Basic Bob

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 9:43 p.m.

If we could get the owners of the airport to shut it down, the tower would go with it.

Arborcomment

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 : 3:14 a.m.

We may need a NIH study to cure SOBBS* *Same Old Blame Bush Syndrome

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.

Carole, are you suggesting that the $41 million that the U of M will lose this year in research funding brings nothing back to the citizens? Who do you think the Scientists, Technicians, and all of the support people are? The people who supply all of their equipment? Their support staff? Their students? What about the MILLIONS who benefit from the findings of their research? New drugs, new construction methods, new orthotics for Veterans hurt overseas, and on and on. And then .... Do you suppose ... Just suppose for an instance that some of those people pay taxes? Own homes? Buy food, cars, clothes, toys, etc. in Ann Arbor with their earnings? Unbelievable.

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:49 p.m.

Tom,why hasn't Obama raised taxes more then? They're lower than they were in Reagan's time! Let's ask the Republican House....

Poorman

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 5:26 p.m.

Clown, You appear to favor not running a deficit and other comments of yours are against the sequester. You blame the GOP for initiating both. So regardless of the politics you should speak out for what is right, all of your comments are anti-Bush. Bottom line, are you for raising taxes or do you think there are cuts that should be done first? I know this is tuff but pretend Obama is not telling you what you should think.

Tom

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:49 p.m.

Clownfish, yes, many of us do call out this egregious behavior by any President or Congress. This is not a partisan thing. You reference Reagan as being some sort of demon. He did not increase the debt as percentage of GDP by three times. I am sure you know that he cut numerous tax loopholes, and preferences you hear so much about recently. And here is some big news, he increased taxes more than Clinton!! At least he tried to move the ball in the right direction to cut back on the scale of Fed government. The same can't be said of ANY of his successors.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.

When the debt was $10 trillion in 2007 did you call on the Occupant to do this? How about when Reagan nearly tripled our debt (and spent more days on vacation on the taxpayer dime than Obama), did you call for the same medicine? When President Bush went to "clear brush" on the taxpayer dime, after he declared two "wars" and cut revenue...where were you?

Poorman

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 4:33 p.m.

Before Obama I use to call Bush our worst president. I may have been fooled in the past with democratic drama, but never again will I support this party now that they show their true ideals. They have divided our country and take no responsibility for their actions, always blaming the other side or the past regime. This is not leadership. This is Detroit on a national scale.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:18 p.m.

President Bush has approved $95 million of humanitarian assistance for refugees displaced by violence in western Sudan. - 8/5/2008 President George W. Bush has authorized $24 million for refugees affected by conflicts in Iran, Lebanon, and Sri Lanka.- 7/22/2008 Mr. Bush has authorized $100 million in new relief aid to Afghan refugees, as part of an effort to quell resentment in Pakistan as thousands of refugees pour over the border each day. - 10/1/2001 The U.S. House approved $81.4 billion in additional spending in 2005 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, about $500 million less than President George W. Bush had requested. The package, approved today by a vote of 388-43, includes $76.8 billion in defense spending. The remainder of the money will be used for foreign assistance, including aid to victims of the tsunami in Asia, and State Department programs. 3/16/2005 For the State Department, Bush more than doubled his initial $3.3 billion request, adding $3.6 billion for a total of $6.9 billion. The updated request includes money for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur, battling drug trafficking in Latin America, fighting famine in Africa, assisting Iraqi refugees, and the Palestinians.10/24/2007 Who did you vote for in 2000 and 2004? How much did you protest the spending?

Gorc

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 : 5:43 p.m.

Duh

Gorc

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.

Dexter - I'm sorry it went over your head.

dexterologist

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 11:03 p.m.

Of course it's number not a word. Trillion would be the word. Duh.

Gorc

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 5:05 a.m.

Sorry - Obama I wasn't trying to be disrespectful in any manner with the accidental insert of the apostrophe in his last name.

GoNavy

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:05 p.m.

