Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: PROPOSED LIST OF DEMANDS (please help edit/add so this can be submitted for consideration to those maintaining the official list)

Posted 4 years ago on Sept. 28, 2011, 6:54 p.m. EST by GandhiKingMindset (124)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands, it's a user-submitted post on our forum. The user who submitted this post only speaks for her/himself and their supporters, NOT the movement as a whole.


(Please click on this link if you haven't yet read the introduction called "OUR TURN": https://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn/ . Feel free to share this link with anyone you like).

TACTICS FOR "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

We should make the demands below very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

NOTE: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

  1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .

  2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

  3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

  4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

  5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

  6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

  7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

  8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

NOTE 1: This is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail":

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

Here's the entire "Letter from the Birmingham Jail": http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html . It's a treasure and is as timely as ever.

NOTE 2: Here's a short video from BBC to inspire you. It gets pretty extraordinary about halfway through: http://youtu.be/lqN3amj6AcE

NOTE 3: If you haven't seen these 3 award winning documentaries -- INSIDE JOB, THE CORPORATION, and WHY WE FIGHT -- I highly recommend them.

NOTE 4: There needs to be a very well researched and concise addendum that contains a list of the top 50 corporate crimes / harmful actions during the past 15 years. This ought to really blow people away and will help increase support both on the ground in DC and in living rooms across America as the story unfolds. We can't assume everyone knows why these demands are necessary. We must demonstrate.

2021 Comments

2021 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 25 points by sunlover1975 (50) from Brooklyn, NY 4 years ago

I would love to see a law/bill passed called The Honesty Act or Nothing Hidden Act (or whatever you want to call it) where it would be illegal for politicians to sneak in laws/bills/ideas into another law/bill that has nothing to do with the original idea being proposed. So in other words, if I was a politician and I was trying to get a bill passed regarding child safety and car seats, I (nor anyone else) could then slip in a line about military spending etc. because that's a tool that they use to get shit passed. After all, whose gonna be against child safety? etc.

[-] 10 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

It's called a rider. Riders need to be banned.

That is why we need a 4th body of government that is the people. Federal PUBLIC REFERENDUMS or BALLOT INITIATIVES.

Then we can do things like banning riders ourselves without taking to the streets all the time...

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheAgenda

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 4 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

According to those who wrote the constitution, The House was supposed to be the people's voice in government. get involved, talk to your Congressmen(women) and fire them if they dont do what WE want.

[-] 3 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

This is one of the best comments I've seen on this entire forum. Simple but so true. I worked for a Congressman on Capitol Hill and I know how much of a difference it made when citizens voiced concerns. Call your congress person. It makes a difference. Trust me. I used to be one of the people counting he responses to certain events, legislation, etc and it DEFINITELY mattered to the congressman what the counts were. He obsessed over them.

[-] 1 points by Fresh2Death13 (207) from Windsor, ON 4 years ago

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html please check this out for a LEGAL way we can change the government now people NEED to know they have legal options.

[-] 1 points by Imagine (6) 4 years ago

Amending the Constitution is a dead letter, no hope of changing things that way. Bear in mind in order for an amendment to be enacted it has to first gain approval by two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and then goes to the states and has to be approved by three-fourths of the states. If at any point in that process it fails even by one vote to get the required margins it is rejected. There is literally NO chance of getting any kind of meaningful amendment passed by either the House OR the Senate considering they are both populated by wholly-owned puppets of the elite regardless of whether they have a meaningless "R" or "D" next to their names.

So forget about it. Real change is going to have to come from working outside the established crooked and rigged political framework, not trying to change something from within which has been purposely designed to prevent meaningful change from happening.

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 4 years ago

Unfortuantely, article V has NEVER been invoked, even though 36 time in the past, more than 3/4 of the state legislatures petitioned.

[-] 1 points by Fresh2Death13 (207) from Windsor, ON 4 years ago

the need has never been so great..

[-] -1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

well if you liked that comment here's another: the financial crisis was NOT caused by wall street. Wall street was a victim. the cause stemmed from inept govy leaders, like Dodd and Frank, who mandated that fannie, freddie, and FHA underwrite mortgages to buyers with incomes at 80% levels to the median income. in other words, to those who couldnt afford the house they were buying and the mortgage they were taking. this perverse force allowed bad mortgages to proliferate and infect balance sheets of many unsuspecting institutions, including the banks themselves. i know i work on wall street. All this followed the flawed left-wing thinking that everyone should own a house, regardless if they could afford one. The same inept politicians that caused the crash devised silly new regulations that attacked the banks (Dodd Frank bill). Hey folks, if you want to go after the bad guys and occcupy something, then please go occupy Washington, DC.

[-] 4 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Wall Street is a victim? Oh, you are a piece of work. Have you seen the award winning documentary "Inside Job"? Thanks for giving me my laugh of the day. It's your lie pal. Tell it however you want :)

These clowns speculated with OUR money and BET AGAINST US and then asked us to bail them out. Many of them deserve jail.

[-] 1 points by emoryaz (3) from Chandler, AZ 4 years ago

Your/our (so called) "Representatives" in Washington, DC LET THEM DO IT!

People we have entrusted to act on our behalf are only acting on their behalf and that of the "1%".

Congressional reform is the key to addressing all these grievances.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

So we will continue to discover what we have in common so we can band together and become unified. Then we will be making decisions from a position of unified power rather than making demands from a position of divided weakness. We definitely need forceful nonviolent direct action but first we need to unify.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=share

you repeat things you've heard, like a little school boy. tell me, how exactly did wall street bet with your money? how did they bet against you? (and be clear on who bet against you?) and what happened to the bail out money? (hint: it was aall repaid, with a profit! except GM and AIG). get your facts straight if youre going to be an ignorant attack dog

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Hi friend. You haven't yet read anything I offered you. It shows me you're not serious. You're just a troll. Sigh. This whole article really explains what's happening here in context.  Gen Y, the millennial generation is perfectly poised to completely change the landscape.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-will-have-seismic-effect-marks-split-with-obama-dems.html

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

i will look at your link. have a look at this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=share

this video says it all. the occupy wall street movement has force and passion and is rooted in widespread frustration. however its target - -wall street -- is off the mark. look at this you-tube video to see where the OWS efforts would be more appropriately targeted.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago
[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

article seems interesting, the shift to the left thing... in the 60s, 80s, and today, all for different reasons. lacks a pointed thesis though.

what should the people do with all that frustration? answer: first blame the right people and institutions (government, not wall street), then move to affect change: we need stim economic growth policies, balanced budgets, responsible entitlement programs (that provide temporary safety nets, not lazy life styles), etc.

[-] 2 points by masters4biz (4) from Philadelphia, PA 4 years ago

Are you kidding? Wall St tells us every day that the "market" will work it's magic, but when their firms fail, the threaten to take us all with them unless we cover their losses. What happened to the market?? If it was truly the driving force of our economy, all the bad speculators would have been driven out of business. Markets my eye, handouts is what they want

[-] 0 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

you're ignorant, sorry i cant help you.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

Bullshit

[-] 1 points by emoryaz (3) from Chandler, AZ 4 years ago

BING! GO!

[-] 0 points by Satyr000 (86) 4 years ago

The corruption in our government and all the harm its causing is simply a symptom of a larger problem. The government for years has been actively trying to free us(and just about every other country has) from the grip of Africa, The Middle East and China with out risking a global market crash. Due to the fact that they all have the power to do so. This is why we have been allowing them to slap us around for so many years. They don't need to cut off our oil supply or goods. They also don't have to go to war with every NATO nation. All three can do it through currency manipulation.

You ever wonder why we ended up in Iraq when they where not our "enemy?" Saddam Hussein was doing every thing he could to push every country besides Israel to start manipulating the dollar by using oil as a leverage against it. This is also the reason NATO jumped at the chance to take out Muammar Gaddafi.

Hussien wanted to make it so that if you wanted to buy oil Iraqi you had to use the Euro. This would have sent the value of the dollar plummeting. Thus setting off a chain reaction that would have resulted in a global market crash.

Gaddafi was working on a global currency, the Gold Dinar and with it a gold-for-oil plan. Meaning that the only currency you could use to buy oil from Libya is gold or Libya's Gold Dinar. The Africa and the Middle East besides Israeli where also keen on this idea and you can bet they are still working on establishing the Gold Dinar and a gold-for-oil plan. We don't have enough gold to keep up with our dependance on oil from the middle east. It would only be a matter of days before Fort Knox is empty and our oil reserve is gone.

All China has to do is demand hard currency like gold or sliver to backup the large amounts of the bonds that make up the debit they have they have against us. The moment out government says no, they will turn around and sell those federal bonds for next to nothing. Due to the fact that our dollars worth is based largely on federal bonds, the value of those bonds would take and dive and they would take the value of our dollar with them. Instant stock market crash that will send shock waive through out the global market. It will be only a matter of days before our stock market crash hits the global market and once it does every country that is invested in the dollar is going to crash also.

They are focusing on those issues above all others due largely that they demand all most 100% of the governments attention. http://youtu.be/hJm5O2dV_RY

[-] 1 points by amen88 (173) 4 years ago

i agree with this, if big money no longer runs the show, the people will naturally take their rightful place once again. there is no reason to make things more complicated then they already are by more branches in government. this same thing goes for legislation, much good change can be done by cutting away or changing bad legislation. let only enact new legislation where we absolutely have to. remember, less government is better. put the power back where it was when this country was born, with the states, and the people. states rights, very important!

[-] 1 points by emoryaz (3) from Chandler, AZ 4 years ago

This is the root cause to address and most fundamental action to take to reclaim our voice, reclaim our rights.

But to elect replacements that will represent us we must overcome the Corporate Funded Campaign Finance "machine."

With our social network and numbers...WE CAN overcome that "machine."

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I am very excited for us to overcome this machine. But how do we get from here to there?

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 4 years ago

finally! something i can agree with on this site.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

I hear talk to your congressman all the time and LAUGH!

That is somewhat true, however the senate is there to stop that. It's easier to buy 100 people who are there for 6 years than 435 that are there for 2 years but they are easily corrupted too. By design it is giving the illusion of a democracy. Senate means the assembly of the eldest and wiser members of the society and ruling class, I think there are significantly more of the latter. This all leads to the general distrust for this system to continue to work and represent the people. That is why I think that we need a system that models this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 3 points by JohnFx (11) 4 years ago

Especially Winona. Has she done any decent projects since Heathers?

[-] 4 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

This is a great list. I would also include:

1) Abolishing a) Central Banks, i.e. Federal Reserve, b) FIAT Currency, and c) Fractional Banking. The Federal Government should print the money and spend it into circulation without interest. The banks should be forced to keep a good percentage in reserve.

2) Speculative trading on commodities should be limited. It is the speculative trading that is causing the oil prices and food prices to go up. It is another bubble that the big banks are betting against (shorting)... while the poor around the world are starving to death.

3) And what guyfawkestrader said 10 days ago about high frequency trading:

This is a fantastic list. It is exactly what the movement needs to really gain steam. I hope that this becomes the official list of demands fast and that it gets out to the media so the rest of america can get behind it. Bravo, you all are doing a great job.

The only thing I would think to add is a section that revamps speculation. There needs to be some type of law that reforms the way trading occurs. The high frequency trading and over-leveraged speculation is roiling the markets. 80% of the trades on the NYSE and NASDAQ are done by pros who are simply trying to screw the little guy out of a nickel here and a penny there. However, they also cause huge volatility and provide no benefit at all. Its an esoteric subject matter, but former traders such as myself will understand the gist of what I am saying immediately. Perhaps a group of traders could drill down this idea into a more concrete substance.

For the laymen, consider this-- 20 years ago, kids from MIT went to engineering and other types of companies that produced a product. Now they build algorithms to trade. This is a huge problem.

[-] 2 points by Spiralmind (3) 4 years ago

I agree with your additions. I am surprised abolishing the federal reserve is not included.

[-] 1 points by rzayas (3) 4 years ago

I totally agree with you!!!

[-] 1 points by EVmc (11) 4 years ago

2) Speculative trading - IF you are not going to take possession of product you can not speculate simple effective

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

That would change the whole game for our markets. I love it. I've spoken to many good people on Wall Street who hate two things: the automatic trading which causes volatility and the speculation which hurts the economy and gives them a bad name.

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I agree. The kind of speculation on Commodities I'm taking about is - Food crisis benefits Goldman Sachs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3vpDqzz5mo

[-] 1 points by jspencer (1) 4 years ago

The fed can actually be a usefull tool if run by the people. It was created for a good reason but we must re gain controll of all of its activities. Let's not go backwards let's move toward with major reform.

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

You do know how the FED was created right? And who owns it? Edward Griffin Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhMacPvc5qc

[-] 4 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

powertothepeople mentioned ALEC 10 days ago, I think they need to be mentioned again:

Our laws are NOT being written by our Congressional representatives in Washington, but by the corporations!

State legislators from across the country, who are members of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, http://www.alec.org/), get wined and dined by corporate lobbyists. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, for an example, invited legislators to a big smoke at their cigar reception on Bourbon Street (their last convention was in New Orleans 08/03/11).

But the meeting is not all fun and games. Legislators sit down with some of the biggest corporations in the world -- Koch Industries, Bayer, Kraft, Coca-Cola, State Farm, AT&T, WalMart, Philip Morris and more -- and behind closed doors, they approve one-size-fits-all changes to the law that ALEC legislators then take home and introduce as their own brilliant policy innovations.

Update: Now I find out that ALEC recommends not putting out a single bill, because the public (us 99%) can build opposition to the bill, but to put out a series of bills all pertaining to a single topic, because it is a lot harder to attack those. (see: Rep. Mark Bocan: http://just-gov.com/politics-politicians-elections/).

Also see: http://www.alecexposed.org

Again we also need to repeal: "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" ( http://www.just-gov.com/politics-politicians-elections/ ).

[-] 2 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 4 years ago

Did some of the same Justice's that voted to approve "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided that Unions could not use dues money for campaign contributions, because that would force member to contribute to a candidate the didn't approve of. Corporations pass on the cost of their contributions to the consumer, shareholders and taxpayers Just like they pass on all other costs. Thereby forcing us to support candidates we don't approve of.

[-] 2 points by ejm (8) from Tiburon, CA 4 years ago

This particular idea is really a nasty power grab with which many people are not yet acquainted. Whereas parties in all three branches of our government (Executive (at times), Legislative (constantly) and Judicial (increasingly more frequent)) are attempting to eviscerate Unions, they completely look the other way when it comes to requiring churches to live up to their 501(c)3 status, which requires that they DO NOT participate in legislative or political activities and that they not provide funding, resourses, or facilities for political or legislative causes.

This is an outrage because they are attempting silence organizations who are intended to have and who by all rights do and should continue to have a right to speak into the political process, while at the same time, they are allowing those who have no legal right to speak into the process, and who are in fact are legally prevented from speaking into the process lest they lose their tax exempt status, to organize for candidates, sponsor legislation and use their church funds and church facilities as resources for political and legislative efforts.

Through this process, these people in our branches of government (mostly Republicans), hope to eliminate the ligitimate voice of millions of American workers, while at the same time instuting an illegal, theocraic voice in American politics.

The idea that Unions should not have the right to support candidates because it does not represent every member's individual preference is absurd. To say this is the same as saying that every decision the federal government makes must meet the approval of every single individual citizen. Governments do not work like that. They are supposed to govern with an understanding of their constituents and with a sense of utility (creating usefulness and happiness for the greatest number of people).

  1. Unions are a "governing body (i.e., a government)" of workers who petition (request) membership by way of an application. They ASK to become members; it is a privilege, not a right, that is not always granted. If all they want is the pay and benefits of belonging to a Union without actually supporting that Union, they should directly negotiate with the employer themselves. Of course, they already know how far those negotiations with their employer will get them, which is nowhere. Which is why they are in a Union to begin with: because employers were abusing workers, using child labor, denying those children a right to attend school, hiring thugs to shoot and kill workers, allowing workers to die in unsafe working conditions, etc. Think it can't happen again? Look around: think there are any people out there wondering how they can profit from the current economic situation? Think there are some calculating who'll get hungriest first, so they can offer them abusive working conditions, knowing they'll jump at the chance, just to get a consistent bite to eat? I assure you there are those very people making those very calculations. Those people don't think like normal people think, and yet, they are the very people your Union has to negotiate with. Do you get it?! As an alternative, maybe supporting their Union is not such a bad deal after all?

  2. There is a democratic process in unions, nearly identical to that of our various governments, that process is to be worked out within the Union and has nothing to do with federal or state government, as long as the Union operates within the laws of the state and federal government. The big issue is that the the Union's "scope of concern" is the benefit of it's workers.

  3. That governing body makes decisions on behalf of the members. Supporting candidates for office is one of those decisions. It may not meet with someone's particular idealogical stand on other issues but the Union is making the best choice available, that is intended to promote the best outcome for their "scope of concern,"which is employment, pay and benefits for its members.

Churches on the other hand derive their tax-exempt status from their agreement to remain separate from the state. Imagine how polluted churches would become if the government was in our churches stirring things up, legally!

This separation is not intended merely to protect the government from the voice of the church (which any church member may voice on his or her own, as citizens), rather it is also intended to protect the Church from the government! People on either side who wish for this outcome, are either not think the issues through or, they have a theocratic agenda.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

"They ASK to become members; it is a privilege"

It is actually forced upon people because of union contracts, I have no choice if I want a job and $50 per month is taken from my pay check to pay SEIU one of the largest unions that I do not like, they do things all the time that I do not agree with, yet every paycheck I pay to support their regime. Recently they testified in the Illinois legislature in favor of repealing parts of the freedom of information act, WHY?

LOOK AT ALL THE UNIONS MEDDLING IN THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT!

SPEAKING AGAINST PUBLIC ACCESS!

http://www.chicagojustice.org/foi/issue-brief-general-assembly-attempts-rollbacks-of-public-access-law

Here is some info about the corrupt ways they pay themselves too.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-12/news/ct-met-pensions-double-dip-20111012_1_pension-fund-union-pension-city-pension

[-] 1 points by Catfitz (4) 4 years ago

You're having an awfully hard time explaining why unions cannot become more democratic and more representative of their rank-and-file members when they endorse candidates.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Unions do represent the interests of their members. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept. It seems perfectly clear to me. So, if you're against unions in general, you're basically against the people. Which means you're against a whole chunk of the population. It would obviously be better to find common ground and embrace one another rather than being so decisive. Once the 99% realize they're the 99% and they have the power, then they'll be making decisions from position of unified power rather than demands from a position of divided weakness. It's the 1% that love to fan the false flames of divisiveness.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

LOOK AT ALL THE UNIONS MEDDLING IN THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT!

SPEAKING AGAINST PUBLIC ACCESS!... WHY?

http://www.chicagojustice.org/foi/issue-brief-general-assembly-attempts-rollbacks-of-public-access-law

Here is some info about the corrupt ways they pay themselves too. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-12/news/ct-met-pensions-double-dip-20111012_1_pension-fund-union-pension-city-pension

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I'm not sure what your point is. What does this have to do with Occupy Wall Street?

[-] 1 points by ejm (8) from Tiburon, CA 4 years ago

No. I am not having a hard time explaining anything; I was very clear. I think you're just having a hard time accepting the narrow scope and role of unions, as they represent their members' interests.

Membership has an obligation to be the union. Membership has a responsibility to attend meetings, to assume leadership office positions. Membership has every opportunity to engage the union whenever those members desire to change the direction of the union. If membership fails in its obligation to its own organization, it has no room to complain about those who assume those roles and make those decisions.

If you are going to make a critique, please be specific and give your reasons.

[-] 1 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 4 years ago

Im on board for that law to be written. And we do need a third party. Hence, why I am registered independent for many years.

[-] 1 points by wesmcl (1) 4 years ago

The reason the US has a two-party system is because of the electoral system. In a winner-take-all system, you will always have a maximum of two viable parties per district. If you have two winners per district, you will have a maximum of 3 viable parties, three winners, 4 parties etc. The reason European countries have more than 2 viable political parties is that they have proportional representation, which allows for more than one winner per district. The most extreme example is the Netherlands, where the whole country is one district, with legislative seats are allocated according to the percentage of votes a party gets. This means that voting for "fringe" parties doesn't mean wasting one's vote in the Netherlands. In the US, voting for a third party is ALWAYS a wasted vote, since third parties can't win. If you want a third party, you have to amend the Constitution and replace the winner-take-all system with some sort of proportional representation.

[-] 2 points by mgoodri (3) from Myrtle Beach, SC 4 years ago

The electorial sysetm is annoquated. I say, if you know who has the winning lottery number every night, why not have the popular vote determine who wins with the same system! There's so much room for fraud with the systems that are in place. It's despicable!

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 4 years ago

popular vote will be unfair to rural areas, and the less populated western non-coastal states.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 4 years ago

I agree. I know this may sound crazy but the system needs more regional representatives with less pay and benefits, but viable pay and benefits. I also think all Senators should be reduced to serving only one 5 year term with the chance at being voted in for an extra 3. Then reduced retirement benefits kick in at the minimum retirement age of 59.5

[-] 1 points by optimismUSA (0) from San Francisco, CA 4 years ago

The electoral system was originally put in place to "protect" America from ignorant people who were uneducated and uninformed. Well I say we are an informed society, all grown-up, and able to make decisions for ourselves - especially who to kick out of office!

[-] 1 points by gouko787 (5) from Aurora, CO 4 years ago

The process could be much like it is now, but elminate the winner take all regarding the Electoral Results and eliminate the Electors.

For example, we have 9 Electoral Votes in Colorado,

If Cand 1 has 43% Cand 2 has 27% and Cand 3 has 30% They would get the follwoing Electoral Votes from CO

Cand 1 = 4.23 Cand 2 = 2.43 Cand 3 = 2.7

Add all the States results and the one with the most wins.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

That sounds fair to me. But wouldn't all this require that the current congress get it or care?

[-] 1 points by cythara (11) 4 years ago

It is exactly this 'two party system' which is the core problem. Someone who wants to conquer and own this country can never do that by force of arms. It was seen, a long time ago that if you corrupted both parties and took control of them, you, in effect, have subverted the country and conquered it.

OF COURSE the Republican and Democratic leadership don't want the nation to get rid of them or the electoral college. But until this is done and real political parties in profusion are allowed, you will have these two TOTALITARIAN GATEKEEPER parties pushing ever closer to absolute tyranny and corruption.

GET RID OF THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES' HIDDEN MONOPOLY ON OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

This is an important change that is needed in all world governments. It's a big change and needs a lot of input. So, as a minimum, a change is needed like having the states CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION to do it. But FIRST, the large corporations have to be taken out of the picture.

[-] 0 points by OpenSky (217) 4 years ago

we NEED proportional representation. This SHOULD BE A DEMAND in the list above, as the winner-takes all system is the primary thing keeping the status quo in place. Introduce the ability to form viable parties, and the whole political dynamic changes and starts to flow, a la, more representation for the 99%. Without our demands though, this will never be changed, as the Republicans and Democrats obviously have no incentive to change it.

[-] 0 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 4 years ago

This can happen.The Constitution has been amended many times. A third party is evolving.

[-] 0 points by voteforyourself (5) 4 years ago

Don't like the candidates and what they do for you?? Always picking the candidate that represents the "lesser of two evils"?? Write yourself in at the next election... If everyone that is dissatisfied with the candidates and government voted as a write-in using their own name, then the election results would be the headline story. The clear results would be a message of "no confidence" in the government.

How many elections have had less than majority turnout of voters? Was the smaller turnout a result of lack of confidence in the candidates, or apathy? By simply not voting, does not send a message to those in power. Voting for yourself as a write-in shows you are interested, but not in any of the available candidates. Could you imagine if we had millions of write-in votes for individual citizens at the 2012 election? The results would truly be the "independent" voter voice, and would send a message to those in power that they are not working for the "independent" voter.

ALWAYS VOTE - BUT WRITE-IN VOTE FOR YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE CANDIDATES.

[-] 3 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Or, as a minimum, change the voting law to include a box for: NO ACCEPTABLE CANDIDATE.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 4 years ago

Gentlemen I concur

[-] 1 points by samiup (2) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

i totally agree with the write in voting. but it is also worth mentioning that the lobbying system have made it impossible for average American folks to present themselves as presidential candidates.

[-] 1 points by voteforyourself (5) 4 years ago

My point is not so much to write-in a "third party" type candidate, although I agree with you about this option and its challenges.

My point was that by "self-voting" you show your interest in government, but dissatisfaction with the current power and results. Think of millions of write-in votes each for the individual voter (john Doe, Jane Doe, Bob Doe, etc). Neither party can lay claim to the "dissatisfied independent voters", because the voter has voted for themselves in a "protest vote". The media cannot claim that these votes represent dissatisfaction with one party or the other, because the votes are not party affiliated. The votes are simply an individual citizen voicing a lack of confidence in ANY candidate on the ballot. In other words, get someone on the ballot that will "work for me" the individual citizen, not unions, not corps...me!

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 4 years ago

write-in votes are never going to win an election. We need proportional representation that will allow for viable third parties, not the winner-takes all system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

Change that, and we can change the world. Everything will flow down from there. I believe this with all my heart.

[-] 1 points by voteforyourself (5) 4 years ago

That seems like a rational solution, but requires a constitutional amendment. Neither of the two parties in power is going to allow this, if they can stop it. What about the short term...what about now?

We have been convinced by the media and the two primary parties that we can only have choice "a" or "b". If we vote third party "c", to send the message that we don't accept "a' or "b", then our vote goes to waste. Like it was said, winner takes all...

Nobody ever counts the "non-votes" and correlates them as dissatisfaction with the current candidates. We need a clear way of sending a proof positive message that we are dissatisfied with the current candidates/elected officials and the way they operate. If you don't like the candidates on the ballot, what do you do?? Today, many people don't vote at all, because they have no one to vote for that truly represents their interest...

If the 99% is comprised a great deal by people that don't vote because they essentially have no one to vote for, then they need an alternative. They need to be encouraged to write in their own personal name. Then the results of an election will show proof positive that candidates "a", "b" and "c" all got a small percentage of votes, but when the majority of votes cast represent individual voter write-in names, it will illustrate that none of the "a, b, c" candidates were accepted by the voters. No one wins the election...

This should force the candidates "a, b, c" to cater a little more toward the needs of the 99%... right?

I do like the proportional representation though...

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 4 years ago

the fact is that many people have no idea how our election process works. I think by just bringing attention to the fact that we have a winners-take-all system could cause major quakes in public opinion if you know what I mean. This is something that even those on the far right might agree too, as there are numerous conservative third parties as well. Get enough people to demand change, and we might just see a constitutional amendment.

[-] 1 points by voteforyourself (5) 4 years ago

That's just it... many believe that the media and parties can control this message, and dull it down to pointless.

This cause will last only as long as people feel there is progress. Then they will give up the effort, leaving only the "normal" few to fight for the 99%.

What I propose is that every election the only effort required to protest is to go to the polls and then write your own personal name in on the ballot.

The protest is kept alive until action is positive for the true majority. The media and parties cannot curtail the signal that so many are unsatisfied, when the majority of votes counted illustrate a vote of no confidence in ANY of the candidates...

People will not continue to go to the town square to protest. Voting in this manner that I suggest allows them to easily apply their protest.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 4 years ago

Interesting idea. But maybe we should focus on changes that are a little more possible, and work with the system we have.

[-] 0 points by mgoodri (3) from Myrtle Beach, SC 4 years ago

Great idea!

[-] 0 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

SUCH A BRAINSTORM GENIUS IDEA. That is simply genius and reason to sue and take down the law. If unions can't contribute or compel members to be part of an plan to bring political influence,neither can corporations compel employees,subcontractors or unwitting consumers to do the same. That is perfect grounds for a law suit. We can either sue the companies involved in the original case or sue the government into forcing an amendment that overrides this terrible decision.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

We need ourselves an army of smart lawyers.

[-] 0 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I don't think I can answer your question. I do know that" Citizens United" does allow Unions to advertise for candidates just like corporations. Sorry.

[-] 0 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 4 years ago

You are right, The ruling for Citizens United does allow Unions and Corporations to use monies from their general treasuries for advocacy campaigns. But I do not see that it allows direct contributions to the candidates from their general treasuries.

[-] 0 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

You are correct, but millions of dollars of media exposure will probably be just as effective.

[-] 0 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 4 years ago

i do not think a court decision can be repealed

[-] 1 points by verita87 (140) 4 years ago

Court decisions cannot be repealed, but, Congress can pass a law that would superceed the decision. The Supreme Court can only rule on laws that are currently enacted. It has reversed itself before, but this is extraordinarily rare.

[-] 0 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I can't believe they voted for corporations. Have you seen Alan Grayson's response to the ruling, it would be funny if it wasn't so true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U83iXN9rGI

[-] 1 points by WhiteOw1 (17) 4 years ago

Thank you for bringing up ALEC! I think there needs to be a much bigger conversation about it. ALEC is basically proof that we have been subjected to a covert corporate "dictatorship".

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I agree!!!!

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I don't know how you get your arms around such organizations. I just happened upon Alec when a friend of mine was joking about the Koch Brothers and the next thing I know I ran across an article where they are wining and dining our representatives in New Orleans. The representatives pay something like $50.00 to be a member of ALEC. The corporations pay >$7,000.00. The representatives bring their familys to the conferences and treat it as a free paid vacation. Meanwhile the corporations help draft "model" laws that the representatives treat as their own and take back to their state. This is all done at the local level. I devoted a page on my website:
http://www.just-gov.com/politics-politicians-elections/ , but the better site to see what legislation is currently being drafted is: http://www.alecexposed.org.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

Reversing Citizens United cannot be done alone by Congress, it will require a constitutional amendment, since the Court held that corporations as "persons" have a 1st Amendment right to free speech and unlimited contributions.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Let's take away their status as persons. They apparently won that unfairly by unfairly using a law designed to protect freed slaves.....they used it to declare themselves persons. Interesting when you dig down and find the root of things is rotten.

[-] 2 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

I agree. The amendment should specifically say that, maybe conceding that they can be "persons" only for the purpose of suing or being sued.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Good point HM. Thanks for pointing that out.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

Thank you. I think the important things we can do is to pass such an amendment and end too big to fail, break up these large financial institutions so that we not only have to bail them out if they fail, but also make them more responsive to their customers and communities, and reduce their power.

[-] 2 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

It can be done by suing Congress on behalf of the American people,requiring them to legislate and ratify and amendment prohibiting such actions that unfairly skew the political balance in manners negatively affecting the people of the US.

