Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Three (3) Point List of Real, Actionable, Feasible Demands

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 7:16 a.m. EST by Justice4All (285)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

(1) Moratorium on Foreclosures for all Residential, Single-Family Homes;

(2) Loan Modifications for Residential, Single-Families Homes Whose Values are Less than What is Owed; and

(3) Student Loan Amnesty.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by PrettyBird (3) 8 years ago

1.Get the money out of politics (repeal Citizens United; private funding of elections).

  1. Reform banking (reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act).
  2. Increase revenue (let the Bush tax cuts expire). Also, we have an extremely important election coming up in one year. The Republicans who have already been bought by corporate money are working hard to limit voting opportunities for the poor and people of color. They are doing this by creating laws that require us to have photo IDs in order to vote. Voting is still our best method to force change. We must do all we can to help these people get what they need in order to vote in next year's election. And, we need to do all we can to educate people. Our media and our politicians have already been bought and cannot be trusted for truthful information. What is the best way we can educate the disenfranchised and help them to vote?
[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

My only worry about "money in politics" is that it always finds a way of making back into politics.

Yes. Reinstate Glass-Steagall.

Agreed. Let Bush Tax Cuts Expire.

Right. Republicans Want to Prevent Us From Voting. (aside: how could anyone be a Republican?)

The Best Way to Help Get the Disenfranchised to Vote is What We are Doing: (a) demonstrating, (b) help them register, (c) assist them with their transportation needs. We can do this. If you have a car (with gas) we can help people vote!

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

I would also say incentives for our entrepreneurs (the REAL job creators) to create new businesses.

[-] 1 points by grepcat (121) 8 years ago

"Loan Modifications for Residential, Single-Families Homes Whose Values are Less than What is Owed; and"

This was addressed by the HAMP fiasco.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Nope. Not funded, and many of the banks are engaging in all sorts of fraud with HAMP: not approving loan mods, demanding thousands in loan mod fees, etc.

[-] 1 points by Old1 (47) from Las Cruces, NM 8 years ago

how's that gonna happen? feasible/actionable to allow people who made decisions to assume (for 1&2) unrealistic to-good-to-be-true debts off the hook; we'd be no better than wall street. thoughtful but not enough.'we need to fix the wall street/fed problem. like it or not the only avenue is congress. argue the case with them and or replace them with friendlies ala the tea party. they took action and got results; we're waiting for genie.

[-] 1 points by rajarood (67) 8 years ago

Why should student loans be discharged while other debt remains? Are student loans more onerous or more important than credit card debt? These demands depend on making wholesale changes to a system controlled by the corpoRATocracy. Millions of individuals making personal changes would have a much more realistic chance of effecting positive change in my opinion. See this thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ideas-for-effecting-change/

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Yes. Credit card debt is unsecured debt. They really cannot do anything with credit card debt except harass you.

As to student loan debt, you cannot discharge it and the collectors have great powers for it.

[-] 1 points by rajarood (67) 8 years ago

True, but is it fair to burden others with the student loan debt. I was four square against the bankster bailouts: two wrongs don't make a right. Top down solutions won't be realized. Learn from Ghandi and his dealing with the British Empire. Make personal, non-violent changes. http://occupywallst.org/forum/ideas-for-effecting-change/

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Extinguishing student loan debt is necessary for the economy to recover.

[-] 1 points by rajarood (67) 8 years ago

Perhaps a modern day Civilian Conservation Corps could be established which would give jobs to those with student loan debt. Work down student loan debt rebuilding the country's infrastructure. How many 99ers have student loan debt? I don't see any future in hoping these loans simply go away. It doesn't seem any more like the American way than bailing out the banksters.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Great idea. I support it. So many of us are under/unemployed. I know many people with law degrees from top law schools unemployed. A friend of mine has perfect credentials: Univ of Chi undergrad and Northwestern Univ. J.D. and Tax LLM. No job. Interviews here-and-there. But no offers.

We have an ENORMOUS unemployment problem that is being ignored.