The only people in the U of M scientific community who should be anxious are those who run fringe programs. On a side note, there's no doubt that free money "creates jobs" in Ann Arbor. However, there's no free lunch (at least not one you can find on the U of M campus), and that money needs to come from somewhere. At this point, with the well beginning to run dry, we have to ask "how much more free money can we give out to support the Grand Ann Arbor Jobs Program?"

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:38 p.m.

There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn't exist. Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush. The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.

Finally! somebody blaming Reagan Bush for the free phones and spending! Lifeline was created in 1985 and expanded in 2008 during the Bush administration to include cell phone service. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-putnam/putnam-obama-campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.

GoNavy, you must not understand math very well. Your assumption only works on a static number - not on one which is growing each year. Please get educated.

GoNavy

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:01 p.m.

Sparty- Math (or rhetoric) must not be your strong points. If I cut 10% of a number every year, that number (call it $100) becomes $34.87 by the end of the 10th year. Is that what you're implying? We should all be so lucky if the government were to cut discretionary spending a total of 65% over 10 years. Please, stop spreading misinformation.

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:15 a.m.

8-10% of Discretionary Budgets every year

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.

There is NO CHOICE involved in Sequester cuts, they hit every Department of every Discretionary Budget. Most money is in salaries, which means cuts to hours, services, or programs.

Poorman

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:54 p.m.

If the sequester is not passed, the tax rate still increased this year. Our President is theatening to cut items with maximum visibility to manipulate another tax increase. Sparty, the tax rate goes up either with or without passing the sequester. It is by choice that these programs are cut while we give Jordan $200 million, Biden drops $1 million for a weekend stay, the President needs five chefs to prepare his meals, and on and on. Look at what choices this leader is making and think. Why cut headstart

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:13 a.m.

It's 2.5% of the TOTAL Federal Budget. However, because the Sequester is only based on Discretionary Budgets, it's 8-10% of those Departments that must be cut, more this year because of the shortened year before the fiscal year ends. That puts a different spin on what the tea drinkers keep spouting.

GoNavy

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.

And Rep. Dingell is one of its longest serving problems. After all, it took decades to reach this point.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.

Republican convention, George W Bush acceptance speech, 2004: " Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence. Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high. (APPLAUSE) Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." (APPLAUSE) "

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.

Two-thirds of all Americans own their homes, yet we have a problem here in America because few than half of the Hispanics and half the African Americans own the home. That's a homeownership gap. It's a – it's a gap that we've got to work together to close for the good of our country, for the sake of a more hopeful future. We've got to work to knock down the barriers that have created a homeownership gap. I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families. Owning something is freedom, as far as I'm concerned. It's part of a free society. And ownership of a home helps bring stability to neighborhoods. You own your home in a neighborhood, you have more interest in how your neighborhood feels, looks, whether it's safe or not. It brings pride to people, it's a part of an asset-based to society. It helps people build up their own individual portfolio, provides an opportunity, if need be, for a mom or a dad to leave something to their child. It's a part of – it's of being a – it's a part of – an important part of America. Homeownership is also an important part of our economic vitality. If – when we meet this project, this goal, according to our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, we will have added an additional $256 billion to the economy by encouraging 5.5 million new home owners in America; the activity – the economic activity stimulated with the additional purchasers, the additional buyers, the additional demand will be upwards of $256 billion. ...This project not only is good for the soul of the country, it's good for the pocketbook of the country, as well. George W Bush, Oct 2002.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.

Darn that Barney! "On Saturday, Bush used his weekly radio address to launch a campaign he will pursue this week to help low-income Americans, particularly minorities, attain that goal. "We must begin to close this homeownership gap by dismantling the barriers that prevent minorities from owning a piece of the American dream," Bush said. The centerpiece of Bush's housing program is a tax credit for builders who erect middle-income housing for homeownership, not for rental units. So far, it has not advanced in Congress. In addition, Bush's plan would provide $200 million in federal grants to help an estimated 40,000 low-income families a year become first-time homeowners. The president is spending the weekend at his Texas ranch..." LATIMES>COM June 2002.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.

