If you like Michigan's economy

[mighty_thor 115]

I've already explained to you in this thread that it is not a statement that Obama directs Michigan policies... ah fock, I can't fix stupid.

 

You and Gramm---> Labor Unions destroyed Michigan --> Labor Unions = Bad---> Obama For labor Unions---> Obama=Bad

 

Very simple. Thats the way republicans think. In balck and white. Good or Evil. Against us or with us.

 

Life is not black and white and you must see the shades of gray. Everything is not so simple.

[Q.T. 5]

I think I've been pretty fair in this thread, admitting bias from the source, problems with the income growth numbers, and trying to steer this to a question of if you (in general, not just you) are in favor of the policies of Michigan etc., the last of which nobody has responded to.

 

Your link seems compelling, so I thought "hmm, 75% vs. 1.9%, that's a wee bit of a discrepancy." Then it occurred to me, and you seem like a smart guy: are you familiar with Bayes Theorem? If not, basically it is a probability theorem which states that the probability of B given A is not the same as the probability of A given B. Your link stated:

This is, on the surface, lying with statistics. Ignoring the additional fact that it states small business "income", so likely includes many people who, say, deliver newspapers as a second job, the fact that 1.9% of small business income-earners are in the top tax brackets is not representative of how many top tax bracket people have small business income.

 

Make sense?

 

Also, the links in your link were circular. I clicked on the Urban reference, it took me to the bottom of the page, I clicked on the link there, it took me back up to the top of the page. I'm too lazy to research more; if you think the final actual link supports your position given the above, provide it and I'll read it when I can.

 

Make Sense? No. You post an opinion article by Phil Gramm which includes a small business tax statistic with absolutely NO reference, and then question the veracity of an actual referenced statistic? Truth is that Gramm' usign a old Republican line that does not have a leg to stand on -- see further debunking of who's using misleading stats.

[jerryskids 5,216]

Make Sense? No. You post an opinion article by Phil Gramm which includes a small business tax statistic with absolutely NO reference, and then question the veracity of an actual referenced statistic? Truth is that Gramm' usign a old Republican line that does not have a leg to stand on -- see further debunking of who's using misleading stats.

First, I pointed out that it was an Op Ed piece. Second, I acknowledged that the growth numbers are skewed because of higher current income in Illinois. Third, I pointed out that there was a seeming discrepancy in the numbers of 75% vs. 1.9%. How does your latest link resolve that? Let's see:

 

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, done at the request of FactCheck.org, business income accounts for just over 22% of the income that will be reported this year by the most affluent American households.

 

Hmm, we've gone from 1.9% to 22%, and you still haven't addressed my Bayes Theorem argument above.

 

I think you are intelligent, I really do, but please kindly STFU unless you answer my continually unanswered question: Is the Michigan unionization/high minimum wage/high tax model the way to go for this country?

 

As a side note, mighty_thor flunked reading comprehension, I'm done with him.

[Q.T. 5]

First, I pointed out that it was an Op Ed piece. Second, I acknowledged that the growth numbers are skewed because of higher current income in Illinois. Third, I pointed out that there was a seeming discrepancy in the numbers of 75% vs. 1.9%. How does your latest link resolve that? Let's see:

Hmm, we've gone from 1.9% to 22%, and you still haven't addressed my Bayes Theorem argument above.

 

I think you are intelligent, I really do, but please kindly STFU unless you answer my continually unanswered question: Is the Michigan unionization/high minimum wage/high tax model the way to go for this country?

 

 

1) I don't see the need to address your Bayes Theorem argument because there is no need to refute your 75% ... it is a sound bite from Phil Gramm, and as best I can tell, a statistic without basis. Actual statistics on the potential impact of raising taxes on the top income bracket on small businesses does not appear anywhere near as dire as Mr. Gramm implies.

 

2) I think Mr. Gramm's argument is based on loose interpretation of the facts in so many ways that I don't respect his conclusions, including the Michigan conclusion, making your Michigan question somewhat moot to me. Without going through everything, here are some key points:

a) As I posted before, Mr. Gramm's use of per capita income rather than median household income is fishy, and using median household income, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Montana appear to be the models to follow -- none of which are right to work states.

As to minimum wage, LA, MS, TN, AL, and SC have no minimum wage and aren't not exactly modicums of success.

c) Finally, Michigan isn't actually a high tax state. The Tax Foundation ranks Michigan #29 for 2008.

 

[jerryskids 5,216]

1) I don't see the need to address your Bayes Theorem argument because there is no need to refute your 75% ... it is a sound bite from Phil Gramm, and as best I can tell, a statistic without basis. Actual statistics on the potential impact of raising taxes on the top income bracket on small businesses does not appear anywhere near as dire as Mr. Gramm implies.

 

2) I think Mr. Gramm's argument is based on loose interpretation of the facts in so many ways that I don't respect his conclusions, including the Michigan conclusion, making your Michigan question somewhat moot to me. Without going through everything, here are some key points:

a) As I posted before, Mr. Gramm's use of per capita income rather than median household income is fishy, and using median household income, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Montana appear to be the models to follow -- none of which are right to work states.

