Michigan_Man's Blog

Obama's Granholm Economics


Before the election I posted a blog highlighting the fact that Obama wanted to use Michigan as an economic model for the nation. This was not opinion or accusation, it was a link to the Obama website where he said that he wanted to adopt the Granholm economic policy.  Today, now after the election, he held a major economic meeting and subsequent press conference with Governor Granholm standing behind him.  Not only did she stand behind him, but she stood directly behind him.  Not only did she stand directly behind him, but she was the only person behind President-Elect Obama that he mentioned.  He said that Governor Granholm had a great deal of experience in this area and he was glad to have her on board. 

To whom does this make sense? 

All hail the new prom king Barack Obama, winner of the national popularity contest. While it is interesting to learn that you can in fact win a presidential election on slogans alone, I would have rather not found out this way.

Don't cry for conservatism because conservatism was not on the ballot. What happened to the Republican Party was a long overdue cleansing of the party of all the socialist sympathizers and served as a wake up call for the limped backbone Republican Leadership under Boehner, Blunt, and McConnell. Whenever the Republican Party moves to the left it loses. We picked McCain as a "centrist" for the presidency, he lost by a blowout. Sure, President Bush senior was a WWII hero, head of the CIA, 8 years a Vice President, 4 years a President, and beat back the psychotic barbarism of Saddam Hussein, but when he went liberal on the tax code it was game over for him and people said, "well what have you done for me lately?" As long as people look to the government for solutions and Republicans buy into that notion the Republican Party will be tarnished by the inevitable failures of big government.

In many ways the Republicans have been victims of their own success. Ronald Reagan restored the economy by cutting taxes which also served to increase government revenue. Reagan focused on military development and refused to meet the the Soviet Union for the first several years of his administration which led to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Rudy Guliani showed us how to fight crime and reduced crime in New York City dramatically. Contract with America passed welfare reform and helped to almost balance the budget (the budget was never really balanced, a surplus was merely "projected" that never truly materialized). President Bush let the assault weapons ban expire and now liberty and the second amendment has progressed and shown that the number or type of guns have no bearing on the level of crime. President Bush cut short the 2000-01 recession with his timely tax cut, showed how to lead after 9/11, got the post 9/11 economy back on track with the 2003 tax cuts, showed how to aggressively pursue the war on terror, and turned the tables on the post war insurgency with the surge strategy that was so successful that it neutralized the issue of Iraq. Whenever and wherever the Republicans lost is when it moved to the left; left on the budget with huge deficits, left on healthcare with prescription drug plans and all kinds of government systems, left on civil liberties towards bigger government with the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security.

P.S. Michael Crichton has also died today, making him the first victim of the Obama presidential election.

Hoogendyk vs. Levin


On Sunday three term State Representative Jack Hoogendyk debated incumbent Carl Levin for the United States Senate seat for Michigan.  Who do you think won the debate? 

http://www.wgvu.org/election08/index.cfm

Democrat Thieves



We have confirmed that the Democrat Campaign Center in Wyandotte has in FACT been stealing the signs from my campaign for State Representative.  Upon confrontation they claimed that the street belonged to them and if we put the sign back (that was in THEIR GARBAGE) then we shouldn't be surprised if all of our signs go missing.  This sort of petty thievery is uncalled for and should be stopped.  I don't steal, they shouldn't steal.  Stealing is wrong. 

Timothy Kachinski

13th District - Riverview, Southgate, Trenton, Wyandotte

Racism?  Ignorance?  Both?

How Far From Communism?


In many cases when somebody says that we are becoming a communist country such a statement is met with a roll of the eyes and assumed to be nothing more than hyperbole and propaganda.  So just to set the record straight, here are the ten preconditions for communism laid out by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto for turning a free country into a communist nation.  With these Ten Commandments clearly laid out each of you will be able to see for yourselves that there is no way that we are on our way to communism and these people are just fanatics and extremists who hate poor people. 


