Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: HELP -- We Can Change This Nation

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 23, 2012, 1:55 a.m. EST by paulcrsm (0) from Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The Republicans and Democrats both serve the 1%. The special interests buy and sell our government "elected" officials. There is one way that we can take back our government, and that is to remove all incumbents from office. If we start a national campaign that clearly states our objective and the reasons for our discontent, we can finally send a clear message to the elected officials that they have to answer to us. Nothing else will make the politicians shake in their boots. If we stand up against the political parties and their mind control over the stupid voters, we can make such a radical change in this nation. Please join me in voting against ALL incumbents. If congress has such a low approval rating (10%), then why do people continue to reelect those same idiots. The reason is because the American people are brainwashed. Imagine if Occupy makes a public statement that they intend to defeat all incumbents and a significant number are actually defeated. This will be nothing less than a new American Revolution. Please take up this campaign and make a difference. It's our last hope. Democrats won't do it and Republicans won't do it. They owe their allegiance to the 1%. Until these politicians can see that we actually control their future in office, they will never respond to us. And that won't happen until we knock a significant number out of office.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

It sounds good until you check out the proven results. If veteran members of congress leave, the lobbyist will be totally in control.

Bill Frist voluntarily limited himself to two terms as Senator from TN. Since the day he left the Senate, he's roamed the halls of Congress, with the enhanced access and priveleges accorded former members, as a lobbyist for HCA, his families' multibillion dollar corporation. HCA has been fined as much as $1.8 billion for wholesale Medicare fraud and still made a profit from corporate welfare - our tax dollars.

The Frist/HCA scam is typical. Even censured and indicted Tom Delay immediately became a lobbyist when he left the House [speaker] after the Abramov bribery scandal.

If veteran members of congress leave, the lobbyists will be left in control.

[-] 4 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Another poster backing the establishment.

People last a long time in this system BECAUSE they appease teh lobbyist.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Backing the establishment?!! Not!!! Congress is the tool of the Wall St establishment. Changing congressmen will change nothing. It's the 1% who are the enemy, and the threat to the survival of the rest of us. It's always been that way. Until they are brought down we'll never get justice. The Just Us system of the rich owners of congress will guarantee our poverty to assure their wealth.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

So by your logic, if we replaced all the seats in Congress with Occupiers, then it would be worse than it is now?

Because most I know, the real ones, would tell the lobbyists to go fuck themselves.

[-] 0 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Quit trying to put words in my mouth!! How do you think you'll get OWS members elected and who will replace the ones we vote out. I'll choose who I vote for and it won't be according to some hairbrained theory.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to comprehend the simple fact that it isn't the government but the corporations that own it that are the threat to our existence.

More importantly, even if it worked, we replace all the candidates with a viable opponent, the only likely scenario is that the presidency and Senate will go to the Rs and the house to them two years from now. Who do you Homers think your fooling, with your peurile bullshit?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The corporations own it, but the power is in DC. Like I said, replace congress with occupiers, and all the problems are solved.

Its not that easy, obviously. But what will be needed at some point is legislation either written or reversed. Corporations dont do that. Thats why they spend billions lobbying.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

You didn't make it clear that you're fantastic idea is in fact a fantasy. I guess I was put off when you asked why I didn't want OWS in congress. That was offensive and rude. If you want my support, you must mature beyon such boorishness.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

What's your solution?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If you dont think its time for Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnel to go, that for some strange reason we need them, then I would love to hear your thoughts on occupy and demands.

If you think that was offensive and rude......

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1320) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

The insult was: "So by your logic, if we replaced all the seats in Congress with Occupiers, then it would be worse than it is now?"

That's not my logic! It's your projection and it's offensive. But you are deliberately obtuse I presume. Though maybe you never thought of it.

Mark Twain said, "Most people don't think. They just think they think." I'm never sure why some people must twist everything in order to think well of themselves.

"Good night and good luck."

[-] 2 points by UntilUKnow (35) 1 year ago

Don't take it personal. It's all about enlightenment my friend. Which is not all we know plus all we think we need to know. Rather, all we know plus all we don't know that we don't know. And the only way of doing this is to first admit that essentially we know nothing. Take it from someone who doesn't know a thing. :o)

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dude, it was a fuckin question. Get a grip.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

So you are saying we should leave in the many corrupt veteran members of Congress?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Vice President Chaney from 1995 until 2000, he served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton. Haliburton receives money for war construction.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Only problem I see with such a move is that unless you are going to replace them with third party senators, you are giving the senate to the Republicans.