[-] 2 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

you are talking about seeking a Writ of Mandamus, which requires a government official to perform a duty that is required by law and is ministerial in nature. Unfortunately that will not work. Another means is to seek a Constitutional Convention called by the states and thus bypass congress.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

You are right and I had mentioned earlier, the Constitutional Convention is well underway. And how dangerous is that! The TeaBaggers already went to conferences on the subject at Harvard recently with the professor and author of "Republic,Lost" to get a handle on exactly how they are going to call for a Constitutional Convention. And since they were hijacked by big business long ago, we're all in for trouble. They already want a balanced budget amendment and an end to all abortion. But the balanced budget amendment will come at the expense of the 99%, not the corporate grants,tax breaks, or the war-for-profit-industrial complex. They are too simple minded and un-educated to know where the real money is going. It will be amusing to watch them cut the socialist agenda while they cling desperately to their medicare and social security checks. And they still won't get it. A balanced budget amendment is also not a good idea when the government has to do emergency spending, such as job stimulus. It's like writing down in stone that you will never have another problem again, such as several disasters at once, and then making absolutely no plans for such because you have legislated disasters out of the picture.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

I do agree that an extreme right wing Constitutional Convention would be a disaster, and the measures you mentioned would be ruinous for our country. However, I also see little chance that the Congress, being in the pockets of corporate interests, would ever agree to barring these interests from campaign finance, and in reality we need a structural reform in our government to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

I'm opting for taking a ride on the TeaBaggers hard work for bringing into being, a Constitutional Convention, then voting in our own delegates and virtual Congress where we become the Congress, all of the people of the United States. We then vote to control, retain,repeal every single law and control every single dollar. Voting would be a month long review by computer or mail and at the end of the 30 days, the vote is cast directly with no more representative bologna. The special interests would be out of a job and so would any potential Congressmen with a special opportunity to take advantage of his position. We would be the Congress.

[-] 1 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

Clearly there would need to be efforts to elect true representatives to such a convention. However, it requires 2/3 of the legislatures (34 states) to even call one so we are a bit ahead of ourselves.As much as your idea is admirable, as you mentioned earlier, we sometimes have emergencies, and we can't wait for a month long review and vote to deal with it.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

Spain is close to putting in this system right now and parts of Scandinavia already have it. The TeaBaggers descended upon Harvard University a while back to attend special conferences with professor and author of Republic,Lost on how to lobby the states for the Constitutional Convention. They are already in the process and will not stop until it happens. They want their balanced budget amendment and a stop to all reproductive choices. If they get there and we, the much larger majority, are not part of this process, it will be the biggest loss in history to this country. It is going to happen and they won't stop until they make it happen. We must be at least as organized and knowledgeable.

[-] 0 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 4 years ago

I think someone in Ga is suing congress. As early as last week.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

We all need to start suing this government for fraud and misrepresentation. Many of these legislators need to be charged with treason, tried and face long jail terms or execution as enemies of the state. And the state legislators are even more guilty. That is where ALEC gets most of its deals from by way of state amendments to block voters out.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Any update on this?

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 4 years ago

Dylan Rattigan, The MSNBC pundit has created an online petition called Get The Money Out. it goes some ways in stripping corporations of person hood through a constitutional amendment and already has over 170,000 signatures. Here is a link brother (or sister) http://www.getmoneyout.com/

[-] 2 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

yes, I've actually signed it. I think it's an excellent starting point.

[-] 1 points by mobio (4) 4 years ago

People have the right to assemble. When they assemble they can form things called corporations. That corporation can be a voice of all those people that have invested in that corporation. If the people within that corporation does not like the speech the corporation is communicating then they can try to change the other members of that corporation or leave that corporation and either say their own opinion themselves or form another corporation to communicate that corporation's opinion.

What I am saying is, if you don't like that Bank of America is using their freedom of speech to get bailouts from the government, then you should form your own corporation that competes with Bank of America. Then lobby the government to not give bailouts to Bank of America.

[-] 2 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

The founding father's ( Jefferson ) addressed this. While corporations have value, to maintain the "equal vote" principle of democracy, no corporation can be allowed to influence society to a greater extent than a single person. The law must guarantee this. Furthermore, corporate actions, which influence politics must be a democratic voice of the stock holders. The actions cannot represent a decision of one or a small number of executives. Also, any crime related to the action, must be paid for by all those voting for the action. The corporate law protection cannot protect the voters.

[-] 2 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

You confuse the right to assemble and petition of individuals with the economic right of people to form corporations so that they suffer no personal liability other than the amount of their investment should the venture fail. However, corporations are creatures of the state, unlike persons, and thus have no inalienable rights to speech on their own.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

This is right on target. We need to go after this weak spot and exploit it. Perhaps this is how Citizens United gets overturned.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Outstanding observation!

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

"That corporation can be a voice of all those people that have invested in that corporation."

THAT IS THE PROBLEM

A public corporations duty is to protect stock value so investors can get the maximum possible return for their money.

A public corporations leaders can be sued for actions that harm shareholder value.

That is not an environment where people are making ethical decisions, or opinions, unless it is a PR move.

All decisions made by public corporations are to get more money unless something written into their bylaws.

These "groups of people" if willing can form political action groups if they want to, that is their right, but corporations are a unique entity, and groups related to employment such as employers and unions, are in a unique position of power.

We can't govern ourselves with such powerful entities pushing their opinions on people.

[-] 1 points by NuclearRadio (108) 4 years ago

Corporations are a way of hiding liability and pooling income. However this is an interesting idea in some ways.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

The biggest problems with corporations is that when they get bigger they tend to move towards nationalizing debt and privatizing profits. They'll externalities pollution, whatever they can to save money

[-] 1 points by 4thvoice (1) 4 years ago

You'll have difficulty competing head to head with large corporations legally or financially. We should not want to wait for that fight to play out. Hit corporations where they'll notice immediately with boycotts. Starve the corporations income, notice how quickly one corp will become agreeable, others will have no choice but to follow.

[-] 2 points by thinkerton1 (3) 4 years ago

Not true. The first thing corporations will do is cut jobs and limit output to protect profit margins. They have an obligation to do that for the shareholders. As this happens, they will also lower prices to attract consumer interest. The shareholders (consumers, many which are retired depending on shares for fixed income) lose money, and the general public (us, the consumers) loses money. Effectively, boycotting them will only result in more unemployment and less consumer ability to spend and drive economic growth.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 4 years ago

shareholders tend to be younger, while retirees focus their investments on fixed income entities like bonds and cd's. Also, the corporations seem to have as much respect for shareholders as they do for voters as evidenced by the proliferation of obscene golden parachute clauses.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

So true. I say boycott everything.Starting with every major retailer until they manufacture every product on the shelves here in the USA.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I completely agree. We need to start this rolling right away with very clear indication of why we are boycotting. And we should focus on really clear cut cases that anyone in America could get on board with.

[-] 1 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 4 years ago

That is exactly what Sara Parks did in Alabama, with the help of the black community. They walked instead of taking the bus. We can do it if we work together, the corporations need us more than we need them. Without consumers and workers they would wither up and die,

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

We need a few amendments

1) A 4th body of government by the people that models this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

2) Ending corporate personhood, and limiting money as speech relating to mass media.

3) Citizen Jury to replace the authority of the Supreme Court in civil challenges to state and federal laws. Elected supreme court with authority on constitutional issues changed to criminal justice only. Supreme court must hear all death penalty cases, even at the state level.

4) Elected officials for all government agencies

These will be very hard to do but it needs to happen.

[-] 3 points by HMSinnott (123) 4 years ago

I do agree that the Supreme Court has become just another political institution and has nothing to do with law when it comes to constitutional law anymore. I would actually favor the creation of a Constitutional Court like some other countries have to decide those kind of issues, where the appointment is not for life, and is not done in the same manner as the Supreme Court, perhaps by region by the states.

[-] 2 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

Such a good idea. Lifetime appointment is like royalty you can't throw out. Actually, it comes from that model in Britain and has proven once again to skew the power balance. We need to take out the proxy voting trust and become the Congress and the courts ourselves. And all pending court trials and decisions need to be e-mailed to us virtually so that we can instruct the judges with what to do. The nation's Congress and courts.By the people.For the people.Of the people. And we need to get rid of privately held jails and probation systems. Modern day slavery is not acceptable. Neither is anything ALEC has done over the last 15 years.

[-] 2 points by NuclearRadio (108) 4 years ago

Agreed. The Supreme Court has too much power. The current sitting Court needs to be ejected.

[-] 2 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Consider the following change. The Supreme Court should be multiple courts. One should be made a functional part of congress, reviewing laws at the time they are voted on by congress. This will eliminate the long delay before we get a constitutionality ruling. However, the Supreme Court's role, should be limited only to ruling on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of each item in the proposed laws. A second Supreme Court should rule on civil challenges to state and federal laws. BUT, they must convene advisory panels of experts, including philosophers, to challenge the logic of what they are saying. All justices should be subject to recall in national elections.

[-] 1 points by GinaLola (210) 4 years ago

Nice idea and fresh. I haven't heard that one before. I do think that lifetime justices and 6 year terms for senators has been part of our undoing as a nation. These were tie-overs from the imperialism they came out of and have really fed the problem of us having no control over this system. luckily, it can all be changed at the Constitutional Convention that is coming up because the TeaBaggers are going to fight for it until they get it. We need to organize now for that and be every bit as ready so they don't give all of our rights away to corporate powers.

[-] 0 points by NuclearRadio (108) 4 years ago

Unfortunately, it is for this very reason that we need to hit the whole system at once. Only a Constitutional amendment and some kind of public counterbalance ( A 4th branch as mentioned above?) can end the problems we're having now.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I do agree with hitting hit hard all at once while we have the momentum and the energy of the majority of Americans behind us. But "all at once" to me means a slate of demands like the one at top of this post with direct action follow up if demands not met and then another slate of demands with follow up direct action etc. I really thing the demands have to be grouped to get consensus and support.

[-] 0 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 4 years ago

I agree with hitting the whole system at once but I'm not sure we have the man power. We should have an organic scheme of proliferation. By this I mean we should take the office of one city one state at a time (of course more if possible) and govern justly. Our reputation will spread and the results will be undeniable. Populism is rampit in both base of the left and the right and the solutions are easy and well documented we just need to be the people with courage to do the right thing.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

This is a very good point. I think it's really both. We should put the big squeeze on corporate power from the top and the bottom. They'll get dizzy after a while and capitulate.

[-] 0 points by NuclearRadio (108) 4 years ago

Yes. I am writing a position paper on how to do this very thing. I will present the GA with it on Thanksgiving.

[-] 0 points by impala (14) 4 years ago

The way the General Assembly works at Occupy Wall Street HQ is the message. It's the process that's important, not some list of demands. TV pundits don't seem to understand this. They say "the movement is too vague". They say this because they haven't seen the process at work. Being able to raise your hand and make politics about what you want and not just go-with-the-flow of politics as usual. Standing up for your own personal interests in the context of a community and arriving at a consensus that everyone agrees on, THAT is the point of Occupy Wall Street. That's what I want from my government. When the government gives us that we can give them our support.

[-] 1 points by thinkerton1 (3) 4 years ago

So.... Hypothetically speaking and with all due respect, what if that's not what I want from my government? Do I get to raise my hand and state that, too? Will I be vilified, ridiculed, and lambasted?

[-] 3 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

The revolving door between Washington and Wall Street has made "Government Street" the reality. Untill some of the controls, that were dismantled by Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, etc (1999-2001), are put back into place and Wall Street's gambling mentality is curbed, we are not going to get out of this mess. Wall Street's "Bubble" economy isn't working anymore.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

So true. This is huge.

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

This is why I created http://www.just-gov.com/introduction/ and http://goldmanbanksters.com/home/ . I call these Video Journals, because they put in one place all the Great videos about our Financial Crisis.

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

Boy I just finished a section on High Frequency Trading and there should be a section in the demands about it. Over 70% of the stock trades are not done by humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p40Kpmu60YM

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

This point and the one made above by GandhiKingMindset are good as a start. But they don't go far enough because they don't address the major problem.

The stock market has been corrupted from the fundamental reason for its creation. It was originally created to help businesses start and grow. What we have now is mostly true GAMBLING, and is very much like a Ponzi scheme. It is a "negative sum" game. Except for the initial investors, people can gain in the market only as long as prices go up. BUT, like a Ponzi scheme, the last one holding a stock when the price falls loses big. And, like a casino, for every trade, the HOUSE takes a cut! We need to stop the GAMBLING.

What should be done is to separate the stock market into a PRIMARY and SECONDARY market. The primary market is the IPO investments. ALL citizens should be able to invest in these as simply as they buy stocks now. The secondary market, where stocks are just traded as gambling, should be controlled by a version of the RICO commission. NO bank or pension funds should be allowed to participate in the secondary market.

This should be added to the list of demands. ( And yes, this is also a WORLD problem. )

As for the commodities market, a similar division should be made. Protecting businesses from climate variations should be handled with insurance. Speculation should be moved to the RICO commission and limits placed on who can invest and which commodities can participate.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I agree. On a related note, those speculating on the up and down swings are amplifying volatility. I recently spoke to high level fellow at one of the big investment banks and he stated a HUGE frustration about this on the part of many traders. Even guys on the inside think this system is $uc$@d up. Would be great to get some of them who recently got out of the biz to tell the truth on camera. There have to be a few credible sources....

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I agree with all the above demands plus: 1) Abolish the Federal Reserve (FED), 2) FIAT Currency, 3) Fractional Reserve Banking, 4)Separate Commercial Banks from Investment banks (re-implement Glass Steagall Act), 5) speculative trading on commodities should have limits, 6) Ban Naked Short Selling 7) have honest regulators and enough of them, and 8) if I had all my wishes answered... force the banksters to pay off the 1.4 quadrillion derivatives bubble.

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I don't know if the Glass Steagall Act was perfect, but it kept the "peoples" money in commercial banks away from the investment banks and seemed to work for 60-70 years. And back then Investment banks were different. They were partnerships of wealthy people who were playing with their own money. Today Wall Street has a gambling mentality (addiction), always looking for a new product (fix) to gamble on. The more complex the product (derivative) the better... since it seemed to have kept the SEC baffled (or are they complicit... Wall Street alumni). Anyway, the gambling, or bubbles, or commodities speculation, or whatever you want to call it is killing people with starvation all around the world. Naked short selling just seems to be criminal to me.

If you haven't seen these they are quite good:

Matt Taibbi (RollingStone) Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw

Matt Taibbi (RollingStone) "The Great American Bubble Machine" set to video (this is great): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEhQrnKTQk0

The Great American Bubble Machine (article, for video above): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

Matt Taibbi Explains How Wall Street Works (TALF) [8:15]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9etlLzuMfM

The Real Housewives of Wall Street (article, for video above): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411

Bill Black: Economic Collapse (author of: "Best Way To Rob a Bank is to Own One") Part 1-5 [10:00]: http://goldmanbanksters.com/our-thinking/regulators/

PBS Frontline: The Warning, The Financial Collapse - Brooksley Born Story [56:17]: http://goldmanbanksters.com/our-thinking/regulators/

Shows how hard it will be to change Wall Street (above) . Full of good information.

John Perkins started me on my personal crusade to help save us 99%ers.

John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman (2004) [53:35] (page down): http://change-gov.com/introduction/

David M. Walker, Comptroller of the United States (GAO): http://just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

People I find inspiring

John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" http://change-gov.com/whistle-blowers-heros-edu/

Edward Griffin "Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" http://change-gov.com/whistle-blowers-heros-edu/

Naomi Klein "Disaster Capitalism (09/18/07) [8:36]" and "The Shock Doctrine 2009... economic "shock" therapy" http://just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/

David M. Walker, Comptroller of the United States (GAO), his crusade around the country (1/25/10) [1:03:48] http://just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/ and http://just-gov.com/national-debt/national-debt/

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

There are two threads on this forum that are virtually the same, one made at 6:45 and one made at 7:08. If you haven't seen the other thread you might want to take look: DETAILED LIST OF DEMANDS [7:08]: http://occupywallst.org/forum/detailed-list-of-demands-overview-of-tactics-for-d/

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I'm trying to keep this forum entry at the top of the forum, because I think "GandhiKingMindset" did the best job of listing what needs to be changed on Wall Street and the government. We need to go back to separation between Commercial and Investment Banks, i.e. Glass Steagall Act, and we need Regulators (and laws) that have backbone. We also need to break up the "Too Big To Fail" financial institutions, ban naked short selling and limit commodity speculation... people are dying around the world because they can't afford to eat. We then need to go after the corruption in government, i.e. lobbyst, ALEC type foundations, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

watch "capitalism hits the fan" It's showing on link tv these days. Have your DVR find it. http://capitalismhitsthefan.com/

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I saw this and it is definitely worth a look.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

YOU might like this even better.

Resource Based Economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

Thanks for the heads up. I had Richard Wolff on one of my older sites" http://change-gov.com/money-power-greed-banks/ (toward the bottom). But these were earlier versions of his speech and not as polished. I now have a copy of his newer speech on http://www.just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/ and http://goldmanbanksters.com/heroes/ (toward the bottom). I will add him to the front page in the next couple of days (I will also bulk up his section). I agree with him, except I think there are three divisions: Wall Street, Corporate Street (Corporatocracy), and Main Street (the little(r) guy). Hopefully, the OWS will make a difference because innately I think they know the above.

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

I said this elsewhere in the forum, but I think it needs repeating - this doesn't stop at Wall Street, Think IMF, World Bank and BIS.

I don't want to dilute the current OccupyWallSt.org demands, but I do think there is a bigger picture that needs to be passed on. I think Joan Veon’s videos (all 9 parts) details the banking “Take Over” the best: http://just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/joan-veon/ . She might sound a little conspiratorial, but I think she did her homework and is Right On.

I also like Matt Taibbi (RollingStones) and William K. Black. They tell it like it is: http://just-gov.com/ and http://just-gov.com/heroes-whistle-blowers/ .

If you want a personal perspective of the IMS I liked John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" http://change-gov.com/whistle-blowers-heros-edu/ .

[-] 3 points by NuclearRadio (108) 4 years ago

Agreed. OWS, even if it succeeds in all of its goals, can only be the beginning of a much bigger push socially and economically. All corruption and control of the corporate/financial plutarchy needs to be completely and permanently removed. This is a huge undertaking requiring a change in the social consciousness.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Nanook are you reading this?

[-] 1 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

Thanks for your comments. I have been trying to keep track of all the articles and videos I run across, on this topic, on the Internet. Originally I started on paper and then I graduated to a database. I found so many great video documentaries that I decided to create on-line Video Journal(s) so I could find the videos again and refer to them to friends.

If you are interested here are the URLs: http://www.goldmanbanksters.com , http://www.just-gov.com , http://www.change-gov.com. I don't make any money on the documentaries (only my Donate button) and I don't take any credit for their creativity.

[-] 3 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

4th body of goverment that is the people? Geez, here I thought the whole goverment was "We the People", or are you just talking about the people that agree with you? Isn't that called facism?

[-] 1 points by MakeThisWork (33) from New York, NY 4 years ago

While I agree with you in that the House of Representatives is SUPPOSED to be the house most closely tied to the people, and reforming that body is preferable to creating a new 4th branch which will likely just create more gridlock, I suggest you look up the term fascism. It gets thrown around a lot and usually incorrectly.

[-] 1 points by Cedarstrip (1) 4 years ago

A little history on Fascism and other misunderstood movements: There was a worldwide infatuation with socialism starting in the late 1800s and continuing through WW II. The social upheaval of the industrial revolution had people seraching for "new" solutions. At all economic levels from day-laborers to university professors socialism attracted followers. Several varities evolved. In northern Europe Marxism dominated, with expectations of a world-wide revolution. In Germany National Socialism (Naziism) gained favor and in Italy Mussolini developed Fascism. The main feature that separated Fascism from other Socialist plans was its relationship to industry and corporations. Instead of requiring government ownership of "the means of production" (to use Marx's term) it settled for government control. Government appointees controled the boards of directors, creating what we call a "corporatist state". After WW I Europe was in a shambles; governments were weak and broke. The varous socialist movements used mobs of disaffected citizens to topple existing regimes and then inserted their own leadership. Jews and financial institutions were primary targets.

In the US the industrial revolution was not as disruptive, we were not devastated by WW I, and our Constitution protected private property in the Bill of Rights. Socialists here separated into two general factions. Hard line Marxists gravitated to the labor movement while academic socialists began to look for ways to introduce socialism gradually and democratically (Progressively). Both political parties had Progressives. Three notable examples are Presidents Teddy Roosevelt(R), Howard Taft(R), and Woodrow Wilson(D).

During the Great Depression the Progressive goal was refined into the concept of corporate contol by government through the use of unelected agencies under the direction of the Executive branch. Franklin Roosevelt had to threaten to "pack the court" to get this idea accepted by the Supreme Court. He created many agencies during his three terms in office (his fourth term was cut short), more have been added since, and the power of these agencies to regulate has expanded (progressively). The concept is remarkably similar to Fascist Corporatism. After WW II when the Soviet Union became regarded as the enemy, Communism went out of fashion in the US, although the trade unions still had many fundamentally hard core Marxists in their leadership.

Contrary to popular belief, large corporations have not generally offered much resistance to the controlling agencies. The regulations imposed act as a barrier to new competition. A startup competitor not only needs to offer a better or cheaper product, but also has to have a compliance department of attorneys, accountants, and procedures writers to deal with agency regulations. All of this creates a fertile environment for corruption, crony capitalism, and all of those other things that Occupy Wall Street wants the government to fix.

I have a paper that explains this in much more detail at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/

[-] 1 points by MakeThisWork (33) from New York, NY 4 years ago

Whoa. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Or it can end gridlock and constant political games that keep parties in power based on social issues. Why would they want to change something that gets them so many guaranteed votes? If they did then they would have nothing left to stand for and be exposed for what they are: Mostly all the same, money hungry political ruling class.

Fascism is probably the most misused and overused word in counterculture. This use along with the misspelling is atrocious. The correct terms are usually Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism and in this case Oligarchy. All would be the wrong word for direct democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I think we may not need a 4th body IF we had the EQUAL ACCESS AMENDMENT which provides opportunity for MORE political parties to participate.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

They would work well together.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I think no one is listening anymore. If you are not actually in Wall Street in the General Assembly, your thoughts are not included. I know there is no way for them to communicate with Occupy Raleigh. I'm in Occupy Raleigh and I asked them if they had a way to reach Wall street and they don't. I hope we can find a way to communicate with each of the Occupations.

[-] 1 points by aswewalk (104) 4 years ago

Huge props to you for occupying Raleigh. Stay strong and know that the movement is gaining in strength and power around the country. More and more news stories are popping up from major media outlets showing that middle America is starting to feel a part of the 99%, starting to feel a connection to this movement. Whatever we can do to build connections, communications, community and common ground is going to fuel this puppy. It definitely shifting into 3rd gear now. You can feel it. It has a momentum all its own. People are waking up to realize that they have the power. They're shedding their fear. It's happening. Right here right now. Was are seeing a major and historic shift in power. This is minor article from CBS but worth reading - http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=20118005&videofeed=36

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 4 years ago

For Everyone

If you don't think the big banks have gotten "Too Big To Fail", print this graphics and hang it on your refrigerator.

http://goldmanbanksters.com/7Y9H3eW2M8d6Tya/bank-mergers_900.jpg

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I just watched "Too Big To Fail" the HBO version. It helps to remember that these guys brought us to the brink of depression and after we helped them they don't want to help us.

[-] 2 points by imrational (527) 4 years ago

The idea behind riders is that legislation that might be beneficial for one state might be detrimental to another. By using riders, states can compromise and have legislation passed that might go against one state's interest but help a different one. In other words, there is a purpose for riders and they should not be banned. That said, we need a method, like a Presidential line item veto to eliminate corrupt riders.

[-] 4 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Why not just have a separate bill for each item. The compromise can happen between two bills as opposed to inside ONE bill. The bills are too confusing to read. And stuff often slips through because of it. (Which frankly I think is stupid, if everyone knew that a type-o could become a law they'd go postal on congress) And no, don't send any feds to my house I don't plan on shooting anyone.

[-] 2 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

I agree. Requiring bills to treat subjects one at a time is a good rule. However, trying to patch up how congress enacts legislation is not something to do one PIECE at a time. ( see my reply to uncommonfilth ).

The U.S. Government is falling apart because it was designed for a simple minded, very small population, homogeneous, agricultural society that needed 2 weeks to send a message from one end to the other. Look at my example on http://a3society.org under the Democracy tab – plural democracy. In short, I suggest that congress has to be reorganized from a "winner takes all" single goal power based model to a service model whereby the objective of every bill is to address as many citizen views as possible within the constraints of sustaining life and happiness on the planet.

And anticipating critics that think this is impossible, go talk to a systems engineer who designs cities. It's done ALL the time.

[-] 0 points by henry5400 (25) 4 years ago

And speaking of typos, there's that little matter of the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific court reporter's headnote that needs to be cleared up.

[-] 1 points by Karen (4) 4 years ago

Like button!!

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

That sounds like we are writing in double standards to federal laws for states, if that is the case then maybe it shouldn't be a federal law at all and the states can decide.

[-] 1 points by dragons5 (3) from Arlington, TX 4 years ago

line item vetos by the president are going to be misused to re-craft legislation to appease a party base, not the american people.

[-] 2 points by FairShare (90) 4 years ago

Line item vetoes should be left up to the citizens through petitioning. In many occasions petitions have worked. I think every citizen should have a petition vote ability via a computerized network. I also think a vote of no confidence should be placed on all ballots.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I support this as long as we still allow lots of room for leaders, good leaders, to shape consensus by speaking with people and leading people. Can't just be clicking of buttons because I can't specialize in every area as a citizen and not everything can be dumbed down for the likes of me. :)

[-] 1 points by imrational (527) 4 years ago

I would only think of supporting no-confidence options on ballots if we had run-off voting or the equivalent. I.e. we need to break open the two party system before such a move.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 4 years ago

3 party system in some cases independents have their own ballot without having to share. I would consider run off voting. I think it would be a risky choice but it would be better than three crappy choices.

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Ahhh. Howdy "OccupyTheAgenda". There is an idea for Direct Democracy to become the Fourth House of Congress. Ideally the house where bills get their final pass to become the Law Of The Land. The House Of The Will Of The American People. Not to be subverted or thwarted by any of the other branches of American Government. Needless to say it would become the biggest house of all. Being staffed by the Majority Of Us, as Responsible Citizens. A worthy dream. Much work to realize it.

And YES! Ban "riders". No more inserts, pork or "ear marks".

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

We must must must remain nonviolent though. Essential.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Wow. This sounds like a dream. But you know what? You have me realizing that it's possible. Suddenly there's light at the end of the tunnel. Humanity is on the cusp of making a great leap forward and up!

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

I wish Direct Democracy was as easy and effective as it seems. It isn't. Here are two reasons.

Think about it. Why do the presidential elections always come so close to 50 / 50? This isn't an accident. 200+ million people in the country are psychologically herded by the political parties through the media. When a party is behind, it pours money into advertising, most of it deceptive, until enough people get confused and change their position. As soon as the party gains the advantage, they stop that campaign. So, the public gets pulled back and forth around the 50% point. Direct Democracy will not change that. So, political manipulation must still be eliminated.

Second, consider what would happen if we achieve ideas like single issue bills ( which I agree is a MUST ). How effective do we think the American people would be voting on complex issues? For example, establishing operating rules for nuclear power plants? How about chemical factories? How about air traffic control systems? How about weapons procurement or pharmaceutical drug production? Most people don't have a CLUE how complex modern society has become. Unfortunately, most elected representatives are just as clueless! Why? Because the system we developed for governing was never designed to address the modern world. Drastic changes are needed.

One example is an alternative that I call the National Opinion Poll. This new system was designed to FULLY capture EVERY viewpoint in the country, and attempt to implement ALL of those viewpoints into the laws. This may sound impossible to some readers, but that's because our current form of government has brainwashed everyone into believing that we HAVE TO choose only ONE outcome. That, of course is nonsense. There are so many examples otherwise. We all know it. But, due to the brainwashing, and the structure we have set up in government, we keep doing it! We keep banging our heads against the wall.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Good point, some things are very complex, but these politicians are mostly fools too. That is why I think that committees should be filled with publicly elected experts instead of these nimrod politicians. They are put into positions that they were not elected for and then you have most of your laws being written and debated without elected representation.

Half direct democracies seem to be a better idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago
[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

By the Way- WHERE IS THE EQUAL ACCESS AMENDMENT that I posted? It seems to disappear. I've posted it three times.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Its further down this column. I saw it this afternoon.

[-] 1 points by HellofromMaine (22) 4 years ago

I'm having the same problem. I just signed up today and posted 2 things in different places. Can't seem to find either one of them. Weird. But on the other hand, I haven't figured out how to navigate this site yet.

[-] 1 points by jordan2 (5) 4 years ago

Switzerland has a direct democracy. That would never work here.

[-] 1 points by Dmanic (3) 4 years ago

Taking to the streets all the time? What planet are you living on? It's about time Americans got off their asses and started CARING about something again and excercising their right of FREE SPEECH. If you don't like public demonstrations I'm sure you would love China or North Korea. Go knock yourself out moron.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

The idea was to have control. Don't you see a problem with the fact that we need to take to the streets. It says something about the system itself. We have very little control so street protests is how we get heard. There is nothing wrong with that, and obviously right now we need to, but the fact that we NEED to is something that needs to be addressed.

Learn how to debate without being so rude.

[-] 1 points by drmaddogs (2) 4 years ago

There is a benifit in riders, as long as each item is spelled out, not say..150 million for roads, but which roads and amounts for each road. Much of the "riders, are vague, but if spelled out and each Bill required to be read by each Rep, then no excuses later, if the Rep needs to be "let go".

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Sounds like we would need to watch them too much, they can make separate bills for separate issues and appropriate funds without riders

[-] 1 points by TheMismatch (50) from Lafayette, IN 4 years ago

Riders absolutely need to be banned. Well said.

[-] 1 points by dyck (10) from Raleigh, NC 4 years ago

We are the people AND the government. think about how, if many of us are always thinking about ourselves, that would likely translate to those who we've elected. This rationale extends to greed, larceny, violence and all the rest, no? Aren't we what we see in others? I expect delusion or illusion about ourselves comes in here somewhere.

We keep making life more complicated with our laws and our anti-laws, regulation to essentially control 'others' (not ourselves). But, what are we trying to control.... our lack of character or self-control, our ignorance, our fears, our nature?

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

These are important observations. So? What's the answer? Actually, it's a VERY COMPLEX question. I spent 30 years looking before finally stumbling on a bunch of answers. In short, human nature did not evolve to live in highly populated societies. We evolved to survive in harsh conditions as hunter-gatherers. When we are brought together, our biological instincts get very confused. We fall back into a primitive small clan mentality. As a general rule, we tend to treat each other very badly. The ancient philosophers understood this. They called it the "seven deadly sins". This term has nothing to do with religion. The word "sin" here means "missing the mark" or goal. During good times, in isolated groups, and with good leaders, we may get along OK. But as soon as the environment (physical, economic, or cultural) brings hardship, the party is over. THAT IS WHAT THE WORLD IS NOW FACING.

