Forum Post: This is not a conservative or liberal movement...
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 8:25 a.m. EST by astramari
(57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Taking private funding out of politics is something, that as TRUE Americans, we should all be able to agree. Wouldn't you rather the representative in your district and running your country vote for what the majority wants based on conscience and democracy rather than the accumulation of wealth?
Yes, on the subject of taking funding out of politics--which is going to be done, how, exactly, since the Supreme "Yes, it really is about conservative or liberal" Court decided to enable corporations to provide as much money as they want to sway politics?
On other subjects? It's still very much left and right in terms of helping those in need:
This week, Senate Democrats will break up President Obama's jobs bill and begin voting on the pieces separately. First up is the $35 billion to state and local governments, $30 billion of which is earmarked for retain and rehiring teachers and $5 billion of which is meant to go to public-safety personnel. Senate Dems are proposing to pay for it with a 0.5 percent tax surcharge on income over $1,000,000 a year. Senate Republicans are proposing to filibuster. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says the bill is further proof that Democrats "are still focused on the same temporary stimulus spending that's failed to solve our jobs crisis." (source: Ezra Klein)
The 99% movement? I'm all for it, 100%. But in the meantime, the real-world battles of policy and distribution of scarce resources are still raging.
Ron Paul says he'll only accept $39,000 annually as President. Currently the job brings in $400,000. That's quite a pay cut, I wonder if any of the other presidential contenders for 2012 will jump on that bandwagon. This is the type of thing that attracts so many independents, libertarians, fiscally conservative democrats, and constitutional-republican people to Ron Paul.
The neo-conservative war-mongering Bailout voting leaders on the right are afraid of Ron Paul because he doesnt represent their status-quo. (More War More Spending.)
And the Left of course wont listen because, i dont know, can they acknowledge someone from 'the other team' who has done so much to expose the fraud and predicted everything happening now, decades ago? We'll see. And of course most Dem leaders like to fund more war too, and write more spending bills. Of course.
A lot of republican (PEOPLE) voted for Obama, to end the wars, stop the corporate lobbyists, etc etc, Obama talked the talk. many many many republican PEOPLE responded positively. So many came out in droves for the man because he had all the right words, didnt he.
Now its the Lefts turn to listen to Ron Paul. He has put his money where his mouth is for 20+ years. He has actually done what he said he would do. He has tried for a full audit of the federal reserve for decades. He predicted the crash long long long ago. His predictions continue to come true. He has much economic wisdom to share and a philosophy of Personal Liberty.
America needs a doctor. Ron Paul is the man. He's also a vet. Our military has donated more money to Ron Paul than anybody else. Support Out Troops. They know he WILL end the Wars. They want to come home. Something is wrong over there. Bring them home. 10 years of this is way more than what is 'more than enough'. Bring those war-dollars home.
No more war-dollars! Support those troops for real. Bring'em all home.
Ron Paul paycut? LOL. Nonsense red herring politicking. Actually, the president--the most powerful man on the planet--deserves a very good payday. Becuase, well, he's the most powerful man on the planet. $400,000 is definitely reasonable. Because RP is already rich--and has collected his Congressional salary for years now without "giving that back"--he doesn't need the money.
Ron Paul is anti-government everything--that is extremely neo-conservative. I live in Vermont. If Ron Paul had been president during Hurricane Irene, there'd have been no federal assistance whatsoever. He would gut our ability to help those in need after natural disasters, because, well, as he said recently "Don't live there." So, don't live, where? In Vermont--also known as, what, "Hurricane Alley"?
Ron Paul is a neo-liberalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) This movement is anti-neoliberalist (http://occupywallst.org/article/10-15-call-to-action/)
If you don't understand why "the left" isn't listening to Ron Paul and his supporters, it's because while both agree on the war, there really isn't that much more that they actually agree on.
He believes in a laissez "un"faire government that is basically impotent. For a doctor, his healthcare policy of "well, if you can't afford it, your neighbors can hold a bake sale" is radical and dangerous.
