Michigan Votes Forum

Just in case anyone is interested.

Click here for Questions and Answers about Democratic Socialism.

The main DSA website.    Click here

wussammatta true?

can't express your OWN views???

 Just a resource for those interested.

 take the HINT....

no one's interested...

crazycajun:

 take the HINT....

no one's interested...

 What was the hint ????

The fact that the "left" won a landslide in ALL elections in the last 3 years????

Thanks......we all got that  "hint" loud and clear.

crazycajun:

 take the HINT....

no one's interested...

Perhaps you should take a hint.  You are completely wrong again.

As a person who was schooled by very talented and dedicated teachers in quality public and private schools, I was taught the importance of what is called intellectual curiosity, the value of what is known as critical thinking, the advantage of maintaining an open mind, the power of reason, the need for perpetual skepticism, and a deep and abiding love of learning.  Those are the things that, if applied consistently and with discipline, inoculate us against being bamboozled in making our life's decisions and choices.  My schooling not only taught me about those valuable things, but how to use them in a disciplined manner.  As a result, although my formal schooling ended more than 35 years ago, my education never has ceased.

In fact, I learned something worthwhile just a few minutes ago, exploring the links provided above by TrueBlue.  I now have seen and at least partially absorbed information about the Democratic Socialist movement that I had not examined before.  And I have a source to turn to for further examination if I should wish to do so.  It has been a good learning day.  

Whether I buy into the movement's stated goals and aims or not is unimportant to this particular discussion.  What is important is that now I am better equipped to deal with representations of the movement's concepts more realistically and objectively.  I can make better decisions about them because I am better informed about them.

 pffft....

 democratic socialism is a failure of ideology. it is a 'dead religion' trying to be ressurected by the left.

it is the 'semi-palatable' (if your palate is tuned to socialist tendencies) pipe dream of the lennonists, marxists, and other failed leftists throughout history. there are NO successfull socialist governments FOR A REASON. it's ideology is bankrupt, it's government tendencies run towards violent dictatorships, and total government control.

no one in their right mind wants that.

what about that don't you understand????

obviously ALL OF IT...

pffft... you aren't even worth educating.

The difference between democratic socialism and social democracy should be noted. Here is as good of an explanation of the two as I could find. As for the question of a successful democratic socialist government, note the last sentence in the following:

"Democratic Socialism:
This is more difficult of the two the nail down in terms of definition, so let me give it my best shot, I will focus on the definition that most distinguishes it from social democracy. Among those definitions of democratic socialism which sharply distinguish it from social democracy, Peter Hain, for example, classes democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian “socialism from below” (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For him, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide. In this definition, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas. It should also be noted that under this definition, democratic socialists tend to support revolutionary means and methods as opposed to reformist/evolutionary ones.

Social Democracy:
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist movement.[1] Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the strict sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to to replace it entirely; instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove perceived injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system. The term itself is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate.

Comparing the two:
One way to delineate between social democratic parties and movements and democratic socialist ones is to think of social democracy as moving left from capitalism and democratic socialism as moving right from Marxism: in other words, a mainstream leftist party in a state with a market economy and a mostly middle class voting base might be described as a social democratic party, while a party with a more radical agenda and an intellectual or working class voting base that has a history of involvement with further left movements might be described as a democratic socialist party. However, this is not always the case. The British Labour Party charter identifies the party as a “democratic socialist party,” even though the current and former leader, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, self-identify as social democrats."

http://jonnystar.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/open-mike-democratic-socialism-and-social-democracy-by-rowland/

jmangan:

That was interesting reading.  

Now, would you kindly insert an internet hyperlink (url) to share with us the source of your quoted material?  You should be able to do that using the "edit" feature rather than doing a whole new post.  

 now that the mutual b.s. society is finished. show me one successful democratic socialist country.

i keep hearing about the WORKERS in charge... the problem is, once you pick out ONE worker to be in charge, he becomes DICTATOR.

it happens without fail, and very quickly.

leftist ideologies need to capture and centralize power. you cannot spread it around lest you get some freedom lover in the bunch.

you have to have unanimity in your dislike of freedom and personal responsibility. you must have no belief that rights are God given, not state given. you must have the 'socialist mentality' that everything he owns IS NOT OWNED BY HIM BUT BY THE (STATE, COLLECTIVE, COMMUNE, SOCIAL GROUP, ETC.) AND THAT ONLY BY THE SACRIFICE OF WHAT IS OWNED CAN THE (STATE, COLLECTIVE, ET AL,) MOVE FORWARD.

