Forum Post: A tea partier impression of your protest
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 11:22 p.m. EST by cap1
(65)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It appears, after reading several posts tonight, that perhaps a message beginning to form is that your movement is after removing leverage corporations provide to politicians. Leverage could be financial, future employment, whatever. If that is the case, I think there may be some legitimacy here. Others have mentioned issues with banks, which I am not so sure of. I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts are. Oh, and contrary to what you might think I'm the same age as many of you (I'm in my 20s).
This forum is crazy with folks whose main goal seems to be to polarize us. I'm glad to hear that you're able to see through the muck. At the same time, OWS' focus is also becoming more clear and specific. Our system has become corrupt. Politicians don't speak for 99% of Americans. We must take the money out of politics. We also need to take the division out of society. We've been more "you against me," when it should be "us against them." That's what I'm getting, anyway.
Thank you cap1 for having the courage to keep an open mind and think for yourself. Wish I was that together in my 20s!
OWS and the Tea Party share the common goal of ending the Federal Reserve. Aside from that...who knows...
I would agree with you. It's leverage that the most powerful have over politics that's the biggest problem and it's not just money.
The real problem is that the Supreme Courts in the U.S. have declared that, under the 14th Amendment, corporations have many of the same "rights" as people because they are defined as "persons" (albeit "artificial persons") and the 14th Amendment only mentions "persons". They've also declared money to be "speech".
Basically, we need a constitutional amendment to declare that the 14th amendment only applies to "natural persons", not "artificial persons" and that money is not speech.
This would give us the power to pass laws that restrict the power of corporations and the wealthy to excessively influence our political system. If we don't do that, then anything we do will be circumvented because they will still have the power. If we outlaw monetary contributions, they will transfer land or favors or whatever. I can't even think of all the ways they would invent to get around the system because my mind doesn't work like that.
What's perfect about focusing on the leverage issue is that it is not ideological. Business shouldn't own politicians. Unions shouldn't own politicians. Politicians only influence should be from the good folks they represent and, more importantly, the good of this great country. This is a fundemental issue for a country that holds itself up as the shining beacon of democracy.
It is something that both Republicans and Democrats and everyone in between can get behind. A simple idea with mass appeal is the best thing this movement can do.
Get out and keep making that point. Its fundemental to solving many of our problems. Its easy to say. Easy to understand. Its a relatively simple to implement (compared to completely restructuring government, eliminating money etc). And its something that everyone should be able to agree on.
Word.
The smart ones here agree with you.
The dumb ones are running around saying people should boycott, demanding equal pay for work that adds no value, and screaming about the EEEEEVVILLLL bankers that only did what the government demanded that they do.
It's funny to see people crying about how the evil bankers took advantage of people. In fact, the government basically told them that they HAD to give out loans to people that couldn't afford them. Being businesses that make money off risk, they took steps to minimize that risk while profiting off the risk at the same time. It's what anybody would do in their situation.
I'm not saying that it was okay for them to defraud others about how much risk was involved in purchasing the risky debt, but if somebody's not asking, why would you tell?
I hope that's what we decide as our single cause. Let's just focus on one for now, and get to other things later.
Thanks, cap1, for the open mind.
Here is a C&P of something I've posted on another thread. I would love to hear any contributing thoughts, negative or positive.
We don't all want to replace the system. I don't want to replace the system. I absolutely love my country and have no doubt that I am blessed to have been born here and to live here. But 150 years of time passing has revealed the weak spots of our government, particularly as a player in this increasingly globalized arena. So there are certain changes I'd like to see. An important one, in my opinion, is the way our representatives campaign for election, as well as the way they are paid. I think between Congress and the House (not to mention all the other various government officials) we should have fewer officials. These fewer officials would be paid differently however, with their pay continuing even after leaving office. There should also be rules regarding any acceptance of money from any source other than their paycheck, as well as rules regarding where these people can continue work once they leave off.
^Very vague ideas; all kinds of problems with that, but maybe the core concept could be expanded upon.
Expanding thoughts: Once a person becomes an elected government representative, be it a House rep, a senator, the President, it should be similar to signing up for the military. They are now ours for a period of say... 20 years. They may not always serve at the same post, but they are always a paid government official serving under specific rules. For example, let's say the President serves two terms (8 years). Let's also say the President was a senator for 6 years before that. When he leaves office, he will still have six years remaining as a public official and is not allowed to go to work for any corporation or receive any money from them. He will continue to receive a government paycheck, paid by our tax dollars.
I think that would be very hard to implement as it would essentially ensure the only employment you could receive would be for the federal government. What happens when the government needs to downsize? Many people would not have jobs for a long period of time. Also, I'm not sure working for the government should demand a decade or two of your time. That's a major investment, essentially declaring you plan on making your career a politician or a bureaucrat, which I would not agree with.
I really think this movement can go somewhere if it doesn't have goals which contradict the tea party goals. Once you find the two movements are mutually exclusive, then you'll probably start getting power from the tea party movement as well (which is not insignificant). Claiming federal workers should remain there for 20 years would run counter what TP people believe, which is limited government.
Personally I'd like to see pubic funding of elections so there is no corporate or union donations to campaigns.