1: Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2: A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.

3: Abolition to all right of inheritance.

4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5: Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6: Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7: Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8: Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9: Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10: Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of child factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Dynamics of the Bailout



Here's the Claim: The Bailout Bill will fix the credit crunch by loaning money.

Here's the Answer: The government has two options for raising this money.

1: Government borrows the money. However if the government borrows the money then that means that there are now fewer lenders for the existing borrowers. If there are fewer lenders but the same number of borrowers then the price of getting a loan (interest rates) will go up (supply and demand) therefore IT WILL BE HARDER TO GET A LOAN BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS CROWDING OUT ALL THE OTHER BORROWERS. Now if the government is going to borrow money so that it can loan it out (stupid) then there are two options:

A: The government loans the money out at a higher rate than it borrowed the money. If the government does this, then who will take the loan? If it was unprofitable at the previous interest rate that was lower, then how would a loan at a higher interest rate help?

B: The government loans the money out at a lower rate than it borrowed the money. If the government does this then not only is there a 100% chance that the government will lose money, but these loans to special people at lower than market rates will undermine the existing loan companies thus hurting the credit market.

2: Government prints the money. The government could simply print the money that it needs to loan out. However if the government simply prints the money then that causes inflation to heat up which forces interest rates because lenders need to hedge against the future declining value of the dollars that the loan will be paid back with thus freezing up the credit market even more.

Here's the Claim: Increasing FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000 will help fix the credit crunch.

Here's the Answer: When FDIC insurance was increased from $40,000 to $100,000 two decades ago the result was the S & L Scandal. By insuring against risk the government increased risky behavior. The same would be true in this case only to a larger degree. Considering that the government's objective is to stop the risky behavior in the financial markets which is destabilizing the markets, perhaps insuring risky behavior is not the way to go considering that this same act has proven that it destabilizes markets.

Here's the Claim: People can't get loans! If "we" (government) don't act, people will not be able to get loans.

Here's the Answer: One thing nobody seems to say is that, "if we don't act, lenders won't be able to find borrowers." If one is true, the other is true. What does a business do if the demand for their product goes down? They lower the price. The same is true now as banks around the world are now lowering their interest rates in order to attract borrowers because a lender doesn't have much of a business if he/she can't lend out money. People can get credit and will always be able to get credit so long as the government DOESN'T ACT. If you think that people will not be able to get loans then that belief is premised upon the idea that lenders will not be able to find people to borrow money. Such views cannot be held together because their separate problems are also their mutual solutions.

Here's the Claim: The current problem was caused by ambiguous and undefined unregulated greedy people who are so greedy that they greeded themselves into not having money.

Here's the Answer:

This is all I had to read about Barack Obama

----
Invest in the Manufacturing Sector and Create 5 Million New Green Jobs

• Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators: Obama will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state.

----

This paragraph can be found at barackobama.com/issues/economy. 

Barack Obama is going to model his, no, he is modeling, no, he already has modeled his economic policy based on the worst performing State in the country economically; Michigan.  He is taking the Granholm economic policy and making it his own. 

I want to repeat that.  Barack Obama has put on his website and advertised on TV for people to go to barackobama.com/issues (which is the only reason I looked) where he has adopted the Granholm economic policy and is promising to implement it NATIONALLY AS PRESIDENT. 

To all men and women of Michigan, can you in good conscience support Barack Obama knowing this?  I'm not asking you to support John McCain because of this revelation, I'm asking if you can support Barack Obama knowing that he will implement Granholm economic policy.  Can you?  