SO! What's my point? My point is, society needs to understand the behaviors described by the Seven Deadly Sins, and face up to the fact that they are PART of our HUMAN NATURE. We need to face up to how they mold human culture, and what needs to be done to address this nature. It's a much bigger problem than anyone expects. But if we don't do it, we will be solving all the wrong problems about human interactions, and keep coming up with the wrong answers. And to be specific, NONE of the explanations here are related to any religion. This is human psychology.

These are discussed on my website: http://a3society.org under 7 Deadly Sins. You can also read a lot about this in my books. You can download many chapters from the books for free.

[-] 1 points by dyck (10) from Raleigh, NC 4 years ago

Thank you Nanook for taking time to comment. But also thanks for being an inquirying soul. It is obvious that you care and want to understand and want to help. We have this in common.

In my old age I've admittedly sailed past what I used to think were answers and now I'm spending more of my own time observing, pondering the questions. I've slowed up my expectations so it can somewhat accommodate others going at their own speeds. I now like to get ahold of an important question and let it simmer in me without trying to find an answer. I'm just wanting to observe it while it remains alive in me. It often occurs that the question changes or morphs into something else more important or more distilled. It also allows me to talk with others and really listen to them (better than I used to). .... anyway good luck & keep contemplating them 7 deadly sins, as I see the relevance of them.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I like your approach to problem solving. Marination is really helpful. I agree.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Yes the Equal Access Amendment says SINGLE ISSUE BILLS ONLY.

[-] 4 points by Publius1 (5) 4 years ago

Start by making them read bills before they pass them. Many admit that there is no time to do this. Will that mean fewer laws? Probably. Is that a bad thing? Apparently not given what gets slipped into the ones they do pass.

[-] 2 points by Steve15 (385) 4 years ago

Excellent post and input

[-] 2 points by OregonOptimist1 (3) 4 years ago

Here are the UN Human Rights, Labor, Environment and Anti-Corruption Principles worth immediate adopting or including in the Bill that will validate what 99% of us are straggling for.

The set of principles is called UN Global Compact. See it at http://unglobalcompact.org

The Ten Principles are the set of core values in the area of human rights, labor standards, the environment and anti-corruption and they enjoy universal consensus. They are derived from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and The United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

THE TEN PRINCIPLES: Human Rights Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses. Labor Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor; Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labor; and Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Environment Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges; Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies. Anti-Corruption Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

[-] 4 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.
[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.
[-] 3 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.
[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Let me repeat a point I made elsewhere. The goal of our protest is not a short term objective. We want changes that apply for ALL generations in the future, not just for the benefit of people in power now. So, this means we need to add two more DEMANDs to the list:

  1. Congress shall establish a Department of SUSTAINABILITY, with the responsibility for developing a WORLD MODEL that addresses ALL the known and reasonably anticipated factors which significantly affect the welfare of human society. All new laws presented to congress for action must demonstrate that they are not harmful to future life on this planet, EITHER in aggregate or LOCALLY.

  2. The criterion used for social planning related to judging harm shall not be limited to economic indicators, but, rather, must hold PRIMARY, parameters accepted by WORLD populations as contributors to the QUALITY OF LIFE. The WORLD MODEL must EXPLICITLY state the PUBLICLY ACCEPTED BASIS for economic disparity which is used to judge harm. These issues are discussed further at http://a3society.org under Sustainability.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. NON-VIOLENCE It is essential that we develop effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence. We will work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments. We recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. We promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.
[-] 2 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. DECENTRALIZATION Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.
[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

While this is a very important goal, the world lacks workable models to make it happen. The novel "Lord of the Flies" provides a human look into the problem of the human drive to accumulate power which leads to centralization. In short, the human brain has not evolved to understand BROAD decentralization.

Recent discoveries of brain organization and human psychology explain how world-wide human culture has been SIDETRACKED and locked into NON-WORKABLE, FEAR BASED philosophical social beliefs. Because the human race has never understood these islands of stable but erroneous belief structures, workable structures have not been developed to thwart them and aggregation of power is inevitable. These structures are the primary cause behind the establishment of dictatorships, aristocracies and the elitist beliefs at root of the "Wall Street Syndrome" and the slavery mentality of today's Industry Mongols and Robber Barons . If society doesn't make fundamental changes in its cultural beliefs, centralization of power will not go away. And none of the approaches attempted in the past, including all the religious models, understood or addressed the new information. The discoveries are summarized on http://A3society.org under 7 Deadly Sins, Brain Theory, Language and Psychology.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE We recognize it is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.

Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” We support independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

To achieve non-violence, it is not sufficient to limit weapons and "promote" non-violent methods. Recent discoveries in brain organization and human psychology explain how world-wide human culture has been SIDETRACKED and locked into philosophical structures of NON-WORKABLE social beliefs. Because the human race has never understood these islands of stable but erroneous violent belief structures, violence was inevitable. These structures are the primary cause behind the establishment of dictatorships, aristocracies and the elitist beliefs at root of the "Wall Street Syndrome" and slavery mentality of today's Industry Mongols and Robber Barons . If society doesn't make fundamental changes in its cultural beliefs, violence will not go away. And none of the approaches attempted in the past, including all the religious models, understood or addressed the new information. The discoveries are summarized on http://A3society.org under 7 Deadly Sins, Brain Theory, Language and Psychology.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago
  1. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control with more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.
[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I mean do you think this current revolt is sufficient for changing us into our "utopian selves"? or is this just enough to make the political field a little more fair, giving us a chance to mold some things into a more fair experience. Maybe in the future we'll be jumping to the ideal.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Is this the theory expressed in Zeitgeist moving forward?

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

This comment raises some very key issues: what is the purpose of life? How should people treat each other? A key assumption I keep hearing among the 99% view is that, 'people, through their governments, should build a world that "GUARANTEES" EVERY HUMAN BEING sufficient support to achieve our founding goals of LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. This is not a short term objective either. We want this for ALL generations in the future, not just for the benefit of people in power now. So, this means we need to add two more DEMANDs to the list:

  1. Congress shall establish a Department of SUSTAINABILITY, with the responsibility for developing a WORLD MODEL that addresses ALL the known and reasonably anticipated factors which significantly affect the welfare of human society. All new laws presented to congress for action must demonstrate that they are not harmful to future life on this planet, EITHER in aggregate or LOCALLY.

  2. The criterion used for social planning related to judging harm shall not be limited to economic indicators, but, rather, must hold PRIMARY, parameters accepted by WORLD populations as contributors to the QUALITY OF LIFE. The WORLD MODEL must EXPLICITLY state the PUBLICLY ACCEPTED BASIS for economic disparity which is used to judge harm. These issues are discussed further at http://a3society.org under Sustainability.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Did the U.S. NOT agree to this??? If it has, should we be able to enforce it already? Enforcement is a great feat in the U.S.

[-] 2 points by jladoef (4) 4 years ago

right on

[-] 1 points by Zendude (75) from New York, NY 4 years ago

I totally agree with this principle. In fact, I would go a step further and have all bills limited to one issue. Keeps it simple. Perhaps after some time, we will be able to take advantage of existing technology to allow each citizen to vote online on each and every bill. We could do away with the "representative" government that doesn't work by bringing the voting process directly back to the people.

[-] 1 points by sb4justice (6) 4 years ago

They need to name that that bill you suggested the TOTAL TRANSPARENCY ACT.

[-] 1 points by midground (26) 4 years ago

Lets elect people who know how to read next time then

[-] 1 points by baketherich (6) from Huntington, WV 4 years ago

Well the first step is to get Congress to actually READ the bills they are voting on.....

[-] 1 points by sunlover1975 (50) from Brooklyn, NY 4 years ago

wow, thanks guys for the very awesome feedback and brainstorming. exciting and much appreciated.

so, how do we get this thing started? let's make it happen, but what's the next step?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 4 years ago

perfect! keep it up!

[-] 1 points by Karen (4) 4 years ago

Yesyesyes clean bills and transparency!!

[-] 1 points by JohnHarvey (2) from Hallettsville, TX 4 years ago

Here Here!! Great Ideal!! How about it Senate and Congress How about you Mr President.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 4 years ago

I'm impressed on all of the topics and viewpoints. I want to point out one thing on the jobs bill that I find a bit wishy washy. The President should be asking the party seats to go into there own states finding out where the most pain is and asking the party officials senate and house of each state to present projects for the best interest of their states well being and job creation and bring it forward for a bill. It is yet one more example of politicians clearly not doing anything proactive for the good of their own constituents. I say create a proactive resolution act to go along with the honesty act.

[-] 1 points by dragons5 (3) from Arlington, TX 4 years ago

rider, pork, attachment, whatever it's called it needs to be illegal. I remember when the DREAM act was attached to a troop spending bill, they had nothing to do with each other and left troops and their families without pay for a week while the parties fought it out.

[-] 1 points by DavidGoldberg (2) 4 years ago

Your fucking retarded

[-] 1 points by teab (1) 4 years ago

We could use a law like that in Canada as well. They are trying to pass laws right now hidden within a large omni bus bill. Some of the laws are for the protection of children against pedophiles while others are striping away rights of the people to speak openly and freely, others allowing us to be monitored and searched without warrant. Anyone talking out against it is immediately cited as being pro pedophile. Its really getting scary whats going on in the world right now.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 4 years ago

push congress to end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message

[-] 1 points by aswewalk (104) 4 years ago

I hear you. And I understand your sentiment. However, think again about jumping into official demands at this point. Here's how I think we can win http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-we-win-one-perspective-on-where-we-go-from-her/

[-] 1 points by wiseoldman61 (9) 4 years ago

Common Sense Solutions to our Demands (posted on CNN)

Please share with everyone. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-686666

[-] 1 points by EmperorNigbama (4) 4 years ago

DownsizeDC already proposed this idea with their "One Subject at a Time Act" several years ago: https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject. Not surprisingly, few members of Congress have any interest in something so common-sense.

[-] 1 points by Randwulf (6) from Hartford, CT 4 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by cheryl (3) 4 years ago

I agree 100%

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I find it interesting that when you post something it appears above sunlover and then some time later, your post is gone and sunlover is first again. I wonder what the policy is. Is it because sunlover has 14 points? How do you get points anyway?

[-] 1 points by ststeverino (19) from East Islip, NY 4 years ago

The house must be held to a single issue bill code of ethics. Stop obfuscating the law in other bills no citizen would intend for their representative to vote on. Have all house votes public. You need to know what your representative votes on and as a citizen should have that right.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

We The People need to take a dedicated and close look at that new healthcare monstrosity. No bill should be more than a hundred pages long. What has been jammed into it?

[-] 2 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Yes we should pass HR676 medicare for all instead. http://medicareforall.org if you need to know what that entails.

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Thanks for this information "occupythegreenparty". The "Medicare For All" web site looks like a good clean approach to America's Healthcare needs. I think it is worth contributing to. It could be the best answer to this issue.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Just thinking, no disrespect, but I thought everyone had at least HEARD about HR676, introduced with members like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, promoted by the movie SICKO by Michael Moore and part of the Obama platform until he got elected.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

You may like this also. T.R.Reid is very balanced in his criticisms. http://fora.tv/2009/09/14/TR_Reid_The_Healing_of_America

[-] 1 points by muberaduz (3) 4 years ago

We the people need universal healthcare & college education for all. We need to take out profiteers to kill us with care denial and outrages price tags that don't allow people with so called insurance to use it.

[-] 1 points by kmdlugos (2) 4 years ago

It seems a monstrosity because the US is a monstrosity to manage. And to say "Universal healthcare" in this country is akin to saying communism. Combine healthcare lobbyists with the slow erosion of fair representation in the media, and you have the brilliant growth of people voting against their own interests, because monstrosities are too obscure to ever know in clear terms.

Students need to take their visual graphic skills and make posters clearing showing services and costs, benefits and losses to plans from both parties.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

NO MORE "ISMS"!
Resource Based Economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

[-] 1 points by Helfeather (7) 4 years ago

I agree....a Medicare for all would solve Two huge issues.... Universal access to affordable healthcare and save the potential monitary shortcomings in Medicare by allowing everyone to pay into the system, not just the elderly.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Good points "kmdlugos". That is unfortunate the hatred and fear that emanates from the word and concept of Communism. We would do well to ask who it is that loathes this social form so much. I do not fear or hate it. I see it as having done some good things and I have never directly suffered because of it...at least as far as I know. The way it became practiced, as a tyranny form, is a terrible thing. I only hope that We The People Of America can learn from it in the name of Our Quest for a Better Nation.

I do not agree that "Universal Healthcare" is akin to Communism, except for the shared interest of fairness of health care for "everybody". Why is that concept such an awful thing? We are capable of "Universal Healthcare", I suppose, but it might be a good idea to regionalize it into manageable sections that specializes in the particular needs of Americans in their regions.

In my opinion, your proposal of what Students should do to help with the details of good healthcare construction, is excellent. A good solid step in the right direction. Good use and application of skills there. Has this process started yet?

[-] 2 points by progresseachday (5) 4 years ago

Michael Moore in the film "Sicko" does a good job showing how communism is demonized and how universal health care works in many countries. I would love to see us push the agenda of universal health care once we win some of the legislation listed in this post at the top. First need to take care of wall st.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

The hatred and fear related to the WORD Communism is easily explained by understanding the psychology of FEAR which has evolved in the human brain. New discoveries related to human brain structure explain this very well. ( See http://A3society.org psychology tab ). When people react with A2 thinking, they respond to words EMOTIONALLY and narrowly. The true meaning of the word is lost. Interest in understanding the word more broadly is lost. Politicians capitalize on this to drive people to vote one way or another. Unfortunately, people in our culture cannot escape this unless they also give up listening to the erroneous psychological models that have pervaded and are enforced by academia and the media. To achieve change, EVERY part of our culture has to change.

As for "Universal Healthcare", the basic problem is not money, but addressing the concept of one human helping another. What society REFUSES to face up to is that a large number of humans are driven by BLIND greed. Sure, we use the term greed a lot. But nothing is done in society to identify "blind greed" and to isolate and restrain those who have it.

Ironically, the same psychology that causes BLIND greed also propels people to public office. The result is that the foxes are running the hen house, and have rigged the laws of the country to line their own pockets and the pockets of those who support them. Restraining this psychological and philosophical viewpoint MUST BE a goal of OWS.

[-] 0 points by gandhirocksmysocks (26) 4 years ago

The Honesty Act should make it illegal for people to lie. Ever.

In addition, men should not be allowed to lie to other men. Or with them. Texas might be on to something after all..

[-] 0 points by generalLee (0) from Detroit, MI 4 years ago

Complete Transparency Act.
That would be a good name too. Regardless of the name I think that being an excellent bill. It needs to include or be a separate bill all together that all records of all corporations be public. Just as the public is videotaped the records of all companies must be made public to ensure no behind the back actions. I'm sure there are more talented people than myself to make this more official. Thank you.

[-] 3 points by Helfeather (7) 4 years ago

Yes, open transparency....this is one reason there is a huge push for privatization, there is no recorse to view the dealings of private businesses even when they are paid public funds. Look at the no-bid contract growth over the past several years.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

This is a good idea "generalLee". It would be difficult to enforce it without a lot of True Citizens to provide the eyes, 24/7, on the books of these corporations...and bureaus for that matter.

Maybe an "Eyes Of The People" organization could be started, that would perform this important duty, along with many others. It could be one of the True Citizenship requirements that earns one their fair share of the "American Earned Guaranteed Income". This could all be a part of American Direct Democracy. Of course The People would decide.

[-] 2 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

WE have Public Citizen, and Consumer Watchdog

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Yes. I like Public Citizen. But I bet they could use a lot eyes to cover all that needs covering. Haven't been in there in a while. Better check up on them.

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

You honestly believe that privacy is wrong? Wow, you're a dedicated one.

[-] 3 points by phb (6) 4 years ago

I think that privacy has it's place in the private sector - i.e. in business and personal life, but in political life there should be total transparency. After all, politicians are making decisions and passing laws on behalf of We the People. They are accountable to us and it should be open and clear how the will of the people is being served - as long as we live in a democracy, which is true, in namesake at least.

[-] 0 points by imrational (527) 4 years ago

total transparency only encourages the use of shell-politicians. Politicians who are selected & chosen by their image and not by their integrity and intelligence. Does it matter if Bill Clinton inhaled or not? Transparency would encourage even more witch hunts against otherwise qualified candidates.

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I think We should not expect "perfection" from Our Leaders. We should focus on what they say they want and will do and see that that happens. I could care less how many lovers a politician has, as long as he or she does what they say they are going to do. However, I do care about the bribery from lobbyists. I don't like that kind of influence.

[-] 1 points by aswewalk (104) 4 years ago

I hear what you're saying here and agree they can't be perfect. The big question then is where do we find these leaders that are not bought and sold and are not afraid to stand up? Who wants to take the abuse you incur when you run? It seems like this Jeffrey Sachsen fellow who spoke today at Liberty park has some very good ideas on that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8svbm4WYmU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[-] 0 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

I believe we live in a Republic. So with absolute transparency in the political arena does that mean divulging our national defense capabilities to just anyone as Obama has done?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

The Republic has become very sick. It has been infected from within.

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

I agree it has been infected and corrupted by the socialist Demo(n)cratic party with its never dying thirst to steal and spend other people's money. This rally or movement will only codify people's resolve to stamp out the communism and terrorism it represents. Lawless hippies are about to get a real dose of reality. They are going to be seriously bummed.

[-] 1 points by muberaduz (3) 4 years ago

You are so wrong. And you are threatening people who disagree with your craze ideas. You would like our protesters to be treated like in Syria I guess?

[-] 1 points by phb (6) 4 years ago

Technically, you're right, according to our constitution we do live in a republic. The problem is, our politicians stopped representing its citizens. Why would politicians do 'riders' if they didn't have something to hide from citizens? Are these bills really in our best interest? The fact that we live in a republic doesn't discredit the need for transparency. There cannot be accountability without transparency. But as you point out, the issue is more nuanced. I'm reminded of the whole wikileaks issue - Assange being blamed for putting soldiers lives at risk. To my knowledge wikileaks has not been responsible for the death of anyone, while nearly 8000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 10 years in wars that the majority of americans do not support or understand why we are there in the first place. The issue of transparency - to what degree should it apply and where, isn't always so transparent. You're right to call into question my blanket statements. I could see, under certain circumstances of public safety, withholding information for a short period of time before making it transparent.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

We The People must look at these things on a case by case basis. Maybe, eventually, a formula will emerge from this People's Work, that could become a sort of guide in these matters.

[-] 2 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

definitely - that guide you are talking about is 'precedent'. And, while a lot of negative precedent has been set by court rulings in corporate cases (probably should be reversed), a lot is fair and reusable, so no need to start exactly from zero.

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

Well how long is a short period of time? National security does matter, right? We aren't the ones who are privy to the really big problems and the solutions that are necessary to protect all of America. Enforcing existing laws for border protection rather than flubbing new laws that makes all illegal residents a brand new citizen with amnesty is no solution to me. It only makes politicians think they are gaining new voters.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Well said "All FractUp" Just to clarify, do you support the "existing border laws" over "new laws".

What do you think about bringing Our Military Home to secure Our Borders?

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

I would have to read what the current and new laws specifically state before simply saying one way or the other. My overall general opinion is the American borders must be defended against all illegal traffic into our nation's interior. Those who violate those borders must be apprehended, detained, and treated as the criminals that they are. The use of our military to guard those border territories is not necessary as law abiding citizens right here in the U.S.A. can fulfill that task quite readily.

Does this give you the sort of answer you were seeking?

[-] -1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

Well thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully reply. I do take a different view of the wars against global terrorism. I do not believe there is a majority of anyone in America that has stated they are against the wars. Perhaps the majority of the people in the circles with which you hang around feel that way. I'm not condoning the deaths of our soldiers, but looking back at the wars we have fought there are far fewer losses for our men and women in service than there used to be. Taking out a shit load of money from China as a loan to pay for it was a huge mistake in my opinion. But then so is spending every penny in sight, printing more money to hide the fact the Obama economy has tanked, and then stealing budgetary monies from the military makes zero sense to me. Damn if I did things like that I'd be arrested eventually and hounded to the ends of America by the credit card companies.

Polls are so hard to take seriously because they seldom tell readers or listeners what parameters were used for their issuance, data collection, how and by whom it was analyzed. If the christian science monitor put out a poll that favors something christian that does not necessarily mean it is true. Ditto for any of the polling organizations that are founded by, staffed by, or typically favor one particular topic or group versus another.

The whole wikileaks thing is rather hard to imagine that someone so low on the totem pole would have access to those types of files without the aide of someone with real clout. I would be suspect of the "information" it represents as a form of honey pot. Fling some shit around and see who comes sniffing is more like it. It is also a useful way to root out traitors within the ranks.

[-] 3 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

"The OBAMA" economy? Give me a BREAK! This ECONOMY has been on this train since the first ship sailed from Europe. Each act stacked on top of the next is what got us here, that includes the economics AND the social justice. If ANY of the things that happened in our past had been different we wouldn't be here. Take something as simple as paying people the wage their work was valued. That would have cut into people's profits. Don't try to blame this on Obama. He's just trying to play the capitalist game with restrictions.

If we're going to fix the system then we need to address it's mechanisms.

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

Okay let us discuss the mechanics of this conquered nation, still under occupation. The native peoples of what is now called United States of America may want their nation back. Which of course would mean that everyone who isn't "one of them" has to get out of the country. They may also demand that the land be restored to its former prestine glory too. Exactly how far do you want to swing the pendulum of "social justice" with your arguments? Of course that ain't ever going to happen.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Very well stated. I do so very agree.

[-] 0 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

As far as the Obama economy I was quoting the Demo(n)crats as stating this is their economy. So take it up with them.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

'...I do not believe there is a majority of anyone in America that has stated they are against the wars..'

I think most people, IF they caught all the details of the deception while it was being told, were afraid, afraid, afraid. Remember? It was trumped up with Shock & Awe, it was REMARKABLE! Remember?

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

You'll have to be more specific than that. Shock and Awe was a tactic the terrorists used to gain control of the airplanes that were flown into the world trade towers and also into the side of the Pentagon. That doesn't sound trumped up to me.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Specifically, 'Shock & Awe' was created by the U.S. government/TPTB. They are the terrorists AND they legalized the 1,000 page Patriot Act which was composed by insider attorneys well before 9/11. The 99% are the Adversary: 'Shock and awe is most consistently used by Ullman and Wade as the effect that rapid dominance seeks to impose upon an adversary. It is the desired state of helplessness and lack of will. It can be induced, they write, by direct force applied to command and control centers, selective denial of information and dissemination of disinformation, overwhelming combat force, and rapidity of action.' Read more here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Shock_and_awe

I had posters ripped down from my property, told by family and friends to stop watching the news because it was too much stress, better not to know (?, people wonder how we got here??? Damn!!!) and told not to talk so loud. Am I on one of their lists? More than likely, because I traveled, I spoke out, even if I've had background checks before this all started.

I was very scared and told everyone that mattered that if I disappeared that TPTB were most likely the reason why I wouldn't be found. Almost no one then knew about the secret prisons, let a lone the prisons in New York and else where in the U.S. Practically no one knew that it was legal to do such things to U.S. citizens because they didn't read the Patriot Act. And things still continue down this dark road. Now, Obama says its ok to kill U.S. citizens if they can't capture them or if its less effort to do so.

I too think WikiLeaks is a false front. How did he get all these files? Perhaps they did. BUT, most of the information was already public information prior to the leak. I think WikiLeaks is another Distraction.

And, now, there is another False Flag that Iran tried to hire the Mexican Drug Cartel to kill a Saudi King? Both the Cartel and Saudi are best buds of the U.S. Why would Clinton let someone access her buds and utilize their services? The Cartel is the best game going for under-the-table income to fund TPTB wars and profits.

I agree with your remarks, basically. Thanks for taking the time to review the comments and adding your $0.02 USD to the 99%!

Best Regards!

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Howdy "AllFractUp". Perhaps We should give some thought about the degree of privacy in relation to what. Maybe privacy can be forfeited through doing evil. Should be looked at on a case by case incidence, I think.

[-] 1 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

Do you mean when felons lose their rights as punishment for committing crimes? A definition of the word "evil" is too loose and subjective to be useful. Rather privacy laws already exist that protect every American citizen. If it ain't broke don't "fix" it.

[-] 1 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

Yeah, Make the fomula for Coke public. How about make Steven Speilberg videotape the videotaping of all his movies. Wait? We he have to videotape the videotaping of the videotape?

[-] 0 points by AllFractUp (65) 4 years ago

Shit man just make stealing legal. Nobody should have any expectations of privacy, or private property, or any form of personal ownership of any sort. That's the feel I get from these types. Damn why not go totally nuts and make everything illegal legal. There now we don't need a police force to maintain equity, fairness, or keep assholes from breaking the law.

[-] 0 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

Great Idea ;)

[-] 0 points by bothandneither (6) from Providence, RI 4 years ago

YES!

[-] 8 points by jenniferoccupies (8) from Bronx, NY 4 years ago

I think #8 is of utter importance. If corporations lost their "personhood" status, then that would immediately take care of # 3, because if corporations are not given the same rights and liberties as citizens, then they will not have the right to contribute to political campaigns without restriction. I also feel that it's crucial to organize individuals in their local states and have them protest and demand locally as part of the same movement; if we are to change any part of the system I fear it'll have to be individually through each state rather than nationally all at once because of how our government is set up (every state has its own laws), but I'm not going to lose hope!

[-] 2 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

Hey number 8, No more for profit employee unions supporting candidaites. Right On!!!!

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I hope someday We learn to build no profit Unions. Run by the Workers Themselves and not by "Bosses". But the unions owe their beginning to these "Bosses", who had the dedication and power to do the hard job. Starting a union is no easy thing. We should learn well the ways of the bosses and make them Our Ways. We should be so strong that We do not need these ruthless men to do for Us what We should do Ourselves. But...We fear for Our Families. Our weakness in this hard world of Capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Ah yes! The UNIONS. The "problem" with the unions is actually similar to the problem we have with corporations, colleges, the military, public education and government itself. And that problem is ISOLATION! I.e. IVORY TOWERS! Whenever society "solves" any problem in isolation ( what system engineers call OPTIMIZATION ), then they cause other problems elsewhere (sub-optimization). What humans are failing to understand and acknowledge is that the world has reached a level of complexity and interconnectedness that can no longer be solved one piece at a time. And that's what's wrong with our government. It was developed for a simple minded, very small population, homogeneous, agricultural society that needed 2 weeks just to send a message from one end to the other. Today, if an earthquake hits Japan, car repairs stop in Boston and NY in a matter of days.

The Union model originated at least as early as the Roman "collegia" around 400 BC. It was all about protecting a "group" of workers from pay or working conditions dictated by a small number of overseers. Fast forward to American industrialization all the way through the post WWII period. We still had the same simple approach. What humanity now has to wake up to is that the modern world has irreversibly changed! We are no longer able to view a coal mine disaster at Upper Big Branch Mine as just sloppy safety practices. The U.S. Government "TOOK" responsibility for "insuring" mine safety. U.S. regulators then "overlooked" 68,000 safety violations with no serious legal actions against the mine company OR against the regulators for failing to do their job? The unions went along with this! The politicians ignored it saying "we can't stop mining coal. We need POWER to run industry."

ENOUGH! The unions, industry, and the country as a whole, are all in such a disaster because people are in denial about the sophistication needed to manage the complexity of the modern world. No small number of demands will fix this. But to get started with limited resources, OWS should include a DEMAND that will get the government to start addressing the much bigger organizational problem. And, NOTE WELL, this sophistication can't be implemented by politicians who are just "good speakers". They have to have the ability to understand the complexity or they won't be able to do the job.

[-] 2 points by jdog (146) 4 years ago

Then all the influence buying would be by unions. Here's an example of how it works: 1) Teachers union gives politician lots of campaign money. 2) politician shortens their hours, raises their pay (taxpayer pays), makes law allowing the union to force all teachers to join and pay dues. 3)union gives lots more money to politician's campaign 4)politician gives them more of the same along with lucrative retirement. 5)union gives lots more money to politician's campaign - this loop repeats until taxpayer money dries up, then 6)politician raises taxes. 7)the process repeats until the taxpayer can't survive.

Works the same with nonprofits and other groups....

[-] 2 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Then we need not to need money for elections

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I like this idea. Why do elections and politics have to be about money? Lets make the whole shebang a function of Volunteerism. But this is probably hard for Americans to get behind.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

They might be willing to accept some finance reform.

[-] 2 points by musearch (26) from Tualatin, OR 4 years ago

i think #8 is great to hope for, but the law would need something to replace it with. right now with washington the way it is, corporations would likely wind up with much more power than they have now.

3 is therefore very important.

i would advocate going further find a way to end the idea that money is speech. this belief and the decisions that support it, means the wealthy and corporate interests own our campaigns and our candidates.

[-] 1 points by shamanbart (3) from Minneapolis, MN 4 years ago

Agreed, see my post above. Lack of corporate personhood removes the right to lobby the government as well.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

Right on. #8

[+] -6 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

capitalism is dead. it's nuts is to try to restore capitalism to a functioning system, when it clearly needs to be overcome.Why are the following demands not on the table?

The immediate and total dismantling of the existing State, the dissolution of the existing Constitution and the drafting of a new one.
The smashing of the old bureaucratic and institutional appendages attached to the old order.
The establishment of international ties with similar organizations and movements in the other advanced industrial nations of the world -- the European states, Russia, Turkey, Japan. The total smashing of the state apparatus in each of these countries and the formation of a globalized social movement.
The systematic extirpation of capital as the basic category of social reproduction, and the self-conscious organization of all society.
[-] 2 points by redteddy (263) from New York, NY 4 years ago

Yeah, great, that's just what Mugabe came around and offered. And what a failed experiment that has been!!! I would fight you if you attempted such a thing.

[-] -2 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Why fight me ? Because I want freedom ? Real freedom ? The kind we never had before ?

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Yep. Well put indeed! Can't see where you left out any of the negative side of government. That has been government so far.

That's how it has come down so far and you survived it.

Lets build a government that does none or very little of these things.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Oops! You left out a word: RESPONSIBILITY! ( I think another follow-up to your post used the word "immaturity" ) NONE of the controls you listed would be needed if humans took the "responsibility" to follow the "rules". And why do we need rules, you might ask? Simple. To COORDINATE the actions of MANY PEOPLE using the same resources. And why do we need coordination, you might ask? Because life is complex. For example, you can't just drive a car anywhere, anyway you want. If you did, you'd conflict with the "freedom" of other people by crashing into them and end up hurting both them and you.

There are some important observations, however, that can be drawn from your list.