china has 'suffered' a major shift in leftist thinking, allowing the proletariat to own personal items such as cars and houses. THIS is why china is surging so powerfully, not because socialism has FINALLY taken hold.

once they told the PERSON that HE could keep the money, that HE could own the car, that HE could own the house, the PERSON went out and BOUGHT them.

i see this as a MAJOR SWING TO THE RIGHT. not as a success of the left. the fact that our automakers are opening up factories in china means that they see it as a triumph of CAPITALISM over socialism, a triumph of the PERSON over the collective. a triumph of the CITIZEN over the proletariat.

you will, of course, disagree. but with every major leftist movement either failing, or having failed, you trying to see only light at the end of a very dark tunnel is overly optimistic at best. the Chinese have seen what capitalism is like, and they want more of it. there are more of them than of us, and of course, they DO have a workforce numbering in the billions.

i foresee a day when we will be driving Chinese cars here.

i also foresee a day when the Chinese will be having free, open elections for their leadership.

 to those on the left...

i ask you..

would you REALLY like to live in a socialist democracy?

could you REALLY give up your freedoms and your liberties for the 'good of others'?

so far, the answer is NO. as you have not given up any of your freedoms and liberties for the 'good of others' so far, and it doesn't look as if you are very willing to give them up now.

as a gesture of 'left leaning good faith', you could try to 'walk the walk' and show how well a socialist democracy works. you COULD start a township, and populate it with only those that are willing to try this experiment. you COULD adhere only to socialist democratic ideals, eschewing liberty, personal property, and even personal responsibility. how many years do you think it would take to convince yourself, and others that this is a viable option to our 'american way of life'?

oh, but you HAVEN'T done that...  you HAVEN'T got a successful model of what your political system would work like. the only models you have are either failing now, or have already failed.

people don't WANT to work strictly for 'the common good'. they want to HAVE something to pass on to their posterity. when i see you guys give up everything to advance the socialist democrat experiment, only THEN will i believe in my heart that your motives are true.

good luck on that.

 hey sane...

did you learn that you wouldn't like to be socialist?

did you learn that there are NO successful examples of socialism as a form of government on earth?

did you learn that socialism, and it's close cousin communism are dead and bankrupt socially, morally, and factually?

even the chinese, ever the stalwarts, are backing down from communism in favor of capitalism.

in fact, it was trueblue himself that complained that the chinese have TRILLIONS of our dollars, a result of INVESTMENT IN OUR CURRENCY, (a capitalist move, as communists do not 'seek fortune', they seek EQUALITY.) AND that the chinese are the hosts for our departing auto manufacturers, as they CANNOT afford to do business here. the chinese welcome them with open capitalist arms.

did you learn any of THAT? or did you just hear the recruiting speach?

Hey cajun...

If you can pull yourself away from the keyboard for a minute or two, take a look at the news. Seems our capitalistic system is not doing so well. Seems it's almost getting as bad as it got in the 30's, before FDR saved us from the uncontrolled capitalism of the 20's. You'd be surprised what you hear if you listen.

And if you think socialism is the only form of government that produces dictators, you might want to do a little research on facism. Here 's a little start.

"Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence"

 no, it's not the ONLY system that produces dictators, but the last fascist dictator was hung up on a meat hook, and then they got NASTY with him.

now, are you going to give up your freedoms and your rights and live in a 'utopian socialist democrat society'? or are you just going  to keep on bitching about how this is the worst economy since the great depression?

yes, we are having problems, but the world did not end with the depression. all jobs were not lost, and socialism didn't get us out of THAT downturn either. your side hasn't said how it will, or even if it can.

and by the way, this site IS about winning. if we express our views, we can all know the FACTS AND THE TRUTH, and we can pick the path that will lead to us winning, instead of the path the state is on now.

losing jobs is LOSING. leftist taxation has lead to more job losses HERE than anywhere else.

losing businesses is LOSING. leftist obstructionist busineness laws has lead to more business losses HERE than anywhere else.

losing the war against crime is LOSING. leftist draconian laws that exist to fill the jails and state coffers has lead to more CITIZENS INCARCERATED HERE than anywhere else.

now tell me how you think that leftist ideology is WINNING in michigan.

