Forum Post: Occupation Party: Is this supported by #OWS
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 12:03 a.m. EST by PJSingh
(2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Lately I have been seeing a couple of websites pop up. I don't know if its a hijack or what. Can someone clarify the legitimacy of this? And why isnt OWS promoting something like this yet? About time. All those council members protesting with us, and other elected officials, they are the occupation party, they need to part ways from this two party system and represent the people free from party influence. anyway here are some links to different pages:
theoccupationparty.com occupationparty.org - (my dns server says this site contains malware be careful) theoccupationparty.org
Hey PJ for a few days i went down that path to, only because we have been trained to follow delusion. Then someone on here turned me onto http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/ and i watched that 3 or 4 times and what was said is what has been in my brain since i was a kid. I now see that having a picture of the future can make decisions today clearer
I haven't looked but I think OWS has to build a solid case for launching a 3rd party. Still in evidence gathering mode, but the beginning is ever nearer.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
I think there should be an Occupy party. Why not? This is something neither the Democrats nor the Republicans could have conceived of.
Of course, you would have to stick to a solid platform that most Americans would get behind. I would say 'Audit the federal reserve' would be a good start.
Have you read the 99% Declaration? https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
It is to be an historical debate, so many ideas like:
[-] theghostofthomasjefferson 3 points 1 week ago No, I wrote the Declaration of Desperation. I believe the 99% Declaration is an ineffective document. The Occupy Movement will fail if it is adopted. For it will alienate the American People. This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued.
If there was a single issue for the 99%, it should be 'Audit the Federal reserve." Everything else SHOULD fall into place like dominos once that is done.
1) If you wanted to look at it from an ultra-conservative perspective, then go back to the way things were in the first hundred years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
During that time, corporate charters were something that were not granted, unless they could prove they were for the common good, and even then, they only lasted ten years. After ten years, they were up for review. If it was decided that the corporation wasn't serving the public good, their charter was revoked.
It was Rockerfeller who bribed Congress into changing that rule, since he didn't want the corporation benefitting the public, just himself.
So, for the conservatives, we are taking the government back from the radical elements which have controlled government for the past thirty years. 'Neo-Conservative' means 'After Conservative', so were the Neo Cons really conservative?
Instead of 'jobs for all', I suggest what Buckminster Fuller suggested, which is a guaranteed minimum income.
Regardless of whether they are actually working or not, everybody gets paid a yearly salary equal to or slightly above the poverty line. This is enough for them to pay rent, buy groceries, pay bills, buy clothes, etc. The need for welfare, social security, disability, Unemployment insurance, workman's compensation, etc. is eliminated. All that paperwork and bureacracy can be dismissed.
Why is this better than 'jobs for all'? Well for one thing, there are now robots and machines which are replacing human workers in many industries, especially manufacturing. We simply don't need to do unproductive, unpleasant work anymore, just to make ends meet or pay our bills. There are other ways to spend our time, such as with our families.
'Guaranteed Minimum Income' gives everyone enough to pay their bills and survive, but if you want to make more money than that you still have to get a job. So, all your necessities are taken care of, and that job (or hobby turned small business) provides you with 'extra' money for things like vacations.
If you are an artist or a writer, you no longer have to worry about what to do to help you make ends meet. Focus your time and energy on your art and writing.
If you are someone that likes to sit at home all day and play World of Warcraft, what is the harm really? So long as a person is contented, they are certainly not desperate to commit robberies.
What effect will this have on the economy? Well if you think about it, poor people are the ones who actually spend money and buy things. So the effect on the economy would be immediate.
It was Keynes introduction of the welfare state that ended the great depression in the 1930s, NOT the second world war as the 1% would have you believe.
'Jobs for all' is somewhat vague, and can be interpreted many ways such as labour farms, or the 1930s 'make work' projects such as digging a hole and filling it back in.
Where would the money come from, to give everyone a yearly salary of $32,000?
