Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Simple Demands Please

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 12:39 a.m. EST by grepcat (121)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Simple demands must resonate with everyone. One liners!!

1% Tax on all Wall Street Transactions

Cancel Student Loans

Cancel Foreclosures

Tarpley says it best: http://tarpley.net/2011/10/08/occupy-wall-street-can-create-a-general-strike-to-dump-obama/

166 Comments

166 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MossyOakMudslinger (106) from Frederick, MD 2 years ago

grepcat here is another one liner:

Keep the casino banks separate from the commercial (consumer oriented) banks: Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 may constitute the single most devastating act by congress that contributed to the the later financial fiasco that we continue to experience today.When commercial banks can speculate or borrow too heavily against customer assets they tend to self destruct (Nomi Prins "It Takes a Pillage"). Repealing this act allowed a repetition of the banking onslaught that occurred in the '30's.

This law has to be brought back as first step to bringing some balance back to the banking industry and therefore the economy. Doing so would not require taxpayer bailouts.

Those responsible including Clinton, Rubin, Gramm, Goldman-Sachs et al, must be held accountable.

[-] 2 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Casino banks have to go. Keeping them separate is not an option. If people want to gamble they have to do it with their own personal funds.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

By one-liner I mean a couple words. Thanks for the input!

[-] 2 points by MossyOakMudslinger (106) from Frederick, MD 2 years ago

Here ya go:

Reinstate Glass-Steagall

3 words!

[-] 3 points by concernedinutah (102) 2 years ago

Campaign Finance Reform - without it the chance of having the other reforms realized is practically zero. get the corporate money and bribery out of out politics.

[-] 2 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes, start with K Street. It is their center of action which gives the lobbyists important ready access to representatives.

[-] 1 points by Yup (12) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Agree! It starts with CFR. After that everything will fall into place.

[-] 1 points by FocusOn (5) 2 years ago

Is the following link the official and authorized one to contribute to the list of potential demands?

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home

[-] 1 points by idunno (4) from Jacksonville, FL 2 years ago

My frustration is that it seems like elected officials are not doing what the majority of Americans want them to do. I'm really interested in knowing American's opinions of issues. Is there a good polling site that clearly shows the top 10 issues based on poll respondents and the poll results of the top 10 issues (e.g., foreign wars, social security, campaign finance, etc.)? Seems to me we should be using (and making the media) use the results of such a polling site to put pressure on elected representatives by comparing their voting records with the majority of American's preferences. This would highlight when an Elected representative is influenced by something other than the majority of Americans and they should be made to explain why. I think we have the best system in the world but we need ways to make it clear how most American's feel on their most important issues and to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

[-] 1 points by idunno (4) from Jacksonville, FL 2 years ago

My frustration is that it seems like elected officials are not doing what the majority of Americans want them to do. I'm really interested in knowing American's opinions of issues. Is there a good polling site that clearly shows the top 10 issues based on poll respondents and the poll results of the top 10 issues (e.g., foreign wars, social security, campaign finance, etc.)? Seems to me we should be using (and making the media) use the results of such a polling site to put pressure on elected representatives by comparing their voting records with the majority of American's preferences. This would highlight when an Elected representative is influenced by something other than the majority of Americans and they should be made to explain why. I think we have the best system in the world but we need ways to make it clear how most American's feel on their most important issues and to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

"Is there a good polling site that clearly shows the top 10 issues based on poll respondents and the poll results of the top 10 issues "

Good question. Could you research this and post links? Goolge is usually your friend.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Reinstate Glass-Steagall

End Crony Capitalism

Fire Bernanke and Geithner

Revamp the Fed so it accountable to the people, not the banks, or abolish it altogether .

Enforce the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to end manipulative high-frequency algorithmic trading in our marketplace.

Criminally prosecute and jail all Wall Street executives who defrauded and continue to defraud honest Americans.

Shut-Down K Street

Enact a No-Corporation-is-a-Person Amendment

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

1) Reinstate Glass-Steagall 2) Shut-Down K Street 3) No-Corporation-is-a-Person Amendment I like these. No one would know what number three is about unless they research. Unfortunately, it will not occur to those you need support from to research it. A great majority of those you need support from are 45-60 years old and did not grow up with the internet, do not really read all that often, and do not research things automatically. They know they are getting screwed and that things are out of order but you have to be simple and direct.

Geitner is gone already

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Sorry, Turbo Tim Geithner is still Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Bernanke and Geithner are two of the most despised individuals on the planet because they are flunkies for Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I agree, the moment I saw Geitner I said "Oh Shit!" Last I heard Gietner was moving on to something else. I do not watch TV anymore so I may have missed another development.

[-] 1 points by enough (589) 2 years ago

Yeah, he's still there doing the bidding of Wall Street. He, like his predecessors, Henry Paulson and Rubin, were handpicked by Wall Street and duly appointed by each president and approved by congress. In a plutocracy, bankers never leave anything to chance and always have their own flunkies run the economy at the Fed and the U.S. Treasury.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20534) 2 years ago

Public funding for campaigns. Basic catastrophic healthcare for all. Affordable education. Guaranteed living wage. Re-instate Glass-Steagall. Eliminate disenfranchisement. Enforce Fair Labor Standards Act. (no temps & unpaid internships)

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

You cannot guarantee a living wage beyond a properly regulated business environment that pays people what they are worth for a commensurate output. Our campaigns do not scale, you can't just fund them publicly. How do you gauge who gets the money? Maybe the campaigns could be restricted to online and mailing only? No TV, no physical appearances? At the least Glass needs reinstated--the very least. Remember, all your labor demands must be conducive to helping small businesses thrive.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20534) 2 years ago

Small businesses will thrive when big corporations pay a living wage and Americans can consume. You can guarantee a living wage if you base it on inflation or profit or something like that. Yes, you can publicly fund campaigns. There is a huge movement for this. Check out: www.getmoneyout.com

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. Wages scale with demand. How do you set wages when they scale with demand and vary by industry? I can see MAYBE taxing businesses who employ people who qualify for welfare (Walmart), anything more complicated than that you opening a technical can of worms and will end up playing legislative whack-a-mole.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20534) 2 years ago

These boards are all about ideas. That's a very good idea, grepcat. Thanks for sharing.

