Forum Post: Heres a worthy topic of the OWS movement: We dont want a 1% percent up there leading us, we want a 99%.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 8, 2012, 12:21 p.m. EST by freewriterguy
(882)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Im so sick of another rich person leading this country like mitt romney the 10,000,000 dollar man, who said, "we need to get the prices of homes back up, (i finally can afford one, without his help thank you) or a smooth talker like obama, I want a guy who worked hard and failed at getting rich, cause such a man could see what is wrong with business in america better than one who succeeded. Cause he would have experienced it first hand, unlike a successful businessman would falsely believe that everything is fine and equal for all, when the numbers speak otherwise. show the rest of the country where it needs fixing, and I dont want someone who can speak well in public, causes hes more like a snake oil salesmen than a respresentative of us. I know I dont speak well in public.
Start a party already.
We definitely don't need a businessman running the government. All this talk that we need a businessman is b.s. A country is not a corporation in any way, shape or form.
[Removed]
Maybe this is the answer? a new government for the 99%
http://www.thesocialistrepublic.org/index.html
Is it possible our nation and population has become so large and diverse that we need maybe 30 presidents, many more congresspersons and senators, all of which have to vote the popular wishes of their constituencies, and no fawking money in it other than a modest salary w/no perks or post office entitlements?
Well 55& of the 99% are no better, morally, than the wealth extracting no value added greed mongers as they have 9 trillion invested in the same corrupt process as those they claim to be against.
That's not the best idea. You don't necessarily want a business failure running the country any more than you necessarily want a high-flying CEO running the country; business and government are two different worlds requiring different skill sets and success or failure in one realm does not necessarily indicate success or failure in the other realm. As far as not wanting capable public speakers in power, that's a mistake. That's like saying that all con men are smart and the way to have honest government is to only put people with IQs below 85 on the ballot.
true your point has merit, but the brainwashing of society needs some radical thinking to see the light. for example, we shouldnt need neither a rich successful business man nor a politician to run this country, but a regular citizen should be sufficient, for who better could represent us than another just like us?
The problem we have right now is that getting elected and governing have become two separate jobs that to some extent require two different skill sets. Governing is about designing a solid platform comprised of individual policy stances (and logically consistent rationales for those policies) and then working to implement those policies in the most beneficial and least costly and abrasive way possible, and the whole point of having elections is to force members of governing bodies to check their platforms against the wishes of the people and to remove those who are corrupt and/or incompetent.
Instead, elections have turned into a dog-and-pony show where whoever has the most funding has an incredible advantage, and selling your personality far eclipses presenting your platform. This basically means that candidates have to sell themselves as they would a used car and engage in a fair amount of quid pro quo with donors just to get into power, and that can in fact preclude a number of highly competent, intelligent people with strong platforms from being in a position to implement them.
It is not true that you could simply pull men and women off the street and install them in the White House or on Capitol Hill and have them run the country without there being serious negative consequences (or if it is then that means that something is seriously wrong with the pool we're pulling our candidates from). We need to be putting our best and our brightest in the government, and what's happening right now is that our current campaign process can and does preclude that from happening at times.
well said, i admire you ARod1993
In addition to your angst, you should add the notion that some people go to Washington not wealthy but with the desire to become so and very often they succeed. For example, long after Clinton left the White House, he remarked most of us have more money than we know how to spend. Where, oh where did this modest country boy gain so much wealth? Books, speeches and influence--all engendered from his gig in Washington, don't you think?
I believe part of the problem is a desire for "leadership".
We are not supposed to be electing leaders.
We are supposed to be electing "representatives"
In a very real way, this is what the American experiment was supposed to do.
Create a "leaderless" country.
A balance of representation.
Perhaps, it is in this desire for "leadership", that we have lost our way.
Lot's of people get elected because they understand "the way things work". You become part of the system so that you can change the system. I think we should find someone who doesn't give a shit about the "way things work". We need a hacker who can bypass all of that and call bullshit on the whole thing.
The problem with that is that America is not an Ubuntu machine; you can't simply march in, wipe the hard drive, and rewrite everything from scratch. There are tremendous costs associated with turning a country on its ear, which is pretty much what you're advising, and there are ways of fixing things that don't incur those costs. Changing the system from the inside is always a long, hard, and sometimes dirty business, but in the end it generally pays off. Throwing the system out the window, on the other hand, opens the door to all kinds of other abuses the likes of which this country has been lucky enough never to have to deal with.
This 99% and 1% stuff is a bunch of BS and can not be the basis for any meaningful conversation.
[Removed]
the problem is 99% doesnt even have a clue on leading
the 1% knows what goals means
men dont need leaders, they just need to be free. of course if they choose wrong by stepping on the rights of other men they should be dealt with. but i believe most would make good decisions without other men forcing them too.
yet a higher law exists: to whom much is given, much is required. or shall we say, I got mine so good luck getting yours.
you want a private sector failure lol ! FDR, Truman, Clinton never had a private sector job, All your dems basically never had a private sector job. How about a private sector success that started with nothing and made something of themselves. Plenty of those examples. why on earth would you want a failure !? lol!
the reason why id want a failure is because, they would know exactly what is wrong with society. those who succeeded, would falsely believe that all is well, when in fact, for the majority all is not well. Id even interject my own opinion, that it is nearly impossible to have financial success in america without somehow doing another individual wrong, or getting your success off the back of someone else, who they themself do not succeed financially. I can prove this with more debate.
makes no sense. just because someone fails at business doesn't mean "the system" is the problem. they could just be incompetent! Your idea of having to take advantage of someone to succeed is also ridiculous. You sound like a very bitter & frustrated individual.
no its not an emotional response, its all fact driven. I myself have experienced this fact, that our society is set up to cause small business to fail, and to penalize the individual for even trying should they fail. I have posted some examples on other boards Ill try and cut and paste today.
there I agree with you. So lobby your congressman. I dont know what you expect the 1% to do.