[-] 1 points by rajarood (67) 8 years ago

There are wholesale economic changes occurring. Your acquaintances may have to teach school or mow yards or be an online expert or join the military. There are unemployed architects, builders, house-flippers, you name it. I don't think we want to live in a society where the government guarantees employment and controls the workforce, however. Your reply spurred my memory. Are your friends expecting too much of our post-industrial economy? Expert physicians in Cuba make what, US $150/ month? Please consider watching the following prescient video from 2008:


Deutsch & Cramer One-on-One Mon 20 Oct 08 | 12:00 AM ET This is the dawn of a new age–a changing of priorities, fortunes and trust. How can each of us become unstuck and begin to move again toward a new definition of the American Dream? Donny Deutsch and Jim Cramer break down what it means to you.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Right. You say a lot of truth. The Dean of the Univ. of Chi Law recently at a luncheon with all the big firms was saying, "we have many alum unemployed, we need you to hire them."

Let me tell you that this economy is much (much) worse than people think.

You are right that . . . life is changing permanently. The "new" America is 1% domination in medicine, law, taxation, services, etc.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

I also agree with the medicare for all.

[-] 1 points by rajarood (67) 8 years ago

Or maybe a French type system?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Ideally, yes. Everyone should be covered, but if people want to purchase supplemental insurance on the open market, they should be allowed to.

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 8 years ago

here's thre (eincluding the march):

Here's how we can easily Reform Wall Street: Take away their powers "once again." And a Million People March to Capitol Hill will help get it done!

For example, "We are here Congress because we want to REINSTATE the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1aPEc3wX which helped saved our country from the Great Depression by preventing investment companies, banks, and insurance companies from merging and becoming large brokerage firms; instead of just being Banks and Insurance companies--Congress why can't you learn a history lesson from 1929? Btw, why did most of you vote for its final repeal in 1999? http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/19/shattering-the-glass-steagall-act (2nd story here)

Think about where we are now, it all started in 1999 with lawmakers like Senator Phil Gramm who helped make it all legal gambling casinos: CNN's The Ten Most Responsible for Economy Collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKQOxr2wBZQ&feature=related

Furthermore, we also want you to CHANGE the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000 BACK to where it was before 2000, which since has deregulated energy markets and consequently allowed for such scams as The Enron Loophole; whereas in the early 2000's Enron Corp. was charging 250 bucks plus for a kilowatt hour...They all when to jail for this. But, the Enron loophole is still not closed, for example, allowing speculators to resell barrels of oil over and over again before it reaches the gas station owner. It's basically legal gambling at our expense. What were those lawmakers thinking then? What are you thinking now? Either do the right think, or you're part of the 1%."

Why are oil prices high? The Enron Loophole. Former head of U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission speaks to Congress on the high price of oil--and he's not happy about energy deregulations.



Rolling Stones Reporter: Truth about Goldman Sachs--how they have cornered the markets--basically, The Enron Loophole and the Repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waL5UxScgUw

Let's get focused and bring back Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, they got it right 1933, we don't need to REINVENT the wheel because bringing this Act back will create an even playing field once again....and let's finally Close the Enron Loophole, which allowed Enron to charge what they wanted for energy; they went to jail for this; but no one closed the loophole, why? Re-election Monies from the banks and oil companies! The writing is on the wall.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

ultimately, you are not in a position and nobody is to brainstorm up mere demands. demands are stupid and infantile. complaints and then problem defintions and then detailed problem solutions are great. that requires time and homework to generate, not bong hits and then a brainstormed imagine yourself as emperor of the world Scrawl. this kind of thing does not help the movement, it just gives the powers that be ammo against us and prevents meaningful conversations which have depth or open source research and problem solving because you and everyone else imagines we can just skip all the steps and churn out "demands." Listen to the other people in the movement who are wisely saying NO to demands lists. I have demands, they are to the movement itself- thats where the real game is.

"Would you rather have war in this land? Do not confront me work with me...Civil unrest could very well lead to civil war... This list will prevent civil war.... Infantile, we are all infants in conciseness, which explains your poor choice of words.... You should be telling me how to make the list better not how it will never work."

? gawdoftruth (Santa Barbara, CA) 1 points 0 seconds ago

no, you need to drop making lists of demands. period. until you do open source research and science centered problem solving with other people, you have nothing to say worth repeating. your brain storming in ignorance. it sounds really really awesome to you- but for many people your tone def. Making demands is itself a sign of infantilism. period. Take responsibility and start working the problems in a deep and real way. I should not have to run through this further with you. This is a ludicrous sense of direction, it is not helping the movement and its not useful or meaningful for long term strategy in fact all it is is a giant set of red rings to give the pundits a clear target.

