Forum Post: We are lobbying for your positions. Join us and let us know what issues are important to you.
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 9, 2011, 12:48 p.m. EST by LobbyDemocracy
(615)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If you are tired of having your perspectives passed over in favor of the desires of the 1% we have a way that you can fight back. We are fighting fire with fire.
I have established a lobbying organization to represent you. Rather than supporting a big business or a special interest, our only goal as an organization is to represent the desires and perspectives of the majority to their elected leaders. The organization derives its focus from a democratic system. We are polling our membership to determine what issues matter to the majority, and we are taking up those issues. We will represent any issue that gains 65% support or opposition. We have no party affiliation or predetermined platform.
We opened up the doors for membership just a couple of days ago and are looking to gather up the masses so that we can accurately reflect the interests of the majority. Please take a minute and check it out at www.lobbydemocracy.com. If you have questions or comments please let us know. If you like what you see please let us know here so that we can rise to the top of the list and be seen by others.
I've always found that problems can't be solved until you know what the ACTUAL problem is. If anyone thinks it is Obama (or government or taxes or passing watered-down and nearly useless legislation), they are probably mistaken about how the legislative process actually works and how greedy Senators and Representatives have been seduced by lobbying money. I don't know if I would be any better, if someone offered me some nice chunk of change just to vote a certain way, maybe I'd take the money and sabotage the American people just like they do. From my view the problem starts with lobbying/special interest money. As long as they can keep us at each others' throats by telling us the problem is Obama or it is the Democrats or the Republicans, the uber-rich can continue to get their own way until we all starve. or go to war with each other while they sit in their bank vault like Scrooge McDuck and count their coins... (I think they forgot to realize that unless WE have some money, no one can buy their products so the goal of squashing the American people is short-sighted in my opinion and eventually will have unwanted consequences for the "aristocracy". Eventually they can hole up in their gated mansion with razor wire and glass chunks on top of their walls, but the American people will eventually wake up and stop fighting each other and stand up for a government that is OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.
OWS does not need lobbyists.
FORthepeople wrote: 've always found that problems can't be solved until you know what the ACTUAL problem is.END-----
What you and LobbyDemocracy are discussing is correct, but not the actual problem. We had a really fine president that touched upon it, and the problem is related to why we don't know what happened to him, as well as 3,000 on 9-11.--
http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/jfk_secrecy.mp3
Of course another problem is related, the fact that congress has been violating the constitution for 100 years by not calling an article 5 convention.----
Therein is the solution that can reveal the ACTUAL problem. Therein FORthepeople is going to have the final word when the bottom layer of the problem is exposed empowering our evolution. Until then, the only promise is de-evolution.
I agree with you that the process of the rich pulling a higher and higher percentage of the income has helped stall the economy because it has taken away from the 70% of our economy that is consumer base. I agree with you that the lobbyist for big business have gained undue influence.
We have had very little success getting that money out of politics. It has been hard to get legislation passed and when it does get passed the Supreme Court has knocked it down. I propose we approach the problem from a different direction. Remember that the money in politics is there to buy votes. Cut out the middle man. Put an enormous voting block together and force our representatives to back the majority or lose their jobs. With the system that have put in place it will be easy to see who supports their constituents and who does not.
Join me in the effort and see how powerful it can be.
The first problem is transparency. After that problem is solved we can then identify who is accountable and made the changes.
One problem with lobbying is that we basically are praying into deaf ears. Lobbying is all about money. And there are a 1,001 legal ways in which a politician will be legally bought,
Lobbying currently is all about providing money to politicians so that they can buy votes. By putting together a voting block you are cutting out the middle man and providing what the politicians want most.
Thus basically perpetuating the problem.
I don't understand that comment. If we are replacing the voice of the 1% with the voice of the 99% how does that perpetuate the problem?
Buy and pay up a politician and you will get not their hearts but their greed. Since corporations control more money than we can, you will only legitimize when they manipulate what you asked for and give you exactly the same system we live in but with a different name.
The only way to win a rigged game is not to play it.
Not talking about handing over any money. Just saying that if we can convince them that if they will be voted out of office if they do not listen to the majority, then maybe they finally will.
This is what will happen.
