Forum Post: We are not the 99%. We are the 15% + 5% + 2.3% + 1.8% + ..........
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 22, 2011, 11:13 p.m. EST by zz1968
(89)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
. . . . until we unite. What is it we stand for? are we the 5% who has a chronic disease and is not allowed health care? Are we the 15% people who have a study debt that stops them from building up a life? If we have no common list of prioritized demands then we are will have no influence since we will be fractions of our potential. I think the 'We are the 99%' pictures with the people holding up their stories are great. They show the problems people can relate to. I was tonight at a GA and the process is so heavy and undirected. And how can we say that we represent 99% when you have to be physically present in a GA? A post in the forum stays about two minutes on the list before it falls into the past of times. Any troll can puch serious mails of the list. When the cold and rain will hit in a couple of weeks the numbers will go down and we will become irrelevant. Time is a factor. Act! Get a spokesperson, a prioritized list of issues and maybe a daily vote. Please
I vote for Obama. Is that fair?
Of course it is. And so it stands: Bharara: 1 George Noory: 1 Micheal Moore: 1 Obama: 1
Michael Moore wants the people active. He dont want to drown them out he gets his voice heard he is proactive he wants the rest of the country to do the same.
I nominate U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2855
And so it stands: Bharara: 1 George Noory: 1
Interesting though that, as far as I know, none of these people are sleeping in Zuccotti Park. But history can only be explained afterwards
Agreed, so perhaps you would consider our group's proposal of an alternative online direct democracy of government and business at http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategically_weighted_policies_organizational_operating_structures_tactical_investment_procedures-448eo , for this is a small-business-bottom-up approach, not today's big-business-top-down approach, so if agreed, join our group's 20 members committed to that plan at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
Thanks for the link! Will read through
ZZ, Great post. Time is of the essence. Thanks for the reminder.
Your very welcome. Having seen the engagement of the people in the park, I think it would be a real real pity if this is lost
Agreed. Have you seen the curious, yet encouraging stuff from the "channelers" of the "Galactic Federation"? Great pics, etc... If you friend me on Facebook you can access the post from a friend.
The misses wants to snuggle. Apparently it is urgent. Gotta go! Will join again tomorrow
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/american-drug-war/
That is a very valid point. Does the war on drugs not have the same effect like the war on alcohol in the 30s that made the mafia rich. How many people die of heart coronary diseases? Should we have a war on fat instead? What good has the war on drugs done? And what bad?
War is war is war. We are putting to many people on streets. People are profiting off of misery.
Agree, I think that drugs are not great but I also that now an entire industry emerged from the war on drugs. Private prisons that need to be filled and therefore imprisonment is the way taken rather than trying to get people of drugs. The goal is to make money and not to improve the health and life of people
Watch the second video: http://www.infowars.com/alex-exposes-unconstitutional-internal-checkpoint-round-2/
They bring drug dogs into people's cars, just to find a reason to arrest them.
I think if the 99% should unite on 1 thing, it's drug laws and attitudes toward them. Huge corruption, huge loss of life, and they make people ill. Pharmaceutical companies are the largest industry in the US, and the US is highest cocaine user in the world, consuming 40% of all cocaine production (Europe being second).
Drugs are clearly a western issue. A corrupt bank issue, a corrupt CIA/Government issue, and a corrupt politician issue.
I'll vote for Obama too. I like Michael Moore but he's...kinda out there.
And so it stands: Bharara: 1 George Noory: 1 Micheal Moore: 1 Obama: 2. Some more votes and he may even show up at Zuccotti park!
No. This is not a good idea. We do not want to describe who we are and put the emphasis on our own needs. That sounds selfish. We want to talk in more general terms which a majority of people or strong majority will definitely agree with. Higher taxes on Rich, nearly 3/4 of country agrees wtih this. Reform Wall Street. Again, I believe this easily gets a majority. But electoral reform? It is obvious it needs reform but this is sacrosanct by the Patriots on the Right and the Left. Can we get majority support for public financing of elections: taking the greed out? Yes, I think so. Lastly, (on my list), Legislative Reform-getting rid of filibuster. We should focus on a program of reforms that all have majority support. Then we can fight the battle. Making a list of demands from everyone might mean a list of some 50 items. You can't approach it that way. You need to stay focused on somewhere between 1 and 6 at the most. For historic perspective on this, look back on history of Progressive Party in the U.S. 1912. Very interesting history not taught very well in high school. Few have taken the class in college. Read it.