[-] 1 points by Heironymous (25) 2 years ago

try using positive slogans like "Affordable education is a right, not a privilege" or "Outsource Lobbyists, not American Jobs"

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Those are not demands. Those are slogans. Listing my suggestions for demands are to make public the aim of the movement for all to see, leaving no question as to the demands of the group. These are just suggestions, but I hold that any demands must be specific and simple. Without real demands the protests are just cute novelties.

[-] 1 points by Heironymous (25) 2 years ago

What is not clear about a demand for affordable education? Try to inspire with your slogans...not sound like the angry huddled masses. You want to wake people up from their slumber and think "Hey...I agree with that!". Is the goal to win people's minds and hearts or to present a list of demands to the government like the Bolsheviks?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Remember the late 80's when the Chinese people were protesting in every city day after day after day? What were they're demands? Democracy! That was not specific enough. The Chinese leadership was paralyzed and didn't know how to address the people on their concerns. It got to a point where the crowds were in full pitch, the government became afraid, and the rest is history. The two sides couldn't meet up because the demands put forth by college students (backed by the general population) were not specific enough and threw the Chinese leadership into a confused frenzy. This is all well documented. You have to lay out specific demands, period. I have been studying protests for a decade.and this fact stands out in each case.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

COMPREHENSIVE one liners.

We need Article V now!

There is nothing more comprehensive.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Article V for what?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

To amend the constitution. Jefferson knew it was needed every 20 years, congress has been evading it for 140.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

What amendment? I agree there are numerous possible amendments, but you do not cite any?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

I can show that we must revise the First Amendment to make it so vital speech for survival is shared and understood.

More explanation here. http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

I've written a draft of the revision. DRAFT REV. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.END

It provides criteria for invokation of the First Amendment which justifies public support for speech which meets the criteria for issues that effect everyone and relate to survival.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

You must define all or your adjectives in the lanuage. forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance,

How does this address our economic issues being the grievance of this protest?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

The economic crisis can become so severe our lives are threatened. No need to define adjectives, we know what those things mean. They provide criteria for access to national tv broadcasts for people that can assemble facts and provide information to the public that will unify them. If what the public proposes can invoke those human attributes relating to issues, THEN their proposal to use national tv broadcast is granted.

Currently they are ignorant of a HUGE amount because of the non feasance, mal feasance, treasonously so, of media. This problem created all the other problems because no one knew they were brewing.

[-] 1 points by Heironymous (25) 2 years ago

You think anyone is going to take you seriously with lines like "Cancel Student Loans" and "Cancel foreclosures"? That's why people are mocking this protest. They see you as whiny babies who don't want to work to pay their loans back.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes. We bailed out banks which cost much more. Is that not ridiculous? Did they not owe up to their gambling and crazy "investments" which were made under the premise that the government would bail them out? They created this environment and these demands a well within the same stratosphere. Plus, these measures would be like feeding nitrous into the economic engine. Coupled with a sensible tax system the world would have to scramble to keep up with us.

[-] 1 points by Heironymous (25) 2 years ago

Sure that may all be true, but you have to feed it to people in small doses and in a way that makes them realize that they already agree with you. Once you have middle America with you then the protests actually start to affect change. I don't think one line demands is going to get you there

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

The protests work through television like it or not. The people need to see meaty demands on the screen. There are millions of people who want to support OWS, reach them by demanding a bailout for the people. This stuff has already been debated in the mainstream, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I know plenty of small business owners who would go for all of my demands. The reach and amount of money extended to bail out the banks proved we can do anything we want. I'm not saying cancel mortgages, just suspend foreclosures. The student loans need to go or be reduced or suspended as well. I simply want strict demands to be lodged, that is the intent. Wall Street is well over due for a transaction tax. Long term we need "free" education, one payer health care, and a fiercely regulated Wall Street (we're playing with fire here people) and powerful enforcement.

[-] 1 points by Heironymous (25) 2 years ago

I don't believe we need free higher education, just affordable. I've seen the quality of free higher education in other countries and it usually sucks. That's why they all send their kids here to study if possible. When I went to college I got Pell grants, borrowed money at low interest rates AND worked part time. It didn't kill me and won't kill the youth today. Unfortunately Bush and his cronies got rid of Pell grants and shoved high-interest student loans down these kids throats. That is a national travesty. Many of these loans are already in arrears so the banks are screwed and so are the borrowers credit scores. It's a lose/lose

Transaction tax on financial trading...that's a no brainer and already being done in the UK and Europe. Not many outside of wall street will oppose that one. Restoring the regulations we used to have...i.e. Glass Steagall is also a no brainer, but hard to explain to a nation with an attention span of 30 seconds

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I use that as a point to get support from a certain segment of society. To get a decent education is actually very reasonable in America if you are frugal about it.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Einstein said that we must have a higher level of thinking (or complexity) in solving today's problems than the lower level of thinking (or simplicity) that created those problems in the first place.

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform in the 1st link. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by freedomfighter777 (156) 2 years ago

I agree with the audit but there is no need for it period. It was enacted in 1913 by the most successful business me of the day looking to turn a profit and they do. Why is a private for profit organization of bankers controlling our money???

[-] 1 points by StrongWoman (1) from Riverside, CA 2 years ago

Affordable education for all.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

We can have "free" education and "free" healthcare for all without being a communist or total socialist state. The main hurdle to one payer health care is not just health insurance companies. It is a labor issue. Many many people hold jobs just to maintain health coverage some of which is not very good. If everyone had health care they easily move from job to job. In that context large corporations would find it much tougher to compete with small business at that point. Again, people are so afraid of losing health care (from a job loss) they are willing to put up with bad working environments. Another thing I find really pathetic is that when someone becomes very ill (cancer) they will lose their job AND health care--left to find treatment on their own with no income or ability to work. This is terribly inhumane has to be fixed.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

Should also resonate on an international scale. Stop the Looting, and Begin the Prosecuting.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 2 years ago

Demand Washington enact responsible banking and finance laws, rules, and regulations........and no more bailouts.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

What is responsible? They love these types of demands because they can just smile and nod. You have to be specific.

[-] 1 points by LincolnCA (160) 2 years ago

California want's safe access to the Medical Marijuana. We voted for it!