Rick, just because most of our debt was racked up under GOP presidents does not mean you have to point it out. Just because Paul Ryan voted to increase our debt by over 5 trillion dollars does not mean we have to mention it. Don't you know that govt overspending started in Jan 2009 and not before? Don't you know that the smallest increase in federal government spending since Eisenhower is not to be mentioned? According to many of the same prognosticators we were going to see inflation of 10-12% by 2012 and unemployment in the high teens by 2012. Of course they also told us we needed to go to war to save us from wmd's, and they refused to pay for it so they could blame Other People for the debt they incurred.

Hot Sam

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.

When you fall in a whole you want to get out of, you don't keep digging...

Tom

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:24 a.m.

Rick, you talking about the Obama tax cuts? If you are referring to Bush, what would you do after the tech bubble burst taking the economy down with it followed by an attack on the US? Please don't tell me you would raise taxes so the Gov't would create more jobs. That tune won't play anymore. And by the way, check your figures against CBO stats. Let's not forget what led those evil banks to 'gamble' on housing and bad loans. Can we spell Barney Frank and his Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to offer NINJA loans (No income, no jobs, no assets - you're approved). Once again, the government was a strong factor in the housing bubble. But I appreciate your comments.

Rick Stevens

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.

Who dug the hole? A huge tax cut that was supposed to create jobs (it didn't), 2 hugely expensive wars ($2 trillion with a final cost estimated around $6 trillion) on credit, a Medicare Tx program that was fraudulently sold and then a 'let's allow the banks to gamble and not regulate them'. So now we have to slash stuff blindfolded?

Arborcomment

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 11:56 p.m.

Summed up nicely here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/22/why-senate-democrats-havent-passed-a-budget/

Arborcomment

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 10:45 p.m.

Snap, Sparty is attempting to do is throw out the same line that Reid and Carney tried to use on questions of the budget, that "technically" they passed a budget, or in more common terms, they got off on a technicality. I never denied the legality of the partial process, nor the less than complete portions they used, so aptly illustrated by his protestations and mimicry. What is clear, is that the Reid/Carney explanation was met with ridicule by way more than the tea party; numerous op-eds, left, right, and center correctly pointed out that not doing 40% of the budget process (Sparty's "absolutely nothing") is no way to do long term planning, understand the administration, congress, and political parties agendas, nor work towards compromise if possible. It appears that a series of continuing budget resolutions, and the failure of, at a minimum, 1/3 of our representative government to even attempt to draft a budget, is trumped by the technical end around. Sad.

snapshot

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.

Sparty, I really got lost in the legalease speak here so allow me to clarify your position: Do you think all is well in our society and political system? Michigan's public pension system is 58 billion under funded, Those folks who didn't save enough for retirement might have been spending their money putting a roof over their head and food on the table. Do you want them to just die if they can't afford a food and shelter because of your offensive statement "who's fault is it that they didn't save enough"? And if they do manage to carve out some sort of an excess, the public unions will take it away from them with various taxes to fund a lucrative retirement for themselves "because it's the law that pensions can't be reduced". So does the French Revolution strike a responsive chord for you? Every revolution and society that has fallen was a direct result of economic disparity.

Sparty

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.

Obama notified Congress 3/12 he would submit his Budget PROPOSAL on 4/8 due their late December passage of fiscall cliff tax changes and later Bush Tax Cut changes. Ah yes, you FINALLY admit, that BUDGETS were signed into law every year of Obamas Presidency as required under the US CONSTITUTION. Amazing. And yes, I still submit that the Presidents PROPOSAL and the House and Senates BLUEPRINTS mean absolutely NOTHING in terms of the budget or the law of the USA. Do you DENY This ?

