MI Gov: DeVos leads Granholm by 8% in first election poll of the year. - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 13th, 2006, 06:05 AM   #1
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,563
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default MI Gov: DeVos leads Granholm by 8% in first election poll of the year.

Incumbents RARELY are down in the first polls against their competition.

What I find very very odd, is that granholm is LOSING in Wayne county, but WINNING in Oakland county..


__________________________________________________ ____________________



Exclusive Poll: DeVos Leads Granholm in Governor Race

By 7 Action News
June 12, 2006

As the race for Michigan governor heats up, the results are in on the first of our exclusive Channel 7/Detroit News polls. Early statewide polling shows challenger Dick DeVos with a lead over Governor Jennifer Granholm.

600 likely Michigan voters were polled about the governorís race and other issues facing the state. The poll was conducted between June 5 and June 9, 2006. Polling was done for Action News by EPIC/MRA.

All poll results carry a margin of error of +/- 4.0%.

When asked how they would rate the job being done by Jennifer Granholm as Governor, respondents said:

10% excellent
30% pretty good
40% Total POSITIVE

38% just fair
21% poor
59% Total NEGATIVE

1% undecided / donít know / refused

If the election for governor were held today, respondents said they would vote for:

35% Jennifer Granholm
5% lean toward Granholm
40% Total GRANHOLM

39% Dick DeVos
9% lean toward DeVos
48% Total DEVOS

12% undecided / donít know / refused

If the election for governor were held today, Detroiters who were surveyed said they would vote for:

59% Granholm
29% DeVos

If the election for governor were held today, Wayne County residents, excluding Detroit, who were surveyed said they would vote for:

38% Granholm
51% DeVos

If the election for governor were held today, Oakland County residents who were surveyed said they would vote for:

48% Granholm
43% DeVos
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 13th, 2006, 06:40 AM   #2
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Pahleese. 600 people polled across 3 counties AND detroit? that leaves what, 150 people in each to be a barometer for the entire county? Poll over 1000 people in each and then we can start making aSSumptions.

While I'm personally for DeVos, I want to know what he's going to do to replace our SBT that he so vehemently wants to eliminate. Michigan HAS a single business tax because it was less headache to lump all the little BS taxes businesses have to pay into one lump sum rather than continue with the paperwork bull other states for some reason feel the need to continue doing.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 07:08 AM   #3
84Scrambler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Lansing
Posts: 5,943
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 84Scrambler
Default

If you read the story in today's Lansing State Urinal, both campaigns agree that the EPIC/MRA poll is incorrect. Even the Devos camp is claiming it to be a deadheat currently. But, here we go again with a choice for the lesser of 2 evils...
84Scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 10:53 AM   #4
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,554
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84Scrambler
But, here we go again with a choice for the lesser of 2 evils...
With Devos, maybe we can stop getting Canadian trash shipped here. :tonka:
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 10:55 AM   #5
Mclovin
"The Situation"
 
Mclovin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Westland, Mi
Posts: 14,393
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Mclovin Send a message via Yahoo to Mclovin
Default

Ive heard devos is no good but i dont want granholm back in office thats for sure !
Mclovin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 11:25 AM   #6
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

The difference is Granholm will screw you and tell you first, DeVos will screw you and not tell you at all.


The problem is, this state needs a backbone industry influx and we simply have none to get. Ideally we should shift to more of a tourism based state I think and utilize the resources we have. The stability a tourism base provides in a non-hurricane state is unprecedented.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 11:27 AM   #7
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,563
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 122 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddinguy
Ive heard devos is no good but i dont want granholm back in office thats for sure !

Wow, aren't you the little politician.


Why don't you state whats wrong with DeVos?

I'm interested in hearing this.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 11:54 AM   #8
Tie Dyed
O.G.
 
Tie Dyed's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 4,180
iTrader: (28)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tie Dyed
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker


Why don't you state whats wrong with DeVos?

I'm interested in hearing this.

My biggest problem, is that he supports vouchers. Parents can pull their kids out of public schools, and then take the money that the state gives them, to the private school.
__________________
2000 XJ with a 3 inch body lift
Tie Dyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 12:03 PM   #9
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,950
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos
Pahleese. 600 people polled across 3 counties AND detroit? that leaves what, 150 people in each to be a barometer for the entire county? Poll over 1000 people in each and then we can start making aSSumptions.