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 2 years ago

Cancel Foreclosures = repealing American jurisprudence. Better one-liner: Renegotiate underwater home loan balances, interest rates, and payment terms 1% Tax on all Wall Street Transactions - irrational Better one-liner: all income from where ever sourced to be treated as ordinary income Cancel student loans - creditors do have rights Better one liner: Renegotiate student loan balances, interest rates, and payment terms

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Renegotiate? That can mean any type of renegotiation. Look at HAMP and do the math, your monthly payment gets reduced but you end up paying MORE over the term of the loan. That is their type of negotiation.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

Stop the looting, and start the prosecuting.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Do you have a comprehensive list of people/organizations and their crimes to discuss prosecution outside the context of a protest? I agree, but there has to be a plan behind all demands.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

That is where someone such as William Black and others would be helpful.

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Peg minimum wage to inflation

[-] 1 points by Nousername (1) from Venus, FL 2 years ago

Good so far, but what about restitution of the wealth looting of ten years through outrageous tax cuts? What about recalling the bail out money and shift it to those who have been crucified by the greed of the enriched? How to do that? Simple: 1. Compute back how much of a house the mortgagor could afford at the time of the transaction. 2. Said mortgagor would be responsible for this portion starting of the date s/he is in position to resume payments 3. The mortgagee would be responsible for the balance at the discount rate of then time of the transaction 4. How many jobs this bureaucracy would create?

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

End the 'War on Drugs'

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 2 years ago

“Take the upper 1% income and place a 75% surtax on them” All that would do is cause large corporations to split up into smaller units so that each unit generates income below the threshold. I believe a better idea would be to institute reasonable tax rates on businesses and corporations but eliminate “loopholes” (like transfer pricing) and subsidies to corporations whose incomes have exceeded a certain threshold such as, say, 20 million dollars. “Pay off everyone student loans” Pay them off with what? The idea has potential but you have yet to identify where the source of this repayment would come from. It would be unfair for the burden to be placed on those of us who did not go to college.

“Buy everyone a house” Do you mean each individual or each family? Who pays to build the house and acquire the land? If each individual gets a house; where do we put all the houses?

“Save the forest” You have to a little more detailed than that, don’t you think?

“Give everyone a living wage, no matter what the employment status is” How do you do that without running the risk of hyperinflation, at which point the new “living wage” becomes worth less than the previous “non living”wage. Isn’t it a reality that some jobs just are not meant to be a primary source of income? “Triple the pay for teachers/police/fire fighters, and soldiers” I may agree with you regarding soldiers in combat, but the other groups mentioned can be considered some of the highest paid groups in NYC with some of the best job protections available. A cop on the beat with only five years on earns a base pay of approximately $80,000 not counting overtime and can retire within 20 years on a state and city tax free pension of 50% of his highest 3 years earnings (including OT). Teachers can retire at 55 on a similar deal, work 9 months a year and can earn over $100,000 based solely on time served and degrees earned.

I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just curious if you have thought the mechanics of all these demands through

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

End corporate personhood

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Single Payer Health - NOW!

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I like that! Our health care system is a laugh (actually it is not funny at all). Hardworking people, shinning examples of good people, can get ill, lose their job which equals a loss of insurance with no way to gain treatment. This lose-your-job-lose-your-health-coverage crap has to go! They people who cannot afford basic coverage ARE ALREADY BEING PAID FOR WITH TAXES!

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

what can i say, you nailed it.

[-] 1 points by globcit (14) 2 years ago

Audit the Fed and all the big banks

Put a moratorium on all government debt until after the audit

Audit the Weapons and Oil Corporations.

Punishment by repayment

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Cancel student loans - talk about greedy.

I can't live up to my end of the agreement that is discounted by Federal Law- please make sure the 99% have to pay for me.

Thanks - greedy former student. PS. I want your money and I want to use the guns of government to take it from you by force - but I am pro peace because I don't investigate my own positions on subjects due to a shitty education.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

[citation needed]...please calm down. Please clarify your points for the group.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

People complain about greed but don't see it in themselves.

Which is more like greed? Not wanting to have taken from you what is yours. OR Demanding that something someone else has be taken so you can have it?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

taken what is yours? someone else has to be taken? Please clarify.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

I don't understand what there is to clarify.

Which of the two scenarios best represents your concept of greed?

  1. Person A works for object X, and resists have it taken by person C. OR
  2. Person B desires object X that person A has and so asks person C to take it from person A with force.
[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Ok, but did anyone suggest that? Please clarify again. I am truly interested in your views.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Yes the OP suggested it by saying that student loans should be canceled.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

How is that greed? Spell it out please.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 2 years ago

Because it is demanding that the burden that one has already agreed to bear should instead by borne by others by the use of force.

How is that not greed? You want what someone else has and wish to take it.

Could you do me the service of explaining how that is not greed?

[-] 1 points by MikeHorsley (9) 2 years ago

1% Solution - The root of all the problems that OWS supporters are protesting about is based in CAMPAIGN REFORM. Individuals (not corporations, not PACs) should only be allowed to contribute and that contribution should be max'ed at 1% of the average median income in the US (~$5000). Politicians should no longer be bought by business!!! This national movement should be organizing a constitutional amendment vote by the states - bypassing congress - to enact this reform.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by freedomfighter777 (156) 2 years ago

I think we all need to focus on one thing the list of demands is so long the likely hood of us achieving our goals diminishes because the message is diluted. WE NEED TO UNITE TOGETHER TO DEMAND THE END ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE. It is the PRIVATE organization that has caused most of the problems we are fighting to solve. They are the upper 1% they have the power because we give it to them by not educating ourselves. Ron Paul has been saying it for years and is still the only candidate that will profess this. Yet the other day on the news I hear that occupies of wall street support Romney????WTF? He as well as all the other candidates are playing the same game and are getting kicked back by wall street. Unite for change End the Fed, Bring us back to the gold standard, and elect Dr,Ron Paul 2012

[-] 2 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Nationalize the FED, not end it. It is a valuable tool. Congress just need to clean it out and reorganize its structure. But, the people who do control it now pay for congressional elections, senatorial elections, presidential elections, etc...