[-] 0 points by Cocreator (306) 1 year ago

Heres some Change.. No More Elections We Are All Elected! Stand Up and Be Counted..We are 300 million they are 10,000! We Are The People We Are the Power! We work one day a month for city,state,or federal, get paid,solve unemployment.. Peoples Party! Cancel Public and Private Debt! The Private bank,The Federal Reserve,prints money from thin air,counterfeiting trillions,and charging us 5%..Extortion at its finest.. Peoples Court makes Like Iceland,and arrests all criminal conspirators and traitors..Seize their assets and give it to the People..

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the replacements are already prepped by the corps


[-] -1 points by WSmith (4187) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Both the same crap works only for the brain-dead!

[-] -1 points by globaldreamer (6) 1 year ago

blah blabbah ,, the human body overtaken by the tapeworm within- money - till it eats the brain and becomes hooked, looking for a remedy still, but it needs to PURDGE from within! then the symptomatics become as they always were, REDUNDANT and the body breaths free

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

join the 80%▬►

A constitutional amendment to

Overturn Citizens United { CU }
Corporate Personhood { CP }

For a complete analysis of the amendment issue,

and the text of all amendments,
and our comparison of all of the amendments,
and the Citizens United case transcript,
and the Citizens United decision,
and the Buckley “money is speech” decision,
and analysis of corporate personhood,
and analysis of Article III,
and the ABC News poll on CU / CP,
and the PFAW poll on CU / CP,
and 70+ video clips on CU / CP from

Chomsky, Hedges, Witchcraft, Reich, Nader , Justice Stevens,
Warren, Lessig, Hartmann, Maher, Kucinich, Grayson, Yugur Sanders, Hightower, etc.

JOIN our OWS Working Group:

Wednesdays 5:30-7:30PM @ 60 Wall St – The Atrium

Our OWS Working Group has one goal -
To support the OWS Declaration

“a democratic government derives
its just power from the people,
not from corporations”

and to do what polls show
80% of Americans want -

To get corrupting money out
of our political system by passing
a Constitutional Amendment that will:

►Reverse the 2010 Supreme Court decision
..…Citizens United that enabled super-pacs
►Reverse the 1976 Supreme Court decision
..…Buckley that equated money is speech
►Eliminate the 1886 judicially created fiction
..…that corporations are people

We will attract candidates to …support an amendment, and we will attract voters to …support an amendment, and we will attract voters to support …candidates who support an amendment

[-] -1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

I'm with you. Vote them all out!

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think YOU should do that definitely. Vote 3rd party or no consent. Maybe the 2 parties will get a message.

[-] -2 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

That's what the teabagge(R)s did in 2010.

Let's not do that again, shall we?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

They elected their own candidates, they didn't just vote against incumbents.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The body of evidence establishing .. what? A Tea Party conspiracy theory? What does that have to do with voting against incumbents or electing your own candidates?

[-] -1 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

Missed out on how this part of the conversation started, eh?

Forget who you were sticking up for?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Sticking up for? I made a simple, neutral statement. What is it with you attacking enemies that don't even exist? You do realize how bad you're making liberals look with your behavior? How bad you're making this online community look because they tolerate and encourage this kind of behavior?

Maybe that's your goal? Two can play at this silly paranoia game...

[-] -2 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

That's the problem. You think it's a game.

It's not.

You should for once respond to what I posted, instead of going off on yet another rant..

And then claiming something that has nothing to do with what I said.

You seem rather unconcerned with the actual result.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I did respond to what you posted. I asked you: "What does that have to do with voting against incumbents or electing your own candidates?"

I think that if somebody were to pay psy ops agents to disrupt the Occupy web site then they would behave exactly like you. False-flag troll attacks that the community will be torn between encouraging and condemning since you're saying things that they want to hear. You're actively standing against everything that OWS originally stood for. Consensus, respect for marginalized voiced, open-mindedness, inclusion, tolerance.

[-] -1 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

You see, I was responding to the original post, and it's desire to throw out as many as possible.

I lament that that is what happened that got all the teabagge(R)s into office.

I don't like them, nor what they do and say.

You came in with something else entirely, and attempted to change the subject.

Then you went on another pointless rant, based on an assumption.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You were responding to the source of the original post but ignoring its content, which is the logical fallacy known as "ad hominem".

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

Not really.

What you are presenting is a false equivalency.

Like saying creationism is on a par with evolution or should be considered at the same level.

It's not, and it shouldn't.

Next pointless rant from you?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Please join me in voting against ALL incumbents.

fuck you ya lazy bastard. I'm voting for Bernie - I don't care if you like it. You don't want to take the time to find out for yourself if any of your own legislators might be willing to represent your interests -

if you chose to participate?

well then don't - it's up to you. We have fine legislators here in Vermont and I am not in the least interested in tossing them for some new fool who has no fucking idea how they play the game in DC.

fukin nimrod.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

(We all already know who you're voting for.)