You go, convince your politician. Then he/she will use it as a card to get more money from the same corporations for their campaign. Of course, he/she will not tell you that. And of course, they will make a law that will somehow be amended to make things look like they are doing something, when it fact they will be doing business as usual.
I guess I have more faith in the systems ability to change.
Too much greed and too little fear of the people. I doubt it will change that way, at least not until they have more fear of the people than of not having enough money for the next campaign.
I am not one to tell you what to think. Your idea might or not work, and I may or not be right. One thing for sure, you will never know until you try.
I am working on it. I am certainly aware of the possibility of failure, but am doing my damnedest to make it work. We'll see if it is enough.
Thats the only thing anyone can ask. Good luck with it.
Thanks again.
How about a political voting block instead of a lobby? Find smart, logical candidates nominate them in the Democratic (third party wastes votes, usually) senate and house seats. Clearly no knowledge of history or economics is required, and I'd rather have someone who is smart but not "miseducated", someone who can look at the picture with logical, thoughtful solutions in mind.
I think that we will have to make some changes with who our representatives. The system I am creating will let our members know what percentage of time their leaders supported their causes. This will help them make more informed decisions come election time. Not only will it help bring in new representation at election time, it will help keep our elected leaders true to their constituents between elections.
This is better than nothing but we have to think much bigger to turn things around.
We need a better strategy and plan of attack Wall Street is not the cause, it is a SYMPTOM!
JOIN THE REVOLUTION Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM We don’t have to live like this. "Spread the News"
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. July 4, 1776.
It is a beautiful, powerful document. I do not think that we have reached the point where we need to completely overthrow the government and start over. I am looking to find a way to change the system from within.
Thank you, LobbyDemocracy. The best way to solve all these problems we accumulated thru-out the globe in my opinion can be done only by switching all developed countries to total volunteering. I know not many will agree with me. But history will tell if I am right or may be not.
I think that is going to be a hard sales pitch. My goals are a little more modest than yours. I am simply trying to foment change from within so that the majority will once again have a say in how our government works.
I know, my propositions sounds radical. But I do not think anything smaller will last for too long. Money did a lot of good, but lately many problems have roots in monetary system. If money will be gone those problems will be gone with it. Otherwise it will be half measures and too much of a bargaining. Ha-ha!
I hate to be the one that tells you but I think you will have a hard time convincing the majority that this is a good idea. I think the spirit is kind and understandable, but I would like to concentrate my efforts on issues that I think we can achieve during my lifetime.
Wish you good luck in all your endeavors!
Thank you. You as well. Stop by Lobby Democracy every once in a while to see how we are growing and developing.
Spam Alert.
Raise taxes and lower spending until the budget gets balanced. It won't do any good to fix the problems with banks and corporations if the country can't get itself straightened out.
I think that balancing the budget is a very important process. How we work towards that goal I find equally important. Any approach you use favors one group over another. The final decisions we make will say a lot about our countries beliefs.
I think that balancing the budget is a long term necessity. I don't think we need to ignore all of the other problems with the country as we tackle the deficit though. How we balance the budget will say a lot about the ethos of our country.
I agree, as long as politicians do more then talk about balancing while buying votes promising more free stuff to people. They just wanted a goal and I kept it short and clear. Maybe $2 in new taxes for every $1 in new spending, just something better then the foolishness we have now, where they count it as savings by promising not to spend as much as they wanted to in the future. Look at the creative accounting in that one provision of the health care law, the Class program. It was supposed to give $72 billion in savings, but they are dropping it because the savings was fake, 10 years of premiums and 5 years of benefits paid out was want they used in the calculation. There isn't any savings there, they have dropped the program because they can't make it work.
I am aware of the provision and do not know how it got in there in the first place.
I think that you have a lot of great ideas and would love to have you join the conversation at Lobby Democracy. We are working on building a framework that will help foment change. Check it out when you get a minute and let us know what you think.
I'll give it a look, I'm already spending a lot of time between classes looking through the forum posts, it would be nice to help get something accomplished.
I hear you. I am working full time while starting this. Have given up nearly all free time to make it work. All I can do is keep plugging away and hope that it gains support.
OWS does not need lobbyists.
I think that the majority does need lobbyists. Otherwise I would not have spent the last year of my life making this project possible. You do not have to sign up and I do not expect your participation.
