is the vote of the citizens for the government making decisions for them. That is the glue that holds it all together and gives it legitimacy. Once you remove that, you have no better than a dictatorship imposed upon the people against their will.

dear lord.... you taught high school kids government for 30 years?.. and now you work in public policy making?... well, ummm.. no comment.

The timeless wisdom of Niemoller seems to fit you and others perfectly

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

seen it and heard it before...what's your point in posting it?.. is someone coming for you?...do you need help?
in any event.. Samuel Colt is always there to speak for me

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

from Thrilla

sure, you can back up your arguments.. except for the arguments about naked raping, dictatorship, stripping voters rights and being racist.

all that has been shown - more times than even necessary in debate. Taking away the right to vote for your government - is indeed akin to rape in a representative democracy where the vote is central to the legitimacy entire system. The element of CONSENT has been removed and DICTATORSHIP put in its place. As to the racial part, there is no dispute from you when I give you the facts. A group of almost all white republicans from the suburbs and rural areas has passed a law which is being used in communities made up mostly of people of color and removes their right to elect their own government. That is clear and true beyond dispute.

At times you sound like a person of fairly average mental abilities - then you go off and say something like this

can you cite where this law suspends or delays elections?.. if not.. then the people can still vote for their local government... their voting rights are still wholly intact.
what you are talking about is the emergency managers, appointed by the state government, legally usurping the powers of the city government... which is very very different from stripping voters rights away.

Are you really that dense or are you pretending to play ostrich and hide your head in the sand. Under an emergency manager it does not matter if you allow the people to have daily elections for hundreds of city officials. It does not matter. The fact is - the reality is - the truth is that the actual government of the city is now the emergency manager. They hold all the executive powers of government. They hold all the legislative powers of government. And they hold extreme powers than most governments do not possess. THEY ARE THE FREAKIN GOVERNMENT and the people cannot vote for them.

What part about that do you not get?

Telling me that there still might be an election for positions which have no power, no authority, and which can do nothing is meaningless. And for you to take that position is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

I gave you the law and I gave you the powers of the manager and still you persist in posting blatant falsehoods and lies

as far as I can see, the powers that are usurped all revolve around financial decision making.. and yes, that does get pretty broad, but it does not include all powers of local government.

from the law on the section of the powers of the emergency manager

(ee) Take any other action or exercise any power or authority of any officer, employee, department, board, commission, or other similar entity of the local government, whether elected or appointed, relating to the operation of the local government. The power of the emergency manager shall be superior to and supersede the power of any of the foregoing officers or entities.
(ff) Remove, replace, appoint, or confirm the appointments to any office, board, commission, authority, or other entity which is within or is a component unit of the local government.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this act, during the pendency of the receivership, the authority of the chief administrative officer and governing body to exercise power for and on behalf of the local government under law, charter, and ordinance shall be suspended and vested in the emergency manager.

I believe that last part about them having the authority to suspend those who normally operate under laws, charter and ordinances pretty much tells us what we need to know about the right to vote for your actual government. In Detroit, we have a Department of Elections which operates the elections. As you can see. the manager takes that over and has the power to exercise ANY POWER or authority over that department and function. How can you have elections if the manager will not schedule them? And we already know there is no point in having elections if the people the citizens elect have no power anyway and can be sent home a minute after they are elected and told not to come back.

You cannot get any more sweeping or dictatorial than that. But you will most likely ingore that ugly reality in favor of your previous ostrich positions.

And yet again, I keep quoting the law and you keep screaming 'hyperbole'.

as to the wisdom of Niemoller

seen it and heard it before...what's your point in posting it?.. is someone coming for you?...do you need help?

Let me guess? This is you being a smart aleck... or a smart whatever it is you are pretending to be. And when I rip you for it you will get your panties in a twist and say something about me not treating you with respect or some other such nonsense.

The fact is that nearly a million people in my State do have someone coming for their voting rights and folks like you are standing on the sidelines in your safe and secure zones of privilege and saying 'tsk tsk' pretending that it is only happening to "those people". The poem fits you like a glove. It is folks just like you that it was written for.

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

I think we have both made ourselves clear on the matter..and while we probably have a little bit of common ground, we won't find it.... you don't like me and i don't like you.. so that's going to stand in the way of this being a productive discussion.

I wish you luck in killing off this naked rapin', vote strippin', racist, dictatorship of yours.

here's to hopin' y'all get your **** straight in Michigan... you have until April before Detroit runs out of money.. good luck!

haymarket · Dec 11, 2011

Thrilla said:
I think we have both made ourselves clear on the matter..and while we probably have a little bit of common ground, we won't find it.... you don't like me and i don't like you.. so that's going to stand in the way of this being a productive discussion.

I wish you luck in killing off this naked rapin', vote strippin', racist, dictatorship of yours.

here's to hopin' y'all get your **** straight in Michigan... you have until April before Detroit runs out of money.. good luck!

Perhaps next time you could actually cite the relevant portions of the law that you pretend to know something about?

Thrilla · Dec 11, 2011

haymarket said:
Perhaps next time you could actually cite the relevant portions of the law that you pretend to know something about?

perhaps.. perhaps not.... i'll make the determination of whether it's worth the effort or not, if that's ok with you.

Obama sees 'make or break' time for middle class

Disappointed Evolutionist