Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Political Solution to Satisfy Progressives and Conservatives; Socialists and Libertarians

Posted 6 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 8:58 p.m. EST by jjpatrick (195)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Political Solution to Satisfy Progressives and Conservatives; Socialists and Libertarians

  1. Let each state raise taxes on their people whether in a progressive manner or a flat tax manner. By doing so, they can implement free health care, education, social security, implement regulations of how certain businesses run in their state, more money for their own cities. Keep in mind that the population in one State is equal or more than most countries in the world. If Sweden can do it, so can the State of NY.

  2. Decrease federal taxes so that the revenue generated won't be used to serve the priorities and interests of big banks and corporations. In other words, shrink the temptation for corporations to get their hands on the most powerful empire in the world and the 3 trillion dollar budget (of our money).

The jurisdictions of the federal government should be shrunk down to oversee only programs that need a bigger reach that states can't do themsevles such as Global Warming or U.S. Defense.

And if you don't agree with your State policies, then move.

11 Comments

11 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

please - another complex wish list - impossible to implement - be real - please! There are a huge number of great COMPLICATED ideas that will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
In an ideal country full of great idealistic philosophers, these would be easy to implement. We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] 2 points by Teacher (469) 6 years ago

Until we get the money out of politics, there can be no sensible discussion of any of this.

www.getmoneyout.com

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 6 years ago

It makes all sense to me. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposing the idea of federal government. He knew the power of central corruption: "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have ..." -- Thomas Jefferson.

David Icke ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9A2IGShuk ) is trying to warn us against the same global corruption: any centralization move government are pushing forward (starting at 12:04 min. and should watch at least 6 minutes).

I'm not against taxes. I'm against the way they spent. I don't want my tax dollars to fund warlords and their profit seeking policy by killing millions of innocent people for no-reason unjust wars, or financial firms socializing their losses while taking profits without even paying their fair taxes using offshore tax havens or untaxed transactions. List goes on and it's very long corruption list. Furthering that, tax dollars collected by federal govt. is partially return back to states based on their political agenda. We are being betrayed by our federal government and by our political parties.

One one can argue their tax dollars serving them at some point of time in their lives and/or collectively improving quality of lives in that community. And I believe this is what people want to believe or wish when they pay taxes. Your idea "minimizing the power of federal govt." is the right approach to end this nonsense.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 6 years ago

‎1. Fact check: Romney vs Obama: who lies more? http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/

  1. Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

  2. An interesting perspective by Noam Chomsky: --Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm

  3. Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44

  4. Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ

[-] 1 points by Jobrny (-1) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

The only difference is one is a Republican, the other acts like one.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

Nah... he's definitely a Dem.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 6 years ago

Your feedback is appreciated.

[-] 1 points by mapparu (10) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Yes.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 6 years ago

jjpatrick, what you write here is what the intent of this nation was in the first place. Hell, the 10th Amendment spells this out quite clearly.

[-] 0 points by followthemoneymom (4) 6 years ago

Absolutely! Push the responsibilities down to the states and you will increase accountability and efficiency.

[Removed]