HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » socialindependocrat » Journal
Page: 1

socialindependocrat

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Jun 23, 2011, 08:41 PM
Number of posts: 1,372

Journal Archives

Simply - businesses can't sell and survive

During this recession the thing that really killed any recovery
was that people in the middle class finally came to the realization
that they needed to save for retirement or die at their desk.

What little discretionary income that was left after the increases over the past 5 years:
gasoline
heating oil
food
vehicle registration
repairs for cars

You add to the list - these increases didn't go up at a normal 2-3%
My electric bill went up 60% and vehicle registration went up 50%
and food is up 25%.

The wealthy have come to realize that if their businesses are to survive
they need the middle class to have enough money to buy things.

They thought they were putting one over on us (since 1985).
Well the plan backfired.

Time to pay the piper, people!

Every time someone with power messes with the balance of things
it comes back to bite 'em in the butt.

Maybe there is a God...
Posted by socialindependocrat | Wed Jan 25, 2012, 03:27 PM (0 replies)

Two things - parental concent - not knowing

Here we have a mother who has responsibility for raising HER child.

Then the law says - You shouldn't have done that
and the mother is surprised that she is in trouble.

You and I may have not have done the same but
this mother made a decision based on her logic.

Do we start to take children away from people
when a judge disagrees with a parental decision is made?

If you're going to do that then make up a rule book
that parents can study so they won't get in trouble.
Set up a hotline so the parents can call and ask what is
"acceptable" and what is not - And while they're at it
they can tell the parent what the fine will be or if they will
loose their children.

Where do we draw the line when judging parents and how they raise their children.

When I was growing up it was a parents decision iof they wanted to allow their child to smoke cigarettes. Most didn't but some did.
What should the penalty be?

It may be tough to watch but where do you draw the line.

If parents from the middle class vote republican -
do we take away their children?
Now there is a sign of irresponsibility if I've ever seen one.
Agree?
Posted by socialindependocrat | Fri Jan 20, 2012, 04:38 PM (1 replies)

The protesting is not just about little injustices

The protest is about the imbalance in control of
our political system that gives more power to the
wealthy and corporations.

Attacks on our civil liberties should identify those
people who are trying to supress the majority of the
population for their own benefit.

Protests will cease when the sources of the complaints
are dealt with.

WITHOUT A DOUBT - VOTE THEM OUT

Bye, bye Scottie!!!
Posted by socialindependocrat | Sun Jan 15, 2012, 01:18 PM (0 replies)

I believe in the personal freedom to choose for one's self

The problem I have is that the laws in each state overlap, meaning, each state has some laws you like and some laws you disagree with. So, what do you do, pick the least offensive state?
(Then bringing in Dragon's original arguement that you can't pick up and move to the state that you want because you can't get a job with equal pay. One way is to go to college in the state you want to live in and start your career there.)

I believe that either fewer laws need to be written that restrict people's freedom to choose their own lifestyle. When people get to say thet "you" can't live the life you want because "my beliefs" don't allow it - I think that's wrong. My belief is that pro-choice is best way to design laws. You get to choose your life and I get to choose mine.

What's the difference between one group saying the rest of our society needs to follow their rules and a dictatorship. We need to allow for differing beliefs under the law.
Posted by socialindependocrat | Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:57 PM (0 replies)

Each person has one vote

Any business owner can contribute using their personal income.

We have a situation where the congress is bribed by lobbyists in order to sway decisions.

Lobbying should have been outlawed a long time ago.

Republicans have shown that they will try to benefit the wealthy on any issue even though the wealthy represent a small portion of the population. This is not a democracy.

The fact that Republicans, blatantly, vote to note close tax loopholes for the wealthy and totally disreguard the middle
class tells me that the GOP is paid by the wealthy for their vote.

All decisions made by congress should benefit all Americans
and not just the upper few percent who control 50% of the wealth.

We should see a lot of changes in the 2012 elections!
Posted by socialindependocrat | Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:21 PM (0 replies)

Corporate leaders are employees of the company

Therefore it is misappropriation of corporate funds for the CEO to be able to give corporate money to any political entity without also giving an equal amount on behalf of the rank and file of the company to the party of their choice.

The fact that the supreme court has voted to allow this tells me that they are as bought as the congress.

Get money out of poitics!

Why lobyists weren't seen as providing bribes
in trade for votes is mind-boggling.

This should have been addressed a long time ago.
Posted by socialindependocrat | Wed Jan 11, 2012, 01:31 PM (0 replies)

Socialism to protect the rights of the individual


From the text:
The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Greed and the desire for power are the reasons for the
fear of a more socialistic society.

The wealthy are seeing now that by hoarding the wealth the middle class has no means to purchase products manufactured by the businesses owned by the wealthy.

Stop being so reactionary and listen to the logic....

Posted by socialindependocrat | Tue Jan 10, 2012, 06:10 PM (0 replies)

I just signed on to DU3 and find it has been taken over by Repukes???

Everybody screams about no one having a plan or doing anything about the mess this country is in!

Dylan Ratigan comes from a financial background and is trying to point out the various things that need to be worked on to get this country back on track.

From the responses here I'd say DU has been infiltrated by the nay-sayers who post derogatory comments just to piss people off...

If you want to be constructive let's hear your specific disagreements and what you think he could do to be more effective!
Posted by socialindependocrat | Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:05 PM (4 replies)

If you look at this from a pro God perspective....

you may say that God decided that there are many orphans in the world and they need a family setting. Since the general heterosexual public has only been able to stay married 50% of the time and all the fighting going on during the break-ups of those marriages, God may have decided to create more family units with what he had left - namely- loving people who are attracted to the same sex partners and can provide a loving family setting while setting an example for the heterosexuals who get married and then divorced because they don't understand the needs of the opposite sex. Hey, but what if???? Huh???
Posted by socialindependocrat | Tue Jan 10, 2012, 10:37 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1