Nice rant.

Total negativism.  A true losing posture.

Reading about what you want to end, or get rid of is tiresome. 

Reading never-ending negative rants about political factions or individual politicians is boring. 

What's your solution?  In positive terms.  In concrete terms. 

crazycajun:

 

losing jobs is LOSING. leftist taxation has lead to more job losses HERE than anywhere else.

Cutting and eliminating taxes hasn't seemed to help Michigan employment rates either.  So what is the real solution?

losing the war against crime is LOSING. leftist draconian laws that exist to fill the jails and state coffers has lead to more CITIZENS INCARCERATED HERE than anywhere else.

According to the Michigan State Police, crimes rates in the state’s largest metro areas (communities of 100,000 people or more -- the usual hotbeds of Michigan crime) in first half 2008 were down, compared to the year before.  Violent crimes declined 12.5% and property crimes dropped 6.8%.  Details are here:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2008_6monthPrelim_1_261929_7.pdf

There is no question that crime remains "rampant" in Michigan, if you wish to characterize it that way.  That's the negative view.  Now, what do you propose as a positive approach to reducing crime in the state?  Concrete terms.  Supported by documented facts.  No sound bites and slogans.  Real solutions.  

Who really keeps the prisons full?  Who actually opposes and politically blocks parole, early release, and similar reforms that would reduce the prison population and operating costs without jeopardizing public safety?  Take a realistic look at legislative maneuvering and you will discover the truth about this.  It is easy to engage in shrill demagoguery over crime -- look at past discussions about  prison reform on this forum.  Criminals are, by definition, not very "sympathetic" characters who we want to coddle and treat nicely.  That makes it beyond very difficult to have a constructive conversation about these things.  It has made the conversation virtually impossible in recent years.

What do you propose to do about that?  What are you going to do about creating a civil discussion that will lead to genuine reform? 

I must correct you. Mussolini was not the "last" fascist dictator. The US has supported quite a few of them in South America. People like Pinochet of Chile and Alarcon of Guatemala.

Here are some basic symptoms of a fascist/corporatist state:

Fervent nationalism/patriotism: thus the irony of drumming up patriotism with a term like islamo-fascism.
Government agencies run like businesses: privatization and corporate control of our public programs.
Monopolies: large subsidies favoring particular corporations, numbing out competition
Large corporations successfully lobbying Governments: lobbyists freely roam the halls of Congress and usually write our legislation themselves.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer: tax cuts to the rich, under the mythical banner of the repeated failings of ‘trickle-down economics’.
Favours given to campaign contributors: John McCain’s recent support of offshore drilling has been sharply correlated to a fourfold increase in campaign contributions from Big Oil.

As for giving up my rights, I am as fervent as you are about keeping all of my constitutional rights. I am also fervent about having a job, a home, and food on the table. No rights need be surrendered to provide an economy that works for us all.

Your trickle down and tax cuts have been the policy for the last 8 years. Clinton left us with a surplus in the budget. Bush chose to fight an unnecessary war, and give tax cuts to the wealthy at the same time. The state of our economy cannot be ignored, nor can it be fixed by "staying the course".

You are correct, FDR didn't end the depression with socialism. He helped many people, but didn't go big enough with his public works programs. WWII, the biggest public works program ever undertaken by any nation, finally pulled us out of the depths of the depression. I don't advocate another war, but I do advocate massive government intervention in our economy to get us going again.

You may view this site as all about winning or losing, I don't.

Maybe your a recent immigrant to our state, or maybe you are just ignoring the strong and vibrant economy we've had under many democratic governors here for many decades. When our auto industry was strong, workers came here from the south by the thousands for the good paying, union jobs. Tax rates didn't end that phenomenon, the global economy did. With the loss of jobs comes higher crime rates, that's a given. With the decline of the auto industry, the loss of other businesses is inevitable.

