Michigan Votes Forum

silence dogood:

 so you are saying that our system isn't broken and it doesn't need fixing.

We need to differentiate between forms of government and economic methods.

Yes, I do believe our government is working and shouldn't be "fixed". That is; a constitutional federal republic, with a strong democratic tradition.

Our economy on the other hand, is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, heavy on the capitalism side. Occasionally, it needs adjustment to meet the needs of the nation at the time. It is a matter of balance. It doesn't need fixing, rather tuning.

 i beg to differ, sir. our economy is capitalist, our government is attempting to mandate socialism. this nation doesn't need the taking of the fruits of labor from one group to give to another. that is always called theft. it was theft when robin hood did it, it's theft today. what this nation needs is a climate of government that allows businesses to grow and prosper, not shrink and die.

anti-business legislation, high taxes, and 're-distribution of wealth' is counter to the success of individuals and businesses today. for years we've had more jobs than people to do them. we were always looking for workers. this search was hampered by three things. first, was the apparent thought that every worker should be paid like a union auto worker. the second is that every job should provide the same benefits at the same level as a union auto worker gets. third is the fact that not every job is as a union auto worker.

to boil this down to it's simplest terms, all unemployed people in michigan believe that they deserve seventy dollars an hour, full benies, and a golden parachute for retirement. nothing less will do. and they will now not work for anything less. this is a situation caused by the artificial inflation of wages, salaries, and benefits brought on by union negotiations. only the most successful businesses can afford to pay those types of wages, the rest cannot.

how do you plan on curing this problem with a political system that is unpopular enough that even the true believers choose not to follow it's dictates?

You really must come up with some proof for such an outlandish statement as this:

silence dogood:

to boil this down to it's simplest terms, all unemployed people in michigan believe that they deserve seventy dollars an hour, full benies, and a golden parachute for retirement.

To start with, no auto worker ever got $70/hr, even with benefits. That figure includes cost to provide healthcare to people presently retired. The worker doesn't "get" that money. The rest of that statement is hyperbole.

You obviously have an agenda, not an opinion.

 i, sir, like you, have both an opinion, and an agenda. my opinion is stated clearly enough, as is my agenda.

smaller government, more personal liberty. less government intrusion, more personal responsibility. more freedom, less unnecessary government.

you call me an anarchist. you use the term insultingly. but alas, i am not insulted. i am an anarchist. i believe in doing the right thing without the iron fist of government forcing me to do so. i do it because it is right, not because it is mandated.

i don't need government to tell me what is good for me, i know that already. i don't need government telling me how to be charitable, i know that already as well. i also don't need government to tell me to stay out of places i don't belong. nor do i need clear signage. i simply need to use my senses and my sensibilities. if you don't trust me to make the 'proper' decision in your opinion. so be it. it's not within your rights to take away my ability to choose.

your answer to every problem facing you is to wrangle the iron fist of government into making it better for you. if you cannot do that, you try to change the form of that government so it will.

that is your agenda, and your opinions only support that agenda. as you consider yourself to be a liberal, i would say that you prove the existence of the liberal agenda, as i prove the existence of the 'right wing' agenda. the difference between us is that the liberal agenda is harmful to society, the 'right wing' agenda is not.

you blame the current crises on the 'right wing' policies of a president, when you should be blaming them on the greed of a very few individuals, and the laziness of a few more government officials charged with our protection. your 'bigger government' has failed to stop this crises, and you only see bigger government as the cure.

You are right, (another pun) on one point. I do blame the current crisis on the policies of a president, because they are his policies. Dah!

Liberal or conservative, facts cannot be ignored. Tell the unemployed, or the homeless, or the families of the dead soldiers, or the families of the dead Iraqis, that the right wing agenda is not harmful to society. That may pass as truth in your circles, but not in the majority of this nation, or for that matter, the world.

 as silence would say... another masterful sidestep. you blame the president, but not the dems in the legislature. typical.

 perhaps you mean "Duh"?