As to minimum wage, LA, MS, TN, AL, and SC have no minimum wage and aren't not exactly modicums of success.

c) Finally, Michigan isn't actually a high tax state. The Tax Foundation ranks Michigan #29 for 2008.

 

Sorry you don't like the Bayes Theorem argument, but it is valid. Also sorry that you don't like the source of the Michigan analogy. I take it you won't defend the greatness which is the Michigan economy? I guess we are done then.

 

BTW, if I recall, Alaska kicked ass in your earlier link showing recent income growth.

[randandy 0]

I've already explained to you in this thread that it is not a statement that Obama directs Michigan policies... ah fock, I can't fix stupid.

 

There you go again. Define stupid. Someone who so unfortunately disagrees with your view points? (One more smiley....)

[jerryskids 5,216]

There you go again. Define stupid. Someone who so unfortunately disagrees with your view points? (One more smiley....)

No, stupid. "Stupid" is continuing to think I am trying to directly connect Obama to Michigan's problems, when I've said ad nauseum that that is not the case, but rather that Obama's policies are similar. Please take note and try to be less stupid in the future if you want to participate in adult conversations.

[randandy 0]

No, stupid. "Stupid" is continuing to think I am trying to directly connect Obama to Michigan's problems, when I've said ad nauseum that that is not the case, but rather that Obama's policies are similar. Please take note and try to be less stupid in the future if you want to participate in adult conversations.

 

Ok, let's disect your response. I have been called stupid, and unfortunately for you, I have NEVER brought up Obama.

 

Now, if you're not too terribly busy wandering in your intellectual universe, define adult conversations.

[Q.T. 5]

BTW, if I recall, Alaska kicked ass in your earlier link showing recent income growth.

 

 

You do realize that Alaska IS NOT a right to work state and has a $7.15 per hour minimum wage?

[mighty_thor 115]

Jerry,

 

You can call people stupid all you want but the fact is that you are getting destroyed in this thread. I love your smarmy quotes. "I'm not trying to link Obama to the Michigan economy, I am trying to link his policies." Whats the difference? His policies are followed in states that have good economies as well as bad. What is it with Michigan? the state was destroyed by mismanagement of the Auto execs too! If you are going to look at states with labor unions, high taxes and high min wage then you need to look at all of them together - Not just pick out the worst state of the group and base your argument on that one. Does this bolded line make any sense to you or I am being stupid?

 

Does anyone want the country to end up like Michigan? No of course not. but I don't blame all of their problems on high minimum wage, high taxes (which i am reading they don't have) and labor unions.

[Q.T. 5]

2008 mid-year update on Florida's economy (Update made possible by WaMu!)

 

"Population growth has noticeably slowed; the free-fall in the

housing sector has intensified; nationwide economic growth has remained anemic while economic activity in Europe has softened; the

liquidity - credit crunch has persisted; and home foreclosures have soared.

While some meager progress can be reported, such as economic stimulus spending items in the state’s fiscal year 2008-2009 budget

and recent U.S. Congressional action to slow the home foreclosures onslaught, this progress has not been and will not likely be

sufficient to stem further contractions in Florida's economy. A trough or bottom in the state's economic slide is unlikely before roughly

this time in 2009. Recovery may not occur until 2010."

 

"Hosts of economic data, some of which have been reported elsewhere, document the deepening and broadening decline in the state's

economy. They include:

1. A recent U.S. Department of Commerce report that Florida's Real (inflation-adjusted) Gross Domestic Product growth was flat –

0.00 percent – for 2007 versus national growth of 2.00 percent. For 2007, Florida ranked 47th among states for economic growth

after being among the top growth states the previous five years.

2. 87,300 non-agricultural job losses have been recorded since the start of 2008, and jobs have been lost every month since January,

2008. 119,000 non-agricultural jobs have been lost since employment peaked in March, 2007.

3. The state’s unemployment rate has jumped a full percentage point to 5.5 percent since the start of 2008, and stands more than 2

percentage points above the 3.4 percent rate of September, 2006.

4. Population growth estimates and forecasts have been sharply revised downward to less than 1.00 percent per year for 2008 - 2010.

5. Statewide taxable sales of consumer durables fell 16 percent in May, 2008 versus a year earlier. Year-over-year declines have

accelerated in every month of 2008"

 

And for those keeping score, Yes, Florida IS a right to work state and 5th most tax-friendly state.

[jerryskids 5,216]

2008 mid-year update on Florida's economy (Update made possible by WaMu!)

 

"Population growth has noticeably slowed; the free-fall in the

housing sector has intensified; nationwide economic growth has remained anemic while economic activity in Europe has softened; the

liquidity - credit crunch has persisted; and home foreclosures have soared.

While some meager progress can be reported, such as economic stimulus spending items in the state’s fiscal year 2008-2009 budget

and recent U.S. Congressional action to slow the home foreclosures onslaught, this progress has not been and will not likely be

sufficient to stem further contractions in Florida's economy. A trough or bottom in the state's economic slide is unlikely before roughly

this time in 2009. Recovery may not occur until 2010."