Human culture has always followed an AUTHORITARIAN model. Even with the democratic addition of majority voting, once the vote is taken, there is only ONE path people all have to follow. And many people in government are power hungry and apply the laws as if they were police with unlimited power. It doesn't have to be that way.

I used to live in the quiet, well to do town of Weston Massachusetts. I was amazed one day after being pulled over by a police car. The officer came to the car and asked for the usual - license and registration – which I provided. He then said, "I APOLOGIZE for the inconvenience of pulling you over. First, I want to say, seeing you are a Weston resident, that the Weston police see themselves as public servants. So please try to see my actions that way. The reason I pulled you over is that you have a tail light out. I'm not going to give you a ticket for this. You do understand that this could be dangerous for you, right?"

I was totally flabbergasted! But consider how all your concerns: watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, etc. would change if people cooperated with the rules to begin with and government employees really tried to be helpers, rather than rulers and punishers? ( The reason humans abuse power is discussed on A3society.org under 7 Deadly Sins )

You also brought up whether the government has the RIGHT to do this. They do! Why? Because, collectively, as a society of people, we have given them that right, in return for creating order and a better society for all of us. The big question now is, with government using their power to create a new set of aristocrats, should we take the power back like the people of Europe had to do from all their aristocrats?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

True, responsibility is the key. And regarding your driving exemple: there have been some experiments where laws were dropped entirely: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

And your police officer it's an exception to the rule. You also admit this: I was totally flabbergasted! Which means that my list of government actions against the people is correct. And I do not agree that it has the rights you mentioned. When were you asked if you want to participate in all this ? And you agreed ? Can you opt out if you no longer want it ?

That's the difference between a state and a free association. Associations also have rules that need to be followed by those that agree to participate. But you cand join and leave at will without sacrificing your entire life. You are not forced into them just because you were born in a certain location.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Do you believe that "Real Freedom" can be established by Individuals acting alone and not in cooperation with others?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

No, I do not believe that you can achieve freedom without cooperation. But I also believe that you cannot achive freedom by forcing others into cooperation.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Good Morning "flavian". Thanks for replying. I agree with your viewpoint about "forcing cooperation". That is really not cooperation at all. An oxymoron I believe.

But what can We do about those that will not join Us in building a Better America? Maybe let them have their own social form zones and leave them alone as long as they do not interfere with what We are trying to achieve? I think this might work to some extent...as long as this sub-group kept its word about "Live and Let Live".

But there are elements in American Society who would not be content with that arrangement. They would work at undoing the achievements of Direct Democracy. Wouldn't that leave Us no choice, at some point, but to employ force in self-defense? Please, what are your thoughts about this?

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Dan. I discuss a method to provide a lot of the freedom that flavian is striving for at http://A3society.org under the Democracy Tab – plural democracy. A longer discussion is in the books referenced on the Books tab. If you don't have the time to read the books, send me an email and I'll send you the appropriate chapters.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

You got it. "Live and Let Live". If those that are not content would work against you, then of course you are entitled to self-defense.

Be careful though: do not consider self-defense in the sense white people considered interactions whit the native americans after they stole theyr lands, enslaved theyr brothers, brainwashed theyr children and sent them into so-called "reservations".

[-] 1 points by Africanus (9) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 4 years ago

ahh....Proudhon I do believe. And in these times of electronic surveillance and data collection....wow.

[-] 0 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

First, I'm not from US, I'm from eastern europe. And here we've seen them all. We've been trough "revolution" and "change" some 20 years ago. We've seen communism and capitalism. We've seen dictatorship transformed into democracy, with people manipulated to elect new communists instead of the old ones. The system remained the same: the 1% controlling the 99% with the help of the state. The state that makes you use money but starts printing them when it runs out, the state that makes laws only to break or change them when it suits the few, the same f. state. Comunism, capitalism, monarchy, dictatorship, same shit.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

It doesn't matter what system it is it's the PEOPLE. Somewhere there will be someone who wants to break the rules, get more than they're supposed to, feels their rights are being abused. Our constitution is not bad at all. It just needs an access amendment to the election system so that our different ideas can be shared and chosen.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

I know there was a lot of discussion preceding this. But I think this statement got carried away. Our Constitution is a disaster. It is filled with inconsistencies and misuse of words. Let me just use one case: the first amendment.

Most people believe that the first amendment "guarantees" the right of FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The problem is, people have an idealized image of the word "freedom". They believe such a thing can actually exist. It can't. (See my previous discussion about that.) As soon as one religion establishes a "thou shalt" which doesn't agree with a "thou shalt not" of another religion, the possibility of freedom in society breaks down. For example, if one religion believes all those who do not believe their doctrine are "heathens" and must be killed, then there is NO possibility of Freedom for anyone as soon as there is one other religion in the society. Or, if a religion believes that ALL the people in a society must say one of THEIR prayers to their god, every day or they will be subject to punishment from their god, then freedom is again lost for any part of the society not in their clan. The fact that our country is home to over a thousand religious doctrines brings this problem to a head very quickly.

I've also heard it stated many times, "can't each person just keep their religion to themselves?" This sounds logical at first, but again, falls apart in practice. The reason is that most religious beliefs require "social action" in some form. So people might hold some beliefs inside themselves. But any of those beliefs that require outside action create a conflict with others who don't hold the same belief.

This same problem comes up over and over in the constitution. See http://A3society.org under the Democracy tab.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Uh. Whuts uh..."access amendment to the election system... so that our different ideas can be shared and chosen." Could you share more about this concept "occupythegreenparty"?

[-] 3 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I've been thinking about our election system. I know there are many groups working on different things Like getting Corporations to not be people. And lowering the signature count to gain ballot access. I think we must do something to elevate the voting system to our most paramount activity in the country. So here is what I have in mind it's just a start, not fleshed out but...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/152631684794770/doc/216291868428751/

EQUAL ACCESS AMENDMENT

Whereas Voting is the most important activity in a civilized society. Whereas the Declaration of Independence states we are all equal. Whereas the substance of life can cause us to be unequal such as our location, finances, education, it is necessary to set in motion boundaries to keep our elections equal for all citizens.

  1. Board of Elections: Need be established as the hub of all election activity. A central place providing information on all laws and bills. Classes on civics. Meeting rooms and the highest law abiding center.
  1. Ballot Access: All citizens should have equal access (meaning the same requirements) to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line. The Board of Elections should accept applications for political party status requiring only proof of actually behaving as a political party. statement of beliefs, 12 meetings per year, agendas, minutes and attendance sheets to prove the meetings took place. All who meet political party status shall have a ballot line and attend debates.
  1. Access for non party citizens: Citizen wishing to run without a party... must register at the BOE. They must convince people to write in their names on election day
  1. Debates: The Board of Elections will schedule a certain number of debates for all parties who have achieved status by a deadline (same day in every state) and all citizens who have registered without a party. The debates shall be afforded the status of the Olympics in that it will not be some short one or two hour activity. Location of the debate can be done by raffle or bidding. In attendance of the live event will only be media personnel. Any media may attend. Partial citizens will not be allowed in audible distance of the debates. Each Candidate will be given equal time to be used as they see fit. Let's say 90 minutes. The number of questions will be determined before hand. Candidates may know the questions beforehand.

Candidates may use powerpoint or some such device to illustrate their answers. All powerpoint sources must be identified. After the question is placed on the screen candidates may answer. The order of the answerer will not be as important because all answers will be recorded. The candidate may speak as long as they like but they will be using their own 90 minutes. Any time a candidate speaks they must turn on their timer to turn on their mic. If they run out of time before the debate is over they will no longer be able to speak.

  1. Donations: No donations may exceed the amount that the poorest of our citizens can afford. At $20 a month for the four years of contributing time a candidate would have to request funds that is a total of $960. To make donations citizens must go in person to the Board of Elections office and donate to any or all candidates not more than $960 a piece in the election cycle. The Board of Elections will check their voting status and deposit their donation in the candidates account. The board will inform the citizen when they have reached their donations limit. A candidate may donate to his own campaign at no more than $960. No other donations will be allowed for elections. Candidates will receive cards to access their funds. The board of Elections will be able to track purchases. Purchases for elections not made with card will not be allowed.

In-Kind donations will have their value determined at the board of elections not to exceed the value of $960. (so basically if someone wants to let you use their room the rental cost would be listed as a donation) A business may make an IN-Kind donation by going to the board of elections office of the county where the item will be used. (a certificate will be issued verifying what was registered for use and the value) A business may not make cash donations.

  1. Bills: Bills shall be single issue. Bills shall be addressed in the numerical order as presented. Bills shall not be set aside on a partisan basis. Not to be addressed until the party in power supports it enough to bring it out to committee.
  1. Voting: Instant Runoff voting shall be used to allow citizens the greatest opportunity to choose whom they want. Ballots shall be dot filled paper ballots that can be counted electronically and maintain a paper trail.

Well this is just the start. What do you all think?

[-] 1 points by AdamWinsor (4) from Durham, NC 4 years ago

I like it, except I would suggest that a petition of a certain number of names should be required to get on the ballot. If Everyone with 10-20 supporters could get on, then you might end up with 1,500 candidates in a state-wide or national election, and that would be completely infeasible.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I think people shouldn't be afraid of several parties. The goal of the party is to run a candidate and win. If you are saying the same thing as someone else, you're going to lose as people are trying to decide whether to follow you or the other party. Also I've seen brochures and test booklets that have LOTS of choices on them. We have the ability to accommodate hundreds of choices. We need to think of this as so important it has to be done.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

I agree with most of this. It would work good in conjunction with a half direct democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Well, write what you would rework, I'm still trying to get this in front of Wall Street but I may go straight to the media if I have to.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I think it is a great start "occupythegreenparty". I have copied it for study and constructive commentary. I would like to help with more people seeing this if it is ok with you.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

That constitution was a failure from the beginning. It promised freedoms and the right to choose. Except for the women that had no right to vote. And the negros. And the indians. And those that didn't wanted a government in the first place.

[-] 3 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I believe the "American Constitution" was step in the right direction. It should be "improved" upon.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Yes and we passed amendments to correct that. I think an Equal Access Amendment will make rich and poor equal as well. The poor will have more opportunity to be represented. And those that didn't want a government were under one before the constitution.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

It's like taking the elephant in the porcelain store to the gym in order to loose a few pounds.. maybe it'll fit..

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Well "flavian" you have learned to recognize certain Truths about social and political forms. If only most of the Romanian People can see this too, then a new path could be sought or designed. "Mutualism" anyone?

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

While the comment providing details of an "Equal Access Amendment" presents some good approaches to addressing some known issues, I think a much different view needs discussion. I don't think the initial assumption: "voting is the most important activity in a civilized society," is as clear as it appears. While voting is the most visible activity, it has serious problems as well:

  1. It is easy for people with power and money to influence votes;

  2. Political maneuvers can be used to affect who is allowed to vote;

  3. But most problematic, the use of "majority" or "plurality" or "representative" or other measure to select ONE outcome creates a situation where all those on the losing side do not get what they want.

In the case of representatives, who can be influenced by money, just a handful can dictate the outcome for millions of citizens. Where "rights" are concerned, a lynch mob can produce an almost unanimous vote, while an innocent person is killed, LAWFULLY, but WRONGLY.

The problem with conventional voting is that it maintains an AUTHORITARIAN outcome for each vote. While this works in simple cases where most people agree on outcomes, in a modern, complex world, it fails miserably at achieving the choices of most people. It is time for the world to move to more egalitarian forms of decision. One of these is called PROPORTIONAL voting. Another is called Plural Democracy.

Proportional voting is a method of representation whereby the makeup of a representational body is made up of a mix of people who represent the view of the people in proportion to voter interests. The problem with this method is it only works when there are a large number of representatives for any single body of voters. When there are only 2 senators, for example, the best that can be done is one from each "major" party. It is not possible to represent 2 major plus 5 minor parties proportionally with only 2 members.

Plural Democracy is a new form of Direct Democracy in which issues are decided, not on an overall bill basis, but based on many small details. For example, let's say a new jobs bill is proposed. In the bill, there are elements proposed for: length of work week, work hours per day, work hour flexibility, child care, vacation, holidays, etc. With a Plural Democracy vote, citizens would vote on each issue. But here is where Plural Democracy really becomes different. Once the vote is taken, a law development group creates the law to match the statistics of the vote. For example, if the population voted that the length of the work week should be 30% 4 days, 60% 5 days, 10% 6 days, then the law should include provisions to allow that. For example, it would adjust vacation time and social security differently for each length of work week.

As for election of individuals to positions, the major change under Plural Democracy is a strong credentialing requirement for the committees that a person will serve on. The idea of state senators and representatives voting on bills no longer would exist.

This approach is discussed further at http://A3society.org under the Democracy tab – plural democracy.

[-] 1 points by Aerger (19) 4 years ago

"One man with a gun can rule 100 people that do not have one." - Lenin There will always be that one man. Anarchists commonly overlook this fact.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Pacifists also commonly overlook this fact.

[-] 0 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Indians were anarchists. Americans that stole their land, enslaved them and still benefit from the biggest genocide known to man... commonly overlook this fact.

[-] 2 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

"flavian"? Why do you say that "Indians were anarchists"? I see them as having strong tribal obligations. Does anarchy mean every man for himself? No government?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

No, anarchism does not mean every man for himself. Anarchism as a concept suffered a lot from mass-media manipulation. "You don't wan to be an anarchist, to take down the governing powers, to fight police and break the law"

Ok, really ? First of all, OWS is exactly that. Second, try this definition of anarchism:

ANARCHISM (from the Gr. αν, and αρχη, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs.

[-] 1 points by Aerger (19) 4 years ago

I fail to see how your reply is applicable to my statement. If anything it supports it. The Indians, outgunned, were subjugated by the Americans. My point is that the people must be disarmed for communism, socialism, and anarchism to have a chance.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Not really. People do not have to be disarmed. They only must have weapons of the same size. Be that zero size or nuclear size. The bigger the weapons, the worst for the planet.

And this brings me to my second point. The original ideea was also this: this country was rich and prospered back then when indians were living according to natural laws. Now you could of course do what we did in the last centuries: get a bigger gun and take theyr land, dig for oil and coal, pollute the air and rivers, overfish and cut forests.. but that's actually suicidal stuff... and now we see the results of this insane run for profit and consumption... the 1% got us very close to a dead end for our civilisation.

People have forgotten that each of us lives in a social and economic nexus, one that is very oppressive and requires a good deal of conditioning in order to make us adaptable to it. The "sane" people are the ones who have been able to adapt and become hardcore sociopaths to a good degree, while the "insane" ones are those who have not been able to adapt to a very insane system.

Of course, without this insane run, we would't be here today: using internet to talk on computers, having a chat, you from US, me from Romania. Could we use this kick in the ass to make a step forward instead of falling on our face ? Then all would not be lost. Still, one also wonders: living in nature ways and not pursuing this technology run would we have learned to communicate with the world around us by other means ? Maybe in these last few centuries telepathy or levitation would have become as common as email and airplanes today...

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I agree. We must also be disarmed for almost any form of tyranny to have a chance.

[-] 1 points by redteddy (263) from New York, NY 4 years ago

That's not freedom, that's immaturity. That's not anarchy that's a straight road into a despotism. LIke I said check out what Mugabe's agenda was in Rwanda and look to see what they have now. And it wouldn't be a fight against 'you', I along with the majority of americans would fight your hair-brained, naive, ill thought out sophomoric idea.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Oh, and who are you to come into my house and tell me I'm not free ? That I have to pay some protection fee also called "TAX" in order to be able to mind my own business. This is not freedom, my friend. THIS is the illusion, not the ideea that we could have a world without government. Like Stuart Wilde said, try not paying your property taxes, and you'll see who owns your house.

[-] 4 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Flavian I think I understand you -philisophically, but practically things have to be paid for. Roads, vehicles, houses, schools... This stuff has to be chipped in to buy. That's taxes.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

And when did you asked us if we want roads or vehicles or houses or schools ? You are asuming we do ? Like the christians asumed that native americans needed theyr "lessons", religion and that "civilisation" they had ?

[-] 1 points by Skillip (19) 4 years ago

Those things aren't paid for by income tax. Income tax was first created to pay for WW1 then raised to pay for WW2. The tax was supposed to go away after WW2 but our tast for world power got the best of us.

[-] 2 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

So if we want tax reform, we need to elect into office a person who promotes the tax reform we believe in. It still means we need more access to our eletion system.

[-] 1 points by Skillip (19) 4 years ago

We are in agreement about access to the election system. Especially for third party candidates.

My comment was in response to demand #4, the call for higher taxes. It's inconsistent with non-violent principals. This is a very important issue for so many people to get so completely wrong.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Why is having the wealthy pay their fair share a violation of non-violent principles??

[-] 1 points by Skillip (19) 4 years ago

Tax is violent because of the implied threat.... Even if a person says they love paying taxes and it makes them feel patriotic, how they feel is irrelevant because of the implied threat which compels their action. This 4 min explains well if you are really interested. http://youtu.be/PGMQZEIXBMs

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

This comment brings up the principle of FREEDOM. A lot of people truly misunderstand it, and actually believe they can have it and are ENTITLED to it. While the concept of freedom can be used as a goal, actual freedom does not, and can not exist. It's just an idealized concept. As long as there are two or more people who are restricted in some way to use a common resource – air, water, land, roads, buildings etc. – then freedom is impossible. And even if a person goes off to live alone, freedom of action is still limited by the environment and material reality. GET OVER IT!

There is a discussion of this at http://A3society.org on the Democracy tab.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Your freedom begins where my freedom ends. We all know that. Problem appears when some would like to extend theyr "freedom" at the expense of others. Stuff like laws for everyone to follow and mandatory taxation is where I draw the line. I believe others accept this as freedom only because they have been brainwashed into it.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Flavian. While there are limits to freedom, I think there are ways that ALL of us can have more of it. I don't want my freedom to come at your expense. I want to find a way that maintaining your freedom also provides more freedom for me. We have been living in a world that evolved from a win-lose model. It was called "biological evolution". But SOME humans have moved a step up from that. They understand how to achieve win-win, and can help the others move up as well. That's what "pluralistic democracy" shows us how to do.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 4 years ago

Mugabe, while terrible, never had an agenda in Rwanda that I know of. He's the dictator of Zimbabwe.

[-] 0 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

That's the idea "flavian"...what you said above: "...I along with the majority of americans..."

[-] 2 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

We don't want to trash our car immediately. Let's get some repairs done to bring it in working condition. After a year or so, we can trash this old inefficient car and build a brand new Custom built car. How about that ?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Good trend of thought "littleg". I hope We have time to do this. But...it may work against Us to wait. It might not be good to put off what can be done today to do it tomorrow. But then again maybe your right. Patience is one of the virtues here. How would waiting a year or so help?

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

The slight repairs that we do is what is crucial to enable us to change the system drastically. The reason we have to do it step by step is, people as always are hesitant to change.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Again good points "littleg". Very reasonable. That People are hesitant to change is what I have noticed too. I believe that is fear at work. I find myself appreciating the angry Individuals that demand all change now. They are the nudges that get the populace moving in the right direction. Whenever We can, We should reinforce these emotional ones with Our Reasonable approach. I believ that can make a pretty powerful social formula.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Once the cement is wet, real change can happen. I believe there are roles for all to play. The agitators get the cement wet. And the organizational folks work to put something in place that is equitable. I think we have a real shot at a revolution here if we stay non-violent and continue to work on the General Assemby model.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

The problem with this approach is that people are not looking widely enough at the crisis we are in. While the protests are called "Occupy Wall Street", this is NOT only an economic problem. We have entered a new era in human – environment development. We will NOT get out of the current recession "because", in the past, we always have. The past had advantages that the present doesn't have. Specifically:

  1. Human population is now 7B. The sustainable carrying capacity of the earth, by the best current estimates, is about 2 to 3 B MAXIMUM.

  2. We have mined the easy resources. This is no longer about projections of shortages for a hundred years from now. We have reached the time when the shortages were forecast to start and they are occurring – drinkable water, aquifers for irrigation, many minerals, wood ( even China is out of wood ), soils are depleted, ocean fish have collapsed by 90%, oil production is falling etc.

  3. We have polluted the earth, oceans and sky. Global warming is moving the weather bands and causing severe draughts. The ice caps are melting. Insect pests are moving into new areas already resistant to every known insecticide. Medical supplies are now showing shortages across the globe and severe plague diseases once thought eradicated are coming back resistant to every known form of antibiotic.

  4. Automation has replaced human labor. Western society is overflowing with STUFF! People have filled their houses and now fill rented storage building. Our culture does not know how to employ people. The cry for MORE EDUCATION is dead on arrival. Most occupational sectors can not employ more people because they have higher education levels. And when they do hire someone because of higher education, they have to let someone else go. Its a losing game.

  5. And, there is the new pressure of the 3rd world wanting the high standard of living we have in the western world. Because of the western world's aristocratic attitude, this will just lead to exploitation of the 3rd world. That will lead to rebellion and increase the demand for weapons – which is a big NET LOSS of productivity for society. Why? Weapons explode and destroy infrastructure. That means all the labor and material used to build the weapons just explode - a total loss. The world then has to rebuild all the infrastructure just to get back to where we already were.

The world is NOT in good shape. It is not going to take just a year or so to see how any changes we introduce will work. AND, the warning time we were given in the 70's and 80's has already run out.

[-] 1 points by Africanus (9) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 4 years ago

He is correct actually. Here is historically what happens in a revolution. The full fury of the people is unleashed. The old institutions are smashed to bits. Cant have a little bit of revolution. A little bit of anger...and make no mistake...people are pissed off. When you can no longer feed your child, and you have played by the rules your whole life, swallowed the American tale since childhood, only to find yourself trapped while you watch a very few profit....

[-] 3 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

If FDR and others hadn't provided the new deal, there would already have been a revolution in US by now. People have poor memory and they forget quickly.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Also, if there is a lesson I've learn from our own (Romania 89) revolution is this: do not give up until you finish the job. Otherwise the revolution will be stealed and you are only replacing some faces in the 1% club.

[-] -2 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Oh, i get it. Let's change some stuff but actually keep it the same way.... :)

The money are the root of the problem. The money that FED prints and the state MAKES all of us use them. The money the corporations use to controll all of us: the politics, the policemen, the army, the media, the resources. Take the money out of this game if you really want to have some change done.

[-] 2 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

correction - money is NOT the root problem. The ROOT problems are:

1) Greed and Laziness (characteristics in every single one of us, just at different levels), 2) the system itself is fundamentally flawed (i.e. Republic form of Government, which the U.S. is, good for small homogeneous countries like Sweeden or Denmark, not melting pots of the world).

Change to an Open Source form of government and "Eliminate the Middle Man" (i.e. all politicians) - EXACTLY what is going on here, where citizens decide amongst themselves what they want openly and transparently through the internet, with a government framework only working to enforce these decisions. But keep in mind, the Achilles heel of Direct Democracies (ancient Greece, Rome) is 'mob rule' - this needs to be reduced by mitigating voting powers to 'armchair coaches' (i.e. put in two cents, then vote limited to 2 cents) while increasing it to those who know issues well and put in the time to present citizens with balanced pros and cons.

[-] 2 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

I've been working for "direct" democracy for 22 years. Most all of us who've been in this fight for awhile actually want what the Swiss have and call "co-determination" in which both the people AND Parliament make laws. This is the ultimate "check and balance". It keeps Parliament more humble and representative. AND it curbs "mob rule."

By far the best project for this in the US is led by famed former Senator Mike Gravel: http://VOTE.org It's the main reason he ran for President in 2008, but the media hardly let him talk about it. As Noam Chomsky says, "They hate democracy more than anything."

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Senator Mike Gravel has good ideas about Direct Democracy and another good source to check out would be "NI4D", a web site dedicated to an orderly beginning for the establishment of Direct Democracy. They have worked hard on a bill to help this happen.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Ooops! There's that dirty word again. "Mob rule". The best way to not have mob rule is to not have mob mentality. It is the responsibility of We The People to rise above and stay above this inferior mental state. The Will Of The People should be benign and productive and fulfilling of Our Nations Potential Destiny. Of course it is the minority rulers who most fear mob rule. They know deep in their hearts that they do wrong. I have every confidence that The People will attain a benign attitude and skill when they have practiced Direct Democracy for a while.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

The "dirty word" "Mob" keeps coming up over and over because there are so many instances of it in our history. What's your solution: "responsibility". Unfortunately, history also has a lot to say about that - and most of it is poor. These two factors are small examples of the HUMAN PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS that made BOTH socialism and capitalism fail.

Socialism fails because of laziness, greed and centralization of power in government. Humans are innately lazy and won't work hard without incentives. Centralization of power is inefficient and, because of greed, leads to aristocratic control. Capitalism solves the laziness problem, but fails massively due to greed. Power is still concentrated in the leaders of industry, education, military and government.

I believe Direct Democracy offers PART of a solution. But it needs SUBSTANTIAL structure to control human psychology or it will quickly fall prey to emotionally driven short term (mob) decisions and irresponsibility driven by greed. If a SMART structure is put in place, ALL of the problems we have seen in history can be solved, AND we can come pretty close to our ideals for freedom. BUT! This structure doesn't look at all like any of the government ideas floating around. So, making small adjustments to existing elements of existing constitutions will just bandaid the problem AT BEST!

What is our alternative? I present one of them in my books. There are summaries on my website http://a3society.org . I'm sure I'm not the only one who has spent 20+ years working on this. There must be other good models. Let's find them and try to pull together a workable approach from all of them. But patching what we have is going to fail.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

I think people are unduly worried about mob rule. The idea/faith behind democracy is that the majority will take common sense decision which is in the interest of all the citizens (majority and minority). In fact this is the highlight of democracy. It is also the responsibility of the minority to engage in discussions with majority and convince them to take the right decision. Majority of people are inherently good and will take the right decision. Mob rule is very very unlikely even in Direct democracy. The key word is trust in every human that others are same as them.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Good points "littleg". Also, We can correct mistakes we make as we go. I think We would be more likely to do this than the politicians.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hi "EvanFromHeaven". Ol Dan here. Looks like the suggestion to put Direct Democracy on the Occupy Wall Street list got bumped off it. But that is ok. We still know a good thing when We see it. Thanks for suggesting it. Looks like it has stimulated some discussion. Great. I'll see what i can do to help.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

Dan and Evan: In my previous comments listing the serious problems with Direct Democracy (DD), remember, I also said it was a KEY element to a new government. So, let me briefly describe some key additions that I think are needed to make it work.

First, people have to face up to the complexity of the modern world and their human limitations. There are many complex subjects that government has to regulate that most people aren't qualified to pass judgment on. An example I gave was the laws regulating the operation of nuclear power plants. Sure, people SHOULD have a say whether the world has nuclear power or not, but they don't have the background to get into the details. This point is important because none of the discussions about DD address how the "system" would be set up to decide who gets a say on what.

Second, where will individuals get their information about issues? From the press? Fox News maybe? My issue here is that there is currently NO reliable source of information for people to use to make decisions. Even PBS and NPR are failing at this. And now that they have to scramble for funding, they will succumb to financial models driven by survival. What about the internet? I'm sure you realize what a disaster it has become. It's a garbage heap, with key diamonds in it somewhere. Good luck!

Solving this problem was the basis, in my proposed new government system, for an agency, watched over carefully by the public, to MANAGE available information in a tightly structured way to guarantee both OPEN ACCESS to ideas, and COMPREHENSIVE coverage of ideas. I still believe that humans can get it right. But they need a lot of help to overcome some serious psychological limitations.

Again, these issues are discussed in more detail on my website http://a3society.org under the democracy tab.

[-] 1 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

Dan, it just moved down the list as newer "demands" were submitted. It's still there.. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

It's not direct democracy if a majority dictates for a minority. And some times it's not even a majority. It's 51% out of those 40-50% voting-age that manipulated into participating at this game. That's one quarter.

And another thing: why should I be oblidged to participate ? Why not make the participation voluntary and not mandatory ? Same like an association.

[-] 2 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

"The will of the majority, the natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err; but its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived." -Thomas Jefferson
100% consensus is impossible except in small groups. The meaning of direct democracy is all who want participate in discussion and voting, not just representatives. If you want to talk about consensus, call it that.

Nobody requires you to participate in voting on ballot initiatives or on candidates.

[-] 2 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Well, regarding those small groups, you now see my point: small groups is what we need. A descentralised economy instead of a global one or a "new world order". If you want to eliminate the 1% you have to take the 99% out of that pyramidal system that supports them. You need horizontal networks instead of pyramidal ones. And to use P2P networking instead of centralised systems if you understand how sharing resources in a torrent or dc++ application works.

[-] 2 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

I'm all about local and decentralization. I lived with indigenous people in Taos, NM, Mexico and Guatemala. But, as the saying goes, you have to start where you are. Large nations are an unfortunate fact. If we break up into small groups, big groups walk all over us, and enslave us if they can. Torrent, etc. works because large groups (like ICANN) keep the internet working. SOME things need to be done by large groups. If a large group tries to use 100% consensus, a single uncooperative person can thwart the entire group. That's why Jefferson, Gandhi and other leaders of large groups knew that majority rule was the key.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

You are trying very hard to explain me that my freedom is actually as big or small as some group of people want it to be.

[-] 2 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

All society has rules, starting with "Thou shalt not kill." The question is: WHO makes the rules, all of us, or a few of them? If you want no rules, you're free to go off into the wilderness yourself. I've done that for 4 months this year.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Problem is: wilderness used to be this entire continent.. then it got smaller and smaller... and now even the deepest amazonian jungle is not safe anymore from this "civilisation" virus... but then again.. why should we move ? Why don't you move to the forest and apply those laws that you hold dear over there ? Why make the one that does not care about them move ?

[-] 1 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

If you don't care about fair rules like "Don't murder" then I and others won't take you seriously. Over and out.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

How did we end up talking about murder ? I never said anything about that.

And what's fair ? If you don't care about fair rules like pay the taxes and obey the "laws" that lobbyst write.. bankers won't take you seriously either.. ;)

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I agree with "decentralized economy" and I am definitely against "globalization" and the "new world order". Direct Democracy can help take the 99% out of the pyramidal system, so long as it is The Will Of The People. Could you explain more about "horizontal networks" and "P2P"?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Small groups are the beginning of Direct Democracy. No better way to practice and master the art of Government Of The People, For The People and BY The People than in you own community.

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 4 years ago

This reply applies flavian's point about Direct Democracy (DD) and about 16 interactions below it that didn't have reply buttons.