[Somebody] needs lobbyists because you spent a year putting together a lobbying scam?
The most honest statement you've made yet.
First of all I said that I think that the majority needs lobbyists. I have clearly stated why I think that is. I understand that you do not agree with me and do not understand why you continue to make the same shallow arguments against me. There is really not much of a conversation between us. Your comments do continue to push my thread to the top of the list, and for that I appreciate your participation. Beyond that, I don't know if we have agreed on a single point. As far as I am concerned, you are afraid to involve yourself in full meaningful dialogue.
I dispute your premise, and I dispute your action, which is clearly designed to benefit you personally. As to pushing your bullshit to the top, it helps exposing this scam and spam. That, and it won't stay there for long,
I have been floating at the top of the list for over three weeks. There is plenty of conversation about the process. I understand that you dispute my premise and my action. I am not saying that I do not want this to be my profession, but I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to make your living pursuing something you believe in.
You sound a lot like Robespierre before he "floated to the top" of the revolution. He was an activist who was oppposed to capital punishment and called "the incorruptable."
Becareful of embracing power and working within a corrupt system even while pointing a finger at the attrocities of the ruling elite he bacame the worst of them.
Sorry. I am human like all others. I sometimes get a little fired up about the process. Nucleus had posted dozens of posts slandering my ideas, and I was ready to end the conversation with him because there was no exchange of ideas occurring. Thank you for your reminder. I will do my best to keep my head on my shoulders during the process.
End the "war" on drugs terror campaign.
I think that you will be able to get broad based support for that.
I don't want a seat at the table. I want to burn the table to ash and build a new one in its place. "Democracy" is a zero-sum game. I'd rather create new games that the exploited have a chance of winning.
You winning or the society winning?
Society isn't a monolith. Given the right set of conditions, the relationship between my interests and those of "society" would be reciprocal.
If that were the case than an organization designed to represent the majority would also be representing your interests.
Only from the perspective of a rational, mechanistic logic that reduces human populations to "masses" to be moulded and controlled can the concept of "the Majority" be regarded as coherent. What if I don't want to be "represented" at all? What if I wish to express my capacity to think and act for myself without the aid of an intermediary?
Then the government would continue to function as on outlet for the big businesses and special interests that currently have their ear. There is nothing mandating your interacting with the system to make your opinions heard. There is nothing taking away your individual freedoms by joining an organization designed to represent the majority. You would still have the ability to contact your representatives on your own. You would have all the freedoms that you have now. The only difference is that on issues that you had in common with the majority we would be working to make those perspectives heard.
The concept of "freedom" only has value if I can define it for myself. This notion that "freedoms" can be granted to me by an external entity like items on a Christmas list is a bastardization of the notion of freedom as such. If freedom does not mean my individual capacity affect my own environment through my own efforts, then the term itself has no meaning. Freedom as I understand it cannot be reconciled with the notion of "representation."
I think that society has to define certain freedoms so that it can protect them. Fortunately we live in a society that has done so. You do not have the freedom of speech because you want it. You have the freedom of speech because society has deemed that it is an important right and I right that all should have. Under more oppressive societies, you could say that you still have this right, you just might be killed for your speech. To me there is little comfort in that type of freedom. I would argue that freedoms only really take effect in social settings.
Like I said, 'society' isn't a monolith. A society is simply a diffuse network of interpersonal relations through which both collective and individual needs are supposed to be met. This isn't what I have a problem with. Clearly, individuals need to collaborate with one another in order to achieve certain ends that they could not achieve in isolation. I am not challenging the category of 'the Social,' per se, but that of 'the Political' -- i.e. a demarcated social sphere that, a), presumes an opposition between 'public' and 'private' space; and, b), assumes that both individual and collective desires can only be actualized via legislative mediation. I am not suggesting that 'society' be abolished, but that the notion of society be reformulated so as not to presuppose either the opposition of public and private space or the mediated activity inherent in the idea of "political representation."
I think that I personally just see a larger space for the role of government than you do. Although I am a firm believer in the free market system, there are a number of natural market failures that the market does not address. I think that the government has both the right and responsibility to address these failures in a manner consistent with the desire of the majority.