Check out Tarpley's interview in this video: http://tarpley.net/2011/10/08/occupy-wall-street-can-create-a-general-strike-to-dump-obama/

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

I agree with grepcat on this. Even if the fed were to be abolished some new entity would soon be needed to replace it. However this entity should not be private and should be very very transparent. Also going back to a gold standard is fatuous imo, having fiat currency allows controls on the currency that can help keep it stable and is part of the reason for the historical economic success of the US (and others). So in short: - Nationalize the FED -

[-] 1 points by freedomfighter777 (156) 2 years ago

There is no need for the Fed it is a for profit organization started in 1913 and our economy has been going down ever since. You cannot have a for profit financial organization, which is its sole purpose, run a country's currency. Study history our forefathers warned us against this. “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”~ Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by bugmagnet (30) from Boston, MA 2 years ago

Yes I am well acquainted with Jefferson's quote. I agree with you that it should not be for-profit. However that is not the same as calling for it's outright abolition. Maybe we can agree that it should be audited quarterly, and either made non-profit or nationalized.

[-] 1 points by Producer (2) 2 years ago

A Quick look @ FFTU local 420 Freaks,Free Loaders, & Transients Union LOCAL 420 PORTLAND OREGON "tHIS union is built on its members, AND TAX PAYERS MONEY.” • Members, who don’t work, make up this union and pay dues. We in the Freaks, Free Loader, & Transients Union Local 420 Portland Oregon, have no desire to determine our own destiny. We members of the Freaks, Free Loader, & Transients Union Local 420 Portland Oregon leave it to our benevolent Governments to take care of us. The members of the Freaks Free Loaders & Transients Union do not respect any form of authority, but demand that we be respected. All property belongs to the people, and any product that can be used by our members should be made available to our members at no cost. We at the Freaks, Free Loader, & Transients Union Local 420 Portland Oregon will educate at no expense to our members the most effective ways to pan-handle, show you the best locations to extort the most revenue. We will also introduce to the most benevolent elected members of the Democratic Party. For more information please contact Sam at 503-823-4000

FFTU Local 420 Union Meeting Minutes October 13, 2011 Boss of Bosses Sam Adams Apple called meeting to order at 9 a.m., after first entertaining us with his impression of Jacques Chirac choking on a Hot dog. No minutes for the Sept.. Meeting was not offered due to a virus on Secretary Sam’s “pipe organ”'. Bosses' Report: Dick said that contract negations should start soon. Some key points to keep in mind: 1. We want more pots, tents, blankets, and beads. 2. We want the 1% to quit accusing the 99% of commenting crimes. 3. Our new occupation plan calls for us to take all the trade goods that are currently in the collective Trust and "personalize" it, if you know what I mean (lick it, pee on it ect…). 4. Whatever happened to that idea that each of us should get our own belly-dancing genie, and have our every wish be their command? Oh wait, that's what Democrats are for? 5. Solidarity Forever Committee (Julie #3, Jane #4, Jr., Owsley #1, and August Busch III) is working on a Grand Counsel Amendment, that will bestow the title "glorious" upon each of us (along with permanent land grants within the park for the purpose of putting up better tents), which we can then pass along to our heirs. Ignite the Fire! Convention, October 13, 2011Portland Oregon, down town parks (20 percent discount and guaranteed poolside room, if you reserve by October 13 ). 2012 Planning Topic - Popular Culture and the End of the World: How to Entertain the Masses while Crushing Them into Total Submission.

[-] 1 points by han (18) 2 years ago

Get the money out of politics

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

How? Then put the how in a one-liner and back it with a plan.

[-] 1 points by han (18) 2 years ago

I don't want corporations to help write legislation, to influence elections with large campaign donations, to do extensive lobbying and bribe politicians with favors...etc.

Just not sure how to write it shorter. I'll need to work on it. :)

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Close K Street!

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

Rebuild our infrastructure, start with K Street!

[-] 1 points by MossyOakMudslinger (106) from Frederick, MD 2 years ago

Good proposals grepcat.

Here is a one liner:

End the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) or

Kill the zombies end ZIRP

End the zero interest rate policy (ZIIRP) imposed by the Fed.

Zero interest rates are killing savers and are propping up the zombie banks with free money. This effectively constitutes an austerity measure to foster zombie bank bailouts.

Savers which constitute much of the 99% get nothing on their savings and have not done so for years. In fact when CPI is factored in it constitutes a negative interest rate policy which is eroding any value savings have. Meanwhile the Fed is providing the zombies with free money which they use to be treasuries at a 3% rate. We as savers and taxpayers subsidize this zombie bailout

Ending the zero interest rate policy would go a long way to driving the zombies into ground and bringing some value to savers holdings.

Here is the sign:

ZIRP IS AN AUSTERITY MEASURE

IMHO a simple and effective idea.

Comments on the this suggestion would be greatly appreciated.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes, these are more specific and to the point. But it doesn't translate to enough meaning to gain wider support. I see your point though. Saving is best done as an investment. Proper regulation with an eye towards stability is preferred. A stable market where one can invest is the best savings plan. Sitting your money in the bank, even at some interest is still much more of a benefit to the bank than the depositor. It is a fact that most people do not save.

[-] 1 points by MossyOakMudslinger (106) from Frederick, MD 2 years ago

grepcat,

I appreciate your reply.

A few comments. While it is generally ture"Most people do not save" it is important not to be misled by this as many people do save and the numbers are on the rise. . People on fixed incomes try to be savers though it may not be much. People with retirement accounts in times of market volatility tend to move large quantities into money markets which is a form of saving (short term treasuries) as do retiree's relying on IRA's, so the number of savers is a dynamic quantity. Also as credit has dried up people are looking to save what they can after debt paydown. Most recent analysis shows that the nation is moving toward savings when they can.

We are dividing along lines of speculators and savers (and those who can't do either). Here is an report by the American Institute of CPA's that quantifies the increase in the number of savers during the economic downturn.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/america-divided-into-savers-and-non-savers-amid-economic-turmoil-aicpa-survey-91686399.html

Not to be underestimated is the highly negative impact removing ZIRP will have on the zombies as a significant source of their funding will dry up as the spread on short and long term treasuries narrows.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes maybe the term "save" is getting jostled around to mean different things in different contexts. When it is mentioned that people have no savings this is generally untrue as investments are the technical meaning of savings and many people have retirement accounts (although mine has been cashed in). The "no savings" mentioned in the media is a lack of cash padding in their bank accounts, and overall this is non-existent on average.