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I ain't voting for any fukin repeliccan I guarantee you that . . .


A Global Depression

The aftermath of World War I in Europe also played a significant role in the downward spiral of the global economy in the late 1920s. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany owed France and England enormous war reparations that were virtually impossible for the country to afford. France and England, in turn, owed millions of dollars in war loans to the United States. A wave of economic downturns spread through Europe, beginning in Germany, as each country became unable to pay off its debts.

Hoover’s Inaction

At first, President Herbert Hoover and other officials downplayed the stock market crash, claiming that the economic slump would be only temporary and that it would actually help clean up corruption and bad business practices within the system. When the situation did not improve, Hoover advocated a strict laissez-faire (hands-off) policy dictating that the federal government should not interfere with the economy but rather let the economy right itself. Furthermore, Hoover argued that the nation would pull out of the slump if American families merely steeled their determination, continued to work hard, and practiced self-reliance.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff

Hoover made another serious miscalculation by signing into law the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which drove the average tariff rate on imported goods up to almost 60 percent. Although the move was meant to protect American businesses, it was so punitive that it prompted retaliation from foreign nations, which in turn stopped buying American goods. This retaliation devastated American producers, who needed any sales—foreign or domestic—desperately. As a result, U.S. trade with Europe and other foreign nations tailed off dramatically, hurting the economy even more.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation

When it became clear that the economy was not righting itself, Hoover held to his laissez-faire ideals and took only an indirect approach to jump-starting the economy. He created several committees in the early 1930s to look into helping American farmers and industrial corporations get back on their feet. In 1932, he approved the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) to provide loans to banks, insurance companies, railroads, and state governments. He hoped that federal dollars dropped into the top of the economic system would help all Americans as the money “trickled down” to the bottom. Individuals, however, could not apply for RFC loans. Hoover refused to lower steep tariffs or support any “socialistic” relief proposals such as the Muscle Shoals Bill, which Congress drafted to harness energy from the Tennessee River.



the scumbags refuse to learn from history.


[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The Emancipation Proclamation

Republican President Abraham Lincoln unilaterally freed all slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was immediately denounced by Democrats.

Anti-Trust Law

Republican President Teddy Roosevelt used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up the Standard Oil monopoly, which controlled the markets for fuel oil, lead, and whiskey.

Social Security Expansion

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower maintained existing New Deal programs, expanded Social Security, while keeping the national debt low and inflation near zero.


There are many Republicans in 2012 who agree with a lot of the issues that concern you. There are Republicans who believe in advancing human rights for all mankind. There are Republicans who believe in protecting the environment like Teddy Roosevelt did. There are Republicans who believe in limiting the influence of money over our political system.

Judging those people and dismissing them based on a label is "prejudice". And by being a slave to your prejudices, you're rejecting the potential support that could result in coalitions that could advance some of the causes that you care about. By lacking the strength to look beyond your own prejudices, you are actually obstructing progress, not advancing it.

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

No one is going to save this country.....especially not the Republicans nor the Democrats. This country is literally imploding and most don't see it or even want to, no matter who gets into office.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Let's just give up & find a corner to crawl into.!

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

To be honest, I believe the majority of the masses have....look at this forum for example...same old belief in a system that is not working, the same old answers, same old inability to have vision and move forward on a road less traveled and believing that corporate america can be corrected or eliminated with ideas and not action.. So, yes, that is exactly what this nation has done, crawled back into a comfortable political corner..

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Many have. Many more are just unaware. The people I find here mostly agree the system is broken and encourage action against it. So I guess we have come across different people here. Of course the people atOWS events certainly recignize the broken system and seek creating a new one.

I for that, but like many people, (incl many OWS supporters) I believe we MUST work for refom while the new system is being created.

We can't pretend their is no election, and cannot allow the right wing wackos who created all these problems to gain MORE power.

Hold the line! While we create a new system. Educate those unaware, and get everyone out of the corners they've crawled into with positive action plans and not discourage them with pessimism, and defeatist negativism.


[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

Sure.....but what worries me is that the newly created system is only going to piggy back off of the old without incorporating new, innovative, diverse, and humanitarian thought.

If America rules (as stated in many instances) what plans will be put in place for its global dominance?

Fear of the unknown vs what will actually help to unite global economic prosperity for all nations is what is at stake here.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Don't be afraid. I ain't afraid. All will be fine because eventually the good people will rise up and right the ship.

Stay frosty. Look sharp.


[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

Hey, thanks for the encouragement...

I guess the word I should use is skeptical...I really have no fear because I always have faith in the good of those with love in their hearts..... Yet, it is scary seeing all the hatred, bigotry, and inability of many to look past labels and see people for what they are in their heart of hearts....

