Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 10 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 1:38 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by zarathustra (18) from Orrington, ME 10 years ago
  1. Executive members of the financial sector may not run for or be appointed to public office in any capacity other than trasparent advisory which in no way may generate a wage from tax payers or corperations. Advisory roles are only that - advisory.
[-] 1 points by a2z (4) 10 years ago

And that would have kept us safe from who? Nixon? Reagan? Bush? Bush? Jimmy Carter? Herbert Hoover?

[-] 1 points by zarathustra (18) from Orrington, ME 10 years ago

I think we would all agree that the electoral system needs a complete overhall as well! Simply put, it's the same club.

[-] 1 points by cos (1) from Cambridge, MA 10 years ago

IMO a Constitutional Amendment saying clearly that when the Constitution refers to a person or people it means actual people and not corporations, would be the #1 demand.

However, I also tend towards this view expressed by George Lakoff:

"I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.

It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it."

[-] 1 points by Freedom22 (1) 10 years ago

If you really want the corporations to change then stop giving them your $CHANGE$! The tables have been turned! If you really want the government to work for you, stop paying them until they do! Boycott all businesses that are not sustainable and that do not support the 99%. Some of the 1% will find the truth and join in purposeful and loving action, but many will not and they will be forgotten entirely as only love survives this revolution. The new economy and the new way of life in truth and love are the same. Lend support to that which you know in your heart is best for your fellow humans and the Earth. Forgive ALL debt now! Let Love (God) be your guide.

Please remember to Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love thy neighbor as thyself...we are already victorious...know this!

[-] 1 points by arcticranger (5) 10 years ago

I agree. These are concrete changes in corporate law that would accomplish a lot, including putting quite a few Americans back to work.

[-] 1 points by a2z (4) 10 years ago

RE: #1: There are plenty of valid reasons for subsidies to certain industries.

RE #2: You want to start pineapple and coffee farms in Kentucky?

[-] 1 points by mapj123 (2) 10 years ago

need two more ,do not let boards create retirement packages that would bankrupt company if removed from board . also call for continental congress to make laws that are not controlled by party politics ,and can be changed by public vote only .

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 10 years ago

If those demand met,they will be change it again yoyo affect

[-] 1 points by keestadoll (2) 10 years ago

All lovely, but slightly nit-picky. Why not simply two agenda items: 1) End the FED, and 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagal? If I'm not mistaken, doing both would go a long way towards what you are wanting to happen, otherwise it just seems like a round of class-envy-ism. Occupy the FED

[-] 1 points by gccms (1) 10 years ago

I will agree with 1 and 2. 3 should read "all corporate loopholes". 4 & 5 are our responsibility, don't invest in company's you don't like or agree with. We also have the power to correct the "Too big to fail" issue, please stop doing business with the "Too big to fail" company's!

[-] 1 points by gsimanson (1) 10 years ago

Excellent beginning. Corporations or banks, in and of themselves, are not bad. It is how many of them are being operated that is the problem. To constructively effect change shareholders and customers need a level playing field. The SEC tried and failed (due to a lawsuit by corporate special interests) to enact a rule requiring corporate transparency and the right of any shareholder with a meaningful ownership position to nominate a director on the same proxy as a company's slate of directors offered by the board. This level playing field needs to become law. Shareholders should not have to file lawsuits to gain shareholder lists and go through the time and expense of a proxy battle. A company should be required to include candidates nominated by shareholders and corporate governance practices (including compensation) in its annual proxy submitted by any legitimate shareholder owning over a certain percentage of stock.

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 10 years ago

these are better demands:

  1. free healthcare

  2. free education

  3. generous unemployment benefits

  4. guaranteed occupation for all

  5. comfortable salaries

[-] 1 points by keestadoll (2) 10 years ago

And the revenues needed for all that "free" stuff comes from where exactly? PS: we already have a free public education system k-12.

[-] 1 points by JodyBreeze31 (2) 10 years ago

Someone's life sucks...those are the most rediculous "demands" and completely miss what OWS is about. It's not about the have nots being given free stuff by people who have, but restructuring government to create greater equal oppurtunity for the general population.

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 10 years ago

it's all about fairness.......

it's only fair that we have the same comfortable lifestyle as the 1%

[-] -1 points by fwh (1) 10 years ago

How about these at least?


  Push for a constitutional amendment to end private money in campaigns. Money does not EQUAL FREE SPEECH. This is essentially would turn over the Citizens United case. THERE MUST BE FEDERALLY FINANCED CAMPAIGNS, WITH EQAUL AMOUNTS going to all candidates. That way, ideas win, not the guy with the most money.


  Reform the tax system. Have a simply progressive tax system, say with only 5 brackets like : Simply over 60 mil in income-80%, over 10 mil - 60%, over 1 mil - 30%, over 200K - 20%, over 40K - 5%. And no exceptions. Keep it simple, but tax the rich far more.


  Reverse the Taft Harley Act. Simply tell the American people to unionize and organize at thier workplaces regardless of the law!!!! Unions have to be a part of the solution to rebuild the middle class.


  Slash the military budget by 50-80%.


  Have a 500 million levy tax against any 1000 plus employee company that starts jobs overseas.


  Have all foriegn tax havens raided for missing American tax funds. Not only will the funds be taxed with interest, but a million follar fee on every five million dollars hidden is levied. That will make companies think twice.


  Bring back the anti-trust laws. Break up all the largest corporations in energy, banking, and communications into smaller companies. This will allow smaller businesses to grow and compete on a fairer level.


  Bring back Glass-Steagal. Seperate investment banks, trading, and hedge funds from classic community saving and loan banks.
[-] 1 points by a2z (4) 10 years ago

a2z1 points 38 minutes ago

8: So, you mean all the mortgage-backed shenanigans would have been OK so long as a few deposit-taking banks didn't go under? How would this have stopped Lehman, Merrill, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, et al?

5 How about giving up your iPhone, air conditioner, TV and all the other items that are manufactured abroad, and spending the money on domestic goods instead?

[-] 1 points by fwh (1) 10 years ago

@a2z1, Glass Steagal did stop banking crises before. The big investment banks got so huge because they started gambling with mortgage deabt. Glass Steagal prevented this from happening before.

And I agree, buying US made goods help. But how exactly do you pass a law forcing consumers to do that. I agree, it should (and should have been) a constant campaign, but it's hardly enforceable.

[-] 1 points by a2z (4) 10 years ago

@fwh: NO. Glass-Steagall did not prohibit "investment banks" such as those I listed from speculating. Only stopped deposit-taking banks from doing so. Thanks for your interest.