[-] 1 points by Gylliwynn (56) 2 years ago

If you want to bring liberals and conservatives together on this, which I think is a great goal to have, then you need to educate them a bit more on how our country got into this mess in a way that EVERYONE can understand. Please read this article that came out two days ago by an economist who articulates and offers a damn good, realistic solution to this confusion. The masses NEED to vote in the next presidential election and in order for them to be convinced we must have Obama sign a legal and binding contract stating he will repeal the nine economic measures listed in the article BEFORE the next election. Then send this out to everyone involved with OWS, even if you refuse to vote. The masses NEED to be educated about how this mess occurred so their causes can become more defined. http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-wall-street-movement-and-coming-demise-crony-capitalism/1318341474

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. Love informative resources.

[-] 1 points by Dost (315) 2 years ago

This demands are not general enough but only are important to smaller groups. The Program should consist of Four Reforms in these general areas: 1) Wall Street; 2) Taxes; 3) Legislative Process; 4) Electoral Process----most of the abuses and complaints most widely shared fall into these categories. I submit to you that 60% or more, upwards of 75% of population will agree with all four. Its pretty simple, gets your attention, and the explanations for each is pretty simple or can be simplified. You do need to study this a little but it is simple yet has enough content to keep the Journalists and Pundits and Politicians busy. We would provide intelligent and cogent responses to each. These Basic Four Reforms go to the heart of the whole issue of Fairness which should be our basic Rallying Cry-We Want Fairness (In accordance with rules or standards, legitimate in the Peoples Minds). Again, if you go back to your long list, think about how you will interact with people or how reporters handed this list would try to digest it. No, we want to be in charge. Simple, One Demand-We Demand Four Reforms. Then, List them; Next, be prepared to explain the concisely and quickly. Then shut up. Tell the they will have to wait for more. They will be curious. You will be in control. We have to be disciplined. I realize it is hard with all the younger people, anarchists and other wild-eyed idealists (I once was there myself, i know), This works. I know.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Dude, you are not going to get a plethora of demands solved with these types of movements unless a revolution is carried out and I do not see that coalescing. Protests must demand a specific result or it will dilute. These movements do not survive without peripheral support. Demands must be specific and simple. Basic marketing is always at play.

[-] 1 points by Dost (315) 2 years ago

Dude, you must be stoned. I laid out four simple demands. It is not that hard. One liners not enough. We are past that stage. You don't need to explain these Four Reforms, just announce them. And, btw, I was an publisherr, I know marketing but I also know media. One liners will be throwaways. These Four Reforms will get them to take us more seriously. If you can explain one or two, that's all you need for now. One liners, my ass! That won't even make the evening news. The Act, the Theatre, the Protest Demonstration, Your Creativity will get you on the news. A long list of simple demands will get you nowhere with important media. A simple demand will not suffice. The serious media reporters need a meatier story to report on. They are looking to fill space with a substantive storyline. They need something neat, clean, concise and with some substance. These Four Reforms give them that. And, like I said, most people agree with them a high approval rating, the true test of attracting others to our cause. If you want to develop a list for those who already agree with you, fine, that should be separate from presenting something to the media. To carry on the story, they need some substance and many might be sympathetic. Hell, conservatives seem sympathetic from what I can tell. Not all but a fair number.

To emphasize, I know media.... I have used it a lot. You need to examine the issue a little more closely. The list you want is for insiders who already agree with your cause because you want to ultimately develop a platform if you are serious. The approach to the media is different as I say, one liners or a list of one liners will not work. Theatre (with one liners on signs) or Substance (for the reporter now interested to hear what our articulate spokepersons need to say. Hopefully, they get articulate. The less you are able to speak to the press, the less you should say. Reform Wall Street is the easiest. If you can not explain why, then do a little research and come up with one. it's not that hard.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Enough with the personal attacks--no I'm not stoned. Never got to one liners. Where have you been? During protest you must have simple demands that everyone understand. The workings, the semantics of law of course must always be worked out. We are not sitting at a table here, we are in protest for crap's sake. The OWS movement is not organized at the moment. When you watch the boob tube all you see is a bunch of crappy ass signs with no demands on them! Fucking address that issue first. Second, there is a disorganized group of people falling all over themselves like hapless idiots, address that fucking issue as well. THEN we can move on with your grudgingly complicated list of demands to cure all of societies ills. I suggest being realistic about all this. Look to the civil rights movement of the 60's for simple examples on how to get organized and get shit done.

[-] 1 points by Dost (315) 2 years ago

Oh, sorry, like I say, I misunderstood you. Yes, as I said in my last post, one liners for signs, perfect. i was directing the reasoning to how to approach the media which is looking for substance. Time magazine and others will be doing stories, some i am sure will appear soon. it would be nice if some of us could articulate for five minutes or at least two on some general common grievances that subsume others. We are talking then of the same thing.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes there needs to be those who can articulate these points in interviews. But, they are looking to pin this movement on "leaders" so they can attack them and marginalize the entire movement.

[-] 1 points by Dost (315) 2 years ago

I see it as an opportunity. A lot of these journalists might be open to hearing what we have to say but it or even if it only a few, it is an opportunity. The person speaking does not have to admit to being a leader (which is true). The response could be, we have to agree to formal statements which are in accordance with the process. Just like Congress. But these Four Reforms let us day something substantive (I am repeating myself here) without going into a lot of detail although you could focus on one and give a couple examples. This kind of response helps to legitimize the movement in the intelllectuals' eyes and minds. If we can attract Unions, Organizations and some Intellectuals besides even some Billionaires, we have built some momentum. A cultural phenomenon at least. Will attract more serious people this way who are watching, checking things out. There is a lot of sympathy out there for this cause.

[-] 1 points by dafremen (15) 2 years ago

Some of us have been articulating these points for decades. Some of us have been waiting to speak forever. Some of us are so good at improv and so well informed on the subject that we are ready to tear them apart in debate.

Love from your brother,

daf

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 2 years ago

Amendment to Constitution: A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person and, therefore, not entitled to the rights and protections afforded to a person as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

[-] 1 points by thomas888 (4) 2 years ago

I agree Corporations are not humans therefore a corporation is not a person.

[-] 1 points by thomas888 (4) 2 years ago

When we get a new congress in washington then it can be changed about this error about corporations ,They are not human therefore not a person.Uncle Sam wants to fire congress. All of them and get new representives in congress that are wont be bought off by the special interest/tainted by corruption like they are now.Start fresh with a new congress.