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well we certainly have an abundance of that. Humans gotta draw lines, country, religion, race, we war for all sorts of things.

"But we shall overcome" Like the song goes.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

I agree.....

[-] 5 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Hoover's outlook was actually classic liberalism.

On prejudice: in 1901, the Democratic Party in two states organized around a progressive, reform agenda -- with the goal of disenfranchising black voters.

This "Democrats are better -- no Republicans are better" game is just idiotic. We can keep playing if you want, but you're clinging to a label and dismissing people based on that label. Which is prejudice, and it's not modern liberalism or any kind of liberalism. You're just totally preoccupied with hating people who aren't like you. That's not "progressive" by any meaning of the term.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

The two party system is one of the greatest ruses played on peasants. The illusion of free choice (and the division of slaves against each other) is startling in its effectiveness.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Very true. Nobody needs to divide and conquer us because we voluntarily divide ourselves.

[-] -1 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

50% of the population is going to vote in another month or so, and they're all busy trying to fight the other half. Slave on slave violence, and the slave owners are laughing all the way to the bailed out bank.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

That's exactly what I've been complaining about here.


[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 1 year ago

Yeah, theoretically there should be no problem, but it's virtually impossible for the average, indoctrinated person to see it. I also think there's a misunderstanding that corporations are a govt created entity, without govt backing, corps wouldn't exist (or be as powerful). Which makes Occupy seem stupid, since they have yet to really complain in front of the Fed or the govt.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then put aside the labels and discuss progressive economic ideas.

What would that look like. What economic policy do you think we should consider?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Me personally? A simplified tax code would be one example. Because a complex tax code perpetuates the influence of money over our political system by motivating corporations to lobby politicians for tax breaks.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

A complicated tax code will also always favor the wealthy because they can afford the high priced tax attorneys that can dissect that code for the loopholes.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, correct. But a simple tax code goes against modern liberalism by removing government options to incentivize "good" behavior.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

We can tax capital gains more like income for the wealthy. That would simplify.


Progressive taxation. During what is generally referred to as “The Golden Age of Capitalism” in this country for the two decades after World War II, the top incremental tax rate hovered between 70 and 90%.  Now, because of the impact of corrupting money in our government, the thought of bringing the top marginal tax rate up to the 40% mark spooks policy makers. An Anderson administration will recognize that since money has a diminishing marginal utility, and since the wealthy are more capable of investing more in the country that has afforded them extraordinary opportunities, higher tax rates on people earning more money is fair and moral. This includes the capital gains tax. The gap between capital gains and ordinary income tax rates is one key factor in perpetuating income inequality because the overwhelming majority of capital gains accrue to the wealthy. Eliminating such disparities in taxation would be a key focus of Rocky’s administration.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Simple, complicated either can be unfair! Why not work for fainess. I mean I support fairness but I gotta see wealthy people/big business pay more, & working/middle class people & small business pay less.

Can you agree with that goal as we work on simplification?

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

One thing to add...while simple doesn't mean unfair, complicated will almost always be unfair because those tax attorneys working in the private sector for the wealthy are always going to be smarter than those working for Congress writing the actual code. The more complicated the code, the more unfair it is going to become.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yeah I'm ok with simplification. As long as the measure of fairness, and the goal is to raise more revenue from the wealthy, and less from the working/middle class & small business.


[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Yes, simple doesn't mean unfair. It means a tax code you can fit on one page instead of millions. You can probably create like 3 or 4 tax brackets and have very few deductions. Doing so, you can probably lower everyone's marginal rate and still increase revenue by getting rid of all those deductions.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I would never lower the wealthy tax rate. They been gettin a sweet deal for a long time. Time they paid their fair share.

Raise the wealthy rate! Eliminate deductions, shelters, for the wealthy! Not us! Not the 99%! We've already been screwed over. Ain't you been following what this movement is about! Correct the economic inequity that favors the wealthy at the expense of the 99%.

You disagree?

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

I would tax all income the same, whether it be regular income, dividends, or capital gains. Income is income. If you taxed all income the same, you would easily bring in more revenue because the low rates on investment income is what allows people like Romney to pay under 15%. Even if you made the top marginal tax rate 25% on ALL income with few deductions you would bring in so much more revenue because that would actually be a tax increase on the wealthy but it wouldn't be so high as to discourage aggressive investment.

I don't know the exact numbers that would work the best but 3-4 simple tax brackets can easily be done I'm sure. I don't think the rich should be overly taxed just because they are rich. A simple, progressive tax code would make things more fair and bring in more revenue.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I support lower taxes for middle/working class. Certainly I support lower taxes on elderly.