No, dah fits you much better, more the mouth agape look.

 how quaint.  a socialist preferring 'da' (russian for YES).

 telling... very telling.

jmangan:

Tell the unemployed, or the homeless, or the families of the dead soldiers, or the families of the dead Iraqis, that the right wing agenda is not harmful to society.

let's look at that sentence for a moment, shall we? you blame the right wing agenda for high unemployment, yet michigan, a proudly left wing state, has the highest unemployment in the nation. didn't the left wing agenda save their jobs for them? no.

you blame the right wing agenda for homelessness, but we have thousands of homeless people right here in michigan, if left wing policies would have prevented that, why didn't they?

you blame the deaths of the soldiers on the right wing agenda, yet thousands of citizens proudly enlisted out of patriotism, not financial gain. your left wing agenda is to void their sacrifices by surrendering. 

you blame the deaths of iraqis on the right wing agenda. i blame them on the agenda of their leaders, who couldn't stop their own people from thinking that flying airplanes into buildings and strapping bombs onto themselves was a good idea. their agenda and their ideology is much closer to your left wing agenda and ideology than it is to the right.

you spout political pablum, and expect it to hold up your end of the discussion. when asked about your facts, you sidestep masterfully. you insult and degrade others, simply because without demeaning the 'person-hood' of your opponent, you cannot have your point of view stand on it's own. when faced with the concept of equality, your views fade quickly into irrelevance. when forced to see that your rights are on par with everyone elses, you leap to the reins of big brother government and use the power it has over the people to deprive others of rights and to do your bidding.

perhaps you would prefer to live in a socialist country, but i would not. i take it by the fact that you have not gone searching for this political nirvana that you do not wish to live in a socialist country either. i also take it by the fact that there are no successful models of socialism extant today that no one else does either.

silence dogood:

let's look at that sentence for a moment, shall we? you blame the right wing agenda for high unemployment, yet michigan, a proudly left wing state, has the highest unemployment in the nation. didn't the left wing agenda save their jobs for them? no.

< and South Carolina, a right wing leaning state, has the second highest. The recession is nationwide.>

you blame the right wing agenda for homelessness, but we have thousands of homeless people right here in michigan, if left wing policies would have prevented that, why didn't they?

< and more thousands nationwide, in both right wing and left wing leaning states. Homelessness is a national problem, not just Michigan's.>

you blame the deaths of the soldiers on the right wing agenda, yet thousands of citizens proudly enlisted out of patriotism, not financial gain. your left wing agenda is to void their sacrifices by surrendering. 

< my left wing agenda is to save the lives of those presently in service, and future enlistees, from being sent in harms way for nefarious reasons. >

you blame the deaths of iraqis on the right wing agenda. i blame them on the agenda of their leaders, who couldn't stop their own people from thinking that flying airplanes into buildings and strapping bombs onto themselves was a good idea. their agenda and their ideology is much closer to your left wing agenda and ideology than it is to the right.

< now this surprises me. I thought even the most ardent right wing cool-aide drinkers had given up on the lie that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I see you still are sipping. >

you spout political pablum, and expect it to hold up your end of the discussion. when asked about your facts, you sidestep masterfully. you insult and degrade others, simply because without demeaning the 'person-hood' of your opponent, you cannot have your point of view stand on it's own. when faced with the concept of equality, your views fade quickly into irrelevance. when forced to see that your rights are on par with everyone elses, you leap to the reins of big brother government and use the power it has over the people to deprive others of rights and to do your bidding.

< thanks again for that "masterful" compliment, but I truly don't deserve it. I have expressed by opinions in a straight forward, clear and simple manner. I don't have the ability to masterfully side step, nor the inclination. I also make it a point to not insult others, but I do defend myself, and give as good as I get. I know you're not use to that on this site. You are correct, I do question your "person-hood". When people sing in unison, it is hard to distinguish the person. I also agree that my rights are on par with everyone elses. So are my responsibilities. This is where we differ. You view your rights as possessions, I view mine as responsibilities.>

perhaps you would prefer to live in a socialist country, but i would not. i take it by the fact that you have not gone searching for this political nirvana that you do not wish to live in a socialist country either. i also take it by the fact that there are no successful models of socialism extant today that no one else does either.

