SillyTree

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.

@Paper Tiger Saline "The unions came at a time when they were really needed to look out for the little guy. It's grown into vastly something else and they are really no longer needed" You are the one that said this. "Really needed!" That is what you said. What has changed? I said that you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. You agree with Ram, but you don't because you said the little guy needs protection under certain circumstances. I don't want to get into some sort of emotional argument with you. Obviously you feel strongly about whatever it is you believe. You have gone back on your word in the logical sense so your issues must be emotional. I didn't even take sides as to whom I would give my vote. I never said I ever was a member of a union. I never have been. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have helped. I know that most people do not know what they are worth. Professional athletes hire agents to create contracts for them. They are willing to pay the fees to do it. I doubt that you can go into a company and negotiate a fair salary. You take what they give or you don't eat. That is what it is. You may be doing well, but you might not be doing as well as you could with someone that knows how to negotiate a contract. I would appreciate sound arguements instead of bravado.

michigan face

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.

An Egotistical millionaire will stop at nothing to gain more power - that's why. Rick's schtick is making me sick. His voice is not ours (thank goodness, as it hard to listen to). Vote Virg for goodness sake!

Bogie

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.

Snyder has my vote. I won't be able to stand another governor, who is in the back pockets of those union thugs. Consequently, It is interesting how much money, a millionaire will spend, to have such a crappy job.

A2=:)

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

Insanity best describes the amount of money being tossed around here. Like pennies into a fountain.....Can anyone tell me why there isn't a cap placed on campaign expenses--for every political position being sought? Each candidate should have a limited budget, whether it be from their own monies, or donations. If this were the norm, campaign agendas and strategies would be more imaginative and to the point. Does anyone know how many times the winner in a campaign has spent the most money?? Or, conversely, when has the winner been the one to spend the least?

PaperTigerSaline

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:35 a.m.

@Ram: You've got it right. Why in the world do I need someone else to do my talking FOR me. Never been in a union and never will, and I've worked for MANY years. As far as fundraising goes, Snyder doesn't need it and he doesn't "need" the job of Governor, as he has enough money from investments to live confortably for the rest of his life. So, obviously, he is sincere in wanting to take over this position, and I truly believe he will run Michigan like a business, and not be beholden to special interest groups as he will not "owe" anyone anything and will be able to make "smart" decisions for the well-being of ALL of us. GO RICK!

SillyTree

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 7:10 a.m.

Sorry, I didn't realize it was that simple. My bad!

Ram

Sun, Oct 24, 2010 : 12:56 a.m.

"Who is going to look out for the little guy now?" Umm...the little guy should probably look out for himself...Or have we deemed self-sufficiency a sin nowadays? Also, I want to know what is so wrong with outsourcing? Are people of a foreign country not allowed to compete with Americans for jobs? Or are we supposed to pretend that those people don't exist? America comes first, then the rest of the world can fend for themselves...

snark12

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 9:23 p.m.

@David Briegel I can't defend the ridiculous compensation paid to bankers nor the incentives that led them to leverage their banks to such insane levels, which is what ultimately led to the financial crash two years ago. I said earlier that those are serious problems that have not been addressed. But the popular idea that the "bail out" went into bankers pockets is just wrong. The shareholders of banks like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Citigroup, etc. lost hundreds of billions of dollars, and that was NOT repaid through the bail out. All the bail out did was provide temporary money to the banks so they could continue to operate through the period from October 2008 to approximately July 2009. Also, the money wasn't "given" to the banks, it was invested in them at the expense of the existing shareholders. When the economy started to stabilize and the banks could repay the government, they did so as fast as they could because the money came with strings attached. As an example, Citigroup stock used to trade at $55 per share in late 2007. Today it's at $4. The shareholders of that bank lost billions and billions of dollars but the damage to the economy would have been even worse if the bail out hadn't occurred and Citigroup and most of its competitors had gone bankrupt. Please understand: I am not defending the banking industry. The industry is structured so that bankers are incentivized to take insane risks. They see tremendous upside when those risks pay out, and they see very little personal downside when they don't. That risk-taking is what led them to borrow more and more money so they could make bigger and bigger bets, notably on the proposition that the housing market would continue to go up. I AM defending the TARP plan, however. Ignoring how we got to where we were in September 2008 (which I agree was criminal), the bail out was the best way out so that we "only" had the worse economic slow down since the Great Depression. Without the bail out we would have been far, far worse. The Great Depression would have taken second place to the Even Greater Depression of 2009.

snark12

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 9:05 p.m.