Your assumption that my support for higher taxes on big corps means I "want to raise working/class burden" through lower corp contribution to retirement plane is a false assumption.

I disagree with that! But it is a good attempt at defending low taxes for corps. I just don'r buy it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't disagree with most of what you say. except low corp taxes. I say raise their taxes. They got crazy money and have gotten with one of lowest effective tax rates in the world.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Ultimately, as far as total tax revenue is concerned it doesn't matter one bit. Higher corporate taxes means less profit and less personal income tax revenue. And vice versa. By taxing on the individual level instead of the corporate level you are able to shift the burden to more wealthy people. You have to remember, just because the wealthy get the majority of corporate profits it does not mean that millions of Americans don't still get a chunk of corporate profits through 401Ks, pensions, IRAs, etc. Why on earth would you want to raise their tax burden?

Think of all the retired people who live almost entirely on investment income. Why should their investment income be less because of high corporate taxes? You, of all people, should want to see that burden shifted away from some middle class grandparents to wealthy people.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh please you think business are moving out of America? Not selling to America? You think they have found better markets to sell to? You think there IS a better market than ours?

Wrong! even with this weak economy we are still doing better than europe & we are still a better consumer marketthan China & Japan.

Business move jobs out but I say penalize outsourcing, reward insourcing, tell them to hire Americans, pay a fair living wage or they can't do business here.

Sounds like you disagree. 'sok. I say we tell businesses what to do. They should cater to our demands. Not the other way around.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

You have gone way off topic. We were talking about taxes, not trade policy.

High corporate taxes hurt mostly the wealthy, but also the poor and middle classes because they also make up corporations. Lower corporate taxes with higher personal income taxes on wealthy people shifts that burden more towards the wealthy and away from the poor and the middle class. If the government can collect $X either way, shouldn't it be done with more burden on the wealthy?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"might as well keep corp rates low" so they do business here? Whaaaat?

How about we raise their corp tax rates, create rules that if they wanna do business here they hire americans and pay them a living wage. If they comply they can do business here (in the biggest most valuable middle class consumer market on the planet)

Shouldn't we tell any business that it is a priviledge to do business here?

They don't like it they can do business in Latvia or Ecuador.


[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Again, all of that tax revenue can still be collected, just in the form of personal income tax. When corporations have huge profits, they pay them out as salaries, bonuses, dividends, and stock buybacks. These go almost entirely to the super wealthy and this is where they should be taxed. Even though corporations mostly benefit the wealthy, there are poor and middle class people in the equation that are hurt by high corporate taxes. Lower corporate taxes and higher personal income taxes on the super wealthy shifts the burden to the super wealthy.

You said: "How about we raise their corp tax rates, create rules that if they wanna do business here they hire americans and pay them a living wage. If they comply they can do business here (in the biggest most valuable middle class consumer market on the planet)

Shouldn't we tell any business that it is a priviledge to do business here?

They don't like it they can do business in Latvia or Ecuador."

--This is the exact situation we have now and businesses are indeed just doing their business elsewhere. They evidently don't see it as a privilege.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2867) 1 year ago

Include corporations too.

For individuals, might want to exempt first $40,000.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

Corporations are not people, but people certainly benefit from corporations, mainly the super wealthy. Corporate tax rates should be low to encourage corporations to do business here. We will never be able to compete with the rest of the world on the cost of labor, we might as well keep corporate taxes low. Less corporate taxes means more profit which gets paid out as bonuses, dividends, salaries, etc..all of which should be taxed at the appropriate level. The tax revenue would still be there, it would just be in a way that encourages businesses to do business here.

I would be hesitant to exempt the first $40K because a lot of people would not pay any income tax. Poor people should not pay much income tax at all, but they should pay a little just as a matter of principle. We are all part of this society so we should all pay into at least a bit. Even if that amount is very small it is still a contribution and people will be less likely to look at government assistance as a handout if they see that small amount come out of their paycheck.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well if the wealthy pay more and rest of us less under your plan I support it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Progressive tax code? Yes. increase tax on cap gains & div? Yes but only for income over $50k, & maybe add a small SS/medicare taxon that income as well. Also I think we should consider a 1-2% tax on the principle of wealth just sitting making interest.

I think the wealthy should be taxed more because they take so much more of the wealth. It's only fair.

I think the wealthiest should be taxed more because they have had a free ride fo decades while the 99% has struggled with stagnant wages, rising benefit costs, loan shark level debt interst, and high taxes.

And I think the working/middle class should be taxed less because they are the job creators (by consuming). Gotta get more money in our pockets so we can consume and create demand.


[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

No, when I say simple I mean simple.

Say income (all income) tax brackets of 5%, 15% and 20%, and 30%, and little else. Maybe mortgage interest deduction. 4 brackets for the poor, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthy. The more complicated the easier it is for rich people to circumvent it and the more bureaucracy.

