Forum Post: A Reasonable & Logical Demand List! SHARE YOUR OWN.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 29, 2011, 10:20 p.m. EST by iRevolution
(54)
from Fayetteville, NC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The OWS Demands list is so discrediting & so uneducated (And I'm a supporter.) I had to make one & share with everyone.
• Full Audit & End to The Federal Reserve. The dollar has lost 98% of it's value since This private entity we enacted in 1913. It has obliterated savings & thus the middle & lower classes. Sound monetary policy is what we need. End Fractional Reserve Banking & Lending.
• An end to all Foreign & Domestic Wars. Including the war on drugs. The president shall not go to war or do any military intervention without a declaration by the U.S congress (As we did with Libya, Syria, Yemen.) Close all foreign Bases & stop all U.S policement of the world & bring ALL U.S troops back home as quick as the ships can get there.
• Balance The Federal Budget now. Shrink the scope & size of government by eliminating unnecessary department & spending. Mandate A Balanced Budget.
• Throw out the current tax code. Our tax code is designed for BIG government. You can't have a government like this without a bloated tax code & a Federal Reserve System. Our Tax code opens the door HUGE government, thus, less capitol in our pockets.
Eliminate The Savings Tax, Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Capitols Gains. Slash the Corporate Tax (We have one among the highest in the world.) to the 10-15% area. 0 Percent tax on those who want to repatriate capitol into the country. Lower the Dividends Tax. Eliminate The Death Tax.
Eliminate the Corporate income tax for Manufactures.
Allow persons under 35 To Opt out of the system (Transfer Programs such as Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, Food Stamps, & give them tax credits for doing this.)
Repeal The Patriot Act & National Defense Authorization Act & all other Liberty killing Bills. End all attacks on personal Liberty including the TSA.
End Government intervention in education & government collage loans. I know I seem unfeeling, But, this the a major reason collage is so expensive. The government say's were here to help you, were making lans available so you can afford education, but what they don't tell you is that the only reason collage is so expensive, is because of all those loans & all those loan guarantee's. There are no free market forces keeping tuition prices down, Why isn't the price dropping like computers? Flat Screen TV'S? Because the government is there & the universities & collages know they can continue to raise there tuitions as bloated as they want because the government is guaranteeing the money. Low prices & high quality come from the market not government. Government drives the prices threw the roof. Collages take advantage by jacking prices up.
Open up tax credits & vouchers for competitive public school system.
• 8. NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE.
• 9. We want infrastructure investment. But we are broke. Cut spending & allocate a yearly fund for countrywide infrastructure development. (Water,Sewer,Rail, Roads & Bridges.)
• 10. Healthcare is big. Repeal the New Healthcare law, Make all person eligible for Health Savings Accounts. Give tax credits for ALL Medical expenses.
• 11. Investments in energy (Gas, Oil, Renewable Energy's, ect.)
• 12. Repeal & cut back on bad & job killing regulations.
• 13. An end to the Military Industrial Complex.
• 14. Loophole Free Campaign Finance Reform NOW.
- • End Corporate Personhood:
"This "Corporate Personhood" that has crept into our laws is allowing them to manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American (the recent "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is a miscarriage of justice and must be reversed. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process." ~ LSN45
- Return to a Gold Standard & Legalize Gold & Silver as tender as the constitution states.
Please feel free to add your REASONABLE Demand idea's, and hate on me for mine. :P
Another deluded Ron Paul fan boy. This guy should be in a mental hospital.
RonPaul on the Issues: These are right off the issues pages of his website, so don't bother arguing them with me. Also note that there is NOTHING on his website about ending wars, ending the military industrial complex, campaign finance reform, etc.
Total free market capitalism.
Free market health care.
Repeal Roe v. Wade.
Eliminate capital gains and estate taxes.
Eliminate the EPA.
Repeal ban on assault weapons.
Undermine UN arms control efforts.
Go to his website and read it for yourself.
I don't think there is a ban on assault weapons anymore.
Tell that to the RP.
[Removed]
To get a better sense of his positions you have to listen to his speeches and debates, the website isn't really the best. I don't know if that's because he needs a better web strategy or he doesn't want to spook hawkish republicans more than he already has.
You can see his position on war in the debates, even his body language makes is clear he means what he says.
Why can't the opposite of that hold true? That what is on his web site is what he believes and what he tells the uninformed is a strategy.
Take a look at the debates and judge for yourself.
He could very well be a complete liar like Obama, last election taught me you never really can tell what they'll do until they get elected; but Paul does seem sincere and he has been saying the same thing for a long long time.