My first observation is that this discussion is a perfect example of my repeated claim that complex topics can't be addressed one issue at a time. It takes a lot of background to sort this topic out. So, let's look at it in light of a number of pieces of information:

  1. The claim made by Jefferson in the quote, that the "will of the majority… is the only sure GUARDIAN of the rights of man, to begin with, is commonly misunderstood. How does the concept behind the Bill of Rights fit into this? The bill of rights lays out "rules" that limit the majority from interfering with specific practices of individuals. The right of free speech, for example, is protecting a handful of OWS protestors, even if 200 million people in the country think they should be put in jail. So, what was Jefferson telling us? He was saying, that in times of cooler heads, a majority came together, and enacted a law to LIMIT THEMSELVES from action, to protect a higher good - individual FREEDOM - but ONLY in some cases. To do that, they had to raise their ideas above looking at any individual protester, and see the higher value of the right to individual speech.

  2. The starting comment confuses Direct Democracy, a process of counting individual citizen votes vs. Representative votes, with the method chosen to decide the outcome, as in voting majority, total majority, two-thirds vote, unanimous vote etc.

  3. The starting comment also incorrectly assumes that participation in voting is an obligation. It isn't.

  4. Another comment brings in the concept of small groups. But it then falsely assumes that since obtaining 100% consensus is easier in small groups, that creating small groups will solve the problems that the overall protest is addressing. That is far from obvious. Small groups, while minimizing the number of chances for a single holdout, also make each individual stand out more clearly. For example, the whole issue of GANGS in society revolves around the ability of one strong leader to easily ENFORCE conformity in the gang. Or, consider the case of the smallest group, a husband and wife. How often does that lead to 100% consensus? The dominant factor isn't group size. It's other things.

  5. Many activities need large organizations and broad acceptance to be successful. Traffic laws are a good example. People very broadly accept ( consensus ) to drive on the right and stop at lights colored red.

  6. The issue of FREEDOM is raised again. I've previously discussed how the basic understanding of FREEDOM in our society is so drastically misunderstood. It's a fairy-tail of myths. But let me add one point here. Recent psychological discoveries explain why some people are so driven by this concept, that it becomes an anxiety disorder or paranoia - not unlike claustrophobia. These discoveries will open new approaches for treatment.

  7. The point raised which casts the "new world order" as a negative, I think, is similar to the stigma we now associate with other words like mob, communism, socialism etc. The issue here is the emotional response, the psychological problem, which blinds us from dealing with the elements of the concepts realistically.

Again, all of these issues are discussed further at http://a3society.org

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hi "flavian" I have to disagree. It IS Direct Democracy when a Majority decides for the whole...including minorities. The ideal would be for the good heart and mind participation of the Minorities too. It is also Ideal for the Majority to be 99% when We all get together in the Fourth House to govern Our Nation. But We have to work with what We can get. 51% percent, if that is all We can start with, will be good beginning for Direct Democracy. You don't have to participate. You can just sit in a quiet corner and keep yourself out of the equation if that's what you want to do. But the Ideal would be for you to add your good heart and mind to the process. Participation is not mandatory.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

The whole population is made up of Minorities which are made up of Individuals. Majoritism is an ideal that should include most of Our Country's population. Without it We have what We have now; the dictatorship of a minority...which, by the way, also dictates to other minorities. Rulers tend to serve themselves at the expense of others. It is part of my vision that We The People will learn to rule lovingly and wisely and inclusively, in order to enable the best good for The Many. Surely this should be part of the New American Vision?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Me again "flavian". You wrote: "It's 51% out of those 40-50% voting-age that manipulated into participating at this game." Manipulated seems like a strange word here. I tend to think of Citizens voting as an ideal activity of social responsibility. I think it is the idea that voting replaces shooting and the personal honor is in complying with what the voting decided. But this gets messed up when We allow middle men to make the final decisions and votes for Us. Representatives, for the most part, betray Us. They serve themselves like their semi-secret masters. They become part of the ruling minority. If We all became part of the ruling minority, it would no longer be that...it would become the ruling majority...a Better thing for Our Nation.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

You are trying very hard to explain me that my freedom is actually as big or small as some group of people want it to be.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hmmm. That's interesting "flavian". It looks like you will have your idea of how big your Freedom is, which is the right of the Individual, and you think it will be different from ideas about the size of your Freedom decided upon by a Majority. Of course there are some abuses of Freedom that will not be tolerated. This is the right of the Social Group of cooperating Individuals.

Because you are a "Golden Rule" Man, I really don't think that your ideas of Freedom will be interfered with by an enlightened, (also Golden Rule), Direct Democracy Majority.

What do you think about this notion?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

I would reccoment you to find the ending of this story, use google:

As you may recall, we last left Jonathan Gullible on a remote Pacific island after his boat was tossed about by a terrific storm. One day ...

Jonathan didn't have time to say hello. Someone screamed, "It's them! The Democracy Gang! Run for cover!"

"Run, run," shouted a kid, who sprinted past Jonathan.

Alisa's face lost its color. "We've got to get out of here -- fast!"

First came the police. The crowd scattered in all directions -- many of them shedding their back braces to run faster. Three whole families, with children in tow, raced down the stairs of BLOCK B and tossed belongings out the windows to friends below. All gathered what they could and dashed up the street.

Moments later the street was nearly empty. Only the slowest, their arms laden with bundles or children, could still be seen heading away from the approaching threat. A structure at the far end of the street burst into flames. Frozen with fear, Jonathan grabbed Alisa's arm demanding, "What's going on? Why's everyone so scared?"

Tugging wildly against his grip, Alisa yanked Jonathan to his feet and cried out, "It's the Democracy Gang! We've gotta get out of here quick!"

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hi "michaelfinko". Good observations about those old Democracies, but they were not the ideal Direct Democracy form. They were merely historical steps in the right direction.

You wrote: "...mitigating voting powers to 'armchair coaches' (i.e. put in two cents, then vote limited to 2 cents) while increasing it to those who know issues well and put in the time to present citizens with balanced pros and cons." Could you explain more about this please. It sounds like another insertion of a minority that can thwart The Will Of The People. Advisers I can understand, but they should not have more governmental decision power than the American Majority.

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

well, basically, if an organized system of some type is set up, such as on many websites (points, ratings, stars, thumbs up/down, history of comments, etc.), it would be unfair to give the same 100% equal voting weight to a person who's history of comments only includes rants on every topic possible but no constructive criticism/suggestions as to a person who clearly has demonstrated strong knowledge and constructive recommendations on only a few topics in their history of comments. Citizens choose these people by giving them a higher ranking - which can also go down if it becomes clear the person became biased, so much better than term limits, because they have to continually earn trust, openly on the internet.

I'm not saying a huge weighting difference, but it would not encourage those with strong, balanced knowledge of a topic to step up and contribute. So, no, they could never earn an advantage that it would come down to 535 voters with the most weighting trumping all the rest (or equivalent of the 535 senators/reps we have now).

To be honest, I would be happy never voting and trusting a group of 'advisors' who have demonstrated their balanced presentation of issues. Kind of like I trust the team at Canonical who make sure all contributions to Ubuntu are positive and moving it forward, not backward (although that has happened, too, for which they quickly backdated the version, then improved).

To add to your response above -

"The best way to not have mob rule is to not have mob mentality. It is the responsibility of We The People to rise above and stay above this inferior mental state. The Will Of The People should be benign and productive and fulfilling of Our Nations Potential Destiny"

Hoping, wishing, thinking, dreaming, praying, assuming, etc. that people will be good, decent, fair, honest, etc. will result in failure.

We are all humans with various levels of failing points. On the one end you have someone like Mother Teresa on the other Madoff, and everywhere in between. Many realistic assumptions need to be built into any model to make it genuinely sustainable (kind of like the rule of law - it's there not just to keep the honest people honest, but, also as a big stick when people get out of line, so things don't slide into chaos).

For more, see "Truisms' page on OSPF: http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/truisms/truisms-solutions/

br, Michael

[-] 0 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

The first demand should be PUBLIC REFERENDUMS so the PUBLIC can MAKE/CHANGE LAWS, and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

http://OccupyTheAgenda.wordpress.com https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheAgenda

[-] 2 points by ronpaul2012 (41) 4 years ago

The idea behind referendums is a great one. It does, in fact, happen on a state and local level. Listen to what Ron Paul has been saying about severely reducing the size of the Federal govt as a whole, eliminating 25% of federal taxes on your paycheck, and letting the states handle the issues (all the while eliminating corporate welfare and ending war). Referendums have a greater chance of positive success the more power the states and localities have over the Federal govt.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Not a fan of states handling things themselves. They tend to discriminate in their little corners of the world when no one is watching them. Some things should be the same for all of us no matter what state we live in. For example getting on the ballot.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I've been thinking about our election system. I know there are many groups working on different things Like getting Corporations to not be people. And lowering the signature count to gain ballot access. I think we must do something to elevate the voting system to our most paramount activity in the country. So here is what I have in mind it's just a start, not fleshed out but...

EQUAL ACCESS AMENDMENT

Whereas Voting is the most important activity in a civilized society. Whereas the Declaration of Independence states we are all equal. Whereas the substance of life can cause us to be unequal such as our location, finances, education, it is necessary to set in motion boundaries to keep our elections equal for all citizens.

  1. Board of Elections: Need be established as the hub of all election activity. A central place providing information on all laws and bills. Classes on civics. Meeting rooms and the highest law abiding center.
  1. Ballot Access: All citizens should have equal access (meaning the same requirements) to creating a political party and achieving a ballot line. The Board of Elections should accept applications for political party status requiring only proof of actually behaving as a political party. statement of beliefs, 12 meetings per year, agendas, minutes and attendance sheets to prove the meetings took place. All who meet political party status shall have a ballot line and attend debates.
  1. Access for non party citizens: Citizen wishing to run without a party... must register at the BOE. They must convince people to write in their names on election day
  1. Debates: The Board of Elections will schedule a certain number of debates for all parties who have achieved status by a deadline (same day in every state) and all citizens who have registered without a party. The debates shall be afforded the status of the Olympics in that it will not be some short one or two hour activity. Location of the debate can be done by raffle or bidding. In attendance of the live event will only be media personnel. Any media may attend. Partial citizens will not be allowed in audible distance of the debates. Each Candidate will be given equal time to be used as they see fit. Let's say 90 minutes. The number of questions will be determined before hand. Candidates may know the questions beforehand.

Candidates may use powerpoint or some such device to illustrate their answers. All powerpoint sources must be identified. After the question is placed on the screen candidates may answer. The order of the answerer will not be as important because all answers will be recorded. The candidate may speak as long as they like but they will be using their own 90 minutes. Any time a candidate speaks they must turn on their timer to turn on their mic. If they run out of time before the debate is over they will no longer be able to speak.

  1. Donations: No donations may exceed the amount that the poorest of our citizens can afford. At $20 a month for the four years of contributing time a candidate would have to request funds that is a total of $960. To make donations citizens must go in person to the Board of Elections office and donate to any or all candidates not more than $960 a piece in the election cycle. The Board of Elections will check their voting status and deposit their donation in the candidates account. The board will inform the citizen when they have reached their donations limit. A candidate may donate to his own campaign at no more than $960. No other donations will be allowed for elections. Candidates will receive cards to access their funds. The board of Elections will be able to track purchases. Purchases for elections not made with card will not be allowed.

In-Kind donations will have their value determined at the board of elections not to exceed the value of $960. (so basically if someone wants to let you use their room the rental cost would be listed as a donation) A business may make an IN-Kind donation by going to the board of elections office of the county where the item will be used. (a certificate will be issued verifying what was registered for use and the value) A business may not make cash donations.

  1. Bills: Bills shall be single issue. Bills shall be addressed in the numerical order as presented. Bills shall not be set aside on a partisan basis. Not to be addressed until the party in power supports it enough to bring it out to committee.
  1. Voting: Instant Runoff voting shall be used to allow citizens the greatest opportunity to choose whom they want. Ballots shall be dot filled paper ballots that can be counted electronically and maintain a paper trail.

REPEAT

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Ahhh. There it is. I thank you for this work "occupythegreenparty". It has a lot of merit and is worthy of consideration.

May I copy it for study? For sharing with others?

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Yes I keep posting it here and it keeps disappearing. I met with someone from the "working group" in DC and they said they would be bringing it back to Wall Street. I haven't heard from them yet.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

This is a great example of what I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Ideally this might be better, but I would settle for each "party" or "philosophy" having a chance to speak their views and havre people choose what they like. I think that would give us a schmorgesborg(sp) of laws to match the melting pot of our country. I mean the conservatives can't really defend that people in different states have different requirements to participate but they could mount a crazy defense that we want to be Switzerland that's the next step to communism.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

That is disappointing, sad and true that trying to be a peaceful democratic society might be construed that way.

In our fear culture, communism and other terms will always will be loosely thrown around.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I just watched Zeitgeist Moving Forward talking about global resource sharing or whatever they termed it. It's a beautiful thing but we can't even pry a few dollars of taxes from these people you think they will trust people who are not American to cooperate with them over global resourcing? But we might be able to work toward it if other thinking could reach the election spectrum. Equal Access Amendment someone take to the NYCGA my connection fell through.

[-] 0 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

And what gives you the right to impose those laws onto me ?

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Nothing. Government is about relinquishing some power for the greater good. There is always government, once there is more than one person involved. Once you have two people there have to be some rules. Who's going to do what, what are the boundaries, what will we do when we disagree?

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

I don't thing you will find too much disagreement on relinquishing "some power for the greater good".

Rather the whole issue is on exactly HOW MUCH power, or taxes.

  • two people can easily agree.
  • in 1776, our country of 2.5mn homogeneous people could basically agree
  • today it's extremely difficult to get consensus among an extremely large melting pot of the world to agree (310mn people)

My opinion is that running a government in Open Source format, i.e. were everyone can contribute if they like, will solve a lot of tough issues a lot faster and a lot more balanced then 535 heavily biased senators and reps can.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I don't know, I think Flavian would agree. Are you suggesting we dump our congress for a consensus?

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

exactly what I am suggesting. Open Source code for IT works very well (not perfect, but the closest to perfect) Apply it to politics as well, for a Separation of State and Politics. I describe it as an Open Source Political Framework, you can read about it here - www.ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

You might want to try responding to things on here in a way that would show how OSPF would work in this or that particular situation. That would tease people into wanting to find out more. Honestly I got to the site and said "I don't want to read all of this."

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

thanks for the constructive criticism, I agree, the much better strategy, of course, is to draw people in rather than beat them over the head. Short attention span needs to be solved with lots of pictures and video - I'm thinking of putting some hot chicks in bikinis on ever page :-)

After your comments, I went back at the site with a machete and reduced text to short phrases in bullet point format!! Check out - 'About' - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/about2/about/ 'Voter Knowledge Issues' - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/issues/voter-knowledge-level/ 'Why Open Source?' - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/about2/why-open-source/ 'Guidelines' - http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/123-2/

And, many others. But, lots of work to do yet.

br, Michael

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Well I hope we all aspire to better than that but it's hard. Everybody has a link to more info. But if you said "well if we had OSPF then that wouldn't have happened - THIS would have happened" Then people will naturally inquire for more if they like the results.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Hey I'm just learning what consensus is. Is this a derivative or something completely different?

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Nothing, I said we the PEOPLE.

Isn't that better than big money imposing their laws on you?

If you feel that no one has any right to impose any laws over you ever, then you should go find a secluded place in the world far away from civilization.

[-] 0 points by oh7Eek2 (8) from Queens, NY 4 years ago

There is no difference between big money and we the people.

Big money means a big group of people. Your ideology is blinding you to the facts.

[-] 1 points by DanielH33 (4) from Columbia, SC 4 years ago

ridiculous. big money does not inherintly mean a big group of people, it just means an instition (either private or public) with large sums of money. Money buys influence, and that can be either good or bad.

I think the question at hand is whether or not the bad scenarios are worth the risk of allowing that sort of influence to pervade our system.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Most of We The People don't have the "big money". They are of the "Middle Class" and "Worker Class".

[-] 0 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

My friend, the only law I will ever agree to respect FREELY is the golden rule: one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

All the rest is temporary bullshit and I'm not the one that needs to find a secluded place because I'm not the one that wants to impose onto others his own beliefs.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

What if someone decided that he wouldn't mind if you killed him, so he decided to kill you?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

If the semantics bother you, the golden rule is also known like: one should treat others as they want to be treated if one would like others to treat oneself as he likes to be treated.

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

I definitely agree with you , flavian. But I also agree with some of DAN1's ideas.

Really, a lot of this can be solved (i.e. middle ground) by technology. Today we have the increasing ability to offer cost effective FLEXIBILITY through technology. While assuming there is a minimum criteria on certain things like you can't go and kill others, really, on many issues, particularly financial, there are many options available. Here's an example - universal health care (but this not to start a debate on this particular subject, that will just polarize) I do not want it, just my personal opinion. So given that it is a financial issue, it would be relatively simple to let each citizen choose who wants to pay into the government health care system and who doesn't. Rapidly advancing technology could make this practically paperless (i.e. low cost), easy to use (most people have access to computers), low cost to the government (if open source is employed), etc.

Of course, I am oversimplifying the costs involved, but the main point is why should the 'majority' dictate personal choices to the minority, particularly when they impact other financially AND it is completely unecessary?

Today, everyone should be allowed to pay up to 100% in taxes if they like to get up to 100% government provided services. Keep the basic tax extremely minimal (say, 5% flat tax) for the very minimal and basic but necessary government services (infrastructure, critical defense, emergency services, etc.) see "Taxation" http://ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com/ospf-sections/issues/taxation/

Fact: Large government = citizens less in control Small government = citizens more in control

br, Michael

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Even so, you should not impose on those that do not want a state that provides "defense" and emergency services. These can be taken care of local associations so easy.

Technology, I know what you mean. And here energy is the key. Tesla, Andrea Rossi, Stan Meyer, Bob Boyce and others. Imagine the freedom if you wouldn't have to work more than half the time in order to pay for gas, electricity, transportation, heating. Imagine these would be as free as air and water and everything else would cost a fraction because they would be cheaper to produce.

[-] 1 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

Yeah, Screw money. Everybody just take what you want when you want it.

[-] 1 points by jdog (146) 4 years ago

put in honest politicians and the money will not buy them. Money is not a problem - crappy people are.

[-] 2 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

Yes, but the honest people would rather work for nonprofits than be corralled by politicians. Politics is no place for an honest person, so we have to make rules to keep our politicians in line.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

No point in being idealist my friend. This world isnt ideal.

[-] 3 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

Wrong. It's the pursuit of the ideal that leads us to better places. Without it, we wind up mired in mediocrity. looks around oh yeah...exactly where we are now.....

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Well said "packrat"!

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

There is a lot of difference between good and ideal. Don't make perfect enemy of the good.

[-] 2 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

Right, like i said..the pursuit of the one leads to the other....

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hi again "littleg". Could you throw some more light on the differences between "good" and "ideal"? I am experiencing difficulty in differentiating between the two.

I can think that "Good" is "Ideal" and that "Ideal" is "Good". But I am sure my old brain is missing nuances of difference. Maybe the differences become apparent in the specific applications of these terms? Help please?

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

Good is like your best effort. Ideal is the like the Genius Person's best effort. Both are relative/comparative terms and have no definite measurement.

Usually, what happens is people are searching for that ideal partner, ideal home, ideal job and sometimes they let go of a good partner, good home and a good job. So they say don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

Sorry for boring you! :)

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

No boredom "littleg". Your viewpoint is interesting. It makes sense. I understand better now about what you said. Thanks.

Uh...does this mean that "perfect" is the same as "ideal"? Ah...wait. Perfect is never achievable, but ideal is. Even God is striving toward perfection...but this is just my belief about this.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

More just hit me. Something can be "Good" and still not be "Ideal". "Good" can be a step in the direction of "Ideal".

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Then why bother ? Only ho have some "change" that will last a few years or maybe not even that ? Only to go back to same old stuff after the "revolution" ends ?

I would really like to see a Z3MF ending to all of this.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Hopefully We will have learned enough to prevent Us from going back to the same old stuff.

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 4 years ago

This world ain't no video game. It will never end, civilizations will end.

[-] 2 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

Capitalism should be used as a means to an end. Civilizations cannot act in the same manner as a virus forever without destroying the host....(in a manner of speaking).

[-] 1 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

The basic fundamental issues that plague our world at this point, ultimately is the development and abuse of Power. That being said, we can therefore look at avenues that power is derived from in our current system. The main way, today, is through Money. Cash. etc. So at a point, I agree with what Flavian is saying. Quote Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild : "Give me control of a country's currency, and I care not who makes the laws." If we are going to fix some of these issues without flying too far off into the idealistic, one other thing that should be added, is the destruction of the federal income tax. A direct un-apportioned tax on your wages as a citizen of the US is completely and utterly unconstitutional, and it's creation is 100% suspect.

[-] 1 points by renewedpatriot (1) 4 years ago

Also, I think conditioning is a big gear in the mechanism of oppressive power. The Selective Service for instance is an outdated and unjust law. Where if a young man chooses not to sign into this, he has his right to obtain government aid, grants, and loans to better his education denied to him. He is denied government job opportunities. He runs the risk of being charged as a felon and fined up to 250,000 dollars if he does anything to warrant the government to prosecute him (such as bring up the issue at all). There should be rewards for servitude rather than threats of becoming a criminal and loss of rights. I know its low on the totem but since we were talking of unjust power over rights I thought I would give this a mention.

[-] 1 points by EvanFromHeaven (30) from Boulder, CO 4 years ago

Senator Mike Gravel filibustered the Senate until the military agreed to wind down the draft (Selective Service) in 1971. Many people, including me, didn't have to go to Vietnam because of that! Unfortunately, it was re-instated much later, though nobody's being drafted, yet. As part of the filibuster, Gravel read the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the deceit and betrayal that got us mired in Vietnam and killed 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians.

So, take him seriously. He's the guy behind the National ballot Initiative, which is the best plan for direct democracy, in which we ALL participate in making laws, not just the representatives who mostly prostitute themselves to corporations. Website: http://Vote.org

[-] 1 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

The capitalism will end, not the world. And Z3MF it's not a video game, it's a movie. You should watch it. Google: moving forward official

[-] 0 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

That is why we need federal PUBLIC REFERENDUMS

A 4th body of government that is the people.

Then we can do things like this ourselves without taking to the streets all the time.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

maybe because not everyone agrees with that.

[-] 1 points by THISISFUNNYSHIT (8) 4 years ago

^^^^^ Wack Job^^^^^

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

A social contract without money? Fascinating. What on Earth would We Humans attach Our Greed to without money? Hmmm. Maybe We could become "greedy" for Love and fairness to all. I would like that. We could even become "greedy" about establishing this moneyless world.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

slow down, crazy.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 4 years ago

Flavian, unless you are 98 years old or older, you've never seen true capitalism. That was the time where you actually had capital and not government corrupted fiat debt for money. For serious.

[-] 1 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

Yeah, 98 years ago. That's what we need, no more of these stupid regulations, like child labor. Get them kids to work.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Yeah! Back to the good ol robber baron days.

[-] 1 points by Uguysarenuts (270) 4 years ago

Wow 2 idiots

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Yep, there was a bit more fairness when gold was used as money instead of the toilet paper we have now. But the problem with capital remains the same: it can be used to corrupt people, it can be stolen, it can be inherited. That is regardless if the new owner is a lazy, stupid, greedy or plain evil person. He gets the power to decide over the lives of thousands or millions just because his grandfather was a visionary. That is capitalism. Where people are not people, they are just human resorces. Where nature is not life, is just exploitable assets.

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Even in an indigenous society, there is a power structure.

[-] 1 points by Templewind (13) 4 years ago

I think you are confusing corporatism with capitalism.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Aren't the corporations a phenomena produced by Capitalism?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

I thin one cannot exist without the other.

[-] 1 points by CensuraUmbra (7) 4 years ago

I don't think you understand what a state is. You can't really dismantle a state. It's institutions maybe, but not the state.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Why can't you?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Oh, but I do. And I dare you to consider the difference between a state and an association. I am not against FREE associations of people that you can join or leave without having to change the country you live in, leaving behind your family, your friends and your home. Why FORCE me to join and pay taxes only because I was born and raised in a specific country ?

Replace the mandatory taxation with voluntary contributions. Transform the state into an association and I'm in. That is if you offer me good enough reasons. Otherwise I might join the french association or the canadian one, even if I live and work in US. They might offer me better insurance, health benefits and retirement conditions for the fees that I FREELY agreed to pay them.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Voluntary contributions is worth a try. Is there any examples of this being successful?

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

Think open source. Think wikipedia. Or linux. Or "let's do it" cleaning campaigns. Think pirate bay. Or anonymous.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

no. no no no no no no no. that's not how it works. you're being selfish, and that's exactly the kind of attitude that we're trying to protest.

[-] 1 points by flavian (19) 4 years ago

no no no no. I'm not selfish. I want to cooperate. But freely. In an association. Not forced. Not taxed. Not being told what I have to learn. Or to speak. Or to think. Or to obey. Do you not see the difference ?

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

Flavian I don't think as many people want to go down the road you're pointing toward. We like the devil we know rather than the devil we don't.

[-] 5 points by jamalogist (14) from Philadelphia, PA 4 years ago

I think this list should be much more widely publicized. The protests got people's attention. They seem to be listening. Now the question is, what will they hear as "the message", here... Much of what's coming through so far, seems a little out there.. This list is coherent and sounds like it will actually fix the system. My local paper today had quoted some protesters as having an ultimate goal of some sort of robin hood communism, which I think many of those now listening, it turns off...

[-] 1 points by UCPoliticalPowers (4) 4 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

It might help to take copies of this list, or part of it, to local newspapers...to give them an opportunity to publish and distribute.

[-] 1 points by Templewind (13) 4 years ago

This list has already been "publicized" enough to almost completely sideline the (great) movement. You must be in your late teens or early 20s. I'm sorry to have to break it to you but this list (as a whole) is uninformed, and dangerous to the middle class. It is also (particularly #4) exactly what the financial "elite" are promoting. Does that tell you anything?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I disagree that, "...this list (as a whole) is uninformed, and dangerous to the middle class."

[-] 1 points by bothandneither (6) from Providence, RI 4 years ago

I agree. It appears that the list of 13 demands which includes immediate debt forgiveness and guaranteed income is getting a lot more publicity, presumably because it is more alienating to a lot of people and easier to discredit. I would like to see this one getting more attention!

[-] 1 points by jamalogist (14) from Philadelphia, PA 4 years ago

Exactly. In talking to friends, the stuff they are hearing is too easy to dismiss and discredit, as it lacks a productive message for reform and restoring health to the system.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I'm not sure We can "restore health to the system".

[-] 1 points by jamalogist (14) from Philadelphia, PA 4 years ago

The above is a list of reforms to the current system. If you believe it cannot be saved, then we have to propose a cohesive alternative to that system. That has not been done.

[-] 1 points by LAfocus (13) 4 years ago

Somehow we need to spread the word on this.

[-] 4 points by LilyT (17) from Miami, FL 4 years ago

Numbers two and four (investigating Wall Street and getting support for the Buffet Rule) are easily achievable in the near future. Call your congressional representatives tomorrow (I know I will!) and tell them that you want them that if they do not take these actions, you will not vote for them in the next election cycle.

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

[-] 3 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 4 years ago

Voting is rigged so the oligarch's puppets stay in power and it is naive to put trust in those same government puppets that have created this kleptocracy. We need to get them out of power as soon as possible because innocent people are killed with each passing day. There are many changes that need to be made but it is my firm opinion that our demands should include things we know most People want:

  • end to all wars/covert ops/humanitarian bombing,
  • repeal the unpatriotic Patriot Act that has cost Freedom,
  • return Freedom lost
  • stop, or at least label genetically altered foods,
  • end corporate personhood,
  • end corporate lobbying,
  • serious voting reform that will give us a vote that counts- paper ballots w/verifiable receipt! (perhaps the most critical, first things first)
  • abolish the Electoral College
  • abolish the Federal Reserve

Ending the wars/bombing and covert ops would free up a lot of money for things like education and single-payer healthcare, so throw those in too.

We could have excellent candidates but the oligarchs will remain in power if they continue to rig the elections; I think paper ballots w/verifiable receipt would make an enormous difference and those systems already exist. The Electoral College is archaic and needs to go (Hillary Clinton agrees). We do not elect federal lawmakers as things are today, the federal lawmakers are selected by the oligarchs. Democracy will only happen if WE can elect the decent humans (or run ourselves) that will implement the real solutions to the many problems caused by corruption (there are more than most people realize).

See testimony of rigged voting in the latest post, 'Unified Demand Occupation FOR the People, BY the People', http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/10/unified-demand-occupation-for-people-by.html

The time is now, else the time is never, PEACE

[-] 1 points by SayNO2GovInc (99) 4 years ago

Now this is wonderful law! 'Bolivia Set to Pass Historic 'Law of Mother Earth' Which Will Grant Nature Equal Rights to Humans', http://www.pvpulse.com/en/news/world-news/bolivia-set-to-pass-historic-law-of-mother-earth-which-will-grant-nature-equal-rights-to-humans?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dac752471470adf%2C0

[-] 3 points by BWJeffery (3) 4 years ago

The Second Bill of Rights!

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights".

Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

In this time and age, is there anything more profound or true?

[-] 3 points by deemackss (3) from New York, NY 4 years ago

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

courtesy of: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html

[-] 3 points by zavisa (4) 4 years ago

Looks better than the last time. I believe that You guys need a legal professionals to formulate and summarize all this. Stay focused on corruption ! Other issues can be fixed once we have the government that serves people.

[-] 3 points by dumemama (5) 4 years ago

Add #3a Prohibit any gov't employee or department from accepting or benefiting directly from any unscheduled gift, payment, gratis service, or sponsorship from any organization or individual. Big money regularly buys politicians and government agencies like the FDA and the FCC and they do it through gifting as much if not more than campaigning. The JP Chase buyout of the NYPD is a drop in the bucket. One could only hope that if this were to be adopted at the Fed, states might follow.

[-] 3 points by bothandneither (6) from Providence, RI 4 years ago

I love this list! I have been passing it along at every opportunity. I like that it has specific steps that can be achieved in the relatively short term. It addresses the fundamental problems of corporate control over our elections and our legislative process that must be reduced before we can address all our many grievances. It is my hope that these demands will restore the interests of people to the primary place in our government, and once we have done that, we can address issues of economic and environmental rights. We can't enact a living wage or environmental protections with a congress that is bought by Walmart and Monsanto!

[-] 3 points by Africanus (9) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 4 years ago

For sure a good start.

End Drug War End the Prison Industrial Complex End Mandatory Minimums

And I would make a law....that would end all wars. Simply Stated: In the event that the President declares war, we immediately draft every citizen of wealth from ages 18-30, starting at the very top wage earning families, and work our way all the way down....no exceptions...all combat..no paper pushing. Watch how fast diplomacy and negotiations become the norm.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

The Draft idea would get their attention. lol. Better than none of their kids, basically, not being in the service as it is now.

[-] 3 points by Delta5 (3) from West Covina, CA 4 years ago

The draft version that I saw had a HUGE OMISSION: Namely - the protection of the planet we live on.