< I presently live in the country I want to, although I know it is nothing more than an accident of birth that I do. I want to make this the best country I can, for my children, and their children, and so on. As I said before, we have elements of socialism in our form of government. We've had them all my life. They worked for me, and for you. I want them to work for my ancestors. So if you're looking for a successful model of socialism, look around you. Police, fireman , roads, schools, hospitals, social security, medicare etc.. Most of Europe also has elements of socialism in their governments, and are quite successful. I know it's hard for you to grasp that not one, homogenized form of government is the best, but that seems to be the case throughout the world. Since China moderated their strict communist government more to a capitalist/socialist type, they too have become quite successful. So much so, that they hold trillions of dollars of our debt.>

jmangan:

silence dogood:

let's look at that sentence for a moment, shall we? you blame the right wing agenda for high unemployment, yet michigan, a proudly left wing state, has the highest unemployment in the nation. didn't the left wing agenda save their jobs for them? no.

< and South Carolina, a right wing leaning state, has the second highest. The recession is nationwide.>

(michigan's problems started about six years earlier than the rest of the nation. we were in a 'one state recession' for years before the rest of the nation caught up.)

you blame the right wing agenda for homelessness, but we have thousands of homeless people right here in michigan, if left wing policies would have prevented that, why didn't they?

< and more thousands nationwide, in both right wing and left wing leaning states. Homelessness is a national problem, not just Michigan's.>

(our problems started years earlier, our housing was being foreclosed far sooner than the rest of the nation. why were we first to feel all these ill effects? )

you blame the deaths of the soldiers on the right wing agenda, yet thousands of citizens proudly enlisted out of patriotism, not financial gain. your left wing agenda is to void their sacrifices by surrendering. 

< my left wing agenda is to save the lives of those presently in service, and future enlistees, from being sent in harms way for nefarious reasons. >

(and to surrender.)

you blame the deaths of iraqis on the right wing agenda. i blame them on the agenda of their leaders, who couldn't stop their own people from thinking that flying airplanes into buildings and strapping bombs onto themselves was a good idea. their agenda and their ideology is much closer to your left wing agenda and ideology than it is to the right.

< now this surprises me. I thought even the most ardent right wing cool-aide drinkers had given up on the lie that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I see you still are sipping. >

(Iraqis are currently strapping bombs to themselves, their mosques are still teaching the 'death to america' line. perhaps they didn't provide iraqi nationals to fly the plane and kill americans, but they still stir the pot.) 

you spout political pablum, and expect it to hold up your end of the discussion. when asked about your facts, you sidestep masterfully. you insult and degrade others, simply because without demeaning the 'person-hood' of your opponent, you cannot have your point of view stand on it's own. when faced with the concept of equality, your views fade quickly into irrelevance. when forced to see that your rights are on par with everyone elses, you leap to the reins of big brother government and use the power it has over the people to deprive others of rights and to do your bidding.

< thanks again for that "masterful" compliment, but I truly don't deserve it. I have expressed by opinions in a straight forward, clear and simple manner. I don't have the ability to masterfully side step, nor the inclination. I also make it a point to not insult others, but I do defend myself, and give as good as I get. I know you're not use to that on this site. You are correct, I do question your "person-hood". When people sing in unison, it is hard to distinguish the person. I also agree that my rights are on par with everyone elses. So are my responsibilities. This is where we differ. You view your rights as possessions, I view mine as responsibilities.>

(you forgot to mention that you view my rights as expendable.)

perhaps you would prefer to live in a socialist country, but i would not. i take it by the fact that you have not gone searching for this political nirvana that you do not wish to live in a socialist country either. i also take it by the fact that there are no successful models of socialism extant today that no one else does either.

< I presently live in the country I want to, although I know it is nothing more than an accident of birth that I do. I want to make this the best country I can, for my children, and their children, and so on. As I said before, we have elements of socialism in our form of government. We've had them all my life. They worked for me, and for you. I want them to work for my ancestors. So if you're looking for a successful model of socialism, look around you. Police, fireman , roads, schools, hospitals, social security, medicare etc.. Most of Europe also has elements of socialism in their governments, and are quite successful. I know it's hard for you to grasp that not one, homogenized form of government is the best, but that seems to be the case throughout the world. Since China moderated their strict communist government more to a capitalist/socialist type, they too have become quite successful. So much so, that they hold trillions of dollars of our debt.>

(china is the proof that socialism isn't going to work. billions of people worked hard to make it work, and gave it up to have money, cars, jeans, fashion, electronics, and everything else that capitalism gives them that communism can't. i'm not worried about china haveing my debt, but they have our auto manufacturers, and that worries me just a little. perhaps if our taxes would have been lower, and the unions wouldn't have pressed for such artificially high wages, the big three wouldn't be building factories in china as they are today.)