Democrat Conspiracy CONFIRMED


    I'm not one to shout conspiracy, and whenever I hear about conspiracy I demand to be convinced, with evidence.  Well, here is some pretty conclusive evidence about a Democratic conspiracy to gain power by undermining the election process:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=C4&Dato
=20080718&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=807180803&Ref=PH

    The Detroit Free Press ran this story on the front page on Friday and a link to the story is under "related content" on the webpage I provided a link for.  This powerpoint presentation was posted on the UAW website describing in detail their plot to phony up a "grassroot non-partisan" ballot initiative that would remove two GOP Supreme Court Justices, reduce the number of State House and Senate members, reduce salaries and add lower court judges in a scheme to give Democrats power without actually having to win it through legitimate elections.  EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE DISGUSTED AT THIS SORT OF SHADY POLITICS. 

3/5ths, I mean, 1/2 Compromise


    Congratulations my fellow Detroiters, you and everyone else in Michigan and Florida are now worth half of a person. 

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/dnc-panel-appro
ves-delegate-deal-on-michigan-and-florida-primaries-des
pite-objections/

    The Democratic Party bosses have come to a solution to the problem of those pesky Michigan and Florida voters who seem to think their vote should count.  The solution:  count them as "half people."  If this solution isn't the most steriotypical Democratic action that ever has been I'd be surprised, almost.  The Democrats can't make a decision on which argument is the right one so what do they do?  They do something that could not have been arrived at through any logical reasoning in a poor attempt to appease all parties involved.  So now, in the eyes of the Democratic Party, the people of Michigan and Florida are of the value of less than a human being for the first time since slavery.

    My opinion, every single vote should be counted and every single one should go to Hillary.  The bottom line, Barack Obama said that party bosses are more important than the people.  I'll say again, Barack Obama said that the "Super" people within the party should trump the will of the people, should supercede the voters.  He said to everyone who circulated petitions for him, everyone who campaigned for him, everyone who raised money for him in Michigan and Florida that they are irrelevant, or at least inferior to the decisions made by the top members of the party.  Obama didn't say the decision was a good decision by the party therefore he would not pursue Michigan or Florida, no no no.  Obama took his name OFF OF THE BALLOT.  Hillary Clinton didn't take her name off, Dennis Kucinich didn't take his name off, Mike Gravel didn't take his name off.  Obama wants to say he stayed out of Michigan and Florida out of principle AND not accept the consequences for standing on principle of taking his name off the ballot thus not getting any votes from that election?  Hypocrite. 

    Bottom line, Obama said party bosses are more important than the voters so he doesn't deserve a single vote from Michigan nor has any place to demand Hillary who stayed on the ballot be penalized for Democracy just because it might not be good for him.  He took his name off of the ballot voluntarily in order to bow to party bosses, that was his choice and he should have to live with it and would do so without complaint if he were a man of principle. 


    In any case my fellow Michiganders, how does it feel to be considered only worth half a person in the eyes of the Democratic Party? 

LMDC and Ground Zero

 

What is going on here?  It is still what year?  Do you want to know why they’ve done nothing? 

Dirty politicians with high ambitions want to take credit for everything. 

It’s not because they’ve lied, not that they’ve not tried, mixed motives don’t achieve what they intend. 

Command economies with dichotomies between a selfish and popular end. 

An additional cost to what we have lost is tragic and petty exploitation. 

We mourn for those who’ve died, for a long time cried, but anger over this desecration. 

Two plain pools to reflect?  Have they no respect?  What about the fliers of the missing? 

The ground zero wreckage, the tearful carnage; these are things we should be remembering. 

Enough with the damn game, stop with all the blame, just build the memorial that we need. 

Politicians seek fame, they should feel some shame, we must stop them from trying to “lead.” 

Enough with “the leaders,” enough go-getters, get out of the way, stop trying to take credit. 

Relinquish the power to build the tower.  You don’t have to be the one who does it. 

Why can’t you take a clue?  It’s not about you!  Let us grieve, let us rebuild the business. 

You shouldn’t do it all, you can’t do it all, if you step back you will have forgiveness. 

Stop trying to fix it, don’t interpret it, it’s not something you are allowed to steal. 

Forget the posturing, forget crediting, just remember nine eleven was real. 