That is the single biggest issue there is. It's more important in the long term than any other issue, and it's also more urgent than most other issues, because the destruction is vast and ongoing.

So how about something like this:

"They have raped the Earth of its precious resources, and trashed and poisoned the seas and the waterways, the land and the air. They have destroyed vast tracts of forest and the despoiled the wilderness, wreaked havoc on crucial ecological niches, and driven hundreds of important species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction."

Come on, everyone, get some PERSPECTIVE here: As important as the economy is at times like this, it is NOT the economy that ultimately gives us our lives. It is NATURE and the Earth that gives us our lives. There is NOTHING - including the economy - that is more important to protect and defend than planet Earth.

Just a little footnote posted as an afterthought, saying "These grievances are not all-inclusive" is insufficient. If this whole big grab-bag of issues is laid out for all to see, then the single most important issue of all - the protection and restoration of the health of the Earth - should be there, and it should be right up front and center, in bold letters.

[-] 2 points by bothandneither (6) from Providence, RI 4 years ago

I totally agree that the environment comes first. No society, no economy without one! I believe, though, that the proposals here are aimed at getting corporate interests out of our government and this is a necessary first step. We can't have laws protecting the environment, and meaningful enforcement of those laws, until we have a congress and an election system that is concerned with protecting people (and life itself) before profit. I think you are referring to the statement issued by the NY General Assembly rather than the list under discussion here; I think this list is a great first step to addressind environmental issues.

[-] 1 points by Natassia (7) 4 years ago

People need to come first. And since people need a healthy environment, then that will follow, right?

When you put environment before people, then people suffer.

[-] 2 points by KiriofGreenfield (21) 4 years ago

I see no separation.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

I can see where that would be True if there were too many people. We have to stay in balance with Our Natural World.

[-] 1 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

relax, we will eventually go on to compete with other alien life forms in raping the resources of other planets!!! We could name the first intergalactic exploratory ship, armed with rockets from Raytheon the 'Delta5' :-)))

In all seriousness, though, I don't agree that the environment should be THE top issue. It should be among a top 5 or 7 issues - each contributing in genuine stability of the overall, as no one issue can be done without sustainability of the others.

One of those 5 to 7 needs to be a strong financial 'foundation to our building', or Economics. More specifically, if we don't have a genuinely sustainable financial budget, there can be no talk of a sustainable environment or foreign policy, cultural development, etc.

A country is like building a house. You start with a strong foundation, add the walls, the roof, interior electricity/water, etc. Logically I would think financial sustainability would most likely be the 'foundation' (or maybe core ethical and moral behavior - just they are difficult to quantify due to their highly subjective nature) with Environment squarely being an exterior load bearing wall. br, Michael

[-] 1 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 4 years ago

I agree. we need to write a National Resource Defense Amendment to protect the environment and keep it as clean as possible.

[-] 1 points by xiloveartx (6) 4 years ago

I also agree, corporations are trashing rivers, lakes and tropical forests with just small monetary consequences that they see as "the cost of doing business trashing water, air and soil"

Among the demands there should be something that protects the vital natural resources from corporations.

[-] 1 points by Templewind (13) 4 years ago

I take it you support a "carbon tax"?

[-] 0 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

If we have a true democracy, we can do these things We need to OCCUPY THE AGENDA

The first demand should be PUBLIC REFERENDUMS so the PUBLIC can MAKE/CHANGE LAWS, and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

http://OccupyTheAgenda.wordpress.com https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheAgenda

[-] 1 points by Templewind (13) 4 years ago

In what way would you change the constitution?

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Bring an improved Social Security Program into its protective "embrace". Do this to make this program stronger and less assailable by its enemies.

[-] 0 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

I don't matter. How would WE the PEOPLE change the constitution.

There are already some demands that require an amendment, start there.

[-] 3 points by SisterRay (554) 4 years ago

Looks great. To summarize: (1) Regulate markets. (2) Tax the rich. (3) Hold Wall Street accountable. (4) Restore democracy.

That's a program even the MSM can understand.

[-] -1 points by JamesHendrix (11) 4 years ago

Yeah, Restore Democracy get rid of cronies like Barrack Obama, Herry Reid and that Pelosi broad. Who needs elected officials who agree with you? Get them out of there.

Just curious? If the leaders of the Senate and the President agree with you, who are you protesting against? I mean serious, Reid, Pelosi and Obama all came out in support of this protest. If the leaders agree, is it a protest, or is this masterbation?

[-] 3 points by ljeanabldrco (20) 4 years ago

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

[-] 3 points by sgrant (3) from Evansville, IN 4 years ago

No more earmark bills. A bill needs to be concise and only cover one (or very similar) issues. This is where the lobbyists perform their voodoo. No politician will vote against a bill, for instance, that continues to provide supply for our troops, even though it had a bit or pork barrel spending, or corporate tax breaks.

[-] 3 points by ryananger (3) 4 years ago

I don't know why no one has brought this up yet:

Implement Congressional Term Limits.

I think a HUGE part of the problem is the fact that Congressional incumbents have a 95% re-election rate in recent years, and that many of the current members in place are in the corporate pocket.

It would take some time, but eventually all the old faces will be replaced with new, non-corporate sponsored faces, if the other things on the list get implemented as well.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

You know what? You're right. It is kind of odd that the topic of term limits hasn't really come up. Maybe this could be added tithe demands list above since it would help get corporate influence out of politics.

[-] 1 points by jeffsteele (4) from Los Angeles, CA 4 years ago

Why do Congressional incumbents have a 95% re-election rate if that's not what their represented want? Their districts can easily throw them out in 4/6 years, yet the incumbent is elected most of the time anyway. Could it possibly be that in a representative democracy, the people actually want the guy that they just voted for 4/6 years ago? Could it be that you are banking on the fact that those who disagree with you yet win a Congressional seat will change their mind with term limits?

Remember, people have a vote. Incumbents don't get automatically sworn back in. You're asking for a mechanism that already exists.

[-] 1 points by AdamWinsor (4) from Durham, NC 4 years ago

There are presidential term limits already for a good reason- people tend to stick with the familiar, but that is not always good for the system. Circulating new blood decreases cronyism and corruption, and limits systemic stagnation. It encourages local political parties to re-think who best represents the current constituents instead of who is the safe bet.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

I think this is a very good idea. Term limits would keep it fresh and keep people from becoming career politicians. They need to be in there at least 8 years though to get anything done. Don't make the terms too short.

[-] 3 points by gwendybird3 (3) 4 years ago

My main suggestion is to keep to the demands/appeals which are focused to directly activate political and economic change(I think #1, #3, #6 and #8 are definitely in this category) Please avoid the path of blaming individuals or agencies, this will only serve to waste time, energy and more money. Use any momentum gained from this protest to directly influence votes for positive change.

[-] 1 points by anaisconce (3) 4 years ago

I agree with this sentiment. #2 hurts the movement because it paints the movement as blood thirsty. The us-vs-them vitriol will distract from the positive changes we can demand. Unfortunately, most (not all) of what happened on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis was not illegal - it was unethical, for sure, but not illegal. The crooks on Wall Street exploited loop holes and too advantage of weak regulation. Let's focus on strengthening regulation. In other words, let's make what they did illegal! Then they can't do it again, and if they do, then they can be punished.

[-] 3 points by rarara (27) 4 years ago

If you want to speak to the concerns of the population, call for things that address the MATERIAL CRISES that we experience:

1) Stop all house foreclosures, 2) Forgive student loan and credit card debt 3) Create free and universal healthcare 4) Establish a free education system 5) End the war on drugs and the criminalization of black and latino youth 6) Legalization for all immigrants 7) Etc.

[-] 4 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

I think that instead of forgiving student loans there needs to be a way to control the rising costs of college education, if not to bring it back down.

[-] 4 points by readytogo (80) from Brooklyn, NY 4 years ago

I also disagree with the student loan debt. I have my own, and while I'd love a genie to magically make it disappear, I knowingly and willingly accepted it. I think the mortgages are a totally different story. There was certainly deceptive practices going on there.

[-] 1 points by jayzee (1) from Buffalo, NY 4 years ago

I knowingly, but certainly not willingly accepted my loans. I was forced into them, if I wanted to be able to retire someday.

[-] 4 points by hamlet (4) from Muncie, IN 4 years ago

I must disagree with forgiving student loan debt as a blanket response. I have a hefty student loan debt (about $80,000.00) but I knowingly and willingly acquired it. If you mean the student loan debt that many people are experiencing through the apparently misrepresentation of some community colleges and online colleges regrading likelihood of getting a job with their degree and average paycheck they could expect (Phoenix, etc), then those institutions should be investigated for fraud and they should pay back the loan money of hustled students. But that is very different than wiping all student loans. If we want Wall Street and others held accountable, we must also hold ourselves accountable for the decisions we have made financially as individuals.

[-] 4 points by BJS3D (95) from Eugene, OR 4 years ago

I agree. I'm accruing a sizable student loan dept but I see no just cause in seeking forgiveness for a debt that I willingly agreed to accept.

Credit card debt is also subject to personal responsibility. Personally, I refuse to use them but, if you have a massive cc debt, it's your own fault for being irresponsible with the terms you knowingly agreed to.

Free education system sounds great in theory but I have to wonder as to the quality of such if exclusively offered by the government. It would just be yet another aspect to exploit.

Kudos on the "Free universal health care" point. With some decent oversight, it would work. Again, though, it's the quality in delivery of the service that I'm concerned about if exclusively granted by the government.

"End war on drugs", "continue war on drugs"... all futile attempts at control of something that's better dealt with through higher standards of living and higher standards in education. Urban poverty is the issue to go to war against.

I'd also have to disagree with stopping all home foreclosures. I understand that, in times like in 2008, it's a tragedy to see so many lose their homes when unemployment strikes. I was among them. However, I agreed to terms that inevitably lead to my own downfall. A loan should carry with it default penalties else people would take advantage of the system. I don't agree with banking strategies that seek to manipulate people out of their assets but I also don't believe that we, as recipients of service, should be irresponsible as well.

[-] 2 points by rarara (27) 4 years ago

Yes, I also "knowingly and willingly accepted" student loans. I did so because I don´t have wealthy parents who could have afforded the tens of thousands of dollars that higher education costs in the United States. This is the case with everyone who "knowingly and willingly accepted" student loans. In many other countries, higher education is either free or or very affordable. (In some european countries, one pays 300 Euros per semester). And there are many foundations which offer grants, rather than loans, which often cover tuition fees as well as living expenses. This is the case in one of the most successful economies, such as Germany, proving the myth of state indebtedness false. The rotten economy that most university graduates find themselves in following graduation has placed them in the position of having the choose between repaying their student loans, or buying groceries; repaying student loans or paying their rent; repaying student loans or purchasing necessary items for their children; etc. You will see this repeatedly expressed in the testimonials on the website "We are the 99%!" (http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/). Indebtedness and poverty is not the result of bad personal decisions. To rise out of poverty, one seeks higher education. If one doesn't go through college, one's chances of earning more than poverty wages, is very low. And it is also not the mere result of deception. There is a structure of indebtedness, all done according to legal practices, which has been built up as a form of profit-making. It is that which we need to target.

[-] 1 points by BJS3D (95) from Eugene, OR 4 years ago

Understandably, I agree that education should be free-based. We shouldn't have to go into debt into the tens or hundreds of thousands to prepare ourselves to inevitably become pillars of this nation. We are left with limited options that force us to gamble the stability of our own futures on hope.

It's not really that people make poor decisions. It's merely a matter of having poor options with which to choose. The playing field could use some leveling indeed.

[-] 1 points by Birdywannabe (1) 4 years ago

Wiping out loans and thus responsibility reduces the credibility of reform. Would review of repayment terms for student loans be more feasible? For example - for exisiting loans the interest )could be removed or reduced to improve parity or even offer "public good" credits so that a student entering the workforce as a lawyer for a women's rights non-profit group or a underserved medical area versus a lawyer or doctor who chooses to work solely for personal profit (which is ok but would not offer these credits) could have their loan amounts reduced. New workers' choices to work for positive community-minded companies or organizations are rewarded directly. Also - rather than broadly absolving people for their past choices to live beyond their means - credit card debt interest rates should be capped. People don't need a free ticket but instead a real and viable opportunity to pay what they owe. Just a couple of thoughts...

[-] 1 points by DieStudentLoansDie (5) 4 years ago

I knowingly accepted my student loan debts. I was 20 and young and naive and nobody told me that signing on the dotted line was selling my soul to corporate America.

I borrowed $40k and now owe over $110k. It has been sold so many times unbeknownst to me. They have "lost" payments which threw me into default where they could do whatever the fuck they please.

I can't file bankruptcy. My transcripts have been held hostage so my dream of being a teacher dissipated with that. Now I just have a black hole of debt that will surely put me in my grave early.

How about forgiving all the bullshit fees that were tacked onto my debt? How about allowing me to pay back what I borrowed and call it a day? Or change bankruptcy laws so that people being suffocated by SLD can start over. It's available to all other forms of debt. Why not student loans?

Student Loan Debt surpasses credit card debt.

[-] 2 points by jamalogist (14) from Philadelphia, PA 4 years ago

I'm not sure about forgiving credit card debt though. There's all kinds of reasons people have that debt. Not sure that should be encouraged. I paid mine down, I don't think we want our tax money paying down others' credit cards, who knows what some of those purchases were...

[-] 1 points by muberaduz (3) 4 years ago

agree

[-] 1 points by jahbreeze (4) 4 years ago

There are certain things that government should involved in an certain things it shouldn't. Government should focus on "public goods". These are things that can be used by anybody that needs them and you can't exclude anybody from using it in a reasonable way (like a lighthouse or free medical care for all). Public goods generally benefit everyone in society once they are created. Free science education, for instance, benefits society as a whole because smarter people can innovate and create things that society as a whole can use. Anything that isn't a public good, e.g. something that only a few people get the benefit from, like loan forgiveness or farm subsidies should not get money from the government.

[-] 3 points by web99 (8) 4 years ago

GKM: be sure to post this on the General Assembly principles of solidarity draft link: http://nycga.cc/2011/09/24/principles-of-solidarity-working-draft/

This is so much stronger and more to the point than the nebulous, if well-intentioned, statement that they've got posted.

[-] 2 points by Steve15 (385) 4 years ago

This should be at the top of the forum

[-] 2 points by chrstne7 (21) 4 years ago

Love the Demands, you guys hit the nail on the head.

[-] 2 points by zaylyn (3) 4 years ago

ERISA law is so full of holes that corporations routinely raid workers' pension funds to boost their profits (and CEO and exec salaries). We need to strengthen ERISA by absolutely forbidding employers to raid employee pension funds and to give more clarity to employees when they propose lump sum "deals" that usually grossly lower the amounts employees are really entitled to receive.

[-] 2 points by percjohnson (2) from Seattle, WA 4 years ago

KILL THE FILLIBUSTER! It must be democracy of the majority and not the minority.

[-] 2 points by PoorerRichard (14) 4 years ago
  1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489

  2. Full Criminal Investigation of the Fraud that almost brought down our economy in 2008 along with prosecution. Heads should roll.

  3. Elimination of corporate tax incentives to ship jobs offshore and tax benefits for corporations providing full healthcare for their workers.

[-] 2 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 4 years ago

Many of these demands are great and I agree with most of them. However, #3, namely some sort of campaign finance reform is the true underlying issue. The rest are reactions to a the oligarchy we call American Democracy. please comment on this idea for a single issue that all of Occupy Wall Street could get behind. http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-concise-demand-prohibit-private-spending-for-p/

[-] 2 points by Conservative2011 (3) from Englishtown, NJ 4 years ago

I think all you people need to get jobs. The communist socialist ideas listed above can all be found, plus some news ones, enacted in China, Cuba, North Korea, the EU, and in Russia. Please go there asap and restart a happy life. You FOOLS.

[-] 2 points by hadenuf (3) 4 years ago

We should also demand term limits for Congress; demand a cut in their benefits; deny their ability to vote their own pay increases and force them to pay for their own medical coverage. They must be held to the same standard as all Americans and not be the privileged sector they have made themselves. These demands must become part of Occupy Wall Street. It will greatly assist in forcing change.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 4 years ago

I ask the OWS to consider the proposals at Revolution 2.0 - Their idea restructures the government to where the people oversee the actions of the government – even overturn governments’ decisions when the majority deem it necessary - true representation. We just have to want it badly enough! http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_intro.aspx Overview: Welcome to the beginning of the second American Revolution. The purpose is to educate and to move the United States and the rest of the world forward. We all know that something is terribly wrong with our country but we don't have a clue what to do about it. But we do know we cannot continue to sit around and do nothing. We are so confused, we don't realize how dangerous it is to continue voting for democrats and republicans. We've become mentally crippled and dependent on two parties and our current form of government. They can't help you. The best people to help the people are the people. Until you figure that out, you will remain lost. Welcome to the Revolution. Revolution 2.0 is a revolution in ideas and technology along with a vision to move this country forward. Read common sense 3.1 and the rest of the pages on the menu. This will give you a clear understanding of what the problems are, what we need to do about them and most important, how to proceed by taking real action. Our government didn't create itself and it can't fix itself. Problems never solve themselves… Common sense 3.1 is a call to action to address the problems of the nation. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx The second bill of rights are the baseline expectations and goals for Revolution 2.0 http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_billofrights.aspx The Declaration of Dissolution and Termination (DDT) is a formal and legal declaration of grievances prepared by the people of the United States to be served to the government of the Untied States. The declaration is also a formal and legal order by the people to the government of the United States to cease and desist specific government operations in accordance with instructions laid down by the Execution of Dissolution and Termination. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_Intro_DT.aspx The Execution of Dissolution and Termination (EDT) is the formal process and rules for dissolving parts or all of the old government and then terminating the old government after the new government has been fully implemented. http://www.osixs.org/Rev2_menu_Execution.aspx Yes, you guessed it - this ain't no tea party. What I do like about this movement, is that it gets the job done without violence. If violence breaks out; the government can and will impose martial law and the rest of your rights will be stripped from you. With your rights gone; your vote; your signature; and your opinion are irrelevant. With the frustration that is building in America; I can envision this possibility. Revolution 2.0 sidesteps this pitfall. If you like what you see at this site; please vote here and let them know of your support: http://www.osixs.org/Vote.aspx When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the State, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution.

  • Thomas Jefferson
[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Demands are good but let's save em for later dude. Now is the time for just getting to know each other and helping people discover what they have in common. Later we will unify behind demands. Maybe even some of these. Who knows. But right now if we go beyond discussion, we'll be dividing and that's exactly what we don't want to do right now. That's the whole problem man. They have us all thinking we're all so different and we're at each others throats. That's how throughout history the 1% have been able to dominate the 99% in what are allegedly free societies. So let's do it different this time. Put on some Jack Johnson, grab a beer and chill out for an evening. Talk to your neighbors. Talk on this forum. Just try to talk about what you have in common with people man. That's how this party will kick into overdrive. We can do this. We are the 99% and nothin can stop us.

[-] 1 points by markpkessinger (8) 4 years ago

You make a good point. Focusing too much on specific demands this early in the process, increases the likelihood that the entire movement will get pigeonholed into a much too narrow political agenda. In any case, no list is likely to satisfy everyone. I would suggest focusing more on developing a clear set of underlying principles that can later be used as a guide in the development of specific policy or legislative proposals.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Great idea!

[-] 1 points by markpkessinger (8) 4 years ago

Here's a general idea of what I mean. First, focus on the foundational-level principles, such as, for example:

(1) Curtailing the influence of money in our elections/political system; (2) Restoration of a robust regulatory framework for our financial system; (3) Restoring legal accountability and the rule of law to the financial sector; (4) Re-establishing judicial ethics and political independence (most particularly for the Supreme Court justices)

...etc.

Once a set of foundational principles is developed, then go back and, within each category, develop specific proposals. For example, under (1) above ("Curtailing the influence of money in our elections/political system"), eventual policy/legislative proposals might include things such as (a) campaign finance reform, (b) finding a way to reverse the Citizens United decision and (c) limiting corporate contributions to political campaigns, etc. Under (2) above might be things like reinstating Glass-Steagall, revamping the SEC, etc. Under (3) would be things like investigating and holding the architects of the financial collapse legally accountable. Under (4) would be something like extending the Judicial Code of Conduct to cover Supreme Court Justices (currently, they are exempt from the code, but all other federal judges are bound by it). You get the idea. But the important thing, first, is to develop the foundational principles, and then to develop the specific proposals based on those.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Yes. Yes. Yes!! That's exactly what we need as far as a progression. You should put that together and post as an idea. It makes total sense. Big you do, be sure to include something explaining why now is not the time for demands. Please feel free to borrow if there's anything of value in what I wrote.

[-] 2 points by Imitchell (2) 4 years ago

We really need to return to a true capitalist society where people lose money when they destroy companies. No more of this crap where a CEO runs a company into the ground and makes 40 million that year. Cap executive compensation at 10 times what the average employee for that company makes. All additional profit should be returned to the shareholders who actually lose money if the company fails. This is the current practice in Japan. Is anyone worth three hundred times what the average employee makes?

[-] 2 points by josemariacasas (3) from Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires 4 years ago

Please check the conclusions of the "Contra Congress of Culture" at http://contracongreso.com.ar/conclusiones/

It s conclusions goes in the same way that your points, and you can find a loot of arguments and ideas there.

We support your cause from Argentina!!

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Here is link for translation into English: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcontracongreso.com.ar%2Fconclusiones%2F

Seems there are a lot of points that may be incorporated into Demands. I especially like the points of CULTURE. TPTB are trying to eliminate Culture from all places. Culture is essential to People and this unique aspect of individuals is very important to me and others. CULTURE should be Preserved!!

[-] 2 points by cnote (3) 4 years ago

Term limits for congress and senate same as president,two terms and your out.Lobbiest and the money they bring to wash should be regulated.No outside money for election.Keep the money out of the hands of people that is making the decisions in wash. and we will have a different country.

[-] 2 points by ADM (7) from Stephens City, VA 4 years ago

Pass a law that each bill put through congress have only one purpose. Any secondary measures must be directly related to the one purpose.

If the bill is an appropriations bill, all appropriations for states must also be listed by State, District, current representative/senator.

[-] 2 points by steinrebe (4) from New York City, NY 4 years ago

How about a Nuremberg Trial for those responsible for the crisis in the banking sector? Nazi Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht was tried in Nuremberg.

[-] 2 points by mschilfries (5) 4 years ago

Sorry, these keep popping into my head...

4) - Require all candidates and justices to publish their psychometric profile to the electorate.

[-] 2 points by onesquarelight (60) from Wormleysburg, PA 4 years ago

H.R.1098 - Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 Quite beating around the bush. Get to the heart of the problem. It's the monetary system.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

Can HR 1098 be found online?

[-] 2 points by Gr8drmrs (2) 4 years ago

Why not sign into law Roosevelts Second Bill of Rights and give the country back to the people.

[-] 2 points by Warmblood (6) 4 years ago

End the Fed!!!!

[-] 2 points by jtack1979 (7) 4 years ago

Here is a simplified draft of the flyer I created that am distributing at the occupy Jacksonville event on saturday. I wanted to keep it one page and direct. And addendums or editing suggestions are welcome. Thank you.

We are Gathered.

A general assembly declaration of demands and common purpose.

We are gathered in direct defiance of tyranny.

We are gathered to restore our democracy from the grips of plutocratic reign.

We are gathered to demand the rights and privileges of free universal education and health care that are social quality of life standards among all industrialized nations.

We are gathered to demand the establishments of universal unionized employment, a living wage standard in all employment, and full workers rights and benefits that are social quality of life standards among all industrialized nations.

We are gathered to demand increased protection and conservation of our natural resources from financial exploitation and the establishment of universalized clean energy standards that environmental integrity standards among all industrialized nationas

We are gathered to demand increased protections and regulation of our food supply from financial exploitation.

We are gathered to demand the end of perpetual warfare and the dismantling of the military industrial complex and the reconstruction of our domestic infrastructure.

We are gathered to demand the enforcement of social justice through due process protections to end discrimination based on race, religion, age, gender, and sexual orientation.

We are gathered to demand increased regulations to end the erosion and commoditization of our individual privacy.

We are gathered to declare that corporate entities are not human beings and deserve no recognized legal rights and privileges based upon humanistic premise.

We are gathered to declare that we will not further tolerate a concentration of wealth and power intent to bring forth a new world order of globalized neo-feudalistic serfdom.

We are gathered for the generations which stood before us and those that shall stand after us.

We are gathered to declare that we do not exist to serve the 1% that exploit through means of wealth, production, and political power.

We are gathered to declare that we are the 99% not of wealth but of mass.

And so we are gathered…. And so we shall Occupy.

[-] 1 points by RightsOfMan (45) from Brownsville, TX 4 years ago

One of the most concise, coherent, practical and sane postings I have seen. Good Job. (Although I don't know about universal unionization.)

[-] 2 points by oh7Eek2 (8) from Queens, NY 4 years ago

So the assertion here is that some corporations have committed crimes, but that the government hasn't investigated these crimes?

If you have evidence of such crimes, why haven't you contacted the appropriate legal entity?

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Well, you did say investigate. I was thinking giving Penalty on par with the Crime. That's a long, long list. You can start with Chiquita, the Dow, how about a new one, BP, back to old ones: Shell (genocide too)...These corps have never made amends...moving on now.

[-] 2 points by mmogu77 (4) 4 years ago

3 and 8 need to go farther: AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OR APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO HOLD THAT SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL FREE SPEECH UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT. The 5-4 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision that allowed corporations to donate unlimited funds to support or oppose candidates was bad, but it only made an already bad system of campaign finance worse. The roots are an earlier 1970's supreme court decision in Buckley v. Valeo that held that money equals speech under the 1st Amendment and it is therefore unconstitutional to restrict the amount of money individuals can spend supporting or opposing political candidates. Until this is overturned, big money will continue to dominate politics. A good place to start is with the Get Money Out proposal from MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan. (getmoneyout.com). His proposed should be adopted as one of the demands of #Occupy Wall Street.

It reads: "No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

[-] 1 points by xiloveartx (6) 4 years ago

This should be number one objective of occupywallst protests!!!!!!!! amend the constitution where clearly states that corporation are not people, therefore they do not have a right of speech, money is not speech.

[-] 2 points by TheRealCitizensUnited (33) 4 years ago

3 and #8 have to happen first or you will not have a legitimate congress or government to make anything else happen. Another thought. Why does any President get to appoint Supreme Court Judges just so they can vote to adopt political party agendas with a one person majority (like the Citizens United Fraud=How Dare They Even Call It That?) Talk about attempts to brainwash the citizenry like something great is happening to us! We the people should elect them just like anybody else since we are actually THE CITIZENS UNITED and they are messing with our constitution and democracy!!! We are perfectly capable of determining whether a judge has a record of representing the people in an honest and equitable manner. Our forefathers had too much faith in honesty and integrity in elected officials to look out for the countries best interest and intended democracy. They seemed to think that since they offered their lives for the people that future elected and appointed officials would feel the same sense of integrity towards the people and the constitution!! More power to the phrase that "innocence kills"!!!

[-] 2 points by darkjeremiad (2) from Seattle, WA 4 years ago

Passage of a Law similar to to the Canadian Truth in Journalism act forbidding the use of public spectrum (radio/tv) for broadcasting false, fictitious or misleading information under the guise of News. The idea that you can ban Lying in the news media should not be as shocking to the american mindset as it is.

[-] 2 points by srayborn102 (2) from Lakeside, CA 4 years ago

.#3 brings up a very disconcerting issue, which is that our government is one not chosen by the people for our public good, but rather one that has been bought by corporations to oversee their best interests and oppress any opposition to them being able to do as they please. No government official should be able to use money towards buying their way in, and its bad enough that they are able to profit more from their positions.

Back when our government was officially founded, no member of congress was given any wage that was considered 'exorbitant or unreasonable.' [ http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm ]

Basically, we have people who worked for big business supposedly regulating it, when it has been proven they have the corporations' interests in mind rather than that of the public good as their position implies they do.

3 is more of a multi-tiered system that needs to be addressed, but taking away corporations' right to contribute to the political process more than any other singular person in the nation certainly will be a big step in the right direction.

[-] 2 points by mmogu77 (4) 4 years ago

3 and 8 need to go farther: AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OR APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO HOLD THAT SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL FREE SPEECH UNDER THE 1ST AMENDMENT. The 5-4 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision that allowed corporations to donate unlimited funds to support or oppose candidates was bad, but it only made an already bad system of campaign finance worse. The roots are an earlier 1970's supreme court decision in Buckley v. Valeo that held that money equals speech under the 1st Amendment and it is therefore unconstitutional to restrict the amount of money individuals can spend supporting or opposing political candidates. Until this is overturned, big money will continue to dominate politics. A good place to start is with the Get Money Out proposal from MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan. (getmoneyout.com). His proposed should be adopted as one of the demands of #Occupy Wall Street.

It reads: "No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

[-] 2 points by SamuelAdams (119) 4 years ago

We're not a democracy, we are a republic. And the more people spit this return to democracy crap the more marginalized you look in the eyes of the world. I like many of the proposals put forth, but it is not wise to try and change a system you don't fully understand (read my other numerous posts countering the Buffett tax, it taxes income not capital gains). Just because it's broken doesn't mean we can change it all, the new system isn't guaranteed to be better and there are always unintended consequences.

Anyways, since we are not a democracy and never have been, can we stop calling for it?

[-] 1 points by ejm (8) from Tiburon, CA 4 years ago

Well, you've got it half right. We are a Democratic Republic, as opposed to say, Plato's Republic. In other words, rather than Philosopher Kings ruling on behalf of everyone, using their wisdom alone (Plato's Republic), we participate in the process by democratically electing the representatives who serve at our will. That is what makes it a democracy (Representative or Republican Democracy). It is not a direct democracy like the ancient Athenian Democracy, where everyone voted on everything, rather it is a Democratic Republic where we vote for those, who in turn vote on things, in our stead.

The argument now is: will we have more democracy or less democracy? For instance, prior to 1913, we did not vote directly for our federal senatorial representatives. These Senators were elected by the individual state assemblies. People were upset about this for about 85 years before it finally became an amendment to the US Constitution (the 17th amendment). When polled, nearly everyone wants to continue electing their senatorial representatives; it is nearly unanimous.

The problems we face now are a direct result of our system of government becoming so corrupted by corporations that most people reason that we must have more controls on the system so this does not happen again. To my way of thinking that can most probably be done with solid regulation. However, the solid regulation that provided us economic security for 50 years (1933 - 1983: FDIC, Securities and Exchange Act, Glass-Steagall, and others) was systematically dismantled over the ensuing 17 years (1983 - 2000) and we wound up in this mess.

So, people want more control over the legislation and they are going to want laws that are not easily removable, as they were over the past 30 years. I think this is what people are referring to now, when they say the want more democracy.