... and lol, I get four dislikes for making a reasonable non-Obama statement. I can't wait until Obama gets a fourth term, Iran gets invaded, America goes bankrupt, and people start getting whisked away to Gitmo via the NDAA... well that's not true, but at least I'll have the satisfaction of saying I told you so.
anyone who did their own research ( 0bama was the media's candidate) would not have no been surprsed by what 0bama has done and is doing. ron pauls foreign policy is dangerously naive. it won't take a 4th term, right now the debt and the GDP are the same and 0bama want to raise the debt ceiling another trillion.
Everytime I hear the name Paul, I either want to throw up or eat fish sticks.
I prefer the Gorton fisherman myself
http://gortons.com/fishermans_log.php
They all taste the same if you use enough ketchup. Lol.
Eeek no Ketchup for me, you can have mine ;)
No ketchup ! That's like eating raw fish.
Never liked Ketchup, but my siblings would drown spaghetti and scrambled eggs with the stuff. Perhaps that is where my phobia of Ketchup began. Oh the horror!!!!
Dear Mr. Paul - go back where you came from
Is the author of the Ron Paul newsletter :)
The controversy surrounding the closing of many post offices in the US illustrates a problem unique to the US. Because you are the most powerful and wealthy country in the world the option of using successful examples of operation in other countries is not available. You must re-invent the US wheel.
Australia Post has faced the same threat to profitability due to greater use of electronic communication and yet it has thrived. 2007/8 profit was $600M from earnings of $5B. Since the US has about 15 times the population, this is equivalent to a profit of $9B on earnings of $75B for the US (the Australian and US dollars are roughly equal). The list of new activities listed on their website (auspost.com.au) includes – air courier, land courier, air freight, warehousing, joint ventures with China Post, Qantas and so on - as well as delivering letters and parcels. Australia Post is a Government Business Enterprise. The success of AP allows the continued operation of many small post offices around Australia which are often the life-blood of their communities.
Why has something similar not been possible in the US? Economist David Korten argues that the corporate dominated political process, the corporate controlled media and the spread of consumerism have produced less democracy, greater inequality, environmental deterioration and the decline of community. The contraction of the US Post no doubt offers business opportunities for corporations who contribute generously to major political parties. Such corporations could easily characterize Australia Post’s type of operation as a form of socialism and thus un-American.
OWS makes no demands on this system. It has no demands of this system. It wants nothing of this system excepting to replace it completely, lock, stock and barrel.
Do you speak for OWS? Officially?
I only ask because there are MANY in OWS that want to reform the system and know that replacing it entirely is neither possible nor desirable.
Of course all OWS activists speak only for themselves. I have generally not tried to argue a line or a particular perspective here, though I do have a point of view. Most of what I write is based not on my own thinking but on conversations I've had at various occupations with OWS activists and especially with the very few written statements to come out of the movement.
If you just look at the home page of this web site the hard copy on the site says that the revolution continues world wide. It also says that we don't need Wall Street or politicians to build a better world. These are not my formulations but are in the hard copy of this very web site.
I'll admit that many OWS activists have only vague notions of what it means to be revolutionary. Some see it as hyperbole. Some are amused by it. Others are embarrassed by it. But there it is, out there in hard copy. I've participated in half a dozen different GAs in half a dozen different occupations. In every single instance I was struck by they radical content of the formulations people put forward. It is true that there are both liberal and politically undeveloped tendencies in the movement that try to counter this radicalism, but so far, even though they are probably a numerical majority, they have yet to be successful in recasting OWS in a more reformist direction. Again, these are only my perceptions as someone who has actively participated in several different GAs on many different occasions. Somebody else may well have a different perception and that would be well worth discussing.
In terms of participants on this site, leaving aside the half who are clearly hostile to OWS, even most of the people on this site who claim to be sympathetic to OWS in most instances have never been to an occupation or even a GA and therefore are not really in a position to speak with much authority regarding what OWS is all about.
Thank you for clarifying that.
That said, I think if it was widely disseminated that OWS is for a complete replacement of representative democracy, it would cease to exist for lack of support.
I understand that there have been elements within OWS that are more radicalized, but if they gain the upper hand, it is finished. Hubris and popular movements don't mesh.
That would sadden me no end.
The OWS position on direct democracy is widely disseminated as is its position on revolution or the fact that its initiators are widely influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. All this is a matter of public record and not particularly hidden. For example, as I pointed out The home page of this very web site calls for world revolution and is totally dismissive of both Wall Street and all politicians. It's right there in black and white. People, including erstwhile supporters, simply choose to ignore this. It is much harder to ignore if you actually participate in an occupation or a GA, but it is also much less threatening when you see these ideas literally peddled in the flesh in a context where you can discuss and debate them on a face to face level with their advocates.
It is not simply a matter that there are "some" elements in OWS are "more radicalized." The fact is virtually all the initiators of the movement are either anarchists or strongly influenced by the anarchist tradition. By no means at this point do they form a majority of OWS activists, but they are the most politicially coherent tendency within the movement. I've been to half a dozen occupations and virtually all the talk at those occupations and their related GAs was of revolution. Even people who were skeptical of such rhetoric often found themselves employing it because it is the coin of the realm.