I think that reclaiming our democracy i.e, taking the money out of it and some framework for public campaign financing needs to be the first and only demand. If the other things are true majority, then they'll be implemented by the people's participation. And, who can't get behind democracy? Everyone knows that these politicians are corrupt and get bought by big business, they're just lacking a movement to change it, and that's just what OWS should be!
You may be right. I am asking everyone to take a look at the Progressive Party of 1912. I think this is a viable model for us. We need a Platform of fundamental progressive reforms. Then we need to build a Movement of, say 1000 chapters built around it. Finally, if it is suitable, we build a Party or work to elect suitable progressive candidates and work that way. Personally, I believe in a Mass Movement singularly focused on a Platform which focuses on the following: 1) Changing the Tax Structure; 2) Financial Reform of Wall Street and Banks; 3) Reform of Electoral System which includes public funding of federal elections; 4) Reform of legislative process (e.g. banning filibuster).
Then, we would work for legislation to fund jobs, job training and education. We would work to limit military adventurism and cut back our military expenditures. We would make cutbacks in govt. that might have to be across the board although there may be some exceptions. Everyone must become aware of the waste and excessive spending of govt. It is very widespread and this is a good Republican critique although perhaps they go overboard.
The Progressive Party of 1912 does seem like a viable option. At some point, this movement's momentum is going to have to be expressed in the existing political framework. An additional party and/or a few strong candidates will be needed.
Being with building a Movement to test the waters of support. It will either live or die there. The Movement can then morph into a Party if necessary. The focus needs to be there. The diffusion of groups, peoples and ideas will all be drowned by time. It may be that an individual group needs to take the lead. Typically, the Left is so amorphous and diffuse and, in my opinion, egocentric and selfish, that he refuses to commit itself to a plan of action and then act. If is easy to protest and complain, much harder to build a movement and maybe nobody is interested.
I like this small focused idea. We can always add and change focus.That is We have to say focus. What is the most important on our wish list. then go from there.
I agree with you. If you want to build a house you have to lay the first stone. You can talk for ages but at a certain moment, if you really want to get your house going, you have to pick the best stone and start building from there. Setting priorities is not selfish in my opinion, just practical. I did not say that I wanted to have my priorities pushed forward. Just the priorities of what bothers the majority of the people
Yes, a focus that the majority of people agree with. Then you argue strongly for it, with facts, and arguments. If it rings true, it rings true. If you look at the Progressive Agenda in 1912, it is interesting because many of those reforms became law. Maybe all of them. Laws, Amendments & possibly Executive Order (these orders seem to have become more commonplace when there is an emergency). If we can BUILD the Organization, then IT will come. remember the organization is a dynamic, evolving organism which suits the needs of the people, NOT anyone's personal ego. For the Public, to Market it, the simpler the better. It has to be easily understood which means not a List of Demands.
Dost, you do realize that at the moment the movement isnt even taken seriously because it does not have a centralized list of goals, vegetarian revolution is as big as the reform of congress and proper taxation. You can't just have an organization that has a bunch of ideas, you need to form and mold them. It isnt selfish, its practical.
Bulls eye, I could not word it better! It isn't selfish, it is practical. And Dost, I think that a list of demands/issues will actually make it easier to convince people as they are examples of what the movement is about
You need organization and structure while have an agenda of some four to six major goals, for example. (See Progressive Party of 1912 on wikipedia)/ I have been writing about this here for some time now. I have my Four Reforms which include: Taxes; Wall St. & Banks; Electoral System; and Legislative System. Under each of these are subsumed reforms which attempt to deal with worst abuses & disparities of financial/tax system and dysfunctional and abuses of voting and legislating. We can also add in a few others. BUT, not a long list of separate demands as such....we can discuss that later. The point is to build an Organization, say 1000 chapters across the country. We call ourselves the New Progressive Movement of somesuch name and focus on educating, communicating, protesting and drawing people in, raising money and cs. Again, I have written about this is some detail. You need to keep the reforms more general and make sure you have majority agreement within the population of the whole otherwise you will be promoting a list of demands that will not be supported by most of the population.