I don't want war. how i stop the war is to work the problems in a deep way and address the war. Not make demands. I'm an adult, not a seven year old, not a hostage taker, not a terrorist. I don't make demands, i communicate evolutionary truths. If ten thousand people follow my example we can have an evolution. If you run around like a bunch of punk alpha dominant azzholes, i promise you, all of your demands will lead to nothing but scorn and alienation.

but i can expect that we will find good solid means to that end instead of self sabotaging means to that end. Change your communication strategy. These are main political issues which you find to be critical. Now ask people to join you in reasearching them and working on these problems open source. You think you have the end product. instead you have a starting point. remove the "demands" from "demands" and replace with "these are the issues i want to discuss which seem critical to me." There you go. Thats the real process. "Demands " is itself what big Bruddah wants precisely because that makes us the ones holding wall street hostage. Domestic terrorism even when called non violent is still in essence domestic terrorism. Terrorists issue demands. Evolutionary patriots form think tanks.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Complaining about nothing absent a list of actionable demands is stupid.

It will accomplish nothing.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

quite the opposite, using demands identifies us as terrorists. Is detached from problem solving. gives our power in this back to them and begs them to do what we ask. Divorces ourselves from REAL right action and problem solving process, and dumble downs the conversation to below the gutter line gutter punk stupid.

what will accomplish nothing is lists of demands. what will accomplish something is direct democracy and open source think tanks.

its time to grow up and quit abdicating your responsibility. what you are demanding is in other words the work WE need to DO. asking the oligarchs to do it for you is STUPID, and it won't get a damn thing done.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

no war

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

I agree with this. Our whole budget is defense since social security is "self-funding." Americans, literally---and I mean literally---get no benefit from this failed empire.

Worse, we get no return on all of that "investment" in defense. I had a project and was getting money from investors and they all failed, I would be ashamed of myself. Oh, we are failing on project Iraq. Oh, we are failing on project Afghanistan. Oh, and we are still working on project North Korea. Oh, we are still involved and losing money on project Europe.

[-] 1 points by bohratom (22) 8 years ago

I'm game, now where is my Home I lost from foreclosure 7 years ago. Does that go before #1 or after #2?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Since title was already transferred, unfortunately there is nothing that can be done to that. I wish that there were.

[-] 1 points by angelofmercy (225) 8 years ago

You sure there isn't a 25 point plan ? lol


[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

I said "feasible" and "actionable" and "real." Getting money out of politics is not going to happen; certain interests own the system. We need demands that can be immediately implemented to improve the economy.

[-] 1 points by angelofmercy (225) 8 years ago

You missed the point. Look at the demands listed in the link.

[-] 1 points by derek (302) 8 years ago

Part of the solution is probably a basic income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Yes. People do not have enough income to SURVIVE, let alone participate in the economy by investing, starting NEW businesses (creating NEW jobs in the process), and engage in entrepreneurial activity.

[-] 1 points by George1234 (82) 8 years ago

ONE POINT PROGRAM for OWS * Tax reform.

(1). All Taxes should be abolished (2). We ask for a single simple tax collection process. Tax all bank transactions by 2%. (3). Revenue required for Government program can be easily collected by taxing all bank transactions by 2%. There is no need for multiple taxes, e.g income tax, sales tax etc, etc. (4). This process will eliminate all record keeping for individuals, businesses and organizations. No preparation and filing of tax forms. No audits (5). This will make life easy, and more enjoyable.*

We must FOCUS on one point program. Multi-point program get diluted. One Point Program is more likely to succeed.

[-] 1 points by oneoneone (1) 8 years ago

Lets focus on the true root. Three demands. One Citizen One Dollar One Vote. Once we have democracy the details can be worked out by the citizens instead of corporations. We can disagree on details but don't we all want true democracy.

[-] 1 points by thecenterpath (26) 8 years ago

Agree... OWS should focus primarily and forcefully over the next few years for a Constitutional amendment ending pay to play

[-] 1 points by TheTable (25) from San Francisco, CA 8 years ago

you have to realize that who has the right for that "One vote"?