Nor is it a matter that if the radicals gain the upper hand the movement is finished. Quite the contrary. They have had the upper hand since the inception of the movement and they have never lost it. I am not red baiting when I say this. First of all the radicals in OWS are really quite open about their views for anyone who cares to listen. Secondly, while there are major issues about which I disagree with OWS I consider myself not only a loyal OWS activist, but also part of its radical wing.
With regard to hubris. I have been involved in social movements for nearly 50 years. OWS is the least ego driven movement I have ever encountered. If anything the radicals are considerably less ego driven than are the liberals or those without a defined set of politics. Again, these are my personal observations, but I have shared them with several other OWS activists all of whom share my general conclusions. And again, there are very few official OWS positions and certainly an evaluation of political tendencies within the movement is not one of them.
I didn't mean personal ego driven hubris, but policy hubris, collectively.
It is beyond any reasonable expectation that this country, in its current state, will overturn its Constitution or principles. Is will not become an anarcho/syndichist state. If that is the goal of this movement, it is entirely lost. Despite what you may believe, most of this country does not believe the rhetoric of revolution is anything more than that: rhetoric. That language has a long history (as you well know) in reform movements of all stripes.
From my understanding, the anarchism of the leadership has been very effective in terms of structure and creating an evolving direction with input from everyone participating. It is a very smart approach. But if it is a core value of the movement itself, it will implode. And, from my understanding, there has always existed, also from the very beginning, a reformist, rather than all out revolutionary, group of leaders. I have read some indications of a coming "showdown" (forgive the cowboy imagery)between these two factions. they may be coexisting now, but I don;t believe (nor hope) that will be the case going forward.
If the Anarchists wind up essentially expelling the reformers, I believe we could see a re-enactment of the Paris Commune. It will look great to those inside it, but will eventually be torn to shreds by the surrounding society.
Most supporters, if not actually GA leaders, of OWS across the country do so because of a hunger to reform, not a willingness to end representative democracy. They want to improve, not destroy the current system. The hubris I refer to within the movement is an apparent conviction (if I am reading you correctly) that internal revolutionary ideas will win over, not only the staunch resisters of change, but its more moderate supporters. The hubris is in not recognizing who and what the American people really want, and substituting instead an internal, movement-centric reality in place of the larger one.
Some people who consider themselves revolutionaries are not very politically sophisticated. Others are. Most of the radicals of OWS are of the latter variety, which explains their success. Just because one is a revolutionary does not mean that one has unrealistic expectations. Most radicals are fully cognizant of the fact that not only do most Americans not consider themselves radical, but we are also not in a revolutionary period. A revolution is extremely unlikely in this period.
Indeed, much of the leadership of virtually all of the social movements that ever existed in the United States (or anywhere for that matter) were considerably more radical than the masses they led. This is no less true of OWS than it has been for any other social movement.
Very early on (literally with days of its inception) OWS began to build a very successful alliance with organized labor. Nobody has a politics further removed from anarchism than a labor bureaucrat. Yet OWS has built the first successful alliance between organized labor and the radical intelligencia that has existed in this nation since the 1940s. They did this as an act of solidarity. They made no demands on the labor movement. They did not demand that it change its politics or its structure. Nor did they compromise their own views in any way. They simply reached out and acted in solidarity though acts of nonviolent direct action.
This ultimately is what inspired countless people to identify with OWS--it's creative use of nonviolent direct action. And this is also the point of contact between the radical initiators of the movement and the masses it calls upon to organize themselves.
There are all kinds of predictions regarding what will happen to the movement. I personally have been active in social movements for nearly 50 years and I'm extremely hesitant to predict what exactly will happen to it. It surpirzes me every day.
Liberals and many people who were politically unformed began to join and identify with the movement very early on, but I would not say from the inception as the planning stages preceded September 17 by several weeks. However, they have not been especially effective as a tendency and tend to argue among themselves about the road forward. Meanwhile the more radical elements continue their outreach and direct action approach, usually with astonishing success.
The very horizontal structure of GAs tends to mute confrontations. In addition, the more moderate activists tend to argue among themselves. From the beginning the OWS approach has been that if you have a good idea, run with it. Find other people who agree with you and try to implement that idea. That too has been at the heart of OWS success so far. People who want to change the existing structures of OWS are spending more time with that kind of internal struggle than they are actually going out and organizing people, which is a real irony. That is, the people who say that OWS will fail if it doesn't change course aren't doing much organizing and the very people who they accuse of destroying OWS are the people doing the organizing.