Arborcomment

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.

five steps for a federal budget - but let us review: 1) President submits a budget request to Congress: supposed to be in February - he's late - has been late every year since 2010 - probably being real careful - considering one of his last submissions was voted down in the Senate by a vote of 98-1 (how's that for bi-partisanship?). 2) House and Senate pass budget resolutions: Senate hasn't managed to do that for the last four years (this year - a first yesterday). And blaming the party of "no" won't work - Senate majority leader controls what goes to a vote, as evidenced yesterday. 3) House and Senate mark-up appropriations bills. Yes Sparty, this has been done. There's got to be a legal way to spend our tax dollars. 4) House and Senate vote on appropriations bills. Yes Sparty, when they are done in time or can kicked via a continuing budget resolution (it's been about 50/50). 5) President signs appropriation bills. Yes Sparty, when they are done or can kicked via a continuing budget resolution. So again Sparty, in your own words "there may not have been a Senate or House of Representative passed Budget BLUEPRINTS"... (note, the House passed theirs, Reid never brought the Senate's to a vote). Running something as large and complex as the Federal Government without a "blueprint" via the continuing budget resolutions is insane and not the normal process. Disagree? Why? We value your legal opinion, and the historical precedent that steps 1 and 2 "mean nothing" about as much as the Washington Press Corps did with Reid and Carney - a blatant admission of a failure to lead. Also, to brush up on your legalese, "budget allocations" is not in the glossary of the federal budget process. They are called budget appropriations.

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

ArborComment: It's the LAW. Try reading the US Constitution. It's not hairsplitting. I'm a lawyer, yes go ahead and make your joke now as you likely will. Budget Allocation Bills are required to be passed by Congress according to the US Constitution, and forwarded to the President for his signature (or veto). They determine the funding and budget of each department and agency of the Federal Government. The House and Senate Budgets are Blueprints and mean NOTHING. The President's Proposal is exactly that ... a PROPOSAL. Any more jokes? Or would you like to spend 2 minutes on google and verify what I just wrote? Or instead, more likely, just ridicule it and keep your head buried in the sand and just insist that you're right and I'm wrong and the US Constitution is wrong, and the Supreme Court is wrong, and all the Courts in the land are wrong.

Arborcomment

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:22 a.m.

Nice Reid talk Sparty, complete with lame techical hairsplitting. It was laughed at when the Senator said it. Always good for a chuckle.

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:07 a.m.

House and Senate Budgets are Blueprints. Congressional Budget Allocation Bills are line item budgets for each Department and Agency of The Government, and they must be passed annually per the US Constitution. Do you deny these FACTS?

Arborcomment

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 1:19 a.m.

Sparty, time on google would verify your excuse, not the reality. A series continuing spending resolutions and the "budget control act" is not the normal process and you know it.

Sparty

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 9:44 p.m.

Whose fault is that people have failed to put away enough to retire? Should we be crying that they are counting on pensions that the vast majority never had the opportunity to even receive in their jobs? The Budget Control Act was a budget for 2011-12. The Congress has always passed Budget Allocation Bills, as required by the US Constitution for every Department and Agency of the Federal Government - did you honestly think the Government operated without a budget? Seriously? ROFL. There may not have been Senate or House of Representative passed Budget BLUEPRINTS, but every DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY of the GOVERNMENT has always had BUDGET ALLOCATION BILLS because they are required by the US CONSTITUTION. Please get educated and don't fall for the nonsense that the tea partiers throw about. You can spend 5 minutes on google to verify this info if you need to.

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 8:57 p.m.

Thanks for your source Walker. Here's a direct quote from it: "The rates cited in the survey were, in fact, significantly higher than some observers predicted. In a follow-up interview, an AAF spokesperson acknowledged the "soft" nature of the data, saying Are these actually what will happen? We don't know. That's why it is a survey."

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.

WALKER: My premiums went up 5%, I think you need a new insurer! From 2000-2008 the average premium increase was over 6%, sometimes hitting over 10% increases. Where were you? Also, there is no "government health care" other than the VA. Your insurance is private, as are most hospitals and clinics and physicians offices. Medicare/Aid utilize private doctors and providers as well.

walker101

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.

Sparty: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/37205 In the last 2 years my premiums have gone up 100% when the HealthCare was introduced.

RUKiddingMe

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:29 p.m.

I'm too busy trying to keep up with the property tzxes paid to this city and trying to figure out what they're doing with the money to worry about cuts at the Fed level. I'm guessing there's almost as much waste in programs, commissions, overlapping departments/staff, etc. at the federal level, though.

David Bardallis

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 3:32 a.m.