[-] 1 points by kazoo55 (195) from Rijs, FR 8 years ago

Post your points to http://www.plainsite.org/ - the OWS forum is not adequate for posting demands. Go have a look...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23316) 8 years ago

You are focusing on symptoms of the problems here. Go the root of the problems:

Get money out of politics with public funding.

Reinstate Glass Steagall.

End the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy.

[-] 1 points by PrettyBird (3) 8 years ago

Yes! Yes! Yes! Also: repeal Citizens United v. FEC

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The problem is that money seems to always find its way into politics no matter what we do. I agree with everything you say, however, I think we need immediate action for economic recovery.

[-] 1 points by antipolitics (127) 8 years ago

(1) Bring the tax rate back to when Clinton was Pres... political fall-out be damned.

(2) Put Clinton error regulation on Banks back in place.

(3) Repeal the recent law where corporations can donate unlimited $$ anonymously.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

Wow. So now that you: 1) Bankrupted the loan industry and stopped all loans on new homes (as well as incentivized people to not pay their loans) and 2) Further stopped any new loans being made and 3) Further bankrupted our government with a ridiculous amount of forgiveness ...

Can I see your difficult demands?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

First, lenders have frozen credit and are not approving new mortgages, despite their "pre-approval" BS! You do not working in housing, but I do.

Second, the moratorium applies to foreclosures, which requires someone to be in default for a period of time. Foreclosure is a legal proceeding.

Third, a moratorium on foreclosures was implemented in the past during the Great Depression. It worked. We need it now more than ever.

Fourth, the amnesty would be funded through a Wall St. transaction tax; they have long been immune to this tax. We are taxed on all of our transactions, and it is time for them to be taxed on theirs.

Last, these demands are not difficult at all and are necessary for the housing crisis to be healed and for the economy to recover.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

I disagree with what needs to be done.

I don't think the government, in it's current form, can help the US people.

1) Lenders are approving new mortgages. Just not at the same rate as years prior. I should know -- I work as a mortgage broker.

2) Yes, okay? How does this incentivize payments?

3) Different time, different issues.

4) No, no, no. I agree with taxation, but I don't agree with just paying it back out to the people. It is the wrong message to send.


[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

It is around 1 trillion. And if we tax Wall St. on their transactions---as we are taxed on our transactions for purchasing, selling groceries, cars, houses, etc.---we can achieve this.


[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

RIGHT! And a low capital gains tax rate only encourages short-term speculation because do not invest long-term for the future. Investors say, "oh, the rate is obscenely low at 15%, might as well sell now before it goes up (as it should)."


[-] 1 points by DTX (33) from Dallas, TX 8 years ago

How about this:

1) Public financing of campaigns. (No more lobbyist dollars period.)

2) A comprehensive public health care option.

3) End the tax cuts for the rich and corporations.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

1) Yes. 2) Partially. I think a government sponsored BASIC health care plan (sniffles, polio shot, etc) is fine, but we need a secondary option.
3) Not as easy as it sounds. The tax code is a bloated, dead fish that no one wants to touch. People laugh at Cain, but that type of all-out reform is what's required. No necessarily his plan, but his drastic approach.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

I agree with (1) and (2). Public health insurance is absolutely needed. If people want to purchase supplemental insurance on the market, so be it.

I also agree completely with (3) as well.

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

I thought this movement was against wallstreet...not mainstreet....I know alot of tax payers that would be paying for student loan bailouts that had nothing to do with corporate greed....why should they pay for your loans?

Not to mention...most students (including myself) have large student loans...and even those with good jobs chose to pay them off as they have very low interest payments....are you planning to pay off their loans too..... just trying to understand your idea

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The Wall St. transaction tax would pay for the student loan amnesty.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

@Justice -

Why should it? There are plenty of other people, programs, infrastructure fixes that need funds.

Why do student loans need amnesty?

There needs to be reform. But out and out forgiveness??

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Right, the surplus proceeds from the Wall St. transaction tax will be used for other priorities as well. Absolutely.

It is time that Wall St. pays its fair share.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

But why should any tax dollar EVER go to paying off student loans?