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

I covered this in another thread, sorry to repost. By the company being an entity, it allows it certain protections for it's owners. The big one being eliminating personal liability. If you ever want to own a business, trust me this is a BIG gotcha. Unless you're cool with someone sueing your business and taking your home.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Agreed....the legal form of a corp must be revoked. At least for a time, and revised. Corporations do very good things because they organize a mass of people onto a common goal (OWS Corp.!), but the legality of it being a person and at the same time not a person when it comes to accountability is an atrocity.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Just a question. If you cancel student loans, what happens to all the money that whoever gave you the loans (the government, a bank, the college's own loan department) lent you? Does it just disappear?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Yes. We can readily absorb this loss as a society, quite easy in fact. We just generated more "money" than has ever been in existence in a few short years. I think it is time to make some of it disappear.

[-] 1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 2 years ago

The government-subsidized organization in charge of student loans would be insolvent. And since "cancel all student loans" would make the government responsible for the crash, United States civil law would require the government to do a bailout at the cost of like a hundred billion dollars.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Many banks went insolvent, were bailed out, and are now profitable again in a very short period of time.

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

The TARP funds given to banks were not used. The banks just held onto it and paid it back when the FED came calling. The purpose originally was to get the banks to give out more credit (which from a financial prespective is pretty dumb as they were already overleveraged.. they were hoping for a hail mary to stimulate the economy) Point being, while the banks were given large sums of money, they really just took the cash to calm the market. Which pretty much worked. And then they gave the govt back the money plus interest. Disolving student loans, would just be like saying "oh banks btw, I know you have everyone defaulting on home loans in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year, yeah.. everyone is now going to default on thier student loans and the govt isn't going to back them like they promised. Good luck."

Then banks stop giving out loans, go belly up, and business really gets f'd because there is no entity to carry thier debts. Good luck buying a car then.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

A bank can go completely insolvnant and rebound. The government allows them to live (Zombie Banks). I think we are smart enough to come up with even better options.

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

I agree. But what do you propose, if we don't have banks, and if banks aren't backed by the FED?

At some point you just end up with a different bank. In hindsight, I think we should have let them fail when they had thier chance. Hell BOA still has it's chance to fail. Lets see how that pans out.

I digress. If your deposits aren't backed by the issuing entity (FED) then why would I want to put money in them?

I've often thought we should look at a global credit system, but who would own it, how would we translate and arbitrate (look up arbitrage) between known currencies, especially when countries value and devalue thier money to suit them?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Credit unions are awesome. A non-profit bank!! Also, the government could establish a bank as well and run it non-profit. No one should own a bank. It is a tool used to facilitate trade. Governments are quite capable of running banks, it is not rocket science (currently racket science). If you remove profit from banking you eliminate a whole slew of problems. This is not an endorsement of communism, I hold that private property is a key to a good society. Certain things like energy distribution and banking need to be nationalized however.

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

Credit Unions are awesome, but credit unions are a liability because they have no large financial interest and hence are much more strict about lending.

Banking in it's simplest term yes it could be ran by the govt, but what about investment banking, what about your retirement? Do you want the Gov't investing in your long term savings? The other problem with the banks being ran by the gov't is there is no diversity (which is what caught up with us in 2009). Several key banks gew to such enormity that when they risked insolvency it scared every institution and investor worldwide. So much so that for the first time since the Great Depression the Gov't basically threw money at them and eventually risked even greater insolvency by forcing several already heavily overleaveraged banks to purchase and absorb other banks. Granted now were in an even worse perdicament, because instead of 10 overleavereaged banks you have 5 even more overleavereaged banks with greater risk for financial meltdown. And all this to give the allusion of solvency to the investors so wall street would settle enough to prevent a catastrophe. Still it was all an allusion.

As far as nationalized energy, we almost already have that. Natural Gas and Electricity is heavily regulated by the gov't. The companies have to ask to increase, and the have to show sound documentation that shows the increase is warranted (usually due to increased cost for the transporter). I work in the energy industry and have a very good understanding of this. A complete gov't takeover of the energy industry would mean the largest single piece of income and jobs for the american people would no longer exist in the private sector.

And if its gas prices you're concerned with, talk to the guys trading using Futures instruments. Now that should be illegal. It's a self fullfilling prophecy that always goes up as long as people think it should go up. Take some time and educate yourself on financial instruments. Everyone should. The financial markets are some very interesting beasts and some of the tools they use to generate revenue are nothing more than gambling.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Fidelity does a damn good job of managing investments and they have not been involved in any shady dealings. In fact, during the 2008 crash I was making serious profit on my 401k by investing in the right funds. Not shorting mind you, you can't really do that with a 401k. Credit Unions also exist in the current envrionment, they could be bolstered to provide more lending. Besides, their lending practices are sound, isn't thata what we want?

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

I agree. I'm just saying both serve different purposes. Banks generally have larger capital investment from large corporations, so they lend larger sums of money, as opposed to Credit Unions are limited in that regard.

Keep in mind, what the banks were doing bundling risky debt with not risky debt up to 2008, was not illegal. And to this day, I don't think it is. I'd have to check with my wife. (she's the genius behind most of my knowledge in financial markets) There are a few instances (Countrywide) where there was illegal actions going on, but the broad brush of toxic assets were the result of deregulation to help those without the ability to come up with the capital to get a home loan to purchase a home. That greatly increased the risk of those notes. And eventually when the market shifted, people defaulted in masses.

Where we went wrong is the gov't tried to fix it. Instead of letting the markets collapse, we put a crutch under the banks that will some day fail again if something doesn't change. I think Banks know this. Look at what BOA is doing, they're getting out of the high-risk game and getting back to banking. If they can do it, they will be one valueable company in the future. Big if though.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

The also currently favor lending to corporations over people. Corps often issues bonds, or get loans from banks. They are beholden to the banks for both of these capital sources. If a corp gets blackballed, it is lights out. Banks have way too much power and are in too many schemes that regular people do not know about. Their power is immense, beyond the current comprehension of most. It is hard to distinguish between a good bank and a shady investment firm because of deregulation. Glass-Steagall needs reinstated. There also needs to be further regulation.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

There are more options than this. You think of money as it sits in your hands. Money is VERY different when speaking of government. They create it and determine the policy over its value. Congress can invalidate debts, don't speak as though we do not completely control money. It is an invention and a tool of man.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Ah, then can you lend me $5,000,000? I want to go back to school to become a neurosurgeon. Don't worry about it, it's just a student loan. Congress can declare it null and void any time they want, so you don't have to worry, do you?