While I'm personally for DeVos, I want to know what he's going to do to replace our SBT that he so vehemently wants to eliminate. Michigan HAS a single business tax because it was less headache to lump all the little BS taxes businesses have to pay into one lump sum rather than continue with the paperwork bull other states for some reason feel the need to continue doing.
actually, one of the reasons the SBT was put in place was to provide a stable revenue base during times of drastc changes in the economy.
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 12:05 PM   #10
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeBread
actually, one of the reasons the SBT was put in place was to provide a stable revenue base during times of drastc changes in the economy.

where do you get that info from? you have to have businesses to tax and a stable economy to have a stable tax revenue.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 12:08 PM   #11
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tie Dyed
My biggest problem, is that he supports vouchers. Parents can pull their kids out of public schools, and then take the money that the state gives them, to the private school.

I dont have a problem with the vouchers IFF the private school that redeems the voucher funding meets the state mandated testing requirements and whatnot just like public schools. The state required curriculum needs to be taught as well.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 01:38 PM   #12
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,950
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos
where do you get that info from? you have to have businesses to tax and a stable economy to have a stable tax revenue.
for the most part, businesses ride out the historical annual swings in the economy.

if the tax was profit based, an accounting "loss" and/or one bad year can effectively wipe out the state's tax revenue. Since most of our government has to budget based on forecasts, and quite a bit of our government utilizes a 2 year budget it created issues, especially when the constitution mandated a balanced budget.

at the time that the SBT was implemented, much of the economy could be in the shitter, yet the Big 3, being headquarted here, and having much of their employment/infrastructure based here were riding out a year, or two's economic downswing, it provided a relatively stable tax base to forecast with.

I didnt' state that it was successful in it's implementation, only that it was one of the goals of the SBT.

My curiousity with this state's tax base centers around the future of the property tax system. Our very own "proposal A" was modelled on California's proposition 13, which, when combined with an economic downturn in California essentially bankrupted several counties, as well as caused severe budget issues for the state government.

To date, while property values have stagnated, we haven't seen actual statistical evidence of a HUGE loss in property values (yet). When we do, just about everyone will be appealing their property's assessed, and taxable values (this is more important when looked at from the commercial/industrial sector).

Once reduced on appeal (and most full tribunals that have market value evidence prevail) it will permanently alter the property tax base in this state, since it can't be "rolled forward" when economic times improve due to the statutory constraints on the rate of increases for taxable value.

This will further have an impact on the competitiveness of someone attempting to establish a new business here, as purchases get uncapped, as well as new builds - however, a business that is long established is "capped" unless they improve the property. The result is, that new businesses will demand tax abatements to relocate to Michigan. (something that has already long been a problem)

(editor's note: the author is currently still a certified State of Michigan Level 3 Property tax assessor, even tho he hasn't signed an actual assessment roll in over 15 years)
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 03:12 PM   #13
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeBread
for the most part, businesses ride out the historical annual swings in the economy.

if the tax was profit based, an accounting "loss" and/or one bad year can effectively wipe out the state's tax revenue. Since most of our government has to budget based on forecasts, and quite a bit of our government utilizes a 2 year budget it created issues, especially when the constitution mandated a balanced budget.

at the time that the SBT was implemented, much of the economy could be in the shitter, yet the Big 3, being headquarted here, and having much of their employment/infrastructure based here were riding out a year, or two's economic downswing, it provided a relatively stable tax base to forecast with.

I didnt' state that it was successful in it's implementation, only that it was one of the goals of the SBT.

My curiousity with this state's tax base centers around the future of the property tax system. Our very own "proposal A" was modelled on California's proposition 13, which, when combined with an economic downturn in California essentially bankrupted several counties, as well as caused severe budget issues for the state government.

To date, while property values have stagnated, we haven't seen actual statistical evidence of a HUGE loss in property values (yet). When we do, just about everyone will be appealing their property's assessed, and taxable values (this is more important when looked at from the commercial/industrial sector).