The government's job should not be fixing anyone's mistake.

If we want to play that game - the only solution I see is the government buying all the student loans and then having students pay them off at 0% interest. It is not acceptable to have this burden shifted to our government and taxpayers.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Because Congress created this problem requiring an amnesty solution by preventing other alternatives from being available to discharge excess student loan debt. Your Congress (mine too) created this crisis by instituting draconian terms and not allowing bankruptcy as a remedy for discharging excess student loan debt.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

All you've done is complain about the loans that were signed. They didn't have to agree to the terms, they did. They could have demanded intercession then, but they didn't.

Now their decisions are hurting them. Too bad.

It simply doesn't require amnesty. It requires reform.

Now, if you said that the government would buy the loans and become the primary lender for repayment. Then you might have something.

But I disagree that complete debt forgiveness is needed.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The terms are there to stay, my friend. The contract was already executed. The government underwrites many of the loans, thereby ensuring the the banking creditor is guaranteed a profit (and a "transaction fee").

Amnesty is the only feasible solution, which would also have a spillover effect of increasing people's spending power, helping the total economy, which is desperately needed.

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

Then vote them out! by pushing any tax dollars (including wall street tax - as that will of course trickle down) you make the people pay for mistakes....not the politicians...if you want the politicians to pay...then vote evey one of them out of office......then i see your point

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

If things were easy then what the hell are you doing sitting outside for 3 weeks already...i thought the hole idea was to see what the american people were REALLY capable of achieving. so your plan is to stand up to the ruthless and relentess business men since its NOT AS EASY TO "VOTE THEM OUT"....YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.....if you care and want to make a stand....then pick the right battle and achieve somthing special but dont work your ass of for the next best thing because its not easy....or you disagree....?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

We both know that it is not as easy as "vote them out." If it were, they would be voted out. Ballot access, Board of Elections, signature requirements, costs of campaigning, cost of election lawyers - you name it.

It has become machine, two-party dominated. It is not as easy as "vote them out" - and since you seem intelligent to ME, I will presume, politely, that you already knew that.

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

So let me get this right....you think that mistakes that banks make should definitly not be forgiven (i completely agree with you on this point.....the GOVERNMENT should have NEVER BAILED OUT ANYBODY).....but you think that individuals that made mistakes should be forgiven (BAILOUT)....I would love to hear your rationale. explain to me why you or anyone else has the right to decide who's failures in life will be "saved" by the government.

if i am unemployed and i go gambling and loose $1,000 does that qualify....what if i decide to play the lottery... should i get bailed out....or lets go one step further as clearly the above two examples are clearly gambling...what if i decided to put all my money in US government bonds....should i then get bailed out when they decrease...hell i just moved back from Europe....my Euro's are down because of greece....can I suggest adding a demand for Obama to give me Euro Amnesty....not trying to give you a hard time....but isnt what you are most upset about the fact that politicians are deciding who to save and who not to save.....so why do you get to decide now?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Individuals are not being bailed out to fixed the housing crisis, which would have positive spillover effects for the total economy and begin the recovery process we desperately need.

Student loan amnesty is NECESSARY because there is no alternative: cannot be discharged in bankruptcy; high interest rate; excess of principal; and draconian collection methods. The politicians created this problem because the rules for student loan debt are unfair, unduly harsh, and require an amnesty solution.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 8 years ago

The problem with discharging student loan debt is that somebody has to pay for it, and that somebody is your fellow citizens.

I agree that those with student loans are in an unfortunate position and it is not ALL their fault, but they do have some responsibility. Our politicians made loans available to anyone with a pulse and encouraged students to take them. Their bad. We elected them, so we can share the blame on that one. Students, however, agreed to the terms of the loans and received the education. I would be willing to discuss a change in terms, such as interest rate reductions or perhaps even some reduction in principle, but outright amnesty requires me to pay for your education, to which I will not agree.

Also, something to consider about why student loans are not discharagable in bankruptcy. For a home or a car loan, there is underlying collateral which the lender can repossess if one does not pay. The lender cannot repossess your education, so they have no recourse if you default. Students right out of college typically have few assets and it would be very easy to simply file bankruptcy and discharge the loan. By the time the student was ready to buy a house, their credit would already be cleared. It would set up a situation that would encourage default and, in response, you would see student lending dry up completely. No lender would take such a horrible risk (unless, of course, the loan was backed by the government, meaning your fellow citizens would get to pay for your education).