We are in a transition period. The entire nation is suffering economically, not just Michigan. The fact that our economy depended so heavily on the auto industry made us the canary in the mine. The nation must now come together and change what is wrong, fix what is broken, and claw our way back to the top. Clinging to a every man for himself ideology got us to this point. We must guard our individual freedoms for certain, but we must act on what is good for the community, rich, middle class, and poor. If you call that a "leftist ideology", then put me proudly in that column.

 so you are saying that socialism COULD have brought us out of the great depression?

how?

how is it going to end this current situation.

you never do say how that happens.

there are only so many billions you can tax out of the proletariat, a finite supply of money.

the war wasn't a public works program, it was a WAR. an all out effort. nothing was spared to insure success. the russians did it differently, they just threw people at the problem. proletariat are cheap. lives are cheap. economic success AFTER, and in our case, DURING an all out war effort could not have been done without the free enterprise system in place. it wasn't GOVERNMENT that won the war, it was general motors, ford, remington rand, ingersoll, willys, the higgins skiff company, and thousands of others who put their company at the service of the government, without becoming a servant to it.

even the manhattan project was a private enterprise. the physicists weren't working for the government, they were working for private universities. they were, shall we say, KIDNAPPED to create the bomb. it took them YEARS. perhaps if we had simply given them the task, and paid their bills, they could have cut two years off the war. but at the cost of secrecy.

the first atomic reactor was on a squash court at a private college. it's STILL radioactive. the test grounds the government used will be radioactive for centuries.

i don't believe that if we had been a socialist nation that we would have won the war. it's tough to get that kind of patriotism from people who you are keeping under the thumb of government. look at the success the russians had. they had to be backed into a corner before they fought.

the russians got 'concesssions' after the war. east berlin is a FREE, CAPITALIST CITY, and not the bastion of socialism/communism that the russians tried to make it. even RUSSIA is no longer the bastion of socialism/communism the russians tried to make it.

china is falling fast. cars, money, jeans, have pushed it over the capitolist edge.

no country stays communist/socialist for ever. no country stays fascist forever. look at europe. look at italy. look at germany.

the term ISLAMO-FASCIST is given to countries that use religion to take over the 'hearts and minds' of the people, then take everything they have.

 that was exactly my question to you.

you haven't answered it.

socialism CANNOT help. in fact, it was socialist ideals that CAUSED most of the problems.

now, tell us exactly HOW SOCIALISM WILL CURE THE CRIME PROBLEM.

no sound bytes, no rhetoric, no bull.

once you admit that socialism CANNOT cure the problems, i'll give you my answer.

Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.

Golly cajun, what is wrong with all those socialist governors?

What is wrong is that these idiots are going to shove this dem payola crap down our throats so we might as well try to get part of it. This so called stimulus horse squeeze is just a giant payback for all the little special interest groups and assorted socialists that got BO elected, G. soros is so proud.

In the words of B.H.O.'s right hand man...."never let a good crisis go to waste, we can do things now that in normal times the American people would never let us get away with"

Hey Cajun, don't you know that socialism has failed because it's never been done by OUR socialists. 200,000,000 dead folks just proves it.Just because it's NEVER worked doesn't mean anything.

crazycajun:

even the manhattan project was a private enterprise.

You have your facts wrong. The Manhattan project was under the control of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, a government entity, and funded, although reluctantly at first, by the government.

http://www.essortment.com/all/manhattanprojec_rgsu.htm

 democratic socialism is the height of orwellian double-speak.

to be democratic is to give every citizen a vote.

to be socialist gives every citizen NOTHING TO VOTE FOR.

to be democratic is to give every citizen a choice.

to be socialist gives every citizen the choice of liking what the state (who owns everything) gives you to use, to eat, and to live on/in.

the two systems are mutually exclusive, as to give the WORKERS control over everything leaves nothing for THE PEOPLE to decide upon. the workers will make all the decisions for the people, as the people are considered too stupid to think for themselves, and only the workers, who provide everything to the state, can think, and only the state can provide to the people.

to give the PEOPLE a choice will allow them the POWER to put the WORKERS out of office when they don't get every little whim catered to. if not, you don't have a DEMOCRATIC socialist government, you only have a SOCIALIST government. now, if you can't motivate the workers with profits, how are you going  to get them to work?

the truth is, you aren't. look at what happened to russia, and china before they both went capitalist.

now, socialism IS an interesting THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, useful for testing the accumen of those around you, and their knowledge of the differences between the systems. but as a practical matter, socialism in any form, even liberal democratic socialism, is repugnant to freedom loving people everywhere. the more government control you have to exercise over the people, the less they will like it. up to the point that they will rebel. look what happened several times in our own countries history.