 

 My goodness, the more I read the blatherings of "silence dogood"  I am convinced that SILENCE would  DO him some GOOD.

 no, trueblue, it wouldn't. it would only make you feel better. and by the way, you assume too much.

 we think the same thing about you, tb. but wishing won't make it so.

uber-liberal:

 we think the same thing about you, tb. but wishing won't make it so.

 Oh good you finally figured out that the republican policy of "wishing" doesnt work either.

Like "trickle down"

Like "privatizing" things that shouldnt be privatized.

Like illegally invading other countries.

Pffft !

 don't know what all that drivel has to do with democratic socialism, but...

 a few facts about socialism, democratic or otherwise.

1. there are no successful socialist countries.
2. there never have been any successful socialist countries.
3. there never will be any successful socialist countries.

with these facts in mind, i wonder where our friend trueblue is getting all of his statements about socialism curing cancer and landing on the moon. it has done neither. it will do neither. the closest thing to socialism, communism, hasn't done either. we capitalists have been to the moon, and are working on several cures for cancer.

as it stands today, every major communist country in the world is moving towards capitalism rapidly.

if trueblue would like to give us a few examples of successful socialist countries, we would like to examine them. and please, trueblue, don't confuse social conscience with socialism. 

silence dogood:

 a few facts about socialism, democratic or otherwise.

1. there are no successful socialist countries.
2. there never have been any successful socialist countries.
3. there never will be any successful socialist countries.

if trueblue would like to give us a few examples of successful socialist countries, we would like to examine them. and please, trueblue, don't confuse social conscience with socialism. 

 Again, either you lack knowledge or you intentionally lie.

Your statements are false.

It amazes me to see anyone standing on the USS sinking ship "capitalism"  and scream how great it is in the middle of the WORST capitalist produced economic meltdown in history.

Read and learn.  http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/sect2.htm

                            http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAffairs/typesofgovt.html

You dont even possess the basics, to be able to discuss politics.  I should charge you tutoring fees.

Social democracies are quite successful, regardless of your lack of information about them.

 no list....

no successful socialist countries.

pffft...

All of the industrialized nations can be called Social Democracies. The state indirectly controls business through regulation and owns 35-50% of the means of production through taxes. The US social safety net is much worse than Canada or Europe's but a little better than that of the third world and we are improving.

Surprisingly, we spend almost as much as Europe on subsidizing healthcare and welfare for the poor, but we get very little coverage for it because we give the money to pay for subsidies and tax credits to large corporations, businesses, employers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors and few of the benefits actually "trickle down" like they are supposed to in theory.

Direct subsidies to people are much more effective, but there is too strong a lobby in the US that supports expensive corporate welfare projects at the expense of meager individual benefits for the aged, students, families and the unemployed. Amazingly, almost half the people in the US seem to be convinced that receiving benefits is shameful but giving them to the richest 1% is good. It is a fine example of how lobbying, marketing and propaganda can overcome appealing to self-interest as a political tool.

uber-liberal:

 no list....

no successful socialist countries.

pffft...

 Do your own homework, the "list" is out there if you bother to look for the information.

You've been convicted of ignorance in the court of public opinion already, dont add Laziness to your glowing resume.

Pffft !

 sorry trueblue.

there are no successful examples of socialist governments. and you can't come up with a list either. you have been convicted of lying in the court of public opinion. don't add a second offense.

it just burns you up to admit the truth, doesn't it?

 You are a joke.

Pffft !

 one would think that a socialist would be trumpeting the triumphs of the socialst ideals. not hiding them away. aren't you proud of what socialism hasn't done?

 nope... nothing on google either. socialism is a joke.

uber-liberal:

 nope... nothing on google either. socialism is a joke.

 LOLOL  nothing on google??  Right ,  the internet is so limited and small.

LOLOLOL  Like anybody would believe that. You cant be that helpless.

LOL

 so, just list the top ten. google says that there are no socialist countries. do they lie? or do you?

uber-liberal:

 so, just list the top ten. google says that there are no socialist countries. do they lie? or do you?

