socialindependocrat
socialindependocrat's JournalRemember that for the past 30 years wealth has been redistributed upwards.
The wealthy business owners and CEOs used to pay their workers to keep up with inflatiuon
Then they decided that they just needed to pay the stockholders dividends
so they would keep investing.
and they could keep more of the money from their businesses
(because they have the power and control) so there was very little trickle left.
Yearly bonuses and increases for the middle class did not keep up with inflation so
we worked year after year for less and less money
Until we got to the point where we figured we may no be able to retire and we would
eventually, die at our desks and never retire -SO, we started to save more money
so we could retire and we didn't buy goods to support the businesses of the wealthy.
Here is the key:
Now, the wealthy have accumulated money over the past 30 years that they have invested
and from which, they collect income and will continue to do so.
What we are asking is that the wealthy business owners and CEOs start increasing wages
so that the middle class will be able to buy goods and support the businesses of the wealthy.
Some of the wealthy see the wisdom to this and say - Hey, we've had it good for quite a while.
Now we should start paying a little bit more (Right Mr. Buffet?) so our businesses don't fail and
we keep being RICH!
But, it seems that the nevou riche want more, more, more and the Repukes, who are paid/bought
by the rich and wealthy and who have signed a "pledge" with Grover won't dare to besmearch
their reputations by breaking their "pledge" even though they can lie thru their teeth during
elections and suggesting that the Dems are stealing from them when the Repukes and Lyin' Ryan
say straight out that they will take $713M out of Medicare so they can give it to the wealthy.
Duh! O.K. boss. Whatever you say.
It's one thing to shame people into feeling guilty for sinning because
They may feel guilty but they still have the choice to sin and ask for redemption later.
BUT
To set up laws that take away the people's tight to choose is going too far.
Like my parents said, "We can only teach you to be a good person.
What you do with the rest of your life is up to you."
There is a control issue here.
These people want control over the lives of others.
which takes control away from the individual.
This is why people try to stay out of prisons - they want to maintain control of themselves.
Once you take a person's rights away, what's the sense?
That's why the U.S. is different from China and Russia
That's why we're Americans - so we have freedom of choice
Freedom of choice should be the norm
"they’re reacting on an emotional level to their deep-seated anger about other people’s sex lives"
This is the crux of the problem. When you look at the right trying to stop others from having freedom of choice. The conservatives are not happy living their own lives the way they see fit. They need to try to interfere with the lives of others.
Saying that the church has to go against it's principles by providing insurance that includes birth control and women's reproductive health care - Standard insurance needs to be provided by all employers to allow the people to choose how they use their policies. If each employer got to taylor their insurance provisions we would have a confusing mish-mosh of policies. Insurance should provide for a standard variety of health care benefits. If the Catholic church has taught it's parishioners well, they will CHOOSE not to use the birth control provisions. If the people CHOOSE to utilize the birth control provisions then it should be a sign to the church that they are either not getting their point across or that they don't understand their congregation. Control of thought and/or action is only necessary for people and institutions that need to control.
For conservatives to CHOOSE to live a life based upon their beliefs is fine but when a group tries to impose their beliefs on others - this is not democratic, this is not live and let live - this is more indicative of a communist dictatorship - This is not America.
We need to figure a way to get the Teabaggers to understand that they have no control over the lives of others. They need to be happy that they have the freedom to CHOOSE how they live their own lives and see that Christians allow others to live as they see fit in spite of our own personal beliefs.
Interesting that there was a problem with the initial ballots
They need to make sure all this stuff is corrected before the next elections.
When you look at the situation we're in because Bush stole the vote and
you can project what things would be like if Romney had won. You can
see that these elections mean a life of freedom vs a life of slave labor and
religious control to the American people.
We aren't a group of immigrants who's lives improve every year on the way to the
realization of the American Dream; we have had our upward mobility stagnated
and half the country is voting to give more money to the wealthy who have been
reaping more than their fair share for the past 30 years! They are far ahead of
where they would have been if we all shared in the growth and prosperity of the
businesses for whom we worked. We're not asking them to give back, we're asking
them to give their fare share from this point on.
