Wisconsin as a Socialist State? (appointed, how much, unemployed)

[nanannie]

Originally Posted by whynot66

Try living outside of Wisconsin and you'll see what I mean. Ever meet a Wisconsinite who laughs at themselves? Of course not, they're so wrapped up in thinking they are "perfect". Boring? You bet. Not fun? You bet.

I am not from Wisconsin nor do I live there.
It is impossible for any one state to have one kind of people and all be condemned for singular experiences one encounters.
You obviously have had a (some) bad experience there and remain bitter about it. I hear horror stories about people in Florida, yet I have some wonderful friends from there. I guess it comes down to just what you give out/you get back,.
My husband grew up in Wisconsin. He is Funny as hell.

You actually, do not seem fun at all.

[whynot66]

[quote=nanannie;17203356]I am not from Wisconsin nor do I live there.
It is impossible for any one state to have one kind of people and all be condemned for singular experiences one encounters.
You obviously have had a (some) bad experience there and remain bitter about it. I hear horror stories about people in Florida, yet I have some wonderful friends from there. I guess it comes down to just what you give out/you get back,.
My husband grew up in Wisconsin. He is Funny as hell.

You actually, do not seem fun at all.[/quote

Ok, whatever. Have a good New Year!!

[nanannie]

And a Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

[jazznblues]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

ccarider,

The reason you seem to me to be such a drone is that you keep throwing out single sources causes to complex problems. Example, housing is due to liberals who wanted to put low income people in homes. Yea, right. Admittedly, many wanted home ownership for the masses, including George W. Bush, with his "ownership society" thinking. But fair enough, plenty shared it. What noone anticipated was that an industry with over a century of experience with making home loans would begin selling, repackaging and selling, insuring loans that had no prospect for being paid back. The poor would-be homeowners were naive, and probably unethical. However, you cannot blame most of them (the flippers excluded) with clear-eyed deceit and fraud. Corporate leaders knew what they were doing. They were cannibalizing our own economy and selling poison. Now in that example there was plenty of blame to go around, but when it gets boiled down to a single slogan, and hackneyed finger-pointing, that sounds like talk radio sound bites to me.

I am very passionate about challenging the anti-government mindset, because the relatively unregulated capitalism we saw under Bush will be absolutely disastrous to my child's future. Government is very flawed, but it has demonstrated a better ability to build infrastructure for the future than a laissez-faire system which protects the wealthiest in society now. For example, as out deficit was going through the roof, Bush was cutting taxes on oil companies, so that they have had record profits, while the rest of the country goes down the tubes. I'll repeat government is flawed, but we need a balance.

I think it is funny you blame GWB for the mortgage and housing bubble. All facts show this began well before GWB took office. He certainly didn't do enough to change it - but people like Greenspan made huge mistakes.

There is lots of blame to go around for much of this mess. But in spite of GWB's supposed conservatism - the evidence shows the federal government and most municipal governments have grown substantially over the last twenty years. Americans are becoming addicted to goverment services. Congress wants to influence our behavior by modifying and complicating the tax code.

I think all things considered, the goverment is less trustworthy than private enterprise. Elected officials can (and do) change laws to protect their future. They write laws that favor the bodies that will vote for them. Businesses that screw up eventually implode and fail (if the government will let them). There is lots of collateral damage. But I still believe the better side to err on is less government, not more.

I think Americans should know at all times that they are responsible for their well being. The government should not be counted on to provide for us. They may need to help people avoid starving and protect children who can't control their destiny, but a few people will suffer and that can't be eliminated completely (because some people are self-destructive).

[pballnc]

Originally Posted by brainwrek

Socialism is unconstitutional.

You claim this, but i fail to believe that Milwaukee would be the city it is today without the huge socialist backround it has. Daniel Hoan, the second longest serving mayor of Milwaukee. SOCIALIST. Charles B. Whitnall, designed the Milwaukee County Park System. Yet another evil SOCIALIST!

I would guess that you also think that unions are evil too huh? Because the socialist party had a hand in the formation AFL-CIO right, god f-ing forbid we have people protecting our rights as workers!

[HagbardCeline]

Originally Posted by jazznblues

I think all things considered, the goverment is less trustworthy than private enterprise.

Holy ****. How do you come up with this stuff?! You should take this act on the road. Best comedian since Bill Hicks, right here.

[quote-]Elected officials can (and do) change laws to protect their future. They write laws that favor the bodies that will vote for them.[/quote]

They protect their futures by changing laws to benefit the businesses that get them elected.

I think Americans should know at all times that they are responsible for their well being. The government should not be counted on to provide for us.

The government IS the Americans. The market isn't going to give us infrastructure of any real quality. Ever.

Originally Posted by pballnc

You claim this, but i fail to believe that Milwaukee would be the city it is today without the huge socialist backround it has.

Milwaukee started going down the tubes as soon as the socialists were gone.

[hoffdano]

HagbardCeline - governments (and the resources they control, such as militaries) have caused more harm around the world than any business. They have killed more people, caused more starvation, eliminated civil rights, etc. than any Union Carbide, Enron, Lehman Brothers, etc. No one is better equipped to hide and protect corruption than governments and the people in power.

Governments are probably best equipped to provide for many forms of infrastructure. And businesses cannot operate unmonitored or completely unregulated.

Most people want to be governed. Lots of disagreement on how that should work. But I remain firmly convinced that less is more.

[HagbardCeline]

Haha you think the government and business are different! What is this, 1870?

[rso092]

Originally Posted by HagbardCeline

Haha you think the government and business are different! What is this, 1870?

So, wait a minute...if business is horrible, but business and government are the same.........why were you just arguing that more government is better?

I'm confused

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by HagbardCeline

Haha you think the government and business are different! What is this, 1870?

Both entities can do good and bad things. But only governments over a long period of time can institute changes that preserve their power over people. It make take a while for a bad or corrupt business to be exposed, but most eventually are and they fail big.