There is no thought of anyone expelling anyone from OWS. There is a discussion of values, strategy and tactics. The fact is OWS began as an act of nonviolent direct action. Nonviolent direct action has been at the heart of OWS strategy and tactics since the beginning. Nonviolent direct action is at the core of OWS success and nonviolent direct action is something that everyone can agree on regardless of their politics.
Images like the Paris Commune are pure hyperbole. For one thing OWS is a tiny tiny movement not comparable to a genuine mass revolutionary movement like the Commune. It is even smaller than virtually any other historical social movement in the US that one would care to compare it to. It has inspired people because it has stood up to the status quo and to the horrible disparities of wealth and poverty in this nation. Years ago I heard mainstream news commentators remark that given the situation they did no understand why people were not in the streets protesting Well, OWS put people in the streets, which is why it inspired people and at the heart of its success.
Ultimately a fight over ideology will be destructive to OWS. While the initiators of OWS are clearly inspired by a particular ideological tradition, OWS is not about ideology. It is a protest about the status quo. Back when I was in SDS we had a formulation that said we needed liberals for their relevance and radicals for their vision. I believe the same is true today. If an organized group of OWS activists are uncomfortable with the existing rhetoric of OWS the best way they can gain more influence in OWS is to show themselves to be better organizers, which so far has not been the case.
Slashing the corporate tax doesn't sound like an OWS idea to me. You want us to allow corporations to have lower tax rates than other countries. . . Why? Do you also want us to eliminate child labor laws because we have some of the most strict child labor laws? Why would you compare America to the rest of the world regarding taxes? And why would you want to allow corporations to repatriate their cash without a penalty. Giving in to corporations yet again is not the direction this country needs to go in. America needs to tell corporations here and abroad that we do not need them. Our economy was not created by these corporations, these corporations were created because of our economy and we, as a nation should be willing to let go of them when they show NO LOYALTY to the country in which they claim residence. I know this sounds difficult, but so too does trudging along in our current situation. The difference is that one way, we fix things, the other way, we placate those who have and continue to do harm to our nation and this democracy. And besides that, you propose eliminating the federal reserve, which I am okay with, but this sounds like an even harder task than demanding payment and loyalty from corporations, so why would you fold on one and demand the other? The only other questionable one is returning to the gold standard. Who has Gold, so what value can it have to anyone who doesn't possess it. Gold is a bubble that is currently bursting, so how can it be the safe harbor that everyone says it is? I'm not knocking any of your ideas, I just think those I've discussed need more fleshing out and consideration.
One big demand that I feel is missing however deals with education: As badly as we need investment in our infrastructure for the near-term, we need investment in out education system in the future. Whether or not, this requires the NEA is something to consider, because ultimately, it might be better handled at the state level, but I believe their should be a national standard that should be set and met (not talking about testing here) to provide students with the tools necessary to challenge the rest of the world for intellectual supremacy. We need better educated citizens, not solely for the purpose of being on the cutting edge of technology, but because a better educated citizen makes for a more educated voter, which is desperately needed in the U.S. these days.
When you think about slashing the Corporate Tax. All you think is, OH, The Big Wall-Street Company's will get more money, but slashing that tax will benefit everyone. I think about main street business when I think about slashing that tax.
No it won't. The proof is in the fact that when taxes have been lower throughout American history, this country has done worse. When taxes are higher the country has done better. The reason is this: When taxed at higher rates, the rich, including corporations re-invest their money, because it keeps their taxes down and this re-investment is better than giving it to the government. When taxes are lower, as we've seen during the Bush Era taxes, the wealthy horde their money, because it is cheaper to keep it and they know that these tax cut might not be forever, so they take advantage of it while they can. This is similar to the reason why so many corporations will take advantage of the repatriation tax break: The government has told them that they can bring their money back into the United States and only be taxed at 5%, instead of 35%, so they're doing just that. And do you think that corporations that have been keeping their money offshore are really going use that money to bolster our country? No, if that was their intention, they would have never put it in foreign accounts in the first place and received tax breaks and in some cases tax refunds (credits) that come out of the American Taxpayer's pocket while making record profits. Here, I've attached a link to a story about these tax breaks.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist
ANYTHING is better than giving it to the government. Raise corp taxes to 90% no loopholes, and watch the # of paychecks and the $$$ in paychecks SOAR! The rich will want EVERYONE employed so they can make their 10%. 10% of 10 billion is better than 10% of 5 billion.