Simple. End the foreign wars and slash military spending. If the US is worried about foreign invasion, then match military spending with their closest rival, China.
That would be enough money to pay everyone a guaranteed minimum income, as well as pay for everyone to be on a single-payer health care system.
Start giving a guaranteed minimum income to every American citizen at say, the age of sixteen. Once you start making double the amount of the GMI annually, you are automatically cut off from it. If you can prove that you lost your job or income, you can reapply.
Thanks for the reply. The corporate charter limits is a telling reminder in all of this debate. GMI is a great idea for transitioning away from the system that worked well for a time yet is obviously now so run into the ground that, like the old clunker, it should simply be scrapped. The passengers who rode it around after it first came out of the showroom LOVED this machine, those of us who rode it when the decay set in aren't so enamored. We Are The 99% BTW are you familiar with The Zeitgeist Movement or Venus Project?
Zeitgeist movement yes, Venus project, I have only heard about. I will have to do more research into it.
Well, the main problem I see with welfare is that it is a kind of a trap. You get dependant on the checks, and on the system. I think that welfare was enough to live off in the 60s and 70s, but in the 80s it was cut almost in half. The reason for this was/ is "Budget cuts, budget cuts. budget cuts'.
Apparently it is now costing us too much money to run the cities, schools, libraries, roads, but there is oodles of money for never-ending wars no one likes, with suspicious motives?
An analogy that I like is "The government breaks your leg, then acts as a crutch." A pretty apt description of what welfare and disability are like.
The thing about welfare and disability is that they make you feel bad about collecting it. There is a stigma attached to it. Also, they set up artificial conditions so they can deny, delay, and discourage you from collecting your check. Stuff like 'workfare' (slavery), etc.
With GMI, there is no stigma attached to it. Everyone gets it, unless you are making double what the GMI amount is (and then you pay taxes).
It wouldn't be possible to make cutbacks to GMI, since it will always be balanced and adjusted for inflation. Also, the money that is put into GMI will automatically be circulated into the local economy, thus keeping the local businesses open.
Another thing to consider when it comes to the GMI, is the aging population.
The population in the third world is increasing, but here in America (Canada, China and Europe) our population is shrinking, and AGING. I think the average age in the US right now is 40.
In another twenty years, one in every five people in the US will be a senior citizen. For the first time in history, there will be more seniors than children.
Now, consider the people that are 40 now that are unemployed. Where will their pensions come from in the next twenty years? The jobs that were outsourced to China are NOT coming back. If there are any new jobs created by the 1%, they are going to want us to be wage competitive with Chinese prison labour.
This is one of the reasons for the influx of illegal immigrant workers, BTW. They are deliberately let into the country to keep wages low and prevent labour from organizing.
It's entirely possible to replace most manual labour/ manufacturing jobs with robots. Even some service industry jobs are now being done by robots in Japan.
The reason we don't have robots now is because the 1% doesn't like the idea of a large, unemployed working class sitting idle, then forming a movement such as we have now.
When many of us are senior citizens in 2030, we are going to need something to fall back on. We won't be able to work as well as we could in our 20s and 30s, we won't be as employable, and the jobs still won't be there. There are going to be medical expenses to consider, as well as housing, etc.
The only way that production could be kept up, the economy could be sustained, and taxes paid is to let in a massive wave of probably hungry, desperate immigrants. (At least, with our current economic model.)
So, with 1 in 5 Americans (Canadians, Europeans, Chinese) over the age of 65, and a fully automated workforce, I really think implementing a GMI makes a lot of sense.
I don't think that a lot of people (especially right-wing people, and libertarians) take the aging population into consideration when they consider our present economic model as being sustainable.
[Removed]
HEY I was going to post that LOL
Make sure the official seal has a focal point of Richard Trumpka's head set in a chisel and hammer backdrop. The colors should be red and yellow.
only if the candydate is chosen by at least 3 people that hate each others ideas
[Removed]