Those brackets would result in a massive tax increase on the wealthy (most would pay double what they pay now) and a tax cut for the poor and middle class with no frills or gimmicks or need for tax attorneys just to play the game. What more could you want?

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Simplification is ok.

but simple or difficult can be unfair. I'd rather work for fairness which to me means tax increases for wealthy people/big business, lower taxes for working/middle class & small business.

How do you feel about cutting taxes for working/middle class & small business?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm personally in favor of a progressive tax code. (Please don't get distracted by the word "progressive".) I am not personally in favor of more tax cuts for anybody.

A simplified tax code would eliminate products of modern liberalism like the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which incentivizes hiring employees from minorities. So here we have an example of a progressive reformist issue ("progressive" this time as in "progressivism") that is not in line with modern liberalism.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I like helping minorities since the white people have fucked minorities for all of American history.

And minorities still struggle more often with poverty, they still have a higher unemployment rate, still have worse schools, less opportunity to go to college, minorities still are targeted more often by police and get harsher sentences in our courts.

Why don't you wanna help minorities?. You got a problem helping people in need?

Why don't you cut something for the white people who are targeting the minorities?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I am very socially liberal and I'm in favor of equal rights for all minorities.

But I personally feel that the side-effects of the well-intentioned modern liberal tax code that incentivizes hiring minorities outweigh the benefits. A complex tax code leads to political corruption because it incentivizes people with money to lobby politicians and to make campaign donations, which makes our politicians beholden to their financial backers instead of to their constituents. I personally believe that on the balance, a complex tax code is a very negative and corrupting influence over our government, and that outweighs any benefit that it could provide to minorities. I'm also just personally opposed to affirmative action in general because I believe that all people should be equal under the law. Which is in line with classic liberalism but not with modern liberalism.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But all people are not equal under the law. Isn't that why we implemented Aff Action?

And your logic for ending incentives to hire groups suffering higher chronic unemployment is the the complication it creates somehow helps the corps?

Wow. I guess the hell with the minorities in your plan. That kind of support they might say they can do without.

Thanks but no thanks. I can't agree with eliminating something that helps minorities who are still oppressed by the white majority in power.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

If the government incentivizes a corporation to hire a black person instead of you, then are you both equal under the law?

I have been quite certain since I first started talking to you that if I were to discuss my specific opinions then you would try as hard as you could to find a wedge issue. Congratulations. You're working as hard as you can to create division, where I'm working as hard as I can to highlight the common ground that we could potentially agree on.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You mentioned being against incentives to hire minorities. Not me!

I am for it. We disagree. Take a breath and get over it.

Minorities are still being oppressed with this alleged incentive so a lot of good it's done. Seems like we need to do more.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

Good God Almighty!!!!!

What's it gonna take with you?

Here. Read all of this before you make as idiotic a statement as that again!!

All of IT!


You're pro racism and call others bigots??!!!!!

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago


he has no answer!

bWA hahaha

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I was at brunch, thanks.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

No you weren't - brunch ended at 2pm - it was much closer to 4pm when you made this comment

You should get help for this clearly chronic condition . . .

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Wow nice I have a stalker now. I just got finished doing a Facetime chat between my baby and her grandparents. Do you think that my plan was to spend my entire Sunday arguing with bigots on the Internet?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

yes yes i do

also good post up above

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Haha thanks. I do seem to be oddly attracted to this site like a fly to a bug zapper.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

he is predictable, and pathetic. He can't give his opinion on any issues because they are not progressive at all.

He rather talk about liberal/conservative, 1865, 1900, this party, that party, old parties, tea parties, any distraction but specifics on real issues.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

they probably aren't even his positions - who the fuck knows?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I've been really explicit about my position on the issue that I think is central, which is campaign finance reform. You're not aware of that because you talk without listening and because you're very distracted by labels.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

campaign finance reform.


  • open disclosure of all funds received ?
  • limits on contribution per individual ?
  • removing corporate person hood?

most advertisement is through free news coverage. Should a money value by attached to that coverage ?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Private campaign contributions should not be legal because they make politicians beholden to their contributors instead of to their constituents. It's not possible to get elected without accepting campaign donations and that creates political corruption.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

if one is privately rich ???

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

So . . . you support Move to Amend?

umm . . . . I don't wanna put words in your mouth -

  • yes, or no?
[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm a Republican and yes, I do.

I also strongly favor a constitutional amendment to eliminate all private campaign contributions. For essentially the same reason.