Agreed. That is the fallacy that the right try to push on people. They try to make people believe that these corporations are just going to leave America and have nothing to do with it if their taxes are raised. 10% of 10 billion is better than 10% of 5 billion, but it's also better than you and I make, so I do believe that the wealthy would still take that money. On the loopholes, I feel that they are necessary to give the wealthy an incentive to create jobs, because if the loophole is that they get tax breaks when investing their profits as opposed to pocketing their profits, as low taxes allow, they will invest that money. Look at it like this: My company makes a $100 million dollars in profit. I can either pay 90% of that $100 million ($90 million) to the government or I could invest that money and keep more of that 90%, let's say I invest 85% of my profit in some companies or whatever the maximum deduction allowed is. That means that although that money is not liquid, it is still reflected in my bottom line. Instead of paying out 90%, I've only paid out 30% and kept 70% of my profit in the form of investments, which could have been investments that created jobs.
and thats exactly how it worked back when we had high tax rates in this country, of course we also had high savings rates, high cd rates, high mortgage rates (all good for the economy)
If only those who oppose raising taxes on the rich could see it this way. It's so disheartening to read some of the opinions that I read hear. It seems that people have been brainwashed to vote against their own interests. I just don't understand how they can get behind the words of the millionaires in our government, especially when those voices are saying that they are going to eliminate Social Security and Medicare, one of which brought so many of the elderly out of poverty and helped them through the economic collapse and the other that stands as the only form of healthcare for so many elderly.
Chomsky on list of demands:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se-Nq_rBQHk
I agree with the original post. I would add, vote out ALL incumbents.
What have the Romans ever done for us
What do you mean theres nothing on his page about ending the war, its the 2nd video down, he says, we have no business bombing these people, in illegal wars, that require an act of congress, and contests our going into afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and soon syria, and iran. its the 2nd video down.
[Removed]
I applaud you on trying to write a list of demands although I dont agree with some of your points. I don't think we should stop all military intervention although we could reduce and make better use of our military resources.
You propose eliminating the tax code, but what are you suggesting to replace it? Investment in energy, but where is that money coming from? Balance the budget, but how? Repeal and cut bad job killing regulations but which? You left a lot of questions unanswered.
I partially agree about student loans. We need to tackle education costs, not to keep raising grants and loans to unsustainable levels. I completely agree about NDAA and all similar bills that threaten our liberty.
iRevolution,
Nice list. Let me suggest one that you could add - Real, Loop-Hole Free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I personally see it as more important than all of the other ones you have listed for the sole reason that this reform, if achieved, will be the very vehicle through which all of the reforms you have listed can be achieved. Unless we fix our current campaign laws, the only people that will ever be in office are those who are bought and paid for by the corporations and special interests, and they are going to do everything they can to prevent most of the reforms you have listed from happening. Sorry it is so long, but here's my 2 cents:
There are a lot of improvements that need to be made. The list reforms Americans want to see is long and varied depending on who you talk to. That said, I believe there is one reform that would provide the American people the best chances of seeing other meaningful reforms actually happen - that is REAL, loop-hope free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! I have seen others on this site calling this the "fulcrum" or pivotal issue. Right now the current legalized bribery, pay-to-play system of campaign donations and paid lobbyists has disenfranchised the American voter. Until this is fixed, any other reform the politicians may try to placate us with (be it a change to healthcare, clamping down predatory school loans, new financial regulations, etc.) will be about as effective as a farmer putting a new roof on his CHICKEN COOP, but still letting the FOX guard it.
We need to go back to the original political currency. Instead of the current system of who can collect the most money from corporations and special interests it should be who has the BEST IDEAS to EFFECTIVELY RUN THE COUNTRY (we don't need "Wealth Redistribution," what we need is "Political Influence Redistribution")!
For the sake of our children and future generations of Americans, we need to take back our democracy from the rich and powerful who are using their vast sums of money to "speak" as if they represent millions of Americans. This "Corporate Personhood" that has crept into our laws is allowing them to manipulating our policies in their favor at the expense of the average American (the recent "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling is a miscarriage of justice and must be reversed. The $50 or $100 a normal American may give to a political campaign becomes meaningless when corporations or other special interests are handing our millions to buy political access to the decision making process.
For decades now the corporations and special interests have had our "representatives" bought and paid for (both on the right and the left). Concentrating our efforts on getting the money out of our politics is the best way we can create an environment in which further reforms can be realized. Until we end the current system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) and paid lobbying our politicians will continue to be the LAP DOGS of the corporations and special interests. What we need first and foremost is real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!! If the corruption is not dealt with first, the chance of any other meaningful reforms becoming a reality is almost zero - the special interests will just use their money to buy votes and put forward bills that create loop-holes or otherwise twist the law in their favor. If we want our children to live in a country where there vote matters, we need to get the money out of our politics, otherwise they will increasingly become the 21st century version of the "landless peasant." Spread the word - End the LEGALIZED BRIBERY!!! CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM needs to be THE main goal of the protests!!!
Excellent, thank you for your post, This is great, I'll start editing the list with all good suggestions. This is great.
I thought you would like it. I can tell you have been giving your list some serious thought.