@Ian I'm pretty sure you know I accidentally messed up Rand Paul's name. I assume you know that he and his father, Ron Paul, are two of the most vocal opponents of the Fed. But when you say the Federal Reserve is a private bank and is not part of our federal government, then you've really lost all credibility. The Bank was created by an act of Congress. The Fed is managed by a board of governors appointed by the President and approved by Congress. All of its profits are turned over to the US Treasury ($45 billion in 2009). I don't know how that fits any definition of "private bank" or "not part of our federal government." No, neither the President nor Congress can instruct the Fed what practices to follow, but neither can they dictate the Supreme Court, for instance. That doesn't mean it's not part of the government. Do you have any links to any credible evidence that it's a "private bank"? If it is a private bank, why is it giving its profits to the US taxpayer? You've obviously bought into someone's malarkey with this "it's a scam" business. It's not a scam, it's how it's the US monetary system works, and has for nearly 70 years.

David Briegel

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 8:56 p.m.

Ian, It is easy to not take that money when you know that the Chamber, the Republican Party, and the PAC's will all be spending millions to elect their boy Rick! One of the most PHONY aspects of his candidacy along with spending his own ill begotten gains to buy the election. Ian, the reason that Hank Paulsen left Goldman Sachs was to preside over the looting of our Treasury! They rented Obama to NOT prosecute them! Banks aren't "hoarding" money, they are playing their rigged casino and picking the carcass of a once proud middle class! Snark, the banks were bailed out while the people they victimized were bankrupted and foreclosed upon by the beneficiaries of their very own tax dollars. Pretty sweet deal for the banksters! papertiger, you want the unions to compete and work for less but I have never heard anyone complain about the multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses paid to the very executives who have bankrupted their corporations and their shareholders. Couldn't we find someone to bankrupt GM for less than 40 million? SallyY, No To The Nerd, Vote Virg!

Ian

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 8:18 p.m.

snark12, I don't think you have any idea what is really going on. Did you know that The Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank? It is not part of our federal government. That alone is a huge scam. Look it up. By the way, who is Paul Rand?

snark12

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 7:37 p.m.

@Ian TARP money is not sitting in bank treasuries. They wanted to pay it back as soon as possible so as to get out from under government controls on salaries, etc., and in fact nearly $170 billion of the $245 billion invested under TARP has already been paid back, with an additional $14 billion in taxpayer profits. So you're simply uninformed. What you're probably thinking of is banks getting zero-interest loans from the Fed at the "discount window". Yes, they are doing that and there are plenty of complaints that they aren't loaning the money to businesses. But the evidence seems to be that most businesses aren't requesting loans because they don't see demand for new investment yet because the recovery has been slow. Banks would love to make loans to qualified companies. They don't make any money with the money "sitting in their treasuries," as you say. Maybe you should try to do some homework yourself? Just reciting the latest diatribes from Paul Rand, Matt Taibbi, etc. doesn't really get the job done.

Ian

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 6:57 p.m.

@snark12, "Yes, Obama was pro-TARP, and so was anyone who had any understanding of the economy and the financial systems. TARP "bailed out the banks" but it also bailed out pretty much our entire economy." If that is the case, why were you blaming it on the Bush admin. in your first post. Second, it is not a success. You have to be kidding me. We gave all that money to the banks and the economy is still in the dumps. Reason being, banks are getting free money from us and they are hording it. parking our money in treasuries to earn free money instead of lending it out. That is why people and small businesses cannot get loans. It was a scam. You are wrong again about QE2. Since you will not believe me, here is Matt Taibi to explain QE2. I'd suggest you do your homework before making claims. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwhMVB0XzPU&feature=player_embedded

SillyTree

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 6:27 p.m.

@PaperTiger Who is going to look out for the little guy now? It may be true that unions went too far. That is a question that is hard to answer; there are good examples and bad examples when it comes to unions. The mistake would be to throw the baby out with the bath water. Labor cannot effectively be traded as a commodity without adequate protection. It is perishable and it cannot be thrown away rather than sold. If we don't work, we don't eat. The protection labor needs comes from collective bargaining. United we stand; divided we fall. The greatest GOP leader said something very similar to that.

Sally Y.

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 3:32 p.m.

Surprise surprise, this man is rolling in money and why the fund raising when he said he was financing this campign himself. Another fabrication. I for one am tired of candidates buying elections to spend the kind of money out of your own pockets says that you expect to fill them back up. NO TO THE NERD.

Sutro1

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 3:16 p.m.

Who would have thought that the "better" candidate was the one with the most money!! Seriously?

snark12

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 11:07 a.m.