Once reduced on appeal (and most full tribunals that have market value evidence prevail) it will permanently alter the property tax base in this state, since it can't be "rolled forward" when economic times improve due to the statutory constraints on the rate of increases for taxable value.

This will further have an impact on the competitiveness of someone attempting to establish a new business here, as purchases get uncapped, as well as new builds - however, a business that is long established is "capped" unless they improve the property. The result is, that new businesses will demand tax abatements to relocate to Michigan. (something that has already long been a problem)

(editor's note: the author is currently still a certified State of Michigan Level 3 Property tax assessor, even tho he hasn't signed an actual assessment roll in over 15 years)

you had me up to that last paragraph :) Elimination of the SBT though still requires a replacement equivilent of that budgetted money.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 04:49 PM   #14
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,950
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lothos
you had me up to that last paragraph :) Elimination of the SBT though still requires a replacement equivilent of that budgetted money.
the editor's note? :)

:) and yes, all, or part of those funds will need to be replaced. that fact that proponents of elminating the SBT haven't put forth a concrete plan to do so is worrisome.

this singular reason is also one of the major reasons why the elimination of business personal property tax hasn't ever been seriously threatened. (it accounts for approximately 1/6th of the total property tax revenue in this state as of a couple of years ago when I last prepared an analysis for the county executive/ and OMB...
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 08:39 PM   #15
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,497
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker
Why don't you state whats wrong with DeVos?

I'm interested in hearing this.
I'm still in the 12% undecided, but what I've been told in "wrong" about DeVos is that he's very much the type of person that will make decisions based on whats best for him, his freinds, and thier businesses, and doesn't give a crap about the common man.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 08:47 PM   #16
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,497
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

What i found even more suprizing was that, according ot todays Detroit News, There is slightly more support for DeVos in union households than non union.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2006, 08:51 PM   #17
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,840
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
he supports vouchers. Parents can pull their kids out of public schools, and then take the money that the state gives them, to the private school.
Welcome to competition - just like everyone else.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2006, 06:50 AM   #18
RyeBread
Catch the wave
 
RyeBread's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Fenton
Posts: 7,950
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan
Welcome to competition - just like everyone else.
so the question boils down to. Is the non-profit school system efficiently educating our kids, or will a for profit private school system maximize profits, and in turn allow some educational opportunities to slip?

I have personally seen abuses, and negligence on both sides, but feel that at least with the public/non-profit system, that the tax payers (if they wanted to) can not only get involved, but actively participate in an over sight capacity.

private, for profit firms don't have to open their books, business practices, or even listen to complaints from the public at large if they choose not to...
RyeBread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2006, 07:34 AM   #19
Just a Spouse
Motrcytman's spouse
 
Just a Spouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lake View, AL
Posts: 7,144
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

The idea of competition for educating children is good, but the downside is that public schools must take any type of child. Whether they have behavorial issues, social issues, physical issues, etc. If enough people pull their kids out of public schools along with their dollars, it could turn into a case where the only kids in public schools are those with social, economic, or other issues and there will be next to no money to pay for their extra services in education, so then what?

Right now, part of school funding pays for helping the disadvantaged with services they need, and I for one, don't mind that, but I don't know for sure if that will go away if we have a voucher system.

Yeah, I know its easy to say f-them, who cares.... let their families pay for their special services, but many families with special needs kids struggle. Special need children typically cost more to raise.
Just a Spouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2006, 09:35 AM   #20
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Default

You'll end up with the Detroit school system?


Yes, surpizing to see DeVos is strong in Union shops. As for him making decisions best fo rhim, his friends, etc... that's the case for any politician. Any that say otherwise is a lying bastage. Any government, be it city, state, or federal is a business that in all honesty needs to be looked at from the primary resources it must provide before moving on to social and superfluous services. I know it pains the heart strings to see shit get cut from a budget, but in the end if the books can get back in the black and bring more taxbase back into an economy, those services will return and be better. The trick to balancing a budget is to simply seperate everything into two categories to start. First must haves, and second nice to haves. Then grade the nice to haves on a scale if you have budget left after the must haves are covered to add into the service. Anything leftover that you have no budget for simply has to wait.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.41389 seconds with 80 queries