 

"Hosts of economic data, some of which have been reported elsewhere, document the deepening and broadening decline in the state's

economy. They include:

1. A recent U.S. Department of Commerce report that Florida's Real (inflation-adjusted) Gross Domestic Product growth was flat –

0.00 percent – for 2007 versus national growth of 2.00 percent. For 2007, Florida ranked 47th among states for economic growth

after being among the top growth states the previous five years.

2. 87,300 non-agricultural job losses have been recorded since the start of 2008, and jobs have been lost every month since January,

2008. 119,000 non-agricultural jobs have been lost since employment peaked in March, 2007.

3. The state’s unemployment rate has jumped a full percentage point to 5.5 percent since the start of 2008, and stands more than 2

percentage points above the 3.4 percent rate of September, 2006.

4. Population growth estimates and forecasts have been sharply revised downward to less than 1.00 percent per year for 2008 - 2010.

5. Statewide taxable sales of consumer durables fell 16 percent in May, 2008 versus a year earlier. Year-over-year declines have

accelerated in every month of 2008"

 

And for those keeping score, Yes, Florida IS a right to work state and 5th most tax-friendly state.

And the rest of the article talks almost exclusively about the recent housing depression and how that is the dominant factor in the above. I referenced a 10-yr study, you are finding links like the above which show single year depressions in individual states. Are you planning to actually type any words defending the efficacy of unionization and high taxation in the current world economy?

[Q.T. 5]

And the rest of the article talks almost exclusively about the recent housing depression and how that is the dominant factor in the above. I referenced a 10-yr study, you are finding links like the above which show single year depressions in individual states. Are you planning to actually type any words defending the efficacy of unionization and high taxation in the current world economy?

 

I suppose you'd like to talk about the 150 years of Lehman Brothers history rather than their current state of affairs too?

 

BTW, I am not defending the union model, rather just pointing out that there are some very serious questions about Gramm's argument that should make us all suspicious of his conclusions.

[swamp dog 0]

Jerry,

 

You can call people stupid all you want but the fact is that you are getting destroyed in this thread. I love your smarmy quotes. "I'm not trying to link Obama to the Michigan economy, I am trying to link his policies." Whats the difference? His policies are followed in states that have good economies as well as bad. What is it with Michigan? the state was destroyed by mismanagement of the Auto execs too! If you are going to look at states with labor unions, high taxes and high min wage then you need to look at all of them together - Not just pick out the worst state of the group and base your argument on that one. Does this bolded line make any sense to you or I am being stupid?

 

Does anyone want the country to end up like Michigan? No of course not. but I don't blame all of their problems on high minimum wage, high taxes (which i am reading they don't have) and labor unions.

 

i'm still waiting for some of these union bashers to explain why we're not trying to operate our country like china--whose economic growth dwarfs anything texas or any other right-to-work state can throw out there.

 

[Strike 3,999]

i'm still waiting for some of these union bashers to explain why we're not trying to operate our country like china--whose economic growth dwarfs anything texas or any other right-to-work state can throw out there.

 

 

I really hope this isn't a serious question.

[jerryskids 5,216]

I suppose you'd like to talk about the 150 years of Lehman Brothers history rather than their current state of affairs too?

 

BTW, I am not defending the union model, rather just pointing out that there are some very serious questions about Gramm's argument that should make us all suspicious of his conclusions.

It's been fun sparring with an equal, thanks for the info.

 

I acknowledged early on that the source is suspect at best, and tried to goad you (and others) into a defense of the union/high tax model, and you've done an admirable job of NOT getting sucked into that.

 

As for Lehman, I posted in another thread that they should die their natural death vs. a gubmint buyout, as I'm philosophically against those. If they truly have valuable assets, some private entity(s) would buy them and make money on it. By definition IMO, if the govt needs to loan them money, they shouldn't continue to exist, as it is a FAYL.

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed the exchange, and learned some from it, so thanks.

[Q.T. 5]

 

Make mine a Nimbus! Hope you continue to get your fair share of that Sonoran prosperity Gramm references.

[jerryskids 5,216]

i'm still waiting for some of these union bashers to explain why we're not trying to operate our country like china--whose economic growth dwarfs anything texas or any other right-to-work state can throw out there.

 

Sigh, just when I thought we were done here... I called you stupid because you continue to lack the reading comprehension to recognize the difference between the correlation of Obama's policies and failed state policies, and explicit blame of Obama for said state policies. You can argue the veracity of the former as Q.T. did, which is fine. I never blamed Obama explicitly for Michigan's woes, but you seem to have missed that memo.

 

As for the union argument... unions work when the constituency is in a position of power. China has 4X the people, a freakishly large amount of liens against us due to sucktastic US govt policies, and a communist regime which encourages state compliance which is relatively easy since they haven't known anything better. Would you move to China today and accept their lifestyle? Because you can't have it both ways. A single state within the US can NOT maintain the power of China.