My brother is a staunch conservative, and I am pretty far to the left on the political spectrum. He explains the difference as Regan did. Republicans feel that the government is the problem, and Democrats feel that it is part of the solution. I think this is an oversimplification, but not inaccurate. I believe that society needs to have an active role in helping protect your freedoms. It is there to help guarantee them. I assume that you would disagree with this.
I would argue that the dichotomy of liberal/conservative, just like that of left/right, is a false one. The entire idea of a linear 'political spectrum' is an arbitrary presupposition that, in the light of advancements in information technology and the fragmentation of the industrial working class, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Liberals and conservatives aren't so much polar opposites as the inverted mirror images of each other.
I also think that the spectrum is more fluid than people give it credit for. Part of what I hope to achieve through Lobby Democracy is finding issues that the majority of the country can support regardless of political affiliation. I think that we can find more agreement than is apparent on Capitol Hill. Although I do not agree with some of your political perspectives, I would gladly welcome you to the site and the debate. I also understand why you would be a conscientious objector to my site and I respect that as well. Thank you for taking the time to express your perspectives and openly debate merits with me.
LOL and how much money do you want? If you are going to lobby and expect to get in the doors of the politicians you are going to need lots of money. Most politicians won't listen to a word you say for less than $5000 from a group.
Although $5000 will certainly get you in the door, 5000 votes will give you more power. If you can put together a big voting block, the votes stand on their own. The most powerful lobbying organization on the hill is the AARP and they do not directly donate to campaign funds. They represent 38 million voting members.
AARP has allot of money ... not that much influence
The pile of money I agree with. If you polled the Senators and Representatives as to the most powerful lobby on the hill the vast majority of them would answer the AARP. Their members vote and determine elections.
That might say AARP but it is a joke like kissing babies .... we know the most powerful is AIPAC no question. It is not just lobbyists the rich bankers don't even need lobbyists they have grown pretty bold.
Come to Lobby Democracy and help support your agenda. We are here to get issues considered and passed. Check us out and let me know what you think. We will be able to fight against the interests of the AARP, AIPAC, bankers and any other special interest or big business lobby.
Good luck ...
Thank you. We will see over the next several months whether or not we can draw a large enough sample of the population to be effective.
You still have time to prepare ... Stock pile food, water, guns and ammo... you will also need barter items, gold and silver. Get in small amounts like a gram of gold and half oz silver coins.
I want a law against all whining and all the Oliver-Twist-Asking-For-More nonsense.
If you outlawed whining you would not have been able to post that remark.
I am cool with that, let's outlaw whining. You OK with that? Seriously dude, don;t you think all the whining from OWS is rather lame? I am happy to offer jobs to OWS folks. I need a housekeeper and a butler.
First and foremost, remove Obamacare. Secondly, empower to the state militias to chase the illegals back over the border.
Although I do not personally believe in either of those perspectives. My personal agenda does not drive the direction of the organization. We will be examining both healthcare and immigration issues. Lobby Democracy will represent whatever side of the organization gains majority support.
No... that answer is entirely insufficient because the state is a territorial, regional, autonomous space. They are a minority possessed of sovereignty that cannot be over ruled on all issues.
Minority rights are protected. The system is designed to be governed by the majority though. It has simply failed to live up to that goal.
States will never give up their sovereignty. Nor should they. Arizona has a right to defend it's space because humans require space, an actual presence. And no one should have the right to dislodge you.
I am not trying to step on either minority rights or state rights. I think that my reforms are among the most modest reasonable approach to the problem. I am not trying to scrap current protections or overthrow our government.
Currently, big business and special interests have gained undue influence over our political system. All attempts to minimize their impact have been squashed either on the legislative or judicial level. All I am trying to do is reintroduce the American people to their elected officials.
We already have that ability. The reason it hasn't been successful is that most don't have a care. Nov 8, here, the turnout was surprisingly low. No one cares...
No more corruption, lies, violating our resources, war businesses and stealing from the 1%+. No more threatening the people's livelihood and life. Just leave us alone and let us live ...
I think that the government has a constant role in the lives that we live. If we ignore that process we simply give up our rights to have a say in it.
Yes, that is why I put the "+" after the 1% since the government is owned by them! lol
I am putting together this organization with the hope that it will achieve many of the goals that you are speaking of. I hope that you will consider being involved in the process.