What cuts? How is a slight decrease in the planned increase of spending a cut? Maybe there's some "Washington Monument Syndrome" style shifting going on, but we're still dealing with a bloated state sucking trillions of dollars out of the economy and STILL spending more than it takes in, regardless of whether or not they "cut" five cents off the next planned billion dollar spendfest.

Sparty

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:03 a.m.

What's your source for the 169% increase in health care costs next year Walker101?

walker101

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:27 a.m.

The President announced that he will ask Congress for $200 million next week for Jordon relief fund? How many states can benefit with this money, schools, police, etc.. This is insane, sequestra or budget cut will be spread out for the next 10 years $1.2 trillion, this was put in place o that it will help offset the expense of his healthcare program. Personally it will not impact me other than the increases for healthcare increases that will go as high as 169% next year when or if the government health care kicks in, according to the largest carriers for private insurance companies.

sayzme

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.

It can and will have real impacts. I work for the medical school and everyone is on edge wondering if their funding is going to get an across the board 10% cut. Peoples jobs are at stake over this!

Mike

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.

Ryan, I'm not feeling it at all, but I'm not planning on a trip to the White House, I'm not a White House janitor getting my overtime cut, or getting my college tuition cut because I'm in the military, or one of the people let out of prison prior to but blamed on the sequestration. I'm also not one of the millions of fire fighters, police, EMS, or school teachers that will be laid off. I realize my tax return will be delayed I find it amazing that so many things will be impacted by such a small cut. Evey one of us could cut that percentage from our budgets and not jump to the end of the world scenarios spelled out by our politicians.............. I find this scare tactic is used at all levels of government to get more money from us. I say let's call the bluff, become more self sufficient, and keep our money to spend and fuel the economy.

Poorman

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.

Clown, So then you must not be in favor of passing this sequester either. I don't care who started it, reject it. Be resposible, quit blaming, balance the budget, and quit growing government with higher taxes.

clownfish

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.

Once again Obama takes a GOP idea and gets it passed with a majority of republican votes, and the GOP/FOX blames Obama...?? --Where did the whole idea of sequestration originate? It goes back to 1985. The tax cuts of Ronald's Reagan early years, combined with his aggressive defense buildup, produced a growing budget deficit that eventually prompted passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. GRH set out a series of ambitious deficit reduction targets, and to put teeth into them it specified that if the targets weren't met, money would automatically be "sequestered," or held back, by the Treasury Department from the agencies to which it was originally appropriated. The act was declared unconstitutional in 1986, and a new version was passed in 1987. Sequestration never really worked, though, and it was repealed in 1990 and replaced by a new budget deal. In the summer of 2011, Republicans decided to hold the country hostage, insisting that they'd refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless President Obama agreed to substantial deficit reduction. After months of negotiations over a "grand bargain" finally broke down in July, Republicans proposed a plan that would (a) make some cuts immediately and (b) create a bipartisan committee to propose further cuts down the road. But they wanted some kind of automatic trigger in case the committee couldn't agree on those further cuts, so the White House hauled out sequestration from the dustbin of history as an enforcement mechanism. It would go into effect automatically if no deal was reached. ---- So, if it originally was an idea set forth by the GOP and more GOP than dems voted for it (including Paul Ryan) we must blame Obama, right? votes FOR sequestration : House Vote #690 republican 174 Democrat 95 Opposed: Republican: 66 democrats: 95

Sparty

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.

The Budget Control Act was approved by 74 Senators and 269 Members of the House of Representatives (more Republicans than Democrats) in one of the most bipartisan bills in recent times. The President was quoted as he signed the bill the the Sequester portion of the bill was not his preference, but that the bill ended the debt ceiling crisis and the Super Committee created would hopefully craft a deficit reduction package that Congress could agree upon and that would meet his goals. Naturally, though, Congress couldn't even develop an agreement out of the small Super Committee that "Lyin Ryan" was on.

JBK

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.

Libs are in denial over this. Don't hold your breath! :)

RUKiddingMe

Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.

It was 3/4 of a million. And more after that for repairs/continued attempts to get it "working." I still have not seen a TOTAL as of today. Would be nice to see one, actually. A2.com?