On the economy, letting the "free market" decide is exactly what burned down the place in 2008. The Ayn Rand approach advocated by Alan Greenspan and his lackies during Reagan and Clinton set the stage for the derivatives gambling and housing crisis that led us to the ongoing nightmare we face today.
While #OWS should be open to everyone, it is not it that needs to reach out to others, it is others who must reach out to it. Ron Paul believes in an America that doesn't exist--and hasn't existed since 1900.
If Ron Paul had been president during WWII, we would all be speaking German now (or all of Europe would be) because he wouldn't have commandeered the economy to fight the German war machine.
If Ron Paul had been president during the 1960s, there'd be no Internet today. Why? Because he wouldn't have funded the DARPA computer networking research that made that possible.
Oh, and if his policies had been in place in general, there'd have been no mail service, because again, that's government intrusion!! Go tell your mailperson what a parasite he or she is!
And finally, #OWS members are very very leery--and should be--of someone who shouts about how the government shouldn't be on our backs, but apparently, it's fine for government to intrude into women's wombs when it comes to reproductive rights. That's more than a little hypocritical.
There may be areas of commonality, but the truth is, Ron Paul is a radical with a vision of the United States that has never existed and runs counter to the core beliefs outlined by the #OWS.
Well, I think your best argument is on abortion. But even on that issue he simply believes in the states right to decide. Its not the federal governments job to tell you someone cant have an abortion. That should be decided by the people of the each state. The laws of the states are supposed to reflect the will of the people living in those states. American law is not supposed to be uniform from coast to to coast.
If you allow the federal government to say who can and who cannot be married, then when the repubs get in office, they can turn it ALL around, back onto YOU because you gave the Federal Government the authority to decide yay OR nay.
Thats why states rights are so important. States can refuse to enforce mandates that doesnt represent the people of that state. See what I mean Bro?
Most federal laws should be given back to the states to decide. Let the PEOPLE vote
...RIGHT?... (Direct Democracy hmm?)
Another example is the speed limit. Its not coincidence its 55mph in every sovereign state across our country. Again I ask, Shouldn't the states have had the right to govern themselves there in that law? America was not designed to be uniform in its laws. Power is supposed to flow from the bottom up. Not from the top down. Thats why we HAVE states.
I just support states rights and that means allowing the people in my district and state to represent the peoples will. the Peoples will, state by state should be above the uniform dictates of federal law from coast to coast. People have more chance of getting through to their local politicians to declare you have the right to decide to get an abortion than you do federal government if they enforce the opposite someday. That's True Libertarian Philosophy there Ron Paul is talking about, so try to be careful and fair.
When you give the feds the power to say you can do something, they gain the power to decide you can or cannot do that something, period. So protect your freedoms and let your county, your district, your state decide. That way when your opposing political party gets into the white house or controls congress, your states rights are protected becuase you didnt give them away to federal government. See what I'm saying?
Just let the people vote for or against these wars, these bailouts, these federal drug wars, these raw milk laws, marriage laws, let the people in their states vote. We don't need federal government to give us permission to get married.
Its not federal governments job to tell states one way OR the other if they can have an abortion or not already. Do people want federal government to decide whether they can or they cant do these things? Do the people want to have a direct democracy or not? Like we are supposed to have? Or do we want them to have all the power, regardless if the majority of the people vote for it or not. I want communities to decide these things, not federal government. They are supposed to be servants doing the PEOPLES will, not the other way around, correct? Not imposing their federal will onto a majority OR the minority. Its about the Individual. And the Individual States and Districts and Individual Communities. Right?
Or perhaps if its just something YOU want, you are willing to let federal government to enforce it over everyone's state everywhere regardless if it reflects the peoples will within that state, or that district or community. Is that what your saying?
I believe in freedom and liberty and the ability of the people to direct the representatives of their states to decide for themselves what that state wants or needs. States should be allowed to govern by the consent of the people within their states and local communities, without federal government getting in the way. Keep federal government out of it. Yes I'm for abortion. But I also realize its the peoples power of states rights that should do the deciding. Not the federal mandate of any one particular political party, or person.