I added your ideas to the list... =D
I disagree with 2 on your first list. We cannot abandon our foreign bases. Now we can reduce them and get rid of the ones in Germany. But we cannot remove troops from the Korean border. Those soldier need to stay there unfortunately but we are really the only thing between North and South Korea. Also people cannot opt out of SS or Healthcare for it work everyone needs to pay. That's just the way it works.
Can't argue with anything except #13. what does that mean?
"The Military Industrial Complex. is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and beneficial legislation and oversight of the industry."
This relationship is what many times drives us to go the war. For the profit of the Military Industrial Complex. War is very profitable for a alot of people, this is why our government wants to go into Iran so much.
your first few sound similar to the 99 percent document, and I support as a concept, except you added end war on drugs...good! The 99 doc seems more legally written.
then you have these....Eliminate The Savings Tax, Income Tax, Payroll Tax, Capitols Gains. Slash the Corporate Tax (We have one among the highest in the world.) to the 10-15% area. 0 Percent tax on those who want to repatriate capitol into the country. Lower the Dividends Tax. Eliminate The Death Tax.
and I am curious what, if any tax, you would implement.
For the people who opt out, and they don't plan ahead, without social security, they may have little or nothing, and be dependent on their children. My grandma is 100 and still going. Her pension was $25 for working in a cannery dollars a month. without my grandpa's social security (around $1000) he had like a $50 pension with Alcoa, (and she rents the old farm place and her in-town place) she would have been a big burden on my parents, and they are already doing all they can to take care of her physically. What would happen to people who opt out of the safety net? Tax Credit for health expense...won't that drive up cost, like your school/college analogy?
This list was drive by & was not ment for official purposes just sharing & brain storming.
About opting out of the system. That's completely up to you. In a truly free society people should take responsibility for themselves. People should do whatever they want to do. This does not mean in callous & unfeeling & don't care about people, This just means I want people to be free to make there own choices, And save & invest the way they would like. When you opt out this also means you don't have to pay the TAX's for these programs aswell.
If you downsize government, the thing is, YOU DON'T NEED ANY OF THESE TAX's. If government is small, people have more of there money, there is more money in the economy to be invested & help develop the country, big government just malinvests & waists funds.
Tax credits & giving people money back never raising costs, it's simply government intervention that drives up costs & quality down.
when i was younger i maybe would have opted out, if i could keep the money, and just spent it. now i look forward to getting back what i paid in (in 20 years still to wait). a few years ago my company said we could stay in a defined benefit package, with a set retirement, or opt in to a more choice-like package, where I would choose where to invest that money, how much, etc. I stayed with my traditional set-benefit plan which, I think, is doing much better. I have been putting what little I could into a separate 503b since 1993 (only $30 a month, but better than nothing) and that money has not really increased. I was always told, put your money in savings/stock market, but I haven't seen any growth over time. Anyway, don't buy stocks, unless you can afford to loose it, is my dad's new motto, although he did well, at one point, it seems a huge roller coaster, and depending when you retire, you may not have done as well as you were hoping. So i think it is nice to have a safety net. In mexico where my in-laws are, they have little net. so they must scramble for medical care, and keep working till death.
Imagine a country where there was no income Tax, Payroll, Savings tax. You could provide for yourself with ease.
The point of opting out is in the long run we eliminate these programs, we want to take care of the people who have become dependent, BUT, we can only do that if we live within our means as a country.
I think these programs are a great detriment to a society, I think we would be much more prosperous without them, We could use the trillion we spend on them to reinvest back into the country threw all kinds of development.
mexico doesn't have "all these programs", and that doesn't mean they are necessarily reinvesting all the money back into the country's education or infrastructure, So if you can do ok in that system, (I like it but I always will need to take enough money into it to be able to get by, cause it may be a rough go you have no one to turn to. At least in Mexico, they have family, the church, and the pueblo, where everyone knows everyone, but you have a lot of really needy people, begging in the street. Is that what you want the USA to be?)
Mexico is not a good example to use here. China would be. We developed the greatest countrywide wealth in history, Mexico's economy isn't anywhere near the size of our own. They don't have the wealth to reinvest the way I'm talking. We could create alot more jobs & have alot less debt without there programs, there a great detriment to society. These programs don't help people create wealth at all, they hurt us more than anything. But I want to take care of the people who have become dependent.
Back to my China example. If China had the welfare programs we had, imagine it. They have over a billion people, it would cost them much more than it does for us, they would be running deficits & have to borrow the money, there people would not be as motivated.
But they don't have these type of programs, As a result, they have high account balances, they can invest billions in there infrastructure & education, make the investment environment great & ripe to take in the jobs America is exporting. Were broke, we can't invest more in education & infrastructure & technology, ect. Our unfunded obligations for these programs are over 50 trillion dollars, were going to kill future generations, Which is why I offer to cut in order to take care of the people who have become dependent, but let the young people opt out of the system & even reward them for it with tax credits. Eventually we will have a society where we don't need these programs.