I'm sorry, but unless you abolish ALL money, then abolishing a debt makes money, which in our current economy represents buying power as gained by working (or non-working, as the case of welfare goes), disappear.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

[citation needed]

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

I'm not getting the whole money-buying power-working thing from anywhere I can cite. It's just from personal observation: I must pay money to buy things. Thus, money is my buying power. I must work for my employer to for them to pay me money. Ergo I gain buying power by working.

The top paragraph was me being facetious.

[-] 2 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

On this same note, while the gov't does have the power to dilute debts and inflate and deflate the corrolated value of the dollar, historically the US has chosen to do this very little as it provides a greater amount of trust to the world buyers. If we became willy-nilly with how we value our monitary system, it could make for one hell of a global financial mess.

Keep in mind when it comes to financial instruments and monetary value, it's really about trust. Without trust in the dollar, it's just a piece of paper. And if it's just a piece of paper, we're in a world of hurt.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

i'm definitely not a conservative, and in theory, I agree with you. But even though the republican party is the most blatant offender when it comes to corporate money, the democratic party is under significant influence too. Neither wins my vote.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

but by not voting how are you helping ows or anything

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

A constitutional amendment. This is one of my old posts:

The political game is rigged. Two parties control the entire political system, but besides rhetoric, are they really all that different? Impossibly high barriers prevent third parties from every gaining ground in the election process. Namely, the fact that we have what is called a WINNER-TAKES-ALL SYSTEM. It basically means that whichever party/candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes in a state gets all of those votes. For example, California gets 55 electoral votes. If one party gets just 28 votes (which is barely a majority), all 55 votes count to that party/candidate in the general election. This effectively means that ANY VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY IS ALWAYS A WASTED VOTE. What we need is proportional representation (used in Europe). This would allow for a multitude of parties to flourish, effectively breaking the status quo of our stagnant political system and allowing for real, significant change. Additionally, a dynamic political system such as this would by its very nature SEVERELY LIMIT THE POWER CORPORATIONS HAVE OVER OUR POLITICAL PARTIES. As more factors define our election process, it gets exponentially more difficult for corporations to influence our government. Now naturally, nothing has ever been done by Congress to really institute this kind of reform, as it is obviously against the interests of the two parties to have their positions of power so radically altered. But I ask you this: How many times during an election do you vote for the LESSER OF TWO EVILS? How many times have you wanted to vote for an independent candidate, only to recoil at the prospect of a WASTED VOTE? The only way to win the game, is to change the rules! Bring about change by DEMANDING that congress institute political party reform... They say we don't have a defined goal. We do... To break the STATUS QUO. This single demand, by itself, could change everything.

This provides some good information on the third party and the barriers it faces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

you are wasting time with a third party

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

you miss the point of this post. Yes, the third party is a waste now, but that can easily change if we turn to a proportional representation system (more than one party can win, they can form coalitions with each other if they wish). This way all views get heard instead of different interests all struggling to get the two main parties' ears.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

No parties are on my side sir. I will not ascribe to either, period.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

how will that help the middle class

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

The middle class is rejecting both sides. Why do we need them? People can govern themselves, that is what this is all about man.

[-] 1 points by xk2600 (14) from Tulsa, OK 2 years ago

What you describe is Anarchy in its most literal sense. Not a bad way to live, the only thing between me and death is how much ammunition I have. It ain't for the faint of heart though.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

read the signs and talk to the protesters from day one ows have said tax the rich and get money out of politics never get rid of government stop the republican lies

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

these demands must be quantified in a salient manner though, right now it is not working, I have seen the signs, most of them suck

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

you are not ows move along

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I'll go if you go

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

Ive got work to do here

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

same here bro

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 2 years ago

do yourself a favor and get the GOP nuts off you re face so you can see that you are ows

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

GOP nuts? wow, don't know what u are talking about. I don't have a party. In fact I view them as irrelevant. Were we in person, I would shake your hand.

[-] 1 points by Lork (285) 2 years ago

If Obama works for me then why did he just sell me out?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/1013/Trade-deals-South-Korea-finally-wins-FTA-with-the-US-but-hurdles-remain

You do have a point though. This place just got bought out by Libertarians.

[-] 1 points by Rmarks1701 (103) 2 years ago

Cancel student loans? I love this one, everyone points to my homeland (england) with it's free education system. Well it is free up until you turn 18, after that you have to take out student loans in order to pay for your degree..... However if we cancel all student loans, who is going to pay for the costs of the education? the tax payers? Considering the costs of education that is actually going to take more money out of peoples pockets, and those people who have been trying hard to save up money to send their own kids to university so that they can get ahead, they will find themselves with even LESS money to be able to do that.

All canceling student loans will do is actually INCREASE the disparity between the rich and poor, after all it will only be the rich who can afford to pay for their kids to go.

instead a better idea would be to limit the maximum costs of an education to a reasonable figure based on the average wage a person earns in that field of study and the length of time it would take to pay back (say 10 years).

As to foreclosures, if someone went out to buy a house they knew they could not afford, then they deserve to lose it. Plain and simple. Cancelling foreclosures will actually drive the costs of houses down to a point where all housing would be free and there would bo no more building of houses (and would cost jobs).

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Cancel outstanding debt....it has been done before in America. We can do it again. Geesh.

[-] 1 points by BrentAllsop (4) from Sandy, UT 2 years ago

We need to do more than just this. If you have a good wiki with camps based open survey tool, that can build as much consensus as possible so everyone can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, you can do a LOT more than just one liners.

see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/127

Brent Allsop

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I see what you are trying to do Brent. But, I'm a software developer, I navigate complicated systems every day and get paid for it. The wiki is too complicated for people. It has to be Facebook simple for regular people. I'm looking at this and trying to decipher what is going on, but I feel a learning curve not only for myself but a rather steep one for the average intellect. I've also been pointed to a video by Peter Joseph which is good stuff, but lost on most people unless they are on their own independent quest for enlightenment. Most people are not, and we need them to make this movement stick.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Things are moving VERY quick. Whatever the matter, things need organized and fast.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

Simpler, I think: http://occupywallst.org/forum/end-corporate-bribes-do-we-need-any-other-demand/ (note, this is my own post, but I am not the only one saying this)

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Whatever the demand....it must be enforceable, but this seems cloudish. Specific demands that spell immediate relief for people who are struggling. I only seek to gain support and lodge demands at the same time. I want to end lobbying and initiate campaign reform but this is way too technical for the masses and it doesn't say RELIEF.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

I don't think it will be instant, regardless of how a demand is addressed, but your points are good. Still, I think ending corporate lobbying is a really big one, and you will find others agreeing. Perhaps is it is more immediate than you think?