Good luck to you my friend
Well, calling me misinformed and stating that I'm rambling is certainly your right--but I'm used to arrogance and ad hominem attacks form the likes of people like you by. Regarding abortion? Yes, I understand quite well. It's not ANY government's right to determine what a woman can and can't do with her body. It's a distinction without a difference. You can hide behind a strict interpretation of the constitution all you want on that issue--and really, I wish you all the best of luck with it. :D
You offer no contrary response to my points, only snark--again, standard operating procedure from the uber-simplification brigade. But in all seriousness, if you can't address my points, then how do you think you'll be able to parlay with most of the people in the #OWS? Do you think that my views are in the minority? (Hint: They aren't.)
And btw, you should educate yourself. Do you even know what the #OWS is for? Well, if you think you do, then you read this official news post from #OWS from October 15, below, then read the definition of neo-liberalism:
October 15th Call to Action Posted Oct. 14, 2011, 11:08 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Over the last 30 years, the 1% have created a global economic system - neoliberalism (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
Neoliberalism is everywhere, gutting labor standards, living wages, social contracts, and environmental protections. It is "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." It is a system that ravages the global south and creates global financial crisis - crisis in Spain, in Greece, in the United States. It is a system built on greed and thrives on destablizing shocks.
It allows the 1% to enrich themselves by impoverishing humanity.
This has to stop! We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice. We must change, we must evolve.
On October 15th the world will rise up as one and say, "We have had enough! We are a new beginning, a global fight on on all fronts that will usher in an era of shared prosperity, respect, mutual aid, and dignity."
Here's a summary of the definition of neo-liberalism that this official #OWS:
Neoliberalism is a market-driven[1] approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that stresses the efficiency of private enterprise, liberalized trade and relatively open markets, and therefore seeks to maximize the role of the private sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the country.
Does this sound familiar to you? A little bit different from the whole "end the war, end the fed" chanting that I hear from you guys. This is why I stated that there are deep philosophical differences between what you want and what #OWS wants. And btw, people like you--condescending, arrogant people who don't know how to make an argument and try to attack those they disagree with?--you only steel my resolve to ensure you are not part of this....
So, maybe this isn't about "left and right," anymore, but it definitely is about philosophical differences, and dude, there are MANY.
Personally, that works for me; and every time I deal with condescending mopes like you, it just reminds of how difficult it would ever be to overcome them. If you can't debate with me, and I'm pretty good at it, then you really have no shot with the rest of this crowd--most of whom are very wary of you...
Sorry about the 'rambling' comment and and misinformed thing, sometimes passion doesn't mix well with politics ;) We're all in this together though and I bet we agree on more than things than the confines of this thread or our time allows us to explore today.
Still, you dont speak for OWS collectively, nor I, or anyone else. There are a lot of views out there, and Im willing to wager that Ben Bernakes monetary policy is something WE ALL can agree is flawed. Can we unite there at least?
By the way, who do you think the 1% is? Just wondering. Name one.
I don't speak for #OWS. But I believe I do know what the movement's goals are, and the vast majority of them run counter to the "rugged individualist, state's rights" agenda supported by folks like you. Nothing personal, of course, and I've tried to make this an unemotional discussion, in general: You're entitled to your views, I just don't think that they're in alignment with most of the views (but not all, obviously), of the #OWS. I could be wrong.
The fed and monetary policy are most assuredly issues on the table. But they are not the priority issues. And neither is "ending the fed." Most people aren't ready to return to the "gold standard" for a lot of reasons I wont' go into here, but suffice to say, read up on the key issues, and then bring them to the table, rather than having an agenda item and trying to bring it to the top of the list.
The Koch Brothers. Are. In. The 1%. Did that past your snarktest? That's one; so, there, I've answered your question, which is 100% more answers to questions than you've had the respect to provide to me. And btw, it's more than just the 99%, it's also about the people in the 99% who support the 1%, either knowingly or unknowingly. And the folks who push a laissez (un)faire agenda? They're part of that group because they want complete deregulation.
I just posted this about Ron Paul, so, maybe you'll want to go and throw some snark around there? :D
Peace.
lol