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Pay for it through a tax on Wall Street financial transactions.

When we buy stuff, we are taxed on the transactions.

Wall St. should be taxed too like all of us are.

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 8 years ago

That may be possible. As always, the devil is in the details so any proposal would require a more thoughtful analysis than we can or should conduct on this board.

As a point of principle I will say, though, that while I am as angry at Wall Street as anyone, making them pay for the loans students agreed to and benefited from is not appealing. I would rather that any tax on Wall Street went to benefit those who were directly harmed by the actions of Wall Street. Again, devil in the details, though.

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

so wouldnt the correct sollution that WOULD BE FAIR be to change the rules so that you could discharge the loan in bancruptcy? then ok....but bankcruptcy is not all it is craked up to be...have you tried getting a loan for a car or a house or even a credit card after bankruptcy.....at least that is fair....amnesty for all....silly....if you want to treat it like every other loan...fair...what say you?

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 8 years ago

I think these 8 are actually actionable and feasible too http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

We need policies that can have an immediate short-term impact on the total economy; these are largely abstract ideas about increased regulation. Worse, you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision about personhood.

The economy needs life - NOW! Not three years from now after Wall Street rises up---AGAIN---and eviscerates any legislation to regulate it.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 8 years ago

Maybe we need both a long term and short term plan. Maybe it's both rather than one or the other. Otherwise progress on your short term goals will just be negated by corruption. We need to act now to do what you're saying, but I also think we need to act now to create guardrails for Wall Street and get the money out of politics. That's the only way we can get effective leadership in Congress.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

For example, there is a "demand" that Congress increase its Congressional oversight authority. You know what? When thee SEC investigates a Wall St. insider, John McCain picks up the phone and calls the SEC and tells the SEC to call off the dogs. They do.

"BERNIE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME." The SEC fights blind, but it fights blind on purpose. If you expect change from increasing the authority of these agencies and of the Congress, please! The number of law firms employed by Wall St. to lobby the shit out of Cong. is staggering, and they all want their nieces and nephews to work at those law firms - and where do they go when they retire? They become lobbyists, of course!

We need to fix the ECONOMY, then we can have these abstract discussions about Congress, the SEC, oversight, "personhood" (not sure this hurts our economy), inter alia

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

These are strong allegations of the SEC...and if you are correct that they are intentionally not investigating and performing their responsibilites then i agree and people from the SEC should be in jail...so that i can agree with you, can you please provide the source of your claim so that i can forward to appropriate athorities? I do assume you have evidence to make this claim and look forward to being able to forward such evidence on and help you get these guys put in jail.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

STRONG ALLEGATIONS? Those do not scratch the surface of the depth of ineptitude and incompetence at the SEC!!

Did you know that SEC workers get every other Friday off? All of their commuting expenses are paid for? I know because I have met individuals who work for the SEC.

It is the worst government agency---save the TSA---that I am aware of!

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

those are not illegal acts my friend....but again the SEC is a governmental agency...not wallstreet...if the focus of this movement is this then i think you should move to "OCCUPY CAPITAL HILL" NOT OCCUPY WALLSTREET

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Occupying Capitol Hill Does Not Accomplish ANYTHING! They are never there; they are always campaigning.

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

but that is not wallstreet's problem...come on think people

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

What is not Wall Street's problem?

[-] 1 points by HeardofEconomics (59) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

That politicians aren't doing there job and rather campaigning....

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The "resistance" must transmute the energy and momentum that it has built into specific, realistic policies. Absent policies, no "change" is possible and the demonstrations will inevitably become merely that . . . demonstrations.


[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 8 years ago

We won't be able to fix the economy until we address the root cause of our economic mess. It is "unfettered capitalism". Nothing abstract about that. Capitalism works if these business folks have some guardrails.

I just don't think you can say it's either or. I think we need to do what you're suggesting AND what the 8 demands say.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The root cause of the crisis began with the housing crisis, which was fixed for Wall St. but not Main St. I am making real, actionable proposals to fix Main St.