People are taught to be offended
When we're little kids we go along thru life and some kid comes up and says - You're parents are poor.
You shrug your shoulders and your friend says - I wouldn't let him say that about my family.
And so begins the belief that you should defend your family, girlfriend, etc. - you get offended
A lot of Americans have pointed out that they could care less if someone says something against their religion. I'm not embarrassed because it's my word against yours and my opinion against yours and we accept that people will disagree - especially about religion. We even say - don't talk about religion or politics if you don't want an argument.
I submit that the Muslim people have been taught and given permission that they can become outraged if someone says something against their religion and even if they create an image of their prophet. We say - so what. They say - I'll give $100,000 to anyone who does the right thing and kills this guy.
Look at all the killing that went on in the dark ages when the religious leaders could have a person drawn and quartered because they didn't agree with the "church" - meaning they disagreed with a person who had the power of life and death. Then we move to the Salem witch trials and people (mostly women) put to death because others were afraid of the boogie man.
IMHO I would say that the more a group sets up these unforgiving penalties for questioning a religion or a government the more they are trying to protect their view and not have to defend it in any way. If you're right you should be able to defend your position. We've seen throughout history that the people who demand a blind following are dictatorial and controlling and just don't want to be bothered with arguing their point or being confronted.
If all of our religions condoned killing non-believers we'd have global chaos.
If we didn't disagree with religious beliefs that were accepted at any point in history all of the "Christian" countries would all still be Jews - but someone started Catholicism and then Martin Luther started the Protestant religion. Major Note: I took a religion class and realized for the first time (at 53 years of age) that Protestant means the people who protested,
So, evolving beliefs allow new religions to evolve. Islam began because someone heard Mohammad speak and thought he had a point. Good for them. But killing all the people who disagree just stops the religion from evolving. Secondly - to condone killing has been illegal in the modern world for a log time - of course unless the government decides it's o.k.
OF, BY and FOR the people
Government FOR the people -
The government will govern in a way that is beneficial to all the people of America.
Elected officials will not be swayed to benefit special interest groups
Elected officials will govern in a way that is balanced and takes into consideration the wishes of all the people.
If 50% want to be progressive and 50% want to be conservative we should have rules and laws that consider both halves of the country
Gee, with health care we seem t be able to do just that! We provide heath care that allows the concerns of all people to be considered. If you want to partake in certain offerings of your health care package - you certainly can. The problem comes when one group trys to say that "I don't want to use all the offerings and I don't think anyone else should either." Sorry folks - you get to choose how to live your own lives but you don't get to choose how I run mine.
I pick my church
I pick my house
I pick my car
I pick my food and meals
I pick my own cloths
If you don't get to make your own choices and someone else makes them for you then we just have communism. That's not what wer're about as a country.
I will support your ability to choose your lifestyle
But I will fuck you up if you try to choose mine, too!
This year the teabaggers get voted into obscurity.
Let's be reasonable: I 'll leave you alone and you leave me alone!
The switch to 401Ks make S.S. more important
The old pension plans will pay retirees for as long as they live.
The 401Ks are a finite amount of money that needs to be metered out over a period of time and will run out if miscalculated.
So.... how long are you planning on living?
If you save $500K and you allot yourself $50K/year
you have money for 10 years (give or take what you get in interest or return on your investment). Retire at 60-65 and you run out at 70-75 years of age. If you're still living - too bad.
Now, compound the problem:
Some people are greedy. They are the people who have maxed out their credit cards and then claim bankrupcy, dump the debt and start over again. These people will take $75K/year and live the good life for 7 years and then tell the government thay are out of money and ask what the government is going to do for them. These are the entitlement people. And we know that our government is going to say, "My gosh, we can't just let them starve to death. What are we going to do?"
This is the problem nobody has started to think about yet.
We can't be on top and sell a product that is inferior or dishonest.
For the past 30 years businesses have held down the employees salaries while giving the CEOs massive bonuses for doing so.