Don't confuse this for me not being compassionate towards people, I'm the most compassionate person. But 50 million people on food stamps is not good at all, not because we don't want people to have food in there belly, but because that is not a good sign of a healthy country that 50 million people need major help feeding there family's. We need to make some major changes to help people build real wealth, and that starts with monetary policy, we are obliterating the dollar & poor people are paying higher prices & as a result there cost of living is off the charts, they need major assistance from the government. We restore sound money, Don't tax on savings, don't tax on income or profits, and provide opportunity threw education investment in our community's, we will create a country where we won't need these programs.
No downsizing the Postal Service
No KeyStone Pipeline
two step approach to the issue of national debt:
short term: end bushite tax breaks and corporate welfare
end debate over entitlements I'm sick of hearing about it as if it were dirty. Forget privatization of social security and just shoot the next bastard who suggests otherwise [speaking for myself of course.]
public health care - forget the option part.
We need an energy policy uninfluenced by fossil fuel industry, one that takes into account the fact of global warming, and institutes a NASA like approach to solving both our need for energy and the need to reduce atmospheric carbon
No to internet censorship in any form
If they engaged in fraud - they see the judge, and the sentencing better be in line with the crime, and had better include serious restitution
End the foreclosures.
End the philosophy of a deregulated economic system - from the Universities to the policy makers
End corporate personhood
campaign finance reform - Sanders Amendment:
Sanders Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
Sanders Petition here:
Full amendment PDF:
end the two party political system
quit fucking around with the issue of terrorism - it's a crime, unless you happen to catch them on an actual battlefield - and if it is a crime, treat them in accordance with our criminal laws. No more indefinite detention
Close Gitmo - we've got large pens practically empty in the mid west. I'm sure they can handle it. Stop fucking around.
Amended: I would like to see energy production, telecommunications, and the economic infrastructure, all secured in public, rather than private, hands.
Amended: we need to provide stiff and compelling sanction to corporations that engage in disinformation - as with the tobacco industry before and the fossil fuel industry now [and for the past 10-20 years]
What is wrong with downsizing the postal service? There is less of a need for it. I get all my bills, statements, payments, etc, electronically now and millions of others do the same. It is only common sense that the postal service should be subsequently downsized.
And when you mention "public health care - forget the option part, " what exactly does that mean. That all health care is publicly paid for? What about things that are purely elective. I am a dentist and probably 50% of what I do is elective/cosmetic. Shouldn't people have to pay for those things themselves?
I addressed this elsewhere - it is a venerable institution, one that in small towns becomes a central part of the social fabric.
Some years ago Congress mandated that the Postal Service pay out as a set aside, money to provide for future retirement benefits for their employees - and apparently there has been an overpayment. Estimates range from 6 to 60 BILLION dollars.
How much of the lost revenue that the Postal Service has witnessed recently is due to changing consumer habits, as you have described, and how much to the recession, and how much may return once the recession passes, are all unknown.
What is known is that there exists among repelican policy makers a propensity for the privatization of every single function of government - and this includes portions of the military.
As if somehow this is cheaper.
It never is.
the lying bastards
.
On the issue of public health care - elective procedures - insurance companies aren't paying for them now, so why would the public option cover them. If someone wants them, who is to deny these services - provided they are legitimate medical services, and not some form of butchery sold to the patient on some pretext.
I would downsize the postal office. I feel that times are changing and it's just not economically feasible anymore. Plus the privatization of many things the government does right now would in fact be cheaper. Not all but a private company has to make a profit therefore they must provide the best service for the least amount of money, which is different with the government which does not have make a profit so they can provide an O.K. service while using a lot of money making them costlier. The fact is the government is very inefficient while the private industry has to be efficient.
private industry will not serve rural areas cheaper than the post office - and if you think they will you should look at rural telecommunications services for an eye opener.
Senator Sanders and Congressman Welch are both on the case - I think Senator Leahy is as well. Bet you can find more info on their websites.
and I really don't care how you feel about the times - the fact is this is not the time to be reducing jobs when we are creating so few.
It's also not the time to be wasting money when we do not have that much to waste.
the USPS is entirely funded by sales of its services.
No it is not. It is subsidized by the government.
The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.
According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.
In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.
...
The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.
Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order make up for the increased use of email.
First off, I do disagree about a "Deregulated Philosophy." I don't want to drop all regulation, I want to drop unnecessary regulations. There are regulation penalizing people for hiring to many people. THOSE are the type of regulation that are killing us.
In a free society people should be able to choose what they eat, drink, smoke & do to there own body. So they should also decide what the buy & what programs they participate in, Allow options & let people choose.
END THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM NOW.
I agree the process of regulation is a mess. What is interesting is that usually when repelicans talk of deregulation, they mean things like Glass-Steagall.
As far as letting people decide what to eat, drink, and so on, the production, processing, packaging, of food should be regulated to prevent contaminated product from entering the market.
Republicans sometimes just want to drop to many regulations, like as you used, Glass-Steagal, but that's because they are trying to help out there buddy's on Wall Street, you know. But De-Unnecessary-Regulation, Is important.
I AGREE 100%. "As far as letting people decide what to eat, drink, and so on, the production, processing, packaging, of food should be regulated to prevent contaminated product from entering the market"
That's the key. But this is the danger & what you must stay away from, when the government embarks on protecting the people from themselves, your going down a dangerous road.
We don't want to take away people's right "To drink raw milk anytime they want to."
I live in Vermont, I should be more sympathetic to the issue of raw milk as an option. It might be one solution to the way the current market system is a serious disadvantage to small farms.
But honestly I don't want to drink raw milk. Not unless I clean the cow and milk it myself.
It's more of a sign or an analogy. Drinking raw milk as in, doing anything you want to yourself, as long as it's not hurting others.
this is an interesting issue - one that is generally difficult in practical application no matter which side of it you approach it from.
in the matter of any specific addiction, it is impossible to confront the addict and force them to stop - they must want to stop. Therefore it is seen that those who do love them, must love the addict enough to allow the addict to learn, through pain, what ever it is they must learn. Not all of them do, many die of their addiction.
And yet it is seen, that this pattern of behavior does hurt those that love the addict. And so it is not true, as the addict will claim, that they are hurting no one.
It is said gambling is an addiction.
It is also said that science has established a distinct correlation between gambling, and betting on the stock market.
Just thinking out loud. The statement:
kind of got me started. I'll stop now.
Is The Stock Market Not a gamble? In all essence it is. But people want to make gambling illegal? And I don't even gamble...
I'm not real clear on what the research was based on.
But clearly, when Goldman packaged mortgage derivatives and resold them as if they were triple A investments, and then bet against them with AIG, that was fraud.
None of the rating agencies picked up on it - though they apparently were aware the investments were worthless.
We've got futures speculation driving up the price of necessities, like food and fuel, there are estimates that the actual cost of production per barrel runs between $25-28, and speculation takes up much of the rest of the current price.
And now there are computers placing bets in milliseconds.
This is insane. And it is not contributing to the human race in the least.
They were packaging these bad mortgages & selling the all over the world, As AAA mortgages. If they went bad, the buyer was stuck with the hot potato. Speculation is whats driving the market now. We need a sound financial market.
I agree - business investment is one thing - but what we have now is something so totally out of control that I think people are actually afraid to do anything about it for fear of collapse.
I say if it's too big to fail - we better break it. One way, or the other.
Agreed. As long as we have anybody to big to fail, we are gonna have problem.
Let them fail, let them go bankrupt, take responsibility for there mistakes, don't go into trillions of debt for the benefit of a few...
I think that when Leman Bros failed it woke a lot of repelicans up - and a realization occurred at the policy making level that letting them fail wasn't a practical option from an economical standpoint.
The Market was shedding points like crazy.
Amen.
I'm guessing you're a democrat huh?
Jesus zendog, Sanders Amendment?!?
Do you find it funny he wants to end so many breaks for corporations, yet he has been entirely bank rolled by unions? Is he also proposing an amendment to stop unions from contributing to politicians?
Why don't you want to move to Russia?
Please, it isn't Jesus ZenDog, it's just ZenDog.
I know it has been suggested that I do actually walk on water, but it just isn't true. I always get wet.
I don't think there is anything funny about ending corporate welfare at all. I'm sure the Senator is quite serious, and is not in the least considering startup companies as a part of his attack on corporate welfare.
Biden cornered the oil industry when they appeared before the Senate in 2007 I think - and they admitted that they didn't need the tax breaks they are getting. Yet they are still getting them.
I think that's a problem. You don't think that's a problem?
We've got national debt climbing into record setting territory. And the only solution to that is . . . cut medicaid?
And I don't want to move to Russia - I was born here. I have family ties to this land that go back generations.
If you want to curb campaign contributions by unions perhaps you should support the Senator and bring that issue to the table. I'm sure he is a reasonable man, one who will no doubt hear your concern.
And no, I'm not affiliated with any particular party.
That's the way to tell em. You should send em a link to your Presidential platform.
well . . .
but I don't think they would like my platform
and especially not my purge
Who knows what may wake someone up and let em smell the coffee. I think it is a novel platform that should get circulated anyway.
Nope actually sounds pretty good to me
Thanks.
Actually entirely spot on. You could be my twin.