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

The main criticism is that the "dirty hippies" and "college students" have no demands and that they are whining. I only seek to address these issues. The demand points I list are valid and doable and benefit everyone. They also speak to all Americans who will gladly offer their material and moral support if you address them.

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

Yeah, we have a terrible image in some of the media. I re-read your points. I believe people could file for bankruptcy as well, especially students, because the lenders can't go "re-claim" the education after it's been taught and the student defaults.

Another poster-type phrase that comes to mind is "Re-enact Glass-Steagall. Make wall street games illegal."

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

You can not file bankruptcy on student loans. A bunch of people did it in the 70's and 80's and "they" made it illegal. Yes, Glass was a good thing. Our great Democrat overlords, the party some claim is for the people, canceled the law with the stroke of a pen (Clinton). NO, this is not an endorsement of Republicans!

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 2 years ago

Too bad, I guess defaulting on student loans is a bit obvious. I didn't have a problem paying them myself. They don't quite seem predatory, except with the huge cost of tuition that mysteriously skyrocketed.

I only hear bad news about our politicians these days. That's good news it's getting out there :)

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

I don't mind my loans either. But, there is an element of society that has taken on huge debt in student loans and it will strangle them and hamper their success in many ways.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 2 years ago

Good thoughts but I'm not so sure that these are getting to the root of the problem... Please watch for clarification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX1N3opw5eI

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

im watching the video now missy check out the Tarply interview...the man is very sharp and has been analyzing these dynamics for a long time.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

Lets knock off the cruft, then get to the root. People want to see releif now. Strong organized crowds who demand specific results now. We have already debated cancelling foreclosures (during rough times), many have suggested cancelling student loans. The student loan debt is crazy!

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 2 years ago

The 1% transaction tax has been under "debate" by analysts and the general population for years now. There is plenty to be found on the subject. Try Google.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by NoMatter (45) 2 years ago

A reasonable wealth distribution. That addresses all the sub-issues.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

What do you consider reasonable?

[-] 1 points by NoMatter (45) 2 years ago

There can be many degrees of "reasonable." It certainly does not have to be equal. But, FYI, if it was equal, every man, woman and child would have a NET worth of $180,000. A family of 4 would have a net worth of $720,000. There is plenty of wealth at the top - quite enough to where health care issues, as a problem, would represent a problem the size of a pimple on an elephant's ass.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

So... if you re-distribute the wealth in a "reasonable" way... where does the incentive come from to do well in finances? Why should you work harder than anyone else if you know that if your income is over the "reasonable" level that it's going to be taken and given to someone who's income is under said level?

Oh, and by the facts I've been able to find, the net worth of every person would be about $46,768, not $180,000. That is, if you're talking about the United States.

[-] 1 points by NoMatter (45) 2 years ago

Net wealth in America is $55 trillion. Divide that number by the population. What do you get? Look at the top, right graph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

As to your first point, consider it like a game of Monopoly. Once it is obvious one of the players will win and the other players start going broke and dropping out, if they want to keep playing longer, the winner either gives money to the other players, or he cashes everything back in, and they start a new game. The smart, hard-working and lucky ones will not have so much problem getting it all back. That will always be their incentive.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

Can you link me to a site that has the 2011 data? I must be using old data. I've re-checked my math, and, while much closer to your number, keeps undercutting it (I got about $163,000 in today's dollars, using the most optimistic numbers).

And as to the other point, consider that in a game of monopoly, you don't need to win to eat. If you win the game, you're probably not going to get any sort of physical substantial reward. There's no real incentive to win, except for having fun. Comparing life to Monopoly is like saying you can commit murder and oust yourself with no negative consequences because you did it in Clue.

But taking the monopoly analogy: if that's the case, you have even less of a reason to succeed. Nobody's dealing with everyday life "because they think it's fun". They're dealing with it because the other choice is death. Now, say that you do "restart" the game. Know what kind of message that says to those who lost the first time? "Well, I don't really need to try to win this time because if I lose again we can just start another game!" And know what that says to the guy who won? "Oh crap, now I've got to do it all over, and we'll probably just have to start another game when the guy loses again! Why even try?"

Even if you only do it as a one-time thing, that won't be the end of it. The kids/grandkids of those who played, who later lost, will have an even stronger claim. "But you did it for our parents/grandparents. We deserve the same chance."

[-] 1 points by NoMatter (45) 2 years ago

$163,000 is close enough. That's every man, woman and child. Think "family."

As to billionaires needing to work to eat, I don't think so. I'm not worried about them in the least. They have numerous lobbyists, lawyers, CEO's and minions to take care of them much better and far more effectively than you and I ever could. I worry about those who REALLY need to work to eat.

[-] 1 points by ConfusedSceptic (80) 2 years ago

I thank you for your worry.

Yes, I am one of those who works to live paycheck to paycheck. This is not because I'm being shafted, (although I'd rather have a full 40 hours a week that the 36-38 I usually get) but because I chose a job that I like, even though it doesn't pay as much as I'm capable of earning. But that is all beside the point.

I'm not saying we have to take care of the billionaires. I'm saying that immediately leveling the playing field is a great way to squash desire to do well. If we can all gain that much money by letting the system get so unbalanced that some great arbiter equalizes the money, the why work when we can let the rich people just get rich again and wait until another arbitration comes down the line?

Oh, and probably the best way to get all those millionaires and billionaires to leave the country is to tell them that we want to doll out their money to everyone else.

(By the way, I never said that billionaires needed to work to eat.)

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 2 years ago

What exactly count as wall street transactions? Why exactly should wall street be taxed more? As a punishment for causing the crash?