I guess it was just the wording. With a list of demands I meant a short, prioritized list of demands, just like you. I guess you thought I mentioned a long list. Six is a nice number. I suggest the two open open spaces to be filled with 'access to education' as that is the best way to move up in society and 'health care' as that touches the basis of people. Agree with the approach.
+1 The question is, what is this movement about REALLY. Is it REALLY about vegetarianism? Is it REALLY about casino capitalism? Is it REALLY about getting free food?
I am not sure exactly what you are pointing to but you REALLY added a comment to this post and therefore kept the discussion on the forum. And for that I thank you
I'm attempting to point to all the little issues that people hold signs up for and think are all the biggest issue, my point was that we need to find what it is exactly this movement stands for, what we want.
I am in total agreement, am cheering towards you shaking your hand and much more! If we cannot even decide where we stand for, who would listen to us?
No one, and at the moment no one is listening. Or if they are they don't give a damn. http://www.collegian.com/index.php/article/2011/09/occupy_wall_street_protests_are_childish_but_promising
I see your point but I think that many are listening but just see blur. If we focus on a limited number of issues our wishes and demands will become clearer and trolls and loonies will get less attention
Agreed
I thought it was amazing to see that a well thought comment had to compete with a troll comment and would have a life time of only two minutes. That is quantity over quality. If you ignore trolls and do not even reply to their mails, their mails will drop of the list very, very quick
I was trolling?
No, not you, you seem to really participate. I mean that any person can star a new post with the subject 'Darth Vader supports OWS' and compete with a line on the forum. If enough postings are created, the serious postings are pushed off the page
Have you seen an unreasonable man a movie bout Ralph Nader it goes into the fracturing of this country.
No but even though I totally sympathized with Ralph Nader I believe his presence caused Bush to be elected. In reality, the best thing to happen for the US is a really, really extreme crazy person on the Republican side so people are send towards the Democrats. Your enemy is your friend in this context
You can say that Nader did that but gore also could have pushed a recount and he didn't. He just laid back and took it in the butt.
But I am sure you will agree with the assumption that people who voted for Nader where more likely to support Gore than Bush. Had they voted for Gore we may not have had the Iraq war. And lost 5000 American lives and something like 500.000 Iraqi lives
Oh yeah I agree on that. I can't say he didn't have an effect. But we are supposed to vote in who we think is best not just because they are dem or repub
I would be so much happier without that 'Winner takes all principle'. Just have 6 instead of two parties and new ideas will develop. Then with a coalition could form the government. This would allow so much more innovation
There are many parties but people don't use them. Volunteering fundraising needs to be done by more people. This is what the American people have to do. Work from the smallest offices to the bigger ones. Active citizens are needed
Agree but in terms of political parties, the 'Winner takes all' principle caters for two big antagonistic parties, not cooperation
Yep.
how about a multi weighted vote system with runoff elections. public funding or tax write off from media that places free ads in there programs/paper?
Honestly I wish they would lower allowable ads on tv I hate election time with there stupid commercials which say nothing about them, arghh it's at the very least annoying.
Anything to level out the field
And it is better to work together and progress rather than to loose energy and time fighting each stand still
Yes discussion is always good. Weather we agree or disagree. But we still have to stick together and work things out. Our founding fathers didn't agree on everything but they worked together compromised and built started something beutiful. Sadly that has been torn apart right now
I feel a group hug coming here! Totally agree. Our similarities are much more important than our differences
Michael Moore.
Why would he not do this?
What is he waiting for?
Not just a few appearances here and there. But full time OWS chairman.
Or at least the advisor on media issues, I agree
And so it stands: Bharara: 1 George Noory: 1 Micheal Moore: 1
Noone really respects michael moore?
Too many numbers for me to understand, DAMN YOU GEORGEBUSH
In one line: in order to have influence we need to unite and choose a maximum of 10 issues that we want to be different.