@Ian Yes, Obama was pro-TARP, and so was anyone who had any understanding of the economy and the financial systems. TARP "bailed out the banks" but it also bailed out pretty much our entire economy. The financial incentives bankers enjoy that created the problem are terrible and still not addressed by the financial reform, but that doesn't change the fact that TARP itself was a success. There's a greater than 50% chance it may even end up making money for the taxpayers. As for printing money at no interest, I again don't think you understand how it works. The taxpayers don't pay interest on the funds that are part of QE2. It will devalue the dollar so there's an implied cost to anyone holding greenbanks, yes, but the interest is either paid TO people who buy the treasury bonds that monetize QE2 (i.e China) or collected FROM those who borrow from the Fed (i.e. banks), although that last interest is essentially zero right now. Yes, it sure seems like banks should make lots of money in that situation. BTW, any money the Fed makes is turned over to the Treasury (i.e. the taxpayers) and is added to the federal budget so we'd simply be paying interest to ourselves.

Ian

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.

@nickcarraweigh, I do not like to see third parties paying for ads. However, candidates may not have full control over it. After looking into it, it appears that Rick Snyder, from the beginning, decided only to take individual donations. That is the best he can do. As far as Rick Snyder using his own money, you cannot merely speculate. Believe me, many rich people (including most rich politicians) have made money in corrupt ways. Rick Snyder may have been selfish, but that is not a crime. I am sure vast majority of the people in business would have done their best to maximize the profit of the companies they run. That is their duty to shareholders. Particularly when the trade agreements put in place by Regan-Bush-Clinton encourage offshoring. In many cases, it is whether or not a company can survive without offshoring since their competition has offshored. There is no choice and that is the intention of NAFTA and CAFTA. It was designed to de-industrialize America. It is the trade agreements that must be renegotiated.

Ian

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 8:15 a.m.

@snark12 Your views and memory are somewhat bias. Bush signed it into law but may not have been possible without huge and public support from Obama. Obama also voted for it. That is because both are bought and paid for by the banks. When it comes to what the banks want, both parties fall in line. QE2 is on the way and the banks will be stealing another $2 Trillion and we will have to pay interest on it. Paying interest to the Federal Reserve is another scam. Why can't our Congress print the money at no interest? Think about it.

PaperTigerSaline

Sat, Oct 23, 2010 : 7:23 a.m.

The unions came at a time when they were really needed to look out for the little guy. It's grown into vastly something else and they are really no longer needed, i.e., the UAW. Why doesn't anyone "get it", in that's the reason that companies look elsewhere to be competitive. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out. If YOU had a company, wouldn't you look for the most competitive wage to pay your workers so that you could turn a profit. Businesses are in the business of turning a profit, not for employing workers. All a business "owes" a worker is a job and if they can afford it, healthcare. Geez. GO SNYDER! Let's get a businessman in there and get rid of the career politicians. Snyder will turn Michigan around. Can't wait to see it.

digger

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 11:04 p.m.

g.w. you got it. I think its time to get rid of these special interest polititions. Benero is a prime example. Yes man to unions who are strangling this state.

nickcarraweigh

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 10:19 p.m.

No corporate money for Rick Snyder, nossiree bob. Oh, I know what you're thinking: Didn't the story state that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce gave $5.4 million to the Republican Governor's Conference, which spent it on attack ads? Well, they did that without even asking Rick. It was a surprise. And the Chamber of Commerce may be 100 percent a corporate organization, but this money came from bake sales. Rick spent $6.2 million of his own money on the primary. He earned it the old-fashioned way; by paying workers $1 for producing $5 worth of goods, and pocketing the difference. That is capitalism, which is private interest. The Bible tells us doing it makes it tough to get into Heaven, and common sense tells us success pursuing private interest does not qualify you for public office. Snyder has thus spent $10 or $12 million of largely unaccountable money, at least that we know about so far, and still nobody knows what Snyder would do as governor. He doesn't want us to know. If he buys his way into office, it will be a tragedy.

snark12

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 10:16 p.m.

@Ian: You know that those banks got "their pay off" via the TARP plan, which was put in place by the Bush administration, right? Just checking...

Ian

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.

It's nice to see that Rick Snyder did not take any money from political action committees or corporations. Unlike Bernero who got significant amount of money from unions, law firm, car dealers, and nurses assoc. It is always good for politicians not to take large sums of money from interest groups. That way the politician has no obligations once getting into office. For example, Obama's largest donars were, Goldman Sach and other large banks. They definitely got their pay off. I thought Obama promised not to take corporate money.

Mikey2u

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.

Rick Snyder may have more money but he will never have my vote. Go Virg Bernero!

G.W. Williams

Fri, Oct 22, 2010 : 7:43 p.m.

The cost of doing business is way too high in Michigan. In fact, those costs are 3 to 4 percent higher than in the states with which we most often compete for new business growth. This disadvantage is unsustainable. We need to reduce the Michigan Business Tax and eliminate the personal property tax so Michigan can have a fighting chance. That's why I support the Michigan Turnaround Plan. Check it out at http://www.michiganturnaroundplan.com