 

 

The year is 2008, why haven't the towers been rebuilt?  Why hasn't the memorial been built?  Why have politicians taken control of the project?  Why does the LMDC even need to exist?

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64XxAxRJ-o&feature=re
lated

 

Michigan Initiative Petitions


    There have been several petitions that have now been approved for circulation.  Two of the petitions I have authored and I am hoping to circulate and see success in, namely those petition initiatives are the:

1:  Personal Education Account Initiative
2:  Proportional Senate Initiative

    Also approved were the MICHIGAN FAIRTAX Initiative, MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL PEACE Initiative, HEALTH CARE FOR MICHIGAN Initiative, PART-TIME LEGISLATURE Initiative, PEOPLE’S CHOICE TAX REPEAL Initiative, STEM CELL RESEARCH Initiative, and TURN MICHIGAN AROUND Initiative. 


    I will post on my two initiatives on basically what they are and what they will do if passed, but what do you think of these petition drives?  Look at all the issues that are up for reform.  Education, State Senate election method, FairTax, marijuana, socialist healthcare, part-time legislature, tax restrictions, stem cell research, and "turn Michigan around" which is apparently the same thing as the part-time legislature, all of these issues may very well become ballot issues in November.  Which do you think can succeed?  Which do you think can succeed? 

The Fallacy of Conventional Wisdom

    Conventional wisdom says that Huckabee is in the race only attacking Romney and not McCain for personal gain on a McCain ticket. The problem with this reasoning espoused by Sean Hannity and others is that they are taking two current issues that correlate and attributing them causation, in essence using the politics of the day to assign the characteristic of a “root cause” to Governor Huckabee’s behavior of attacking Romney and not McCain based on current events and ignoring the history. However, since Huckabee has the lowest numbers in the polls at this moment but still a significant portion of the voting bloc he has gained the title of a “spoiler” and therefore that title has become their premise for assigning root causes to his behavior based on current events rather than reality. The reality is that neither the feud between Romney and Huckabee nor the mutual respect between Huckabee and McCain have changed in the least ever since Iowa, but since other candidates have dropped out and given us only three choices our natural instincts lead us to see Huckabee as the “spoiler” and therefore attribute false motives to his behavior. This characterization of his position is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation.

    The bottom line is that Huckabee of the three candidates is the only one who advocates free speech, the second amendment, and the FairTax. He defends the War in Iraq, has pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges, and has been consistently pro-life. Governor Huckabee is the only real consistent conservative in this race. Is he electable? Anybody is electable if we elect them. Remember, George Allen was the most “electable” candidate, until he wasn’t. Governor Huckabee won’t seem electable, until he does. Vote your conscience, vote on principle, but don’t vote for the candidate that is least likely to lose because when you vote for the best loser, you are still voting for a loser.

Science Replicates God; Religion is a Bi-Product of Loneliness


Scientists create life, a new form of species, a brand new species of artificial life.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299857,00.html


Religion is a Bi-Product of Loneliness


http://www.livescience.com/health/080124-lonely-superna
tural.html


Also, it turns out that loneliness leads to early death.

http://www.livescience.com/health/060331_loneliness.htm
l

Poll Tax?


    Tonight my school board in a 5-1 vote (one absent, I voted no) decided to spend $20,000 of the tax payers money on an opinion poll to better understand the language needed in order to manipulate a tax increase in a fashion that will have the highest probability of passing.  Other issues may also appear on the ballot.  So far two attempts at tax increases within a one year span have failed. 

    Do you think school boards, city councils, or any other form of government should spend tax dollars on opinion polls that will help them tailor a political issue they wish to pass?  Should such an act be considered corruption and illegal under the law?  Should such an act be legal, but still opposed and left to private fund raising so if a politician wants an opinion poll they have to use their own money or raise money independent of the taxes of the district/community?  Should such an act be legal and encouraged?  What is your opinion?