now those that are espousing that we take up the mantle of socialism and make it our own, i say, prove that it will cure the ills of michigan, and we will then think about it. till then, it's an interesting THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

we're still waiting for all those brilliant ideas on how socialism will cure the ills of michigan. 

 you have your facts wrong. the manhattan project was originally started by a team of scientists at the university of chicago in late 1936, (the year einstien left his home to come to america), the scientist built the first reactor pile on a squash court. (the court is still used for playing squash, and is still radio-active) the government didn't pick up the control, or the check until three years later. that would be 1940. till then, not a dime of public tax money went into the research. not even research grants, as the government, till a working pile reactor was proven to be feasable, wasn't worried about atomic energy, or atomic weapons, as they were considered SCIENCE FICTION.

if this project would have been left to GOVERNMENT scientists, we would STILL be waiting for results, and would probably all be speaking german by now.

That was not the Manhattan Project. The Manhattan Project was formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District, and refers specifically to the period of the project from 1939–1946. Private enterprise neither had the money, or the motivation to build an atomic bomb. Matter of fact, the Manhattan Project was funded by three nations, the US, Great Britain, and Canada.

 Sorry about not providing a url for this information, but you don't seem to pay attention to them anyway.

crazycajun:

 you have your facts wrong. the manhattan project was originally started by a team of scientists at the university of chicago in late 1936, (the year einstien left his home to come to america), the scientist built the first reactor pile on a squash court. (the court is still used for playing squash, and is still radio-active) the government didn't pick up the control, or the check until three years later. that would be 1940. till then, not a dime of public tax money went into the research. not even research grants, as the government, till a working pile reactor was proven to be feasable, wasn't worried about atomic energy, or atomic weapons, as they were considered SCIENCE FICTION.

if this project would have been left to GOVERNMENT scientists, we would STILL be waiting for results, and would probably all be speaking german by now.

What inanity.  Once the Manhattan Project was taken over by the government the people working on it became, by definition, "government scientists."  They are the ones who built the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945, to end WW II.  

You set up straw men, and then ask us to knock them down.

Socialism didn't cause Michigan's economic dilemma, therefore we shouldn't look for it to cure it. Capitalism, an economic system, caused our present situation, along with the rest of the worlds. That is not to say capitalism is bad, that is to say it was abused, and used in a destructive way.

Much as you may hate to face facts, we have a form of socialism in this country, and that was how the founding fathers planned our government, being by, for and of the people. There are certain jobs the government alone can do, and some jobs they can just do better than private enterprise. Such as police and fire protection, civil defense, the nations infastructure and so on. Most successful nations on earth practise some degree of socialism. For you to claim it is a failed thought experiment is just plain silly, sort of like John McCain saying the economy is fundamentally sound, or Sarah Palin claiming foreign affairs knowledge because she can see Russia from her state.

I gather from reading your entries that you are a libertarian, verging on anarchy. Everyman for himself. That view has some merit, but to my knowledge has never been successfully used as a form of government. I doubt man would be the dominant species on earth if he had not had a social structure to build on.

We're all in this together, whether you like it or not.

 i take it you have never visited south of the mason-dixon, or west of the mississippi.

anarchy is a strong word. i'm all for government doing what it alone can do, and letting the people do the rest.

if the people CAN do a thing, the people SHOULD do that thing.

i don't believe the government should be in the business of providing jobs, or charity. that is for the people to do. to do otherwise is to put the government in the position of competing with the people it aught to be protecting from those threats too powerful to be fought off alone.

let the government see to the business of government, not charity, or morality, or business, or unnecessary regulations, or unjust laws.

In welfare recipients, Texas is 3rd, Georgia 10th, Tennessee 7th, Arizona 12th, Washington 8th, and Michigan 5th.Your point?

Anarchy: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. Isn't that what you want?

 anarchy is "without a king".

i think most people are mostly SELF GOVERNING. don't you?

it's a key component to freedom.

crazycajun:

 anarchy is "without a king".

i think most people are mostly SELF GOVERNING. don't you?

it's a key component to freedom.