 LOLOLOLOL   AGHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Google says?  Or Uber/Crazyc  says ???

LOLOLOLOL

I really shouldnt laugh at your learning disability. I pity you.

 you know, trueblue, you could stop all this nonsense and just answer the question. doing so would 'win' the argument for you. not doing so is winning the argument for me. i know how much you hate to lose, but you cannot list a single successful socialist country. not one.

i'm sure that if you could, you would. you would wave it about like you wave about your love of socialism. but alas, there are no successful socialist governments to trumpet. no 'best case scenario' to shove under conservative's noses. just a pipe dream.

 the one site that claims to list socialist countries only lists communist countries and dictatorships.

no socialist countries are listed. i wonder why that is?

uber-liberal:

 the one site that claims to list socialist countries only lists communist countries and dictatorships.

no socialist countries are listed. i wonder why that is?

 There are many. Many are OUR allies.  Do your own research and stop being lazy.

But most importantly, you may start by looking at the good ole' USof A.

We are again looking to socialism to save us from the economic disaster caused by unfettered capitalism.

Just like socialism got the USA of of the depression of the 20's.

I am pretty sure you are clueless as to what I am talking about as you have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about everything from history, to economics to politics.

Sad for you, but true.   People are aware, even if you are not.

Vote Republican,....... Our bridge to the 12th century !!

LOLOLOLOL

 sorry, trueblue, but the facts are this.

socialism had no effect on the depression of the 1920's. it wasn't tried. capitalism saved us from it by 1923, why do you think it was called the ROARING 20's?  it didn't have an effect on the depression of 1936 either, except to lengthen it. only the overt capitalism of wartime spending pulled us out of that one. the lesson here, leave socialism in the effette drawing rooms and let the money makers pull us out of this recession like they have every other one.

people are aware. they are aware that socialism doesn't work and they don't want it. why do you think you are alone posting for it here?

uber-liberal:

 sorry, trueblue, but the facts are this.

socialism had no effect on the depression of the 1920's. it wasn't tried. capitalism saved us from it by 1923, why do you think it was called the ROARING 20's?  it didn't have an effect on the depression of 1936 either, except to lengthen it. only the overt capitalism of wartime spending pulled us out of that one. the lesson here, leave socialism in the effette drawing rooms and let the money makers pull us out of this recession like they have every other one.

people are aware. they are aware that socialism doesn't work and they don't want it. why do you think you are alone posting for it here?

 Let me be blunt......you are a moron.

The depression began in 1929.

FDR implemented the greatest "socialist" policies this country has ever seen , ie medicare, SOCIAL SECURITY, unemployment benefits, etc etc etc ETC !  And they brought us out of the depression unfettered capitalism brought on.   Just like now. 

The banking system is about 80% nationalized already.

Or do you get your current "news" via carrier pidgeon ? and just havent heard about it yet.

LOLOL

You are truly not worth wasting time on.

Pffft !

All of the industrialized nations can be called Social Democracies. The state indirectly controls business through regulation and owns 35-50% of the means of production through taxes. The US social safety net is much worse than Canada or Europe's but a little better than that of the third world and we are improving.

Surprisingly, we spend almost as much as Europe on subsidizing healthcare and welfare for the poor, but we get very little coverage for it because we give the money to pay for subsidies and tax credits to large corporations, businesses, employers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors and few of the benefits actually "trickle down" like they are supposed to in theory.

Direct subsidies to people are much more effective, but there is too strong a lobby in the US that supports expensive corporate welfare projects at the expense of meager individual benefits for the aged, students, families and the unemployed. Amazingly, almost half the people in the US seem to be convinced that receiving benefits is shameful but giving them to the richest 1% is good. It is a fine example of how lobbying, marketing and propaganda can overcome appealing to self-interest as a political tool.

 Socialism: The base for Communism under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat ( the lowest class of people )

The Constitution of the United States: We the People.....

 taxes in your favorite countries are as high as seventy percent. how much of your money do you wish to give to these programs? all of it?

Surprisingly, we spend almost as much as Europe on subsidizing healthcare and welfare for the poor, but we get very little coverage for it because we give the money to pay for subsidies and tax credits to large corporations, businesses, employers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors and few of the benefits actually "trickle down" like they are supposed to in theory.