Businesses have practiced the philosophy of - "DOn't leave any money lying on the table".
This means that if your customers are happy with the cost you are charging for your product or services then, you haven't charged enough.
Great example are Veterinarians: The charge thousands of dollars for procedures on a pet that originally cost $400. Do you have a twinge of outrage when I say that? Do you feel that your pet is a member of the family and you would pay whatever it costs to save the life of your family pet? That's the felling they are relying on so that they can charge you more and more money to save the life of the family pet. How many people take out loans in order to pay their vet bills? Now they have pet insurance so you will have the reserves to pay your vet bills.
We have been scammed for the past 30 years in order to benefit the "new world order" so that the salaries of the workers in the U.s. will begin to come in line with those salaries of the workers in less fortunate countries. Why then, aren't the salaries of the CEOs staying flat as well? Because they are the people who make the decisions regarding salaries - a dollar for you and a hundred for me!
It's the same idea as the Romney model - We shut down businesses and the consultants reap the benefits.
They cut benefits to the masses so they can give tax cuts to the wealthy.
The wealthy have benefited for the past 30 years. They've gotten extra money and lined their pockets. They thought the scam would never end and they're pissed that they can't continue to increase their incomes at the expense of the American people.
If you can fool 298 million people for 30 years you can certainly sell a product that is inferior and dishonest and there are many people who will still buy it.
Finally, look at how long it took ot figure out that our parent's training to respect and trust adults and people in positions of power was a scam? We had to learn to watch out for Priests, doctors, and police and we had to learn that everything you see on TV or written in the newspapers isn't the truth.
We were such nice trusting souls living quiet, inconsequential, "Norman Rockwell" lives.
Look at us now!
Are we better off than we were 30 years ago?
They may be afraid of change - fear that it is not for the better..
I am 60 yrs old. When I was in high school we were protesting the Vietnam war
(among other things). My mother said, "I know you kids are tring to make changes
but do you have to try to change everything at the same time?" She was afraid of
the changes we were asking for.
As a liberal I look at change as "continuous improvement". We constantly make changes
to make life better (I guess you could say that's being an optomist).
One of the things that annoys me is to hear people suggesting radicle change. I feel that
we need to look at where we are now and where we want to be and make a plan to
change over a period of time to reach our goals. I get miffed when I hear the Repubs
say they are going to recind Obamacare (now Mitt is saying that there are certain things in Obamacare that are worthwhile.) If they would make a plan where both parties agreed
on the final goal they could make plans to make stepwise changes to get from here to there.
But, the Repukes have decided to block anything that makes the Pres look good (even is they
agree with the change) just to get him out of office. Personally I think we should see this
as a hate crime - it's prejudice and at the least it is doing nothing, if not hurting, the American
people.
Last point: I had friends at work who complained about the "socialistic" aspects of Obamacare
until I pointed out that we require hospitals to treat people without health insurance and
then the hospitals claim the loss on their taxes and the government reimburses them by
giving them a tax credit for the loss - So, the American people are paying for the treatment
of the uninsured anyway - which is socialistic.
If we want to cut down on the abuse of the programs we have for the poor we need to make
stepwise changes to get us from here to there but when they talk about cutting medicare and
social security and all programs for the poor it seeems like a drastict change that will leave people dying in the streets and is very uncaring of the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Four more years!
His foreign policy record is in the minus column
He takes a trip to Europe and pisses off England and a few other
countries
Now he pissing off the Repukes and smirking about it.
When I see him speak I just get this feeling of ....
I know - he's on a highschool debating team
and he's just getting his feet wet.
Now we'll see his wife come out and tell the American public
that he meant well and that she's the only one who can truely understand such a complex man.
Then, she'll take him by the hand and lead him off the stage.
Come on honney! Let's go home and you can fondle some money.
That always makes you feel better.
Which makes me realize - If I had $230M I would be doing
something far better than subjecting myself to all the ridicule!!!
Some people are truely driven!
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jun 23, 2011, 08:41 PMNumber of posts: 1,372