Actually, you confuse etymology with current meaning.  While the word anarchy does derive from the Greek word meaning “having no ruler,” its currently understood meaning also explores the various ramifications of that situation.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “anarchy” (in the context of this political discussions) is defined as:

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

But if you want to insist on adherence to the original “having no leader” meaning of the word in Greek, then it naturally evokes visions of a shepherdless flock or rudderless ship.  The flock without shepherd is easy prey for the wolves.  The ship without a rudder is soon to become a derelict.

Neither is a pretty vision to contemplate.

 obviously you have forgotten the spirit of RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM that spurred our westward movement. they weren't people looking for intrusion from government, in fact, some never had any contact with government unless something went terribly wrong.

can you say that the west was ENTIRELY wild? or were there pockets of lawlessness?

i would describe most of detroit as being in a state of anarchy. i, personally could use a lot less government in my life. i don't know about you, but i don't need THAT much governing. i'm not lawless, and i can obey the law without 'big brother' looking over my shoulder.

i pay my taxes, i keep to myself, i don't take what is not mine. what do i need government for?

crazycajun:

  what do i need government for?

I know this is a minor point but, YOU did say you were a prison guard didnt you.

Looks like Government provides you your....JOB !

Pfffft !!

 no, trueblue.

i provide security solutions for prisons, public and private. i personally wish EVERY prison was private, as they have FAR fewer problem than public prisons.

by the way, i make the bulk of my money from PRIVATE prisons. i could give up the public prisons and not really notice.

my company holds several patents for cutting edge systems that will revolutionize the private prison business. there are several politicians contacting me from time to time to ask about privatization. the future looks good for SEVERAL private prisons in michigan soon. there certainly seems to be increased interest now that the per inmate per day fee is no longer sufficient to cover the retirement plans when they lay off guards.

 government in micigan provides me with a check. a check that has bounced on occasion. GOOD THING it's not my only source of income.

now, how about answering the question.

i obey the law, pay my taxes, don't take what isn't mine,

what do i need government for?

crazycajun:

 government in micigan provides me with a check. a check that has bounced on occasion. 

A wise old uncle used to tell us kids, “if you’re going to make up a story, at least make it plausible.”

I’ve lived in Michigan more than 40 years, and in that time have known more people than I can count who for one reason or another receive or have received checks from the State of Michigan.  And I never before today have heard or seen anybody claim that the State issued an insufficient funds check to them. 

A Google search turns up no references to bad checks having been issued by the State of Michigan.  (Lots of reference to Michigan’s bad checks law, though.  It is illegal to issue an insufficient funds check in this state.)  Surely any such incident would have found its way into a news story, news medium column, or blog. 

This story, like so many, simply is not credible.

crazycajun:

i provide security solutions for prisons, public and private. i personally wish EVERY prison was private, as they have FAR fewer problem than public prisons.

by the way, i make the bulk of my money from PRIVATE prisons. i could give up the public prisons and not really notice.

my company holds several patents for cutting edge systems that will revolutionize the private prison business. there are several politicians contacting me from time to time to ask about privatization. the future looks good for SEVERAL private prisons in michigan soon. there certainly seems to be increased interest now that the per inmate per day fee is no longer sufficient to cover the retirement plans when they lay off guards.

Say, what are “security solutions,” anyway?  Clear, concrete terms, please.  In other words, what is it that you actually do?

By the way, privately owned prisons operate under contract to the government.  No government means no prisons.  (In the United States, imprisoning people without government authority would be … er-r-r-r … kidnapping, or the equivalent, I believe.) 

As for private prisons having far fewer problems than state owned ones?  What about that great private prison in Texas, where rioting broke out last weekend, for the second time in two months?  News accounts say that government law enforcement has been called in to restore order and control.  Was that done at taxpayer expense, or did the private jailers pick up the tab? 

 you want to hire me?

prisons are one of the government services that are much better served by private prisons.

most public authorities that contract with private prisons don't allow the types of 'solutions' that would quell rioting quickly.

keeping prisoners is part of the job of being the government that even the government doesn't want.

as for knowing exactly what i do... hire me. THEN we'll talk about it.

till then, it's NEED TO KNOW...

and you don't need to know. 

 try doing business with the state yourself.

see how long it takes them to 'clear' your check. especially if the 'budget' is in the hands of the legislature.

police this past year waited two months to get paid, while our governor putzed around with the legislature about closing police districts and laying off policemen. THAT was in the news... YOU must have missed it.

please... educate yourself. if you can't or won't.... EXCUSE YOURSELF.