Forum Post: Lobby group for the poor.
Posted 11 years ago on Dec. 12, 2012, 1:38 p.m. EST by UnFriendlyObserverB
(-55)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is something we don't have , and is the direction Occupy should be moving towards.
In a Democracy there is strength in numbers.. and though many of Occupy supporters are now at home , they remain eager to see Improvement in the world in which we all live.
Form / Join a Lobby Group for the poor and you will have "strength in numbers " !
Lobbying without money is pretty ineffective. Dealing behind closed doors with Congress just plays into their hands. Taking the streets and shutting down a city is on the other hand very effective, in the open, and to the point.
How long did the Civil Rights movement lobby before they finally learned the power of a strike? That's when progress was made.
There was no internet during the civil rights movement.
Taking to the streets is a very unatttractive method. Most would sooner show their support with meembership .. Occupy would have 30 million members by now if they had a membership program .. and a representative to speak with Congress .. behind closed doors or not .. thta Representative will only have the strength of the size of it's membership .. and millions of voters s[eaks greater than money.
Taking to the streets is a very unatttractive method.
Unattractive to whom? The powers that be, thats who.... which is why it is effective. Civil disobedience and strife is the very last thing they want, and in the end the only thing they understand. It's the only way effective change can be made. Horse trading with politicians is not an option.
...and millions of voters s[eaks greater than money.
They get to vote for whatever politician the two party political machine decides they want to run. Votes have been meaningless for decades now.... even more so since Corporations have been given 1st Amendment protection.
If I were a Representative of a poor mans-Lobby group, and I went to Congress with 30 million signatures ready and willing to strike tomorrow .... How would Congress respond ?
They would laugh.
Strike then negotiate.
Can you get 30 million people to strike for you ?
Can you get 30 million to sign a petition to strike? No..
But I can understand 2 million shutting down a city.
If I was the appointed representative of a poor mans Lobby group, with a membership of 30 million.. and the members elected to strike if Congress would not negotiate our terms, than yes we would strike.
But without a membership and Representative .. what form of communication would you have ? How would you organize / remain United? With what voice would you speak ?
You can't be serious.
There has never been petitions for 30 million people who signed petitions for anything. 5 million signed for petitions against SOPA and PIPA. Good luck getting 30 million.
Communication has and will be the 'net. November 17 – More than 30,000 demonstrated just a mere 2 months after creation... no real money, the message was clear (still is), organized and united by the 'net.
We don't need a representative.
Membership and petitions are two different items .. though closely related..
No one needs a secret handshake or ID card to be active in this. Signed petitions do not carry legal weight.
Contrary to popular belief, Congress does respond to voter demands.. To lobby Congress with as a Representative of an organization with 30 million members .. Congress will listen attentively.
You go and gather the 30 million. I find that Congress has not responded to voter demands, rather Congress buys off its constituents with pork.... then shouts, 'Look what I did for you!'
I don't know if you are aware but all politicial orginizations be it the Tea Party, NRA or any other orginization all have membership fees and/or means for contributions. That's what gives them leverage.
The NRA, Tea Party and others may play the Washington 'K' Street game, but is that really what we want to be a part of .... the very corruption that has stolen this country from We the People?
Apparently you missed the point I was referring to: collecting money to be used to get your message out - I didn't say one word about what the part of the NRA, Tea Party or others may play in Washington DC - Pay attention
And you missed the point that effective Lobbying is played by hiring consultants on 'K' Street, who were past committee chairmen, or have pull in the house or senate from working there. Then comes the part where talk is cheap, you don't get something for nothing. Donations to representatives 'charities' and re-election campaigns are next in order. It's a dirty business. Those that have nothing to offer do not get heard.
Well all I have to say is try doing something without having money to back it up - see how far you get.
Costs far less to pull off a day strike and shut down a city, gets their attention quicker. Shut down two major ports on opposite coasts and they start shaking in their boots.
You really think that a lobby for the poor can compete with say the Financial Services/Banking lobby as far as resources go, or the oil/gas industry lobby.... Exxon alone pulls in $3 Billion in profit a quarter.
Our voice would be like a fart in a hurricane.
Well it goes back to what I am saying - money talks. So regardless if you are disechanted with the tea party or any other orginization it still takes money to get things done.
You are looking at it from a persptive that it takes millions to compete - when in fact it doesn't.
How much do you think it would cost to rent busses to move people to a protest site - like the unions do -
People are more willing to get involved when it doesn't cost them. So, if you have a bus downtown and put a sign on it - Protesters needed for Occupy - transportation and food provided - you will be surprised how many people will get involved.
So there is a way of doing things without it costing billions or for that matter millions.
To compete in the lobbying arena costs big bucks. Lets stick to comparing apples to apples.
To organize demonstrations cost far less. But demonstrations isn't lobbying. I am for the demonstrations. As I stated earlier, it costs far less to shut down a city with demonstrators than lobbying.
Which has more of an affect?
To me.... demonstrations. We are not going to be able to outspend the Banking or oil industry lobbies.
A membership gives a member a feeling of .." Belonging" and adds a certain respect amongst members. Occupy talks about national strike .. well if they had a registered membership.. a national membership strike could become a reality.
Martin Luther King Jr was President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.... total membership of about 70 ministers and activists. With that group alone they managed to coalesce an entire movement of disparate organizations.
You want to really feel what belonging feels like? Get off the sofa and take to the streets. Sending in your $35 membership fee and receiving a membership card is meaningless.... actually taking action with your fellow man, expressing yourself for the power elite to see, shutting down a city with the sole power of boots on the ground.... now you are in a position to negotiate.... sitting on a sofa will never give you a feeling of belonging or the power to see our collective dream through.
I would be in favor of membership fees .. to Lobby Congress on the poor mans behalf .. I believe Millions would.
Nobody is giving your asses money. Forget about it.
The many successful causes under the Civil Rights umbrella were ONLY successful because they were dual efforts, MLK - Freedom Rides on the streets, JFK, LBJ and Dems in Government (all three branches)!! With RepubliCons, rednecks and racists fighting to defeat them every day and every step of the way.
Slavery ended at the end of the Civil War, but it took another 100 years to obtain real civil rights, despite all the lobbying efforts. Without the media coverage of police setting dogs on peaceful marchers, or fire hoses or beatings, the country would not have turned around and have been sympathetic so fast. Do you want to wait 100 years for our cause to be successful?
Why would you think that I would want to wait 100 years to end the 1% tyranny over the People that I have been fighting for for 30 years?
We have some work to do with the current state of our "media coverage," as this shows: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-guest-confronts-steven-crowder-you-deserve-what-you-got/ and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY4cgYNUOdI&feature=youtu.be&t=4m22s
This post is lacking a lot of details. Too vague. Work on the concept and get back to us with at better post.
[Removed]