Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 3 Goals of OWS

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 2:39 p.m. EST by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

  1. End the wars. (Bring the troops home)

  2. End the Fed

3.End the Income Tax.

Think we can all agree on these three key issues

29 Comments

29 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TonyLanni (291) 13 years ago

Raise your hand if you understand monetary policy and the fed. Stop demanding the end to the fed if you haven't raised your hand.

[-] -1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

Hand is up and has been for some years now!!!! Ron Paul entered politics in 1971 as a response to the removal of the gold standard. He had no aspiration of politics prior, and his cause has been to end the fed every since then!

[-] 1 points by TonyLanni (291) 13 years ago

you can't oppose removal of the gold standard and claim you understand monetary policy. "money" is an arbitrary value indicator. it doesn't need any real value to function. it's value is determined by monetary policy. gold was just an early means of monetary policy-- gold to money ratio and all that. returning to the gold standard accomplishes nothing, and ending it was good overall. money tends to move toward more worthless items of currency, and this is good to encourage money flow. money flow is the economy, and the higher the flow the better, in general. problems occur when the flow gets disrupted. regulation is needed for a good steady flow. your point has now made me thoroughly against Ron Paul.

[-] 3 points by TroskoMan (29) 13 years ago

Those are the goals of Ron Paul and the Libertarians. You are just trying to impose it on OWS.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Speak for yourself! These are the goals of many, many people in the progressive movement. Everyone I know, including Douglas Rushkoff, are for democratizing money creation.

Dude, have you seen the video, "Money is Debt"? Highly recommended. I'm as progressive as they come, and "Ending the Fed" is totally in line with social justice. To say otherwise belays a certain ignorance. This is unfortunate. The Fed is a private corporation which controls the entire money supply and thus the entire economy. Are you comfortable with one single monopolistic corporation controlling the pulse of our entire economy? More importantly the Fed prints money for pennies on the dollar (price of paper and ink) then loans that money at face value to the U.S. Tresury and with interest. This means there is more money owed to the Central Banks who got us into this mess, than all the money in the world combined! Money needs to be radically democratized, decentralized, and open to all people, so that we may choose how we interact with each other.

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

I think those guys want to keep government from giving money out to wall street so these problems don't happen. Would there ideas not help to solve the problem?

[-] 1 points by TroskoMan (29) 13 years ago

No. I'm against "End the Fed" and against "End the Income Tax". I only agree with "End the wars. (Bring the troops home)".

[-] -1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

The federal reserve is a private organization just like any other company accept they can print money and lend it without answering to anyone. Would you support at least being able to see what they are doing (an Audit of the FED) ?

[-] 2 points by TroskoMan (29) 13 years ago

"Audit the FED" is very different from "End the FED". I support "Audit the FED", but I don't support "End the FED".

[-] -1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

Every austrian economist has predicted the exact situation we are in and the fed serve to allow for the welfare warfare state through the deceitful act of monetary inflation.

The only audit every done showed the fed had lost and could not account for 13 trillion dollars! divide that by the number of americans and we could all be rich(if you believe paper is money?)

[-] 1 points by iwantmygoldback1933 (64) 13 years ago

+1.

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

Without government bailing out corporations they could not take the risks they do. Imagine me saying go to vegas and bet all you want cause if you lose I'll bail you out. Keynesian Economics is to blame here.

Study Mises.org

[-] 2 points by jadee (40) 13 years ago

This is the first thing I've seen that makes sense.

[-] 1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

thank you!

[-] 2 points by SisterRay (554) 13 years ago

Nope, those goals have nothing to do with us.

You'll find many likeminded people at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

OWS is about holding Wall Street accountable by (1) regulating markets (2) taxing those who can afford it (3) prosecuting white-collar crime and (4) taking corporate money out of politics.

[-] 1 points by jadee (40) 13 years ago

Why not occupy Washington then?

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

visit mises.org to Educate yourself in austrian economics, and you will fint that you cant have the debt we have without a private federal reserve. They are just as private as a wall street company accept they report to no one. Also If we allow the free market to work and governement doesnt bailout losers then people who cheat and lose go broke. It like I told you, You can go to vegas and bet all you want but if you lose don't worry Ill cover you. Yes wall street should have morals. And yes take the corporate money out! Ron Paul because you mentioned him gets an average donation of 21.07. He is the champoin of the people. Also if we return the government to the local level we are better able to punish those that cheat rather than having a huge federal government who just bails out anybody on wall street that goes broke .

[-] 2 points by LincolnCA (160) 13 years ago

Nope, I can't agree on Ending Income Tax, and I can't agree on Ron Paul.

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

WHo is the better choice? Cain, Romney, Obama.

http://youtu.be/Tn0EApd5wgw

WE need someone who at least understand economics!

[-] 2 points by LincolnCA (160) 13 years ago

You have the right to your opinion I just can't stand with Ron Paul. Cain, Romney, and Obama are all better choices than Ron Paul for me, at least in their slavery I am still a man, in Ron Paul's slavery I will only be 3/5ths of one!

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

If people were genuinely listening they heard Paul say he opposed property rights element of this legislation. Paul defends right of eminent domain, which is what was being attacked in this interview. MSNBC would have you believe this was about Paul; it's about YOU! Paul wants to assert the constitution and Bill of Rights for everyone, and what he is saying about the civil rights act is although it did away with Jim Crow laws it created circumstances that precipitated the Supreme Court's later determination to take away your right of eminent domain. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't know about this, but Paul does. The message here is nationalist media is attempting to manage the news and create a false impression of Paul's message. With this in mind, the listener might be better off remembering that MSNBC is attempting to play role that contravenes free press. In this case this news source was not reporting the news, it was trying to manufacture it.

[-] -1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

You are so misled (Would have voted against the civil rights act correct?) Here is the actual text - Staying true to his brand of extreme libertarianism, Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights. He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives.

Visit mises.org,

Visit http://www.libertyfund.org/about.html

Learn what a liberty has to offer. We may end up in a slavery which no ones even 1/5th a man. Think about how tyranny works?

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

How will we punish the evil rich people with out an income tax?

[-] 1 points by Benny14 (101) 13 years ago

Main problem is the corruption in politics until you can remove bribes/donations from the political system nothing you do or propose will matter

[-] 1 points by Johnw (44) 13 years ago

What about a bigger goal of starting a third party? http://thenewthirdparty.blogspot.com

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

Totally agree with you on the first two, but If we have no tax, we have no governance. I don't mind paying taxes, as long as that tax represents me. Taxation with representation. The original Tea Party's chief complaints were

Taxation without Representation

State-sponsored Monopolies on Trade (i.e. Dutch East-Indian Trading Company).

Now if you don't want to pay income tax, then by all means don't. This just means you can't use the services that come from that tax without paying for them directly. So, do you really want to have to pay to come into a library, use a road, visit the national forest?

[-] 1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago

I agree state and local, but the more federal the larger federal government. There wasnt an income tax intill 1913, and we functioned just fine. Income tax by definition from the GAO pay interest on debt and nothing else. All of those things you listed are paid for through other means not income taxes. sorry to disagree

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 13 years ago

If they are not paid from income taxes, then from what other means?

[-] -1 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 13 years ago