[-] 2 points by SamuelAdams (119) 4 years ago

I agree with you completely.

However, after reading numerous posts here I feel there is a wide span of what people actually mean when they use the word democracy. Unfortunately there are not enough who put forth longer explanations, like you have done and which I failed to do, which define what their word choice means. So there is a massive disconnect between what some say and what others hear.

Again, I like your post and the points you made. Keep up the good work.

[-] 1 points by ejm (8) from Tiburon, CA 4 years ago

These conversations become difficult when economic reality becomes as harsh as it has become. Each of us has our understanding of things but regardless of one's background, the experience of loss and suffering is something we all understand. Who would ever have thought we would be in this situation, after the promising momentum of our history over the past 70 years? Who would ever have thought I'd be typing these words? Certainly not I, my friend.

We all suffer these times, in material need or in the spirit of angst, or in both. However, Human Dignity is not negotiable in my opinion and I am trying my level best to remember that one very important fact, each time I consider this situation.

I appreciate your perspective and the hope that rises from your response. Thank you. Let's keep working toward that higher ground.

[-] 2 points by bkbridge702 (3) 4 years ago

I think OWS needs to push a secure online voting system and true campaign finance reform. Any proof of acceptance of funds from ANY source should be considered equivalent to bribery. Any candidate for public office gets a free website for the duration of the election. This measures will effectively reform or do away with the primary/two party system; with adequate campaign finance reform and secure online voting, the parties will become functionally irrelevant.

[-] 2 points by sfcharles (41) from San Francisco, CA 4 years ago

The most important one listed here is #8 - it's one of the primary reasons that we're in the mess that we're in.

Also of primary importance is reforming or disbanding the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 took the power to create money out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of bankers in a quasi-governmental institution. The Fed creates money when they buy Treasuries, which are issued as debt by the US Treasury. The government then pays the Fed interest on those Treasuries that the Fed holds.

The rest of the demands seem minor or partisan to me. I don't think they will have real, lasting impact even if they are met.

I also think it's important for all of us to go through the mental exercise of considering what the unintended consequences of the fulfillment of each of these demands might be. For instance, if corporate personhood were completely abolished immediately, the country would likely be swimming in lawsuits. While most would be justified, it's important to consider who would benefit from them, who would gain power as a result, what would happen to the economy, etc. I'm still strongly in favor of abolishing corporate personhood. I just want each of us to envision the future if we get what we want and be prepared to address criticisms.

[-] 1 points by aswewalk (104) 4 years ago

A lot of people just aren't buying the end the fed thing. Is this really necessary? Seems so unrealistic and will reduce chances of actually getting the other things dine on the list. Why does this keep coming up?

[-] 1 points by sfcharles (41) from San Francisco, CA 4 years ago

I can't speak for why others are bringing it up, but the issue is central because the power to create money in our system rests with the banks and with the Fed, which is also a group of private bankers. And in our system, money = power. I wrote a longer explanation of how the system works, with less editorial, here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/monetary-system-basics/ .

But I think whether or not you personally view it as important depends on what you would like to see happen as a result of these protests. If you would like to see some reform bills pass Congress but feel that apart from this the system works pretty well for you as-is, then you might not need to worry about it. Or if you just want someone to hire you so that you can get a job to pay off your loans, and you're happy with that scenario, then you don't need to worry about it.

If, however, you are concerned about the erosion of the middle class in this country, that most of us are slaves to our wages and our debts, if you're concerned about environmental problems, if you believe in 'one person, one vote', then you really have to address the way money is created and distributed. The monetary system at present is not fair, and this is a central reason why wealth is distributed so unevenly in this country. Never mind the bailouts, which were supposedly a onetime affair; on a regular basis, part of your taxes go to pay interest on the national debt, and part of that interest is paid to a group of bankers who had the privilege of creating the money. That's a great position for them to be in, but it sucks for the rest of us.

As far as it being realistic: by that measure, undoing corporate personhood ain't all that realistic either. Think about all the moneyed interests that will fight that one. It's still necessary if we really want a fair system, though.

If you prefer to work within the system, we could at least start by pushing our Congresspeople to support the bill to audit the Fed. Ron Paul (who I am otherwise not a huge fan of) has a bill out, HR 459, and it has bipartisan support, including my former rep Pete Stark, who is very liberal and who used to be a banker.

[-] 1 points by aswewalk (104) 4 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess I just need to study this more so I fully understand the pros and cons.

[-] 2 points by brucerhee1127 (3) 4 years ago

i would think twice about the buffet act. according to wall street journal:

The middle-class bait-and-switch.

Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Buffett speaks about raising taxes only on the rich. But somehow he ignores that the President's tax increase starts at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Mr. Obama ought to call them "thousandaires," but that probably doesn't poll as well...

...Mr. Buffett says it's only "fair" to raise his taxes, but he's lending his credibility to raising taxes on millions of middle-class earners for whom a few extra thousand dollars in after-tax income is a big deal. Unlike Mr. Buffett, those middle-class earners aren't rich and may earn $250,000 for only a few years of their working lives. How is that fair?

i think we should review the actual proposed act before we include it in our list of demands. this is a potentially dangerous thing that we could be demanding. this applies to all acts that we include in our list of demands. to demand such actions without properly reviewing them is absolutely madness. please reconsider this proposal.

[-] 2 points by chainsaw (4) 4 years ago

We need to undo the Patriot Act which dismantles our civil liberties. Preemptive surveillance (tapping our cell phones and reading our emails before we are even suspect) is not acceptable in a free society.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes.

Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

There are other ways for the government to get money. Like taxing luxury goods, ending corporate loopholes, capital gains tax, sales tax, tariffs, etc.

On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following:

The Case Against the Income Tax

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.

[-] 2 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

We should enact a carbon tax to tax our usage of fossil fuels instead of the income tax.

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Sure, if ending subsidy, and tax loopholes isn't enough.

"Carbon Tax" implies anything other than carbon is OK, there should be a pollution tax.

[-] 2 points by csorace (2) 4 years ago

I think this list is great. However, there needs to be some inclusion of mechanisms that would incorporate citizen power, control over decision-making, and monitoring over financial markets. This proposal as it stands is very helpful in tightening the regulatory framework, but with all of its emphasis on legal and regulatory structures. It needs to incorporate some form of deliberative democratic mechanisms, in which ordinary citizens, can continually actively engage in political-decision making that are more than simply voting on an electoral ballot.

[-] 2 points by jdog (146) 4 years ago

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media.

Then all the influence buying would be by unions. Here's an example of how it works: 1) Teachers union gives politician lots of campaign money. 2) politician shortens their hours, raises their pay (taxpayer pays), makes law allowing the union to force all teachers to join and pay dues. 3)union gives lots more money to politician's campaign 4)politician gives them more of the same along with lucrative retirement. 5)union gives lots more money to politician's campaign - this loop repeats until taxpayer money dries up, then 6)politician raises taxes. 7)the process repeats until the taxpayer can't survive.

[-] 2 points by musearch (26) from Tualatin, OR 4 years ago

i personally would love to see teachers have lucrative retirements. if anybody deserves to retire in style, they do.

that said, you're right in that, it's not just about corporate entities but also wealthy ceos, pacs, and possibly some unions ( although, at least in a union you can vote, as a worker in a corporation, you cannot ).

somehow disentangling the concept that money is speech, and limiting how much a campaign can raise and spend seems key to reform. without going for that core, there will always be loopholes.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

For me this citizens united thing was the straw that broke the camel's back. I can't believe the supreme court had the nerve to make this decision. It's ridiculous. Anti-democratic. Hig treason.

[-] 2 points by artmashupdc (5) 4 years ago

Please be more specific about food. Americans are the largest pool of Guinea Pigs on the face of the industrialized planet. US companies have successfully cut the life of a cow from approx 30 months to 15 months from birth to slaughter while increasing the body weight over 30%. Similar feats have been achieved with pigs and chickens, all with the use of large doses of growth hormones combined with large doses of antibiotics to fight the diseases the animals own immune system could not possibly accomplish under such circumstances. In addition they are fed genetically modified chemically infused "food" to further speed the process. The "industry" pays university research departments millions of dollars to consistently "prove" these hormones / chemicals are not entering and affecting the human food chain. They are wrong. Just look around, look at the statistics.

The US has almost NO regulation on the way animals are raised, what they are fed and how they are processed.

Also, over 50% of the food that reaches the "market" (over 70% that reaches consumers through corporate restaurant chains) is irradiated. This is another whole issue that gets NO attention in America.

Once again, the FIRST piece of legislation EVER to be considered on how animal farming is done in America is in the House now (House Bill 1813 or Senate Bill 5487) and it sets "voluntary" limits on the number of egg laying hens that can be kept in a pen that is approx 18"x24" (currently some egg companies put as many as 10 hens in this tiny cage, each hen having less then 48 square inches of room) and whether they can use sleep deprivation etc to force the hens to lay more eggs. The milk industry uses as cruel tactics to drain more milk from cows in this country.

We need to call for a top down total review of all of the practices that bring Americans all foods. Some look into European standards / practices would be a start.

Anyway, don't be shy or vague. Americans are Guinea Pigs to Industrial Food companies in a big way. This has to stop NOW.

Thanks again for your work.

[-] 2 points by joehuds0n (3) 4 years ago

While all these points seem quite sensible to me, are they not chiefly - with the exception of point 8 (removing the 'person-hood' of corporations) - attempts to patch up the system? If a system (corporatism and consumerism with a debt based money supply) requires a heavy patchwork of legislation to squeeze it into a shape where people do not feel compelled to revolt, what does that say about the system?

Also, given that the banking and corporate interests in charge of policy have successfully adjusted the laws to suit them more with each generation, what's to say that wont happen again? Do we really want to repeat the same struggle, do we really have no choice other than to do that? I'm not convinced.

I think it would be worthwhile exploring the following concepts:

  • A debt-free money supply. (Without interest constantly accruing on every unit of currency, there would be far less -if any- drive for the continuous and very unevenly distributed economic growth, which is trashing the world. Also is it not sheer madness that a government has to borrow money from private businesses in order to spent it for the public good, thus creating a national debt - as if the public owe the exercise of their own labour to those with wealth, and then have to pay interest for the use of their own time and resources)

  • Abolition of a central bank. (Less opportunity for the country to be held to economic ransom. Countries got on just fine – arguably better - without them before.)

  • Local currencies, good for payment of taxes. (This may help communities to become more robust and self-sufficient. It would make it harder to nation wide power to accumulate in the hands of just a few people.)

  • Deeper distribution of political power, beyond just voting for a representative. (Perhaps 1 or 2 extra levels of political organization down from state or city representative, which everyone has a right and opportunity to act as, perhaps in the form of a council.)

  • Abolition of privately owned media empires. (Part of why positive change is so hard in society is because of the deluge of mass media messages that encourage people to be ignorant, indifferent or hopeless. With more widely distribution control of media, this unhappy situation would not so easily arise.)

  • Legal framework for favouring access to resources over ownership - in the general case. (There is so much wastage and inefficient usage of resources because people feel driven to own the things they use, when in fact simply having ready access to them would be perfectly sufficient and even preferable - less storage space, security, or capital required. Shifting to this paradigm would shut down one of the big engines of consumerism - the false need to accumulate possessions.)

  • Universal access to healthcare and education recognised as being at the heart of the public interest - with a cap on the size of any service providers to prevent overpricing. (Everyone benefits when a society is more equal in these respects)

The list could go on, but this is what sprang to mind right now.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

simply by the way money works, I'm not sure if it's possible to have a debt-free money supply that doesn't accrue interest. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] 1 points by joehuds0n (3) 4 years ago

Oh? why would it not be possible to have a debt free money supply? where do you see the problem?

Here's a simple model: government creates money free of debt -> spends it into economy to fund infrastructure, health services, education and such like -> people get paid wages and spend it on things they need -> people pay taxes to take money back out of system to prevent perpetual inflation (i.e. money gets recycled, rather than perpetually being created).

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Right now they print Federal Reserve Notes which is Debt. I think the links I have above address currency systems in particular. Here are the links again: http://maxkeiser.com/2011/10/09/ote126-on-the-edge-with-david-morgan/ http://maxkeiser.com/2011/10/08/kr194-keiser-report-price-propaganda/

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

how does the government create money free of debt?

[-] 1 points by musearch (26) from Tualatin, OR 4 years ago

what happens right now is that we sell treasury bonds to private investors ( regular people, banks, foreign governments ) and that generates cash for the government to use to pay billls.

but it's debt. the bond holder will want their money back with interest.

the argument goes: the government can just print money when it needs, no need to "sell debt". ( we also have this weird thing where banks can essentially print money in the form of loans. so there's a lot of money sources in play in our economy. )

i am not an economist so i don't know the ramifications of getting rid of the fed and debt. my suspicion is every other country does it the same way we do, and there's probably a good reason for that.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

banks don't print money. they take 90% of the money people deposit and loan it to others and double-record it. On the books it makes it look like money is being created, but it's really the same amount in circulation at any point in time, because even when the Fed prints new money they destroy old bills to avoid inflation.

[-] 1 points by sfcharles (41) from San Francisco, CA 4 years ago

What you are saying is misleading. Banks effectively create money. Most of the money that is in circulation in our economy was created as loans.

That 90% that you mention is loaned out to others, and is then deposited somewhere else, then 90% of that amount is loaned out, and so on, allowing banks to ultimately loan out 9 times the money that was originally deposited.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

sorry. what I'm TRYING to get at is that simply printing money doesn't do shit.

[-] 2 points by mkduffie (3) 4 years ago

NUMBER FIVE (5) SHOULD BE....edited to ensure that the NEW Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) ALSO retains the appropriate punitive power (like the FBI) to criminalize those who allegedly commit financial crimes against humanity ( i.e., "using influence, status and/or position to illegally absorb money from those citizens who are dependent on, or vulnerable to their financial creations, actions and/or gambles." ---just my humble opinion...Mary Kay (Montana).

[-] 2 points by muftiabraka (2) from Edina, MN 4 years ago

We need a New Deal sized entitlements/spending/jobs program to get the economy back on track, and we need to pay for it with the revenues from the m/billionaires tax.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Corrections to the legislative process. If committees are required they should be publicly elected experts in their field. Committees should be required to act on all bills they recieve and output results for all bills in a reasonable time frame Bills should not expire before they are voted on. No riders tucking and hiding legislation into other legislation. End maximum debate time. All representatives must vote.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Citizen Jury to decide constitutionality of laws. Citizen Jury to replace the authority of the Supreme Court in civil challenges to state and federal laws. Possibly be randomly selected like jury duty for 2 weeks to 1 month and be highly guarded and sequestered Supreme court authority on constitutional issues changed to criminal justice only. Supreme court must hear all death penalty cases, even at the state level.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

I like this concept.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Elected Cabinet Officials. All branches of government under the control of the executive branch should become independently operating agencies with elected leaders. All government agencies should be audited for their constitutionality and for financial waste and efficacy. Federal agencies should only exercise powers granted to the federal government in the constitution. The president should be back to the constitutional role of a president, and Americans could elect leaders of organizations such as the Department of Education, SEC, FTC, FCC, EPA, DEA, etc. to determine their course of action separately from picking a president.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

I think leaders should have experience and minimum requirements for departments, perhaps even priority given to those who have risen in the ranks within the Agency or related to the field? For example, how about all those Judges without years of experience, or Sheriffs, or Educational Supervisors...I'm sure we could all name a few. Its really scary who is running some of these Agencies...yikes. How about TImmy Geitner who doesn't remember to pay the IRS? Its no wonder we are at this stage of decline.

[-] 2 points by readytogo (80) from Brooklyn, NY 4 years ago

I would really like to see election reform on this list. Publicly funded campaigns, secure voting booths, & voter rights all need to be secured before we can even trust our elected officials are actually even elected by the majority.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voting_rights_elections/

[-] 2 points by SeparationOfCorpandState (81) from Muskegon, MI 4 years ago

I find these truths to be self evident and agree with your main premise that Corporation have to much control of our government and create a conflict of interest. I suggest that the reverse is also possibly true. The award winning documentary film " Inside Job" sheds light on the financial meltdown and why it happened (Greed). The main point is that Government has no business being involved in Corporations and Corporations have no business being involved in Government. Our government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth (Not a government of corporations, by corporation, for corporations). Just as we found there was no place for Government involvement with Religion and visa versa, we have the 1st Amendment "Separation of Church and State". Therefore we should move for another Amendment of "SEPARATION OF CORPORATIONS AND STATE"! There is no room for one meddling in the other. The governments role is to create laws to protect the people from Greedy Corporations that steal our money and livelihood

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Political & News Media Rules. Require advertising to be sold based on demographics and scale, then evenly distributed to the desired demographics. This would avoid advertiser blackouts. (ie: Air America advertiser blackout). Bring back the Fairness in Reporting Act to all news agencies & programs, not political talk shows. Political talk shows are not news, they should label themselves as such and receive 1st amendment protection. All other rules still apply to political talk shows. Independent rating agency for the possibility of corruption of corporate ownership and directorship based on affiliation, and business structure (ie: Tenured reporters, or controlled?) Independent rating agency for news bias and omissions. All news must be labeled what organization it comes from and who wrote it. (ie: “Associated Press provided the content for this telecast” which is an umbrella group off all mainstream media organizations.) More public news media for different viewpoints – funding for these organizations can be demographics and scale based advertising, or underwriting, and by donors limited by the “Money as Speech” idea of $1 per person (per month? adjusted for inflation?). A fair and formula based subsidy followed by a fair and formula based closure process is needed so no one can pick and choose winners.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

Public Awareness and Involvement Act that establishes websites and monthly newsletters nationwide detailing all bills at the federal level voted on the month before; the votes of politicians relevant to the region listed with each bill; and all bills to be voted on within 1 month. To be delivered to every occupied residential and commercial property in the country and placed in convenience stores and gas stations.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

with the option to take deliver via emailed pdf files to save paper costs and waste.

What a positive for the Postal Service which the government is obligated per The Constitution.

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

I would like to see an amendment to the constitution for a public referendum mechanism so the people can change laws and amend the constitution.

[-] 2 points by americaoccupied (3) 4 years ago

LEGISLATION TAKING WAR GRADE WEAPONS MANUFACTURING OUT OF THE CORPORATE SECTOR AND MAKING IT THE JOB OF THE STATE: as long as the Lockheed Martins of the world need to sell their weapons there will be endless war

[-] 2 points by pyutaros (15) 4 years ago

Is there any way to get this thread to stick to the top of the forums so people can realize this is pretty much the definitive list?

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

seriously. this is the problem with being leaderless. I like the idea of a movement of the people, but eventually someone is going to have to step up to the plate and drive this where it needs to go.

[-] 1 points by pyutaros (15) 4 years ago

The leaderless statement is symbolic. General council is held daily I believe. Anyone who shows up to those is a leader and no singular person involved with those is OUR leader.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

This sounds like the way of the Rainbow People.

[-] 1 points by concernedeyes (42) 4 years ago

general council? where? when? can we show this to everyone there?

[-] 2 points by OccupyTheAgenda (58) from Chicago, IL 4 years ago

The first demand should be PUBLIC REFERENDUMS so the PUBLIC can MAKE/CHANGE LAWS, and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

http://OccupyTheAgenda.wordpress.com https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheAgenda

[-] 2 points by musearch (26) from Tualatin, OR 4 years ago

if i could add any single thing to this list it would be: institute a tax on all wall street financial transactions.

the EU is considering doing this right now, but the Brits and the US are unlikely to without significant public support.

there is already a bill in congress for this: H.R. 4191: Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Bill ( http://bit.ly/mRHqiY )

some more information on the EU's version here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15148590

[-] 2 points by TJsRevolution (2) from Tucson, AZ 4 years ago

It's hard to name specific corporate "crimes" when the real problem is so insidious, but here are some ideas:

  1. the Prison-Industrial complex. I'd be happy to share my scholarly research into the mass disenfranchisement that this creates, which perverts our voting system, affecting all policymaking in the country.
  2. Corporate control of mainstream media. There can be no full democracy or unity when rural people are kept in ignorance and fear.
  3. Corporate control of food supply. See "Food Inc" for details.
[-] 2 points by Kesco8 (2) from St Louis, MO 4 years ago

I think these are a great start. I haven't been able to digest ALL of the comments below - the degeneration into name-calling, and off-point arguing are a bit much to weed through. That said, forgive me if someone else has already suggested this addition.
I think one of the most important things we need to demand is a repeal of every law Congress and/or the Senate have passed that gives them benefits that are denied to the rest of the country. Their retirement with full pay, for instance; their exemption from the new healthcare laws, their annual pay raises, etc... I'm no lawyer and not good with the legalese needed to word it well, but I hope those of you who are will include a Constitutional Amendment that says something like "Congress shall pass no laws that relieve its members from responsibilities, duties, or liabilities that other citizens are required to carry. Likewise, Congress will award themselves no benefits which are not also freely and equally available to ALL individual human citizens." So - no special healthcare, no special retirement accounts, no exemptions from tax or insurance or traffic or real estate or any other kinds of laws to which the rest of us are subject.
You have my 2-cents. Keep up the fight! Kathi unemployed for 15 months paid more in taxes last year than most corporations I am one of the 99%

[-] 2 points by michaelfinko (71) 4 years ago

you have a great starting point, but only the unemployed can contribute (I'm a hard working entreprenueur, just very little time) as there are just too many subjects, themes, threads, etc. Get some IT people involved, set it up like the Open Source Canadian page (editable Wiki), http://openpolitics.ca/tiki-index.php

But, until citizens get direct voting power by 'eliminating the middle man' (i.e. 535 senators and reps), it's still all well contained 'within the box' - ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

Right On -'...until citizens get direct voting power by 'eliminating the middle man' (i.e. 535 senators and reps), it's still all well contained 'within the box''

[-] 2 points by Becca4711 (2) from Brooklyn, NY 4 years ago

I think it's a good idea to reform or get rid of the carried interest loophole. It allows hedgefund managers to entirely avoid taxes on huge amounts of personal gains. Ending or reforming this would help close the gap between the top and the bottom, and provide much-needed government funds.

Sources: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/06/261268/closing-hedge-fund-manager-loophole-billions/ http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/03/15/100315ta_talk_surowiecki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

[-] 2 points by Africanus (9) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 4 years ago

Why we are at it...repeal NAFTA as well as all other trade deals that have decimated the middle class and eliminated our ability to be a net exporting country.

[-] 2 points by cbn1958 (2) 4 years ago

Post a link on your website to all in Note 3. I have seen all and they are vital for everyone to see to understand the danger we are now in! I shaped my opinions from a conservative to an activist. Incidentally, WHY WE FIGHT was produced by the Eisenhower Foundation, and has some excellent extra features at the end of the DVD. Watch them, they will blow your mind too. Here is a Conservative President in the 50's who foretold what was going to happen and tried to warn us. Unfortunately, we did not listen.

[-] 2 points by citizenX (6) from Longmont, CO 4 years ago

War is the ultimate expression of capitalism. It is striking that there is no mention of the multiple wars the US is waging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. Billions are spent on those wars a year instead of spending this money on health care, education and other social programs. The pentagon and the financing of those wars are allocated more than 50% of the US budget. We must demand the immediate end of those wars and the closing of all military bases around the world.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

I feel the same. Spread this message.

[-] 2 points by labgnome (4) 4 years ago

As I said, I think those are good places to start, but just a starting point.

To get where we need to be I think more changes are needed. A federal living automatically adjusted living wage law. Changing contract law so that the consent of both parties is required before any contract can be changed. Requiring the state to first purchase all shares of stock from any company broken up by anti-trust laws, and forbidding any of the previous holders form re-purchasing said stock shares. Placing the Federal Reserve under direct control of congress, the executive branch of government and direct voter referendum if necessarily. Making it illegal for federal legislators to own shares of stock in, or participate in the governance of any for-profit corporation, to eliminate conflict of interest (the separation of corporation and state). Creating incentives to vote and participate in government, such as making, local, state and federal election days holidays, and/or a fines for not voting. Requiring all nationally broadcast channels, network or cable, to give equal air time for every candidate on the national ballot, irregardless of political party, and that "third party" or "independent" candidates also be included if they make the national ballot, and that same standard should apply for state and local level candidates as well. That voters should also be given the option of preferential voting for candidates, giving them not just one choice but allowing them to pick second and further choices. That ultimately citizens should be able to challenge or initiate laws though simple initiative, with sufficient signatures creating a national referendum.

[-] 2 points by labgnome (4) 4 years ago

I think they are a good start.

I think #6 should also specifically forbid businesses that provide products and/or services directly to the government to have lobbyists at all. If Boeing has a contract to make 100 jets for the US Air Force, that the government then pays them for, they should not be able to sent lobbyists to congress to get contracts for more jets that will cost more money.

I think #7 should be two-way as well. Someone shouldn't be able to work for Pfizer then go over and then get a job at the FDA where they are supposed to regulate their former employer, that just creates the same potential conflict of interest.

For #8 I think it should be established that legally "limited liability" or "perpetual lifetime" and "personhood" are mutually exclusive. Also any business with foreign shareholders should not be able to make political contributions, and if any contributions are discovered they must be immediately returned.

For all these measures I think a provision that overturn of these laws can only be initiated by public referendum, and not by congress or executive action.

[-] 2 points by sunflower (7) 4 years ago

Great Great list!!!

Or like Dennis Kucinich said it: "It is not about left or right. It is about right or wrong. It is about up (1%) or down (99%)."

The left and right paradigm is now not helpful in finding ways out of this mess. And most importantly it divides us and does not break the back of the corrupted camel.

Also interesting is that Ralph Nader suggested the following list of four demands, whereupon a 99% coalition can be based upon:

1) Bring our troops home.

2) Repeal of the patriot act. (and restore descent elections)

3) No deficit spending for reckless adventurism by the government

4) Restore the monetary powers to congress (end or audit the FED )

The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLdcB0ln9t8

It also features the last sincere and honest politicians on Capitol Hill: Dennis Kucinich (D Ohio) and Ron Paul (R Texas). They have been friends for decades, and cooperate politically against the corrupted establishment, despite they are diametrically positioned in the left-right paradigm.

Their friendship should be an example for us! United we stand!

For the ones who want to be inspired by their friendship, see: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kucinich+and+paul&aq=f

Personally I think the following issues are also important to address or interesting to consider:

5) Accountability and prosecution of the crimes on Wall street and Washington DC

6) Disentanglement of big business and campain contributions

7) Blockade the revolving doors between the regulatory bodies and big business

8) Find a way to discourage lobbying, perhaps through taxing

9) National Investment program in Green energy, Education and infrastructure (instead of wars, bail outs and socialism for the rich)

I suggest to get Luther King, Nader, Kucinich & Paul to New York and form a coalition of the bottom 99%. As now the media attention rises, also the scrutiny on your message increases. But this above list is great!!!

[-] 2 points by yosteve (64) from Newbury, OH 4 years ago

I don't like how foreign companies (and governments) can donate to elected officials to do their bidding.

It should be illegal for companies and politicians to scratching each others' backs (exchanging money for policies in their favor).

There has to be a solid way for an independent to gain electoral votes.

There should be funding caps on elections, there's no way for a non-wealthy qualified intelligent individual to win elections.

There should definitely be something there about congresses inability to get work done. If you or I didn't get work done at work we could be fired and we absolutely wouldn't get raises. There is no incentive for congress to agree, they are both cutting off their noses to spite their face. How can they cut jobs of the middle and lower class while having their jobs untouched (and spending absorptive amounts of money on travel for their families or baked goods) Congress should post their budgets and make everything transparent. After all, we pay their paychecks. Certainly, since the budget is not balanced and we have a special committee to reach an agreement in congress, they individually need to take one for the team and cut their own spending (including in the form of wages)

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with law but hopefully it can be translated or assimilated into the more accurate topic sections in the list of demands.

Oh and last but not least, voting needs to be held online. If we can all file taxes online with our own unique social security codes, we can all vote online. It can be secure just like the irs tax files are secure (or at least as secure) Everyone knows they're just making excuses cause they don't want young peoples' votes to affect the poles.

thanks for listening @yosteve

[-] 2 points by estranger (2) 4 years ago

Yes. The electoral college is antiquated and unneeded, and you will never be rid of a two-party system as long as it is in place. Two party systems do nothing but streamline the process of corruption, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations the ability to easily manipulate the system and get elected officials who are in their pocket. For every candidate to have a chance, every vote must count. The popular vote is the only way to go.

[-] 2 points by Ryanwc67 (18) from Stanwood, WA 4 years ago

We need to stop the fillibuster 60% it not fair elections! We have good representation but its stolen on everything that is good for the public with this crap! One senator from farm ville with 300,000 brainwashed nra members can block anything they dont like! This has destroyed fairness, and majority rules in America. Lets stop the Filibuster rule!

[-] 2 points by chainsaw (4) 4 years ago

I think we need to do something about the Patriot Act and it's dismantling of our Civil Liberties and Privacy. Legislated preemptive surveillance including email and cell phone tapping is unacceptable in a free society.

[-] 2 points by occupitogether (4) 4 years ago

Another vote for Auditing the Federal Reserve, Eliminating the borrowing of debt based currency based on Fractional reserve banking, and creating debt free currency both in national and local forms. The people who control the quantity of currency are at the root of many of these problems.

[-] 2 points by OccupySD (4) 4 years ago

AUDIT THE FED. I think that would be one of the biggest steps we could take.

Another huge step would be ending our global occupation and our ongoing wars. They make us broke and give the world a reason to hate us. They don't attack us because of our freedom's, they make it very clear they attack us because of our occupation. The Swiss have a great model to follow.

I'd also like to see our privacy regained and us do away with the Patriot act like Obama once promised he would repeal. But of course went 180 on his word.

As for the buffet tax, I believe that would split support. I would emphasize closing the tax loopholes, buffet tax second. Or just supporting a true open discussion on realistic ways to fix it; buffet tax, progressive tax, fair tax, flat tax, etc... The worst thing to do is knock off a huge section of would be supporters.

[-] 2 points by SteveHeitmann (10) from Portland, OR 4 years ago

I would like to add one suggestion to your list:

NO immunity for alleged crimes committed by banks that haven't been investigated yet.

In addition to including this with "Demands For Congress", you can also contact your state's Office Of The Attorney General and ask that they join California's Attorney General Kamala Harris, who announced on 9-30-2011 that she's opposing a proposed 50-state deal with Wall Street banks giving the banks immunity for alleged crimes that haven't been investigated yet.

[-] 2 points by rainman (10) 4 years ago

Excellent start, but, IMHO you have omitted the 2 most important. 1)Serious Election Reform, 1 vote=$1 dollar 2)Lobby Reform with severe criminal penalties. These 2 simple changes would restore our government to the people of the people for the people

[-] 2 points by rainman (10) 4 years ago

Excellent start, but, IMHO you have omitted the 2 most important. 1)Serious Election Reform, 1 vote=$1 dollar 2)Lobby Reform with severe criminal penalties. These 2 simple changes would restore our government to the people of the people for the people, and I believe our newly elected officials would begin correcting the multitude of issues that need fixed.