I would like a CAP placed on sales profit
I believe unfettered profits is what got is into this unbalanced distribution of wealth and lifestyle
A sales profit should be that of equivalence to federal interest rates This would ensure an equal distribution a wealth
Unfortunately, I think that this would cut into research and development. Although I have problems with gross windfall profits, there are some good things about the capitalist system. Although I do not think that it would solve the entire problem I think establishing a more equitable tax code would go a long way to shifting the distribution without interfering with the efficiency of the market.
Although I do not agree with you, the glory of Lobby Democracy is that I do not need to. I accept that I will sometimes be in the minority perspective, and that the majorities perspective, not my own, will drive the direction of the organization.
I disagree. Research and Development are mainly government sponsored institutions.
A sales profit CAP would in fact increase tax revenue thereby increasing research and development
How do you propose instituting the CAP? If a company ends up with profits over that CAP, where do they go?
If a merchant buys a product for say x$ and the lotted sales CAP is added at the time of sale, how could he go over?
Because the cost of the item is a combination of the fixed costs and the variable costs of the item. The cost of the item depends on how many of the item are sold. Therefore, the cost of the item is not known at time of the sale.
But the cost of the item is known at the time the merchant purchases itm from manufacturer and from there we place the CAP..adding transportation costs only.
There are huge burdens of paperwork in this process. You would also have to regulate every corner store. Does everyone that handles the product get their set profit margin? You said you add the costs of transportation. Is this cost plus profit margin or are the truckers supposed to operate without profit.
It would be a sales CAP between points of buy and sell. Excluding transportation costs
I want free trade and no whining.
Do you want the government to protect free trade, or do you think market forces will take care of this?
" free trade" what a joke .... We got sold out
I think that the assumption of free trade is that it works on its own without outside intervention. I do not believe that this is the case.
There is no such thing as free trade unless there is a even playing field ...
Which is hard to establish and maintain. The market is different than it was in 1776 when the Wealth of Nations was written.
Let's even the playing field and lower wages in the USA.
lol they have been ... it sucks we work harder for less
Chinese work even harder for even less, stop complaining.
your right i need to stop complaining work harder and shop to support the economy. So what i don't get to see my kids grow up ... I need to work harder or my bankers wife might have to find a job that would take away from her shopping time and them getting to spend time with their children.
You should not have kids if you can't afford them. It is quite cruel to have kids and then never see them because you have to work all the time to earn a living. Have you considered giving your kids up for adoption to a family that can afford them?
Is your mother a prostitute ... Maybe you should pimp your mother
No you are just a asshole ... I love my kids I work hard for my kids ... If you said that to my face ... I would beat on you ... Almost any american father would beat on you for saying some kinda shit like that to them... That's American
That is a pretty fucked up thing to say ...
I would beat the shit out of you if we where face to face
How typical of the 99%.
From Somali pirates?
There are tariffs on various goods around the world. Other countries impose them to affect the balance of trade. Others argue that the Chinese manipulation of their currency is an unfair trade practice. On the domestic front, any time a company buys up all of their competitors, they have destroyed the free market. It no longer has the competition that is what gives capitalism its strength. When a company pollutes, it creates an externality that the market does not account for. The cost of the pollution is not included in the goods that they sell. All of these prevent the existence of a "free market."
What we have is still working pretty well. Jobs are going to the people who do the same work at lower wages.
I am not trying to scrap the system that we have. I think you will see a lot of revolutionary talk here. I am not trying to lead a revolution. I am trying to improve the system that we are currently working with.
4 ways I would improve the system.
1) No more tariffs 2) Free movement of labor (no more illegal immigrants) 3) No unions 4) No whining
Your second statement is contradictory. You mean free movement of labor in the domestic market, not the world market. It is also a hard goal to achieve because there are costs to moving that many in the working class cannot afford. The first point would have to be agreed upon internationally.
No, I mean free movement of labor across borders so the whole concept of illegal immigrant goes away. As for tariffs, you are supposed to do the right thing regardless of what others do.
Ok, that makes more sense. The problem with the tariff situation is that it puts you at a competitive disadvantage to do the right thing regardless.
I always do the right thing even if that puts me at a disadvantage. It's called principle. The 99% needs to learn that.
That is a pretty spite driven comment.