I personally feel that these two issues are key common ground that both the left and the right could theoretically agree on that would have an impact on nearly all other issues, if it were no for all of the people like you who absolutely cannot comprehend the concept of a bipartisan coalition. The overall objective is to eliminate the influence of money over our political system, which is an issue that both liberals and conservatives can easily agree on.

[-] 2 points by flip (5207) 1 year ago

oh my god, vq and zenhead working you over - how can you deal with it? i once mentioned that i think the original tea party (grassroots not astroturf) had lots in common with ows - against the bank bailout and for the man in the street. boy did i take some shit. seems the more accurate the post the greater the offense

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Why would I be offended by people attacking based on their own prejudices who don't even read what I say? I find I sad and entertaining but never offensive. ZenDog's posts are the equivalent of an attack dog barking. There are no thought processes behind it. Dogs just react to movement. I'm not offended when a dog barks at me.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Hey I ain't "worked no one over". Yesterday I spent many comments gettin the junkie to agree we should increase taxes on the wealthy & cut taxes for the rest of us.

I was always civil & respectful.

Do you feel I "worked you over"?.

Tea party comments might rile me up though that much has some truth to it. I don't recall your tea party faux pas.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what of the free advertisement the conventions bring on privately owned news ?

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

That's a great question.

Progressivism is partly about advocating for government to modernize and stay abreast of current developments. One current development that affects whether political conventions should be so prominent is the Internet. A century ago, political conventions were important because people had no other way to get together to shape party platforms and select candidates for an election. That's no longer necessary. A couple of decades ago, political conventions were used to focus public attention on each possible option (out of only two options) because media access was a scarce resource.

But now the Internet changes both of those things. People can collaborate on party platforms all day, every day, from the comfort of their homes or offices. And we no longer have only 11 channels of television. The Internet makes it possible for millions of conversations to occur simultaneously and dozens of different ideas to compete for dominance instead of just two.

So personally I think that the equal-time law that attempts to maintain "balance" between only two options is obsolete. There should be more than two options. The equal-time law simply perpetuates the dominance of the same two political parties, year after year.

But I don't personally think that a network like Fox News or MSNBC should be prohibited from covering any political convention that they like. Again because of the Internet. Those networks don't have a near monopoly on information any more like they did before the Internet.

[-] -1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Well that's nice.

I see from your comment below that instead of restoring the Fairness Doctrine, you would prefer to eliminate completely any provisions requiring equal-time.

  • fuker

This completely discounts the vast gulf that exists between the internet and broadcast television.


Broadcast television has a tremendous capacity to influence public opinion - while the internet of today has something else entirely - and that is the possibility of influencing policy makers as opposed to public opinion.

we won't be eliminating equal time rules any time soon.

[-] -3 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

What's that got to do with teabagge(R)s?

You do keep bring them up.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm nearly certain that I have not mentioned the group to which you're referring a single time today. Or in the last couple of days. I recognize that it's a bright, shiny object that distracts rabid partisans from rational conversation. The group to which you're referring originally came up when I was suggesting that perhaps Occupy should attempt to live up to its potential as a political force. You apparently prefer the idea of a politically impotent OWS, since you attacked me so aggressively for even mentioning it.

Why are you in favor of a politically impotent OWS?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

Actually you got that wrong. (It's not the first time).

It's dark ugly spot on the faux shinyness of (R)epelicantism.

Of which you appear to be a happily practicing member.

The unfortunate part about your lack of comment on teabagge(R)y is that it was only in avoidance of facts that were presented to you about said teabagge(R)s.

As well as facts that denied your corollaries.

Sad, but true. You did.

In answer to your question. ( I do try and answer.)

I never said that. You said I said it.

Why did you do that?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I said that because I can't think of any other hypothesis for you attacking me for suggesting that Occupy live up to its potential as political force. I'm assuming that you were paying attention to what I was saying and not just having a knee-jerk reaction to the words "Tea Party". So giving you the benefit of the doubt, that must mean that you're in favor of a politically impotent OWS, since you attacked me so vigorously for suggesting otherwise.

I'm going to explicitly tell you yet again that I am not a tea bagger and that I reject key aspects of their Contract From America. I'm in favor of higher taxes, for example. Their obsession with the Constitution as some kind of static, unchanging document is regressive and I don't support that. The "All of the Above Energy Policy" is simplistic and short-sighted.

But I typed the words "Tea Party" a few times in the last 15 minutes and I'm sure that you won't be able to focus on anything else for the next week, regardless of what I'm actually saying.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

what point?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Why are you in favor of a politically impotent OWS?

unnecessary loading

is there an advantage to a politically impotent OWS?

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

I was addressing his assumption. Presumption?

"Why are you in favor of a politically impotent OWS?"