[-] 2 points by elish2 (2) 4 years ago

I think that there should also be a point to try and repeal the Federal Reserve act and the 16th amendment. We owe interest to the federal reserve for each dollar they "print" FOR US. The US Treasury prints a bond for the amount of Federal Reserve Notes they need and the Fed prints it and LOANS it to us at interest. IF THE US TREASURY CAN PRINT A DOLLAR BOND THEY CAN PRINT A DOLLAR NOTE INTEREST FREE!!!! WE NEED TO BE IN CONTROL OF OUR OWN MONEY SUPPLY NOT A PRIVATE BANK WHICH IS WHAT THE FED IS!!!! Learn more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

[-] 2 points by chillannyc (10) 4 years ago

I think that public media deserves its own demand. We have to roll back the deregulation that took place in the FCC in the past 2 decades or we will never have a "Free" press. The corporations which seek to protect their interests in government simply cannot be expected to report objectively or fairly. Democracy REQUIRES a free press.

[-] 2 points by REMlNDER (4) 4 years ago

::: CONGRATULATIONS ON THE SECOND DEMAND which IS ... USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS ::: good JOB on that . DO NOT LET ANYONE TO TAKE YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM THOSE WHO CREATED THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS ! Here is a list of few ...

  1. James E. "Jimmy" Cayne (born February 14, 1934) is an American businessman, a former CEO of Bear Stearns

  2. Richard Severin "Dick" Fuld, Jr. (born April 26, 1946) is an American investment banker and business executive best known as the final Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lehman Brothers

  3. John J. Mack (born on November 17, 1944) is the current Chairman of the Board at Morgan Stanley, the New York-based investment bank and brokerage firm.

  4. Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson, Jr. (born March 28, 1946) is an American banker who served as the 74th United States Secretary of the Treasury. He previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs.

  5. John Alexander Thain (born May 26, 1955) is an American businessman, investment banker, and currently the Chairman & CEO, of the CIT Group. Thain was the last chairman and chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch before its merger with Bank of America

  6. Lloyd Craig Blankfein (born September 20, 1954) is the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Goldman Sachs. He has been in this position since the May 31, 2006, nomination of former CEO Henry Paulson as Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush.

  7. Alan Greenspan (born March 6, 1926) is an American economist who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. He currently works as a private advisor and provides consulting for firms through his company, Greenspan Associates LLC.

  8. James "Jamie" Dimon (born March 13, 1956) is the current CEO and chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co, and previously served as a Class A director of the Board of Directors of the New York Federal Reserve, a three year term which started January 2007.

    THERE IS MORE PERHAPS ... Watch this documentary ...made by CBC Radio Canada FOR Al jazeera " http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/meltdown/2011/09/2011914105518615434.html

    But ... be careful because those people are NOT the only one ! They might want to cut off few people !

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

So much dirty laundry...

[-] 2 points by Tim (3) from Atlanta, GA 4 years ago

The original post of this thread, though what is presented may very well move in forward and productive directions I suspect there is plenty more of the existing system having need of correction. It may very well be, and probably is, easier and potentially more effective to instead establish a document of integrity "Declaration of Fully Integrated Integrity" if you will, by which all existing facets of the current system can be tested against and as in such time that each facet comes up, be it today or tomorrow, or some time in the future.

Nobody wants to waste this opportunity to a small set of corrections or changes that will likely be overruled or gotten around some time in the future, as has much of what the founding fathers established, been overruled and gotten around.

The biggest problem is having rules/laws that provide incentive to do the wrong things. Anything new established needs to be of such nature to remove incentive to do wrong. But this probably won't be enough because of the limits of language itself, how it is easy and a skill to create double speak, triple speak, bla bla bla deceive. i.e. we must protect the U.S. by stripping US citizens rights... double speak meaning protection of the few not the whole nation.

We have a language problem! No matter what words you put together, someone will try to apply distortion of the meaning. Perhaps the best test bed is to pass such words to trolls to see what they will do.

Trolls can be helpful, those who find reason for war can be helpful to, for they know best what motivates them and knowing what motivates them is to know what is needed to remove the motivation. Same goes for all other motivations of doing wrong.

Ultimately, the question to ask, does the language, the words strung together actually get you from where you are (point A) to where you want to be (point B)? If not then you are being deceived.

So where do you want to go?

And how many ways does it need to be said and written so that it is more difficult or impossible to distort the meaning of?

We certainly know how to test it!

Most people supporting the protest don't have the resources to dig into all the facets of what our system has become, for that mater most lawyers probably don't either but instead focus on a specific area of law.

Does anyone see the big fully integrated picture of what we have today? I Seriously doubt it!!!

And this is why it would be more productive to establish a document that current facets of our system either need to get in line with or be removed.

To many facets to deal with all at once. And if I were to cheat, I'd know this an use it by demanding you all present me with your demands.

But I sure would not be expecting anything like a "Declaration of Fully Integrated Integrity"
by which all the facets can and eventually will be tested against.

And even more so, if it is well done, it would be exposing of my cheating to say no to it.

[-] 1 points by learning2 (23) 4 years ago

You got a good point. I think we need your document, now or in the future. I like the test it against your doc and if it doesn't meet the guideline/declaration, then it doesn't move forward.

This should be developed, in my opinion.

[-] 2 points by ajgibson91012 (2) 4 years ago

I recently finished an undergraduate course in which this movement was the topic of my final assignment. Here is the link to my (very new) blog: http://wp.me/s1RMLx-the99 on which you can read the majority of my paper. I also had formulated a list of recommended legislative changes, which seems quite pertinent on this thread.

[-] 2 points by pensk (2) 4 years ago

There should never be any bank or other money lending corporation "too big to fail". Contain the greed that will always exist by holding those who gamble culpable for their actions.

[-] 2 points by Jenyo (8) 4 years ago

10: Ending the Federal Reserve - Under the Constitution, private organizations do NOT have the right to have their own currency printed (that is counterfeiting). Private organizations also do not have the right to set interest rates or to sit in cabinet meetings with the President.

Since the Federal Reserve was founded by a group of Banks, it exists as a private organization. As that organization is engaged in illegal activities (i.e., counterfeiting) its assets (including the assets of the banks who select its executive officers) should be immediately seized and, where necessary, have any legal activities turned into part of a national public utility.

These additional assets will enable the US Government to back its new currency by silver.

[-] 2 points by FedUp900 (2) from New York, NY 4 years ago

Let's make some changes in NYC right now. Why should the police be able to pepper spray citizens, and then have NYPD spokesman Paul Brown lie about it? http://t.co/lgwdIKzr Let's Demand that Paul Brown Must Resign

[-] 3 points by BJS3D (95) from Eugene, OR 4 years ago

I'd suggest letting that one ride. You'll see later that it will much easier to roast the NYPD for less than professional actions if/when the roasting begins higher up.

For now, let them continue to create their martyrs and continue to attract media attention for what appears to be an order to squash a non-violent protest. Someone behind the scenes is intimidated by the potential of this movement; someone with enough connections to influence middle management to jeopardize their careers. Brown seems like the kind of guy who'd roll in an indictment to save face and his career.

[-] 1 points by packrat (14) 4 years ago

HEAR HEAR!

[-] 2 points by allegria24 (2) 4 years ago

Here's one to add:

Reestablish the Civil Conservation Corps and as soon as practicable hire and put our people back to work preserving our parks and natural resources.

[-] 2 points by Jenyo (8) 4 years ago

This is certainly a good idea for jobs creation...just as revamping the entire infrastructure of the USA with smart roads, smart bridges and broadband wifi is.

We might also think about paying for these things by slashing our military budget in half (which means we'll only be spending a bit more than Russia and the UK combined are)...and of course, collecting on all of the unpaid taxes on the billions of offshore profits corporations have been allowed to "Defer" since about the 1950's.

Oh yeah...and while we're at it...we should shut down that private organization known as the Federal Reserve. If memory serves, it is illegal for any private organization to have money printed which has THEIR NAME ON IT.

What is it called when you are engaged in having money printed which has your name on it ? oh yeah...Counterfeiting. In all other cases, since only congress has the power to print money...the Feds swoop in and arrest EVERYbody that is engaged in supporting the criminal organization...and they routinely sieze ALL of the assets of ALL of the supportive organizations that are involved. Lets see... how many banks would become national banks ...? at least a half dozen, I think.

I'd say doing all that could easily result in creating about 10 million jobs...and thats just on the federal side... it doesn't count the millions more jobs that would be created from supportive organizations like cement creation companies, diners, etc. etc.

It does include, however, workers who upgrade all of our schools, our parks, our backroads biking paths, our firefighters etc. etc.

[-] 1 points by youshouldprobablybuyit (3) 4 years ago

smart bridges won't bring the texas railroad commission back from the grave. before you shut down the FED consider how it has preserved american hegemony and purchasing power in the global economy well past our time. Get ready for a discontinuity in the growth fxn.

[-] 1 points by DAN1 (65) 4 years ago

This is a good idea.

[-] 0 points by Joe300 (30) from Wolcott, VT 4 years ago

Maybe in the list of demands have one demand be to pass a jobs bill of our choosing. Start our own clean page with what we think would re-start jobs in this country. to summarize: A separate list for job creation.

[-] 1 points by Joe300 (30) from Wolcott, VT 4 years ago

let me clarify again. In the list of demands-simplify

  1. end corporate personhood-see list on how to do that
  2. teachers not bombs-see list on how....
  3. down with trickle down-
  4. real financial reform-see list(glass-steagall)
  5. real health care/insurance reform- see list
  6. people planet then profit-...
  7. pass real jobs bill-...
  8. campaign finance reform(should be higher in list)-...
  9. end revolving doors for congress/lobbyist and regulator/regulated-...

simplify the main list then explain in detail elsewhere.

[-] 2 points by guyfawkestrader (6) 4 years ago

This is a fantastic list. It is exactly what the movement needs to really gain steam. I hope that this becomes the official list of demands fast and that it gets out to the media so the rest of america can get behind it. Bravo, you all are doing a great job.

The only thing I would think to add is a section that revamps speculation. There needs to be some type of law that reforms the way trading occurs. The high frequency trading and over-leveraged speculation is roiling the markets. 80% of the trades on the NYSE and NASDAQ are done by pros who are simply trying to screw the little guy out of a nickel here and a penny there. However, they also cause huge volatility and provide no benefit at all. Its an esoteric subject matter, but former traders such as myself will understand the gist of what I am saying immediately. Perhaps a group of traders could drill down this idea into a more concrete substance.

For the laymen, consider this-- 20 years ago, kids from MIT went to engineering and other types of companies that produced a product. Now they build algorithms to trade. This is a huge problem.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

Please help spread the word by sending out the following if you are so inclined:

HERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO TODAY.  Please spread the word about this specific LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS

It's time for a change in this country.  We can all feel it.  But sometimes it's hard to know what to do next.  Here's a suggestion on what we can do next.  All 3 of these things can be done today.  It'll only take 5 minutes and it will make a real difference.

  1.  Read this list and comment on it:  https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/ .  The more people who comment, the more clear, convincing and contagious the list will get.  Your suggestion matter.

  2.  Take 2 minutes, call your congressional office and advocate for numbers 2 and 4 on the list.

Calling your congressional office may seem like a small thing but it actually has a big impact.  Any congressional staffer will tell you that careful records are kept of the phone calls that come in and it has a real impact on how the congress person votes and what legislation they support or propose.

Please help make this message go viral and forward it to people who are as concerned about our country's future as you are.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

Completely agree. Is there any way you and a few of your friends who were/are traders could suggest some short language for a law. Just talking about 5 sentences here. I'd be glad to add that because I have spoken with some high level investment banking types and some accomplished traders who have told me exactly the same thing. The good traders are thoroughly annoyed by this crap. Please help spread link to this list. Thanks https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 2 points by powertothepeople (1264) 4 years ago

Glass Steagall - a good place to start. Keep other demands "in" as things the movement supports but use the reinstate Glass-Steagall bill as a focal point to begin with. Begin to formulate a clear coherent message without going all over the place. The list of demands that all pertain to finance & corporate personhood is good - since this started as Occupy Wall Street, you don't want to go all over the place with abolish the death penalty, etc etc that can come later.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

I completely agree with everything you're saying here. Will figure out how to formulate that. Please help spread the link to this list. Thanks. https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 2 points by duke1998 (2) from Hoboken, NJ 4 years ago

nice list, add -regulate and or move HFT to a seperate exchange not intermixed with daily regular stock trades -ban inside pricing IPO's isnt fair for the common investor. -bring back market floor specialist to control price movements so swings aren't so wild. -lower and cap trade commisions and taxes on gains. If one can trade and make a profit, it isn't fair to give the profits to the brokers and the government.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

HERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO TODAY. It only takes 5 minutes and it will make a difference.

It's time for a change in this country.  We can all feel it.  But sometimes it's hard to know what to do next.  Here's a suggestion on what we can do next.  All 3 of these things can be done today.  It'll only take 5 minutes and it will make a real difference.

  1.  Read this list and comment on it: www.occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/  .  The more people who comment, the more clear, convincing and contagious the list will get.  Your suggestions matter. Note: We're not just talking about empty demands here. We're talking about active non-violent resistance that will force House and Senate members to the negotiating table.

  2.  Take 2 minutes, call your congressional office and advocate for numbers 2 and 4 on the list. Calling your congressional office may seem like a small thing but it actually has a big impact.  Any congressional staffer will tell you that careful records are kept of the phone calls that come in and it has a real impact on how the congress person votes and what legislation they support or propose.

  3. Please help make this message go viral and forward it to people who are as concerned about our country's future as you are.

[-] 1 points by SophieH (30) 4 years ago

Also: add a derivatives exchange - end at least that part of the shadow banking system.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

man, if you could get with guyfawkestrader below and exchange ideas, maybe we could advocate for a very specific law that covers a couple of these things. For now it would have to be limited to 4 or 5 sentences but could be expanded later of course.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 4 years ago

Yes, you are on the right track with coming up with actual wording for proposed laws. That is what corporate lobbyists do, we must fight fire with fire. See ALEC - http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

Pls help spread the word: https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

If you agree with this list and are so inclined, please send out the following message to those who are restless for change:

SUBJECT LINE: HERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO TODAY.  Please spread the word about this specific LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS

BODY OF MESSAGE: It's time for a change in this country.  We can all feel it.  But sometimes it's hard to know what to do next.  Here's a suggestion on what we can do next.  All 3 of these things can be done today.  It'll only take 5 minutes and it will make a real difference.

  1.  Read this list and comment on it: https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/  .  The more people who comment, the more clear, convincing and contagious the list will get.  Your suggestion matter.

  2.  Take 2 minutes, call your congressional office and advocate for numbers 2 and 4 on the list. Calling your congressional office may seem like a small thing but it actually has a big impact.  Any congressional staffer will tell you that careful records are kept of the phone calls that come in and it has a real impact on how the congress person votes and what legislation they support or propose.

  3. Please help make this message go viral and forward it to people who are as concerned about our country's future as you are.

[-] 1 points by GandhiKingMindset (124) 4 years ago

I agree about getting specific and you're right, the lobbyist write legislation all the time. Short term though, all I'm thinking about here is having list of demands that is reasonably actionable by congress. So, or example, having Glass-Steagall reinstatement bill already on deck is awesome. Because congressmen can't give as many excuses for why it can't be done. Much easier for average American to support us to because they see what we're demanding as "reasonable" or doable, at least from a practical standpoint. It's much easier to argue the policy side with would-be supporters and the opposition if the practical side of having the bill in place is taken care of. I think this is REALLY helpful.

Please help spread this link far and wide so we can keep working on honing this list and submit it to organizers / keepers of the official list. The more people who can review it, the more we can edit it and the more convincing the list becomes as a rallying cry and effective tool for change.

I'm not just talking here you see. I actually want us to DO THIS https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 2 points by patriot4change (818) 4 years ago

Demand #9 is perfect GandhiKing. What granito is commenting below is a valid point concerning Congress. This can be REMEDIED by demanding LIMITED TERMS for Washington Bureaucrats at all levels. NO MORE lifelong terms in ANY capacity in Washington D.C. This will keep the bastards from accumulating wealth, power and influence by establishing long-term relationships with Lobbyists and Corporations.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 4 years ago

I think we need a Constitutional amendment forever banning private money from elections, and stipulating that government will pay for the candidacy of anyone able to get a specific number of validated signatures, and that former representitives get a permanent pension to cover a reasonable standard of living, while preventing them from working for any business that involved any legislation they worked on while in Congress; the same for the presidency.

If we think this would be expensive, just compare it to the expense of the mess we have now. Also, Corporate personhood must end, and the corporate charter must be reformed so that corporate interests are bound to pay for all negative environmental and humanitarian effects of their operations, rather then externalizing these costs to the population at large.

Finally, there must be a permanent and binding Constitutional ammendment that creates an anti-monopoly firewall to preserve a free-market economic system from unfair, super-aggragated wealth.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 4 years ago

I'm in. I ready for ACTION

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8678) from Phoenix, AZ 4 years ago

I think all eight are great, just not sure about seizing Washington, don't know if we might lose support.

[-] 1 points by Imagine (6) 4 years ago

Congress can't be expected to do anything the average person wants it to. It doesn't answer to us. We The People have no real control over it. You need to see the Repubs and Dems for what they truly are: the "good cop/bad cop" routine played by the billionaire elite against the rest of us. The Republican "bad cop" comes in, slams his fist on the table, makes threats and tries to scare the hell out of us. Then the Dem "good cop" comes in and says 'hey, don't pay any attention to that guy, he doesn't want what's best for you, but I do. Just cooperate with us, do what I am saying and nothing that mean old bad cop threatens will come to pass.' Neither are working for the average person's interests.

Thinking Congress is going to pass ANYTHING that serves anybody's interests besides their billionaire puppetmasters doesn't even rise to the level of being a forlorn hope, but a fantasy. The game is rigged. The entire American political framework needs to be torn down from the outside and rebuilt. Pinning our hopes on beating the pseudo-democracy at its own game and changing the system from within is not rooted in reality. We will get nothing by playing within the rules that have been established for the purpose of keeping any meaningful change from happening. Ever been to a casino? If you have you should know that the casino wins in the end every single time as long as you play by the casino's rules.

We will only succeed not by trying to influence the elite's own dog-and-pony show political framework but by operating outside of it. Remember, the Tunisians and the Egyptians didn't get rid of their unrepresentative government by voting it out of office or by supporting this or that bill in their parliament. Neither will we. If this movement is truly patterned after or inspired by the Arab Spring movements, well, it needs to get a hell o a lot more ballsy and start ACTING like the Egyptians and Tunisians. Meaning not just "occupying" public parks and other places you're allowed to occupy. But first, before a campaign of civil disobedience designed to shut this country's economy down can begin we have to build a popular movement for RADICAL change, not timid, incremental reformism.

[-] 1 points by betsydoula (143) from Beverly Hills, FL 4 years ago
[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 4 years ago

Do these demands exist in the form of an on-line petition that can be signed by thousands (millions) and sent to Congress and the President? If so, where do I sign? If not why not?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 4 years ago

Nice list, I agree with most of it, but I think it could benefit from more rigorous legal input. I mean, Citizens United is NOT a for-profit corporation, the decision NEVER mentions corporate personhood, and the only case actually establishing this concept was an 1819 case that only dealt with the freedom to enter into and enforce contracts (there's another case that mentions it, but only in dicta).

Also, we should understand how corporatism in politics (particularly at the federal level) really works. We need a law that prohibits members of congress from meeting with lobbyists privately (the corruption happens behind closed doors), instead, requiring members of congress to hold regular public meetings (this would end lobbying, I mean, actually END lobbying).

Another problem is federal regulatory schemes, which do not grant citizens the right to sue corporations in state courts under established common law principles. If, for example, there was no liability cap on suits against oil companies, then companies like British Petroleum would not be able to have the influence over government they enjoy today. As it stands now, all companies need to do is lobby congress, or guarantee members of congress, their staffers, or federal agency employees cushy jobs after they leave federal service, and they control the entire regulatory process. Passing a law that ends the revolving door is a dubious idea, because asking people to spend years of their careers gaining a specialty in a particular area, and then requiring that they either remain in federal service until they retire, or leave that area altogether upon leaving federal service, seems like it would result in government only being able to recruit the bottom of the barrel--in terms of talent.

If, instead, we changed regulatory schemes to allow for lawsuits at the state level, then every lawyer in the country, every judge, every state level politician, etc., becomes a potential regulator, and regulatory control is no longer centralized (making it impossible for companies to hijack our political and legal system). I think this would be far more effective, and all of this could be done through legislation.

The other stuff, particularly restoring Glass Steagall, is perfect.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 4 years ago

If big business runs the Congress (which it does) then the first thing that has to happen is to change whose who sit in Congress. Until that happens none of these demands stands much chance of becoming reality. Support of and participation in The 99% Declaration is THE KEY MECHANISM for these demands to become reality.

While it's unlikely that those who read this thread haven't seen The 99% Declaration, I'll include the link for any who may not have:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 4 years ago

Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands, it's a user-submitted post on our forum. The user who submitted this post only speaks for her/himself and their supporters, NOT the movement as a whole.

Only the unelected handful of people that facilitate the NYCGA which includes this website speaks for the movement. This forum is theirs. You may resume protesting.

[-] 1 points by occupiersgohome (1) 4 years ago

Who on Gods' green earth taught you that the world will give you hand-outs? Pack up your tents and start trying. All you protestors have done is give up.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 4 years ago

WOW!!!! this is a lot to look at!

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 4 years ago

Looks great on paper but would never be taken seriously without a gigantic turnout, like one million or more!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 4 years ago

Time for humanity to rise and shine.

[-] 1 points by jordan2 (5) 4 years ago

To this list, I would add that we should abolish the FED.

Number 4 really needs to be a complete revision of the tax code. The words, tax increases has lots of negative connotations. Tax reform is something that almost ALL Americans can agree on.

Members of both parties are liars and crooks. They all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. When they are caught in lies that can be easily proven, there should be a procedure to remove them from office. Anyone who tries to pass an unconstitutional law should also be banned .

[-] 1 points by Acryfromthecrowd (3) 4 years ago

After reading through the other posts on this page, and then considering the issue for the last several weeks, I've decided to turn this dime on its head.... Listen up people, because if you just take a moment to think about it, you'll see what I see. This is all a power play. We owe trillions (that's with a "T") of dollars to primarily one other country in the world, and the only thing backing our currency is the good faith and credit of the American Dollar; a dollar that is steadily falling in value. Don't even try to tell me that none of the financial advisors for the United States haven't voiced the idea of "What happens if we decide we can't or won't pay?"

Consider what has already happened, and also what will happen in the future, once the United States turns the printing presses on high and pays off all its creditors with the then worthless American dollar. Sure, there will be a struggle to sell off our treasury bonds to any sucker willing to buy them, but by that time it will be too late. It will be like hitting the "reset" button on the global economy. Maybe that's good, or maybe that's bad, but millions or maybe even billions will feel this coming collapse. The United States, however, will come out on top. It's almost like financial warfare, and we are poised to win.

Think hard, this economic collapse has been an orchestrated chain of events. Lehman was allowed to bankrupt without notice to other countries, especially our allies in Europe, why? Because, we had to ensure that the European Countries would collapsed as well. After all, we can't have Saudi Oil being purchased with the Euro, that would mean hyper inflation too soon....right? In the middle of it, you also have to be able to look your creditors in the eye while you say sorry...right? To do otherwise might unwittingly trigger a real war. You can't say something like " The United States government gridlock was used to control when and how we would move into bankruptcy." That sounds ridiculous.

[-] 1 points by peoplesvoice (4) 4 years ago

I'd like to see an end to Human Trafficking, girls and children should not be bought and sold as sex slaves, that's just sick. It must end! Also, we are due for free health care, it's now or never.

[-] 1 points by jtbear33 (1) 4 years ago

A recent example of inserting an unrelated item into bills was the inclusion (in a recent budget bill) of the delisting from the Endangered Species Act the wolf of the Northern Rockies. This was done to "sweeten" the bill for some members of Congress. This was the first time in history that anything was removed from endangered species status solely for political rather than scientific reasons. That's how bad it's gotten in Congress. The general public is usually unaware of such riders to bills.

[-] 1 points by mendel (1) 4 years ago

Great list. Number 3 and number 8 are pretty much the same thing, though. As for #2, I think most of what they did was technically legal, right? It may have been inethical, but still legal. I think a demand for Instant Run-off Voting also belongs on this list. This is the way that people can vote for their true, preferred candidate without fear of "throwing away" their vote. It will also pave the way for additional parties to gain representatives and power in Congress and break up the corrupt, two-party love/hate fest we have now.

[-] 1 points by mendel (1) 4 years ago

Great list. Number 3 and number 8 are pretty much the same thing, though. As for #2, I think most of what they did was technically legal, right? It may have been inethical, but still legal. I think a demand for Instant Run-off Voting also belongs on this list. This is the way that people can vote for their true, preferred candidate without fear of "throwing away" their vote. It will also pave the way for additional parties to gain representatives and power in Congress and break up the corrupt, two-party love/hate fest we have now.

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 4 years ago

General Assemblies,Community, State, National ,with Referendums on Key issues, Let the people Decide, not some stodgy criminals,doing back room deals..Create The Peoples Forest Service,and eliminate corporations in our protected forests..Eliminate The Federal Reserve Counterfeitors Association..Cancel The Debt.. Fake Money, Fake Debt.. Return to gold backed currency, Abolish speculation on commodities and food supplies,selling on futures is also like selling something you don't have..Naked shorting stock is another fine example..Ban Short Sales..Cut D.O.D. budget, change focus to humanitarian and Earth Restoration Projects..

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 4 years ago

Accountability, present and past administrations, too many atrocities,and crimes against humanity involved,printing 20 trillion dollars,backed by no goods or services, is counterfeitng,bailing out corporations and banks worldwide,giving bonuses to the very people who bankrupted the world economy..Stick U.S. taxpayers with the bill at 5% interest..High Treason is the charge,noone knows where the money went, The Pentagon lost 3 trillion,700 billion restructuring Iraq funds disappeared..Now 20 Trillion is gone and Noone Knows where the money went? Traitors and Master manipulators of info,and statistics..Problem is computers track every move,electronically recording every transaction..

[-] 1 points by ZTOVAR (1) 4 years ago

Congress will never pass these laws or will take forever to do so. We need to start the "Occupy Wall Street" Political party and send our candidates to congress and the presidency. (if we are really the 99%, then it should be easy) Our candidates would not need $$ to finance campaigns because they already have our votes. Lets put completely new people (qualified offcourse) in congress. Also, #9. CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT LAWS TO ALLOW EASIER WAY TO ADD NAMES TO BALLOTS (PRESIDENTIAL & CONGRESS IN STATE AND FEDERAL)

[-] 1 points by Acryfromthecrowd (3) 4 years ago

These are my thoughts... Occupy Wall Street means nothing if the people do not have a clear message. I appreciate what they're trying to do, but nothing is ever going to get done if we don't start getting specific. To that end, lets start by focusing in on the investment banking and securities firm Goldman Sachs; a company that shoulders a huge amount of culpability in the financial ruin of this country. When we finish with Goldman Sachs we can move on to the other mirror image financial criminals, but we have to start somewhere. Although Goldman Sachs has positioned itself to be unbound by the rule of law, this will mark the beginning of the healing process, so I'm not afraid to say it. Goldman Sachs is an organized crime syndicate that operates outside the rule of law. They are gaining control of the United States Government by injecting their personnel into the positions that MAKE THE RULES. After all, there is no need to lobby for what you want when you can make all the rules to benefit you, right? Goldman Sachs is a criminal enterprise that has engaged in the truest form of racketeering; by participating in the sale or solution to a problem that the institution itself perpetuated, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage.
Goldman Sachs sold junk CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligations) (that they often created) to unsuspecting investors, by convincing them that they had a triple A credit rating (from a ratings system they helped to corrupt) even though they knew that in their own words, they were "crap" investments that they intended to bet against. I need to say that again to pound it in... Goldman Sachs built a racket, by using deception to trick investors (like your local pension fund) into purchasing CDO bundles that they knew would fail and by paying ratings companies to promote the illusion that these CDOs were worth investing in. Then because they knew the investments they had just passed off as triple A were going to fail, they took out insurance against the CDO's from the insurance company AIG. Goldman Sachs knew that these CDOs were going to fail, but they only became concerned when they considered AIG financially incapable of paying off the hundreds of billions of dollars that it was going to steal from it with insurance fraud. The bottom line is that Goldman Sachs knew!
Goldman Sachs is the head of this evil snake. Goldman Sachs KNEW these CDOs would fail. Goldman Sachs KNEW that AIG would fail. Goldman Sachs KNEW that this country would be brought to it's knees, and it didn't care. They were making money, even though they had to lie and cheat to get it; because they didn't care about anyone other than themselves and that's where the evil part comes in. They were in the business of screwing people over, so it was Goldman Sachs who devised a plan for securing their investment, by putting the burden on someone other than themselves; the American People. Goldman Sachs KNEW that the only way out of the chaos that THEY CAUSED would be to have a trusted man on the inside (Henry Paulson) who would then "dream up" a way to put this problem squarely on the backs of the American People. Who cares if everyone is screwed, as long as the people at Goldman Sachs stay rich, right? Then, when the "axe is going to fall" bailout was "dreamed up" by Henry Paulson, it was the United States Government, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, who agreed to bail out AIG, but only if AIG agreed to pay Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar, and also agreed not to file criminal or civil charges against the CEO or employees of Goldman Sachs.
So, am I angry? YA, I'M ANGRY! I think those stupid lookin bald heads of Henry Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein would look better on the end of a stick than on their shoulders. No man should be above the law. Every person who participated in this racket needs to be brought to justice. I don't mean slap them on the wrist justice either, I mean at the very minimum they need to be stripped of their wealth and put in prison for the rest of their lives. People have rioted in the streets and died over this. Millions of people have suffered financial ruin, and some have committed suicide over this. Don't even try to tell me that the only thing that should happen is that these men should be held civilly liable. This is also a plea to both Henry Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein to understand that neither one of their lives is worth any more or less than the lives lost in relation to this continuing wrong; stand up and become a patriot in spite of your wealth; no one lives forever; history will remember you as either the men who caused the ruin of millions, or the man or men who ensured it would never happen again.
To all those who took the time to read this... Check out the RICO Act ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act). I believe it's a federal law that had these guys in mind. Occupy Goldman Sachs and the subsidiary of Goldman Sachs until these people are prosecuted.
God Bless America!

[-]