Wall St. is operating on a model that YOU (and me) will bail them out if they lose, but they get to keep the profits if we win.

My proposals are simply designed to generate economic growth for the regular, ordinary person.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 8 years ago

So let's do both :)

[-] 1 points by bukhari (11) 8 years ago

Fall of Capitalism/Secularism PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW ECONOMIC MODEL As the capitalist, acting as promoter/administrator, invests a minimal/nominal amount of his own in the business (obtaining major funding at concessional interest rates) but is entitled to retain full profit and be liable, in the case of loss, only to the extent of his share holding, the underlying system is inherently oppressive and unjust. It is, therefore, time to introduce a new ECONOMIC MODEL for replacing the secular codes of capitalism which, due to its irrational structure, stands grounded since the very beginning of the 21st century.

The banks secure deposits from the general public against promise to pay interest at fixed rates without guaranteeing the face value of the pertinent currency prevailing in the international market at the time the money was deposited. In case, therefore, of devaluation of currency, the depositors lose the net worth of their deposits to the extent of devaluation. As happened with the US $, while 87 cents of a $ were equal to one Euro in 2001, $ 1.4925 is equal to one Euro today. Practically, thus the $ has lost 58.29% of original worth. All this is a result of credit based economy and loan based investment.

As far as the war on terror is concerned, its real cost has been passed on to the countries with US Dollar - based reserves or currencies but, interestingly, the currencies of most European NATO members were, in the year 2000, delinked from the Dollar by floating the Euro as a common EU currency.


[-] 1 points by astramari (57) 8 years ago


[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

3 - Would stop the issuing of future student loans. Also - this is really greedy so not what we should be asking for.

  1. This one I think is workable at least it would be some punishment for banks who offered knowingly high risk loans and expected a Fannie / Freddie bailout (and got one).

  2. This would just cause an increase in people not paying their mortgages and deal with 7 years of bad history (to get out of a 25 year mortgage - who wouldn't?) Then the banks stop offering mortgages at all. Home ownership plummets.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

(3) is not greedy at all. It is hurting our economy because individuals' disposable income goes to service an excess of student loan debt. Politicians created this problem since student loans cannot be discharged through bankruptcy, thereby preventing a "fresh start." Amnesty is the only method available to remedy the excess of student loan debt.

(1) This is a must for the sake of the fabric of the family, society. This was done during the Great Depression. It worked.

(2) No. Modify the loan during the moratorium to (a) reduce principal or (b) decrease interest. This would stabilize the housing market, and our economy would finally start to heal. If the loans are successfully modified, we can begin the recovery process.

Housing, and excessive debt, is weighing down upon the economy.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago
  1. Yes it is greedy. Agreements were made to get money now and repay it later. To not repay a debt because you can use force to do so is greed - its wanting someone else's property for yourself. Politicians didn't create the problem - anyone who would get any loan with no intention to repay is committing fraud.

For some reason I reversed 2 and 1 above.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Same reason why people are in foreclosures. Everyone intended to service those debts, but economic circumstances prevents individuals from servicing those excessive debts.

Greedy are the collection rules regarding student loan debt, not to mention the fact it cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. It is excessive debt that is holding down our total economy.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

Bad economic situations are why loan repayment schedules have deferments.

You can have all the best intentions in the world for what you're offering - however that does nothing to affect the nature of the consequences. If you want there to be no student loans in the future then excuse existing debt.

So it is greedy to want another party to hold up to their part of their agreement to repay money that was already loaned and its not greedy to not repay money that has already been spent that one agreed to?

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

The costs of tuition have far surpassed the rise of inflation. Student loan debt is a different beast because the terms are so one-sided, including but not limited to the fact it cannot be discharged (no "fresh start") and the collection rights of the creditors. It has created economic and financial insecurity that prevents individuals from spending, forming new businesses, and taking risks.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

I agreed to repay my loans and did. I repay debts when I can or I don't make the decision to go into debt.

Yes the costs of many things have increased at a higher rate than inflation (mostly because the stated inflation rate massively underestimates inflation by manipulation of the basket of goods used in CPI calculations or by changing the math). That doesn't mean suddenly it is acceptable to not repay people the money you've already spent. Its reason to examine future borrowing with a much closer eye.