An assumption that is the exact opposite of anything I have said on the subject.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, his latest comment just above confirms my suspicions yet again that he's not even trying to pay any attention to what I'm saying. He thinks that I'm a tea bagger because he saw me post the words "Tea Party" a week ago but he never made any attempt to listen to what I was actually saying.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not a tea bagger. And I would normally use such a loaded term but I know full-well that if I use the group's actual name even in the context of disavowing support then he'll just attack me yet again for being a tea bagger.

He's a lot like an attack dog. You can't reason with an attack dog. They see movement, they attack. Simple as that. No thought processes are involved.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I don't know, is there? I've been baffled by the Occupiers who argue so vehemently for political impotence.

I actually don't think that shooz was arguing for a politically impotent OWS. I think that he was distracted by two key words and never paid any attention whatsoever to the point that I was trying very hard to make. He put a lot of energy into attacking me on a personal level because I mentioned those two words, but he seems to have put zero effort into listening to what I was saying before he attacked me.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

I don't think your a teabagge(R).

I think your a libe(R)tarian, with strong level of sympathy for teabagge(R)y.

I also KNOW that you assume a lot.

A whole lot.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

It's only because you love the teabagge(R)s and all that they have done that you make the false assumptions in the first place.

The fact that it is YOU that is attracted to the shiny object, should go without saying at this point.

It was of course a VERY BIG part of YOUR grand re-entrance to the site.

One that you fully refused to defend.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I put some effort into that last post, above, that you're replying to, in order to explicitly disavow support for the Tea Party and to highlight specific points of their political platform that I disagree with. The only thing that you got out of any of it was that I typed the words "Tea Party". At the end of that post, I predicted that you would get nothing from what I said and that you would attack me yet again with accusations of me being a tea bagger. You came along right on queue and proved me right.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good point. Either way it seems like a waste of time w/ him.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That's my guess - but occasionally he's fun to fuck with - especially when it produces a smear in the facade . . . .

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

true dat!

[-] -2 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

Where are these republicans of which you speak?

All I see anymore are (R)epelican'ts and teabagge(R)s hell bent on destroying everything that gets in the way of profit.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

He can't answer that - there are only about five of them nation wide with sack enough to open their mouths . . .

the rest sit silent in their shame.


  • Global Warming

  • It's right out in the parking lot

  • The Repeliccan party is DONE

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

That's all I've asked him and he gets all offensive about it.

Who are these few actual republicans?

Where are they, and how effective are they within their party?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

There was one in Florida who broke the issue regarding voter id law changes. I've forgotten his name. I'm sure there must be at least four more, statistics would seem to demand it.

But I'm not at all certain . . .


[-] 1 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

I believe it took a grand jury to get him to admit the level of racism involved in the Florida (9)epelican't party's voter purges.

Something, I'm sure our Florida posters will ignore or claim doesn't exist.

Plus, I'll be called names and down voted for even noticing it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Here it is -

  • Former FL GOP chair says ‘right-wing crazies’ want to suppress black vote

  • Former Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer testified in a lawsuit filed against his former party that “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” wanted to suppress the black vote through Voter ID and tactics like current state Gov. Rick Scott’s efforts to purge voter rolls, according to reporting in the the Tampa Bay Times on Thursday.

  • “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting. It had been one of those days,” he testified in the 630-page affidavit that spans two days of deposition about a fundraising meeting with party general counsel Jason Gonzalez, political consultant Jim Rimes and Eric Eikenberg, Crist’s chief of staff. Rimes denies the discussion concerned voter suppression to the Times, and Eikenberg did nto return the paper’s phone calls.

  • Greer claimed that the 2010 criminal fraud charges filed against him and other Republicans were part of internal party power scheming designed to push out him and former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, among others.


Well - it looks like you may be right, were it not for the lawsuit he might not have said anything. I'm not sure.

And if the repelican party is his former party then I have to assume he is no longer a repelican -

and that throws my statistical calculation way out of whack.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I saw an article indicating that there was actually one Florida repeliccan - an insider - who actually was outraged by the whole process.

I know - hard to believe.

I'll see if I can find it.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

You heard it here first!!


It has always amazed, in spite of how many posters claim to be in Florida, they NEVER bring this stuff up.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13639) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

they are all partisans - despite their protests to the contrary.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, I'm aware that that's all that you can see. That's called "prejudice".

[-] 0 points by shooz (17952) 1 year ago

What I'm aware of is the simple fact that you are unable to defend your statements, and instead revert to one form of insult or another.

This has become an increasing problem among our "right wing" posters and apologists.

So, I'm going to ask you politely one more time.

Where are these republicans of which you speak?

I see little evidence of them.


[-] -1 points by marvelpym (-184) 1 year ago

Hey, we actually agree on something. Who the fuck would have predicted that would fucking happen?