Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We need Progressive solutions to Correct Conservative policy Catastrophy. The progressive caucus is all Dems!

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 22, 2012, 9:31 a.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Whoops there it is!

Caucus Members Co-Chairs

Keith Ellison

Raúl Grijalva Vice Chairs

Tammy Baldwin

Judy Chu

William “Lacy” Clay

Sheila Jackson-Lee

Chellie Pingree Whip

Hank Johnson Senate Member

Bernie Sanders House Members

Karen Bass

Xavier Becerra

Earl Blumenauer

Corrine Brown

Michael Capuano

Andre Carson

Donna Christensen

Hansen Clarke

Yvette Clarke

Emanuel Cleaver

David Cicilline

Steve Cohen

John Conyers

Elijah Cummings

Danny Davis

Peter DeFazio

Rosa DeLauro

Donna Edwards

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bob Filner

Barney Frank

Marcia Fudge

Luis Gutierrez

Janice Hahn

Maurice Hinchey

Mazie Hirono

Rush Holt

Michael Honda

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Marcy Kaptur

Dennis Kucinich

Barbara Lee

John Lewis

David Loebsack

Ben Ray Lujan

Carolyn Maloney

Ed Markey

Jim McDermott

James McGovern

Brad Miller

George Miller

Gwen Moore

Jim Moran

Jerrold Nadler

Eleanor Holmes Norton

John Olver

Frank Pallone

Ed Pastor

Jared Polis

Charles Rangel

Laura Richardson

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Linda Sanchez

Jan Schakowsky

Jose Serrano

Louise Slaughter

Pete Stark

Bennie Thompson

John Tierney

Nydia Velazquez

Maxine Waters

Mel Watt

Peter Welch

Lynn Woolsey

128 Comments

128 Comments


Read the Rules

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

constant protests. We must grow this movement! Join with like minded groups. Then direct our numbers and pressure to agitate for the progressive policies we need to serve the 99%

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What other methods can we pressure all pols with.

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Phonecalls

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

As long as we get the word out.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I've done that @ NYU, Columbia, LIU. Hunter. We're always workin in ny.

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

thx

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Trust Bernie Sanders! He caucuses with & votes with Dems 90% of the time.

Elect progressives. Vote out anti progressive republicans

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Many here are pre-occupied (no pun intended) with taking away our rights to vote, I think because the really serve republicans by attempting to keep progressive OWS supporters from the pols.

Elect more progressives. Vote out anti progressive republicans

[Deleted]

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well there was Odin, and hchc I haven't seen them around in a while theres a couple others I will PM you about, 'cause I don't want to single them out while they are still around

[Deleted]

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Let's hope it stays that way.

Peace

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Excellent goals. Stay strong you will need it. We agree. Grow the movement. Pressure all pols for progressive solutions.

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How can we accomplish this?

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good idea. Someone should go to the unemploymemt office.

[Deleted]

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

PM me we can work it out.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

People can get that kinda stuff.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

many of my middle aged friends don't have jobs

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 2 years ago

Recruit them?

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

Sanders is an independent.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And an excellent guide for those people who are unsure if the parties are the same. Trust Bernie! He has chosen the dems. He knows better than us!

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

He has chosen to be an independent.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good for him! He has chosen to caucus with the Dems, He has chosen to vote 90% with dems! He has chosen to join the progressive caucus with dems. (no repubs)

He has chosen to reject the republicans in all these situations. He repeatedly speaks out against the republican/conservative agenda!.

Sen Sanders is an excellent guide for those who are confused about whether the parties are the same. THEY AIN'T.! Sen Sanders knows better than the simplistic rants about "the parties are the same"!

Be sophisticated like the great Sen Sanders.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Many people are leaving the Democratic Party and the Republican Part and are registering as Independents.

This is happening because of the partisan do-nothing and worse gridlock.

Independents are more about supporting or opposing issues - not party politics.

Issues are what need to be addressed - and then acted on in "THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST" that includes protecting the environment.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I agree. I'd love to see more focus on specific issues and candidates rather than party lines.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And that wish is best filled ( made to come true ) by Us "THE PEOPLE" getting involved and demanding it. Feeding the issues we have into government along with how these issues should be addressed.

Direct Democracy is the People getting involved and staying involved with the running of "OUR" government.

And right now we The People are being forced to get involved mainly by word of mouth as government is not inviting us and MSM is not communicating our needs and any real issues for us to unite for or against.

That is why this is all grassroots as we are having to find ways around the mainstream roadblocks.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressives.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

SANDERS, Bernard, a Representative and a Senator from Vermont; born in Brooklyn, Kings County, N.Y., September 8, 1941; graduated from Madison High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.; B.S., University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., 1964; faculty, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1989; faculty, Hamilton College, Clinton, N.Y., 1990; carpenter; journalist; unsuccessful independent candidate for ...,

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000033

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 2 years ago

He never disappoints me! His positions are spot on. I trust his choices, and he has chosen to caucus with democrats, He has joined the progressive caucus with dems (No republicans). He votes with democrats 90% of the time. Not republicans! That is a good guide. For any one unsure about whether the parties are any different, TRUST BERNIE. He knows better than any anti dem partisans on this site.

[-] 0 points by Lucky1 (-125) from Wray, CO 2 years ago

What "path"?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 2 years ago

Elect people like Sanders/Kucinich?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

why are he dems excluding others ?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They ain't excluding republicans or anyone. I think there are independents, Working Families party, maybe even socialists as well as democrats among this progressive caucus. You don't know why there are no republicans? Really? That might explain a bit.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Is Working Family an actual party or are they a branch of the Democrats like the Tea Party is a branch of the Republicans? We don't have Working Family candidates in my state as far as I know.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well we have one in Brooklyn, where I think the party (not affiliated with the dems) was formed.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Oh, I had heard of them but I had no idea that actually had members elected.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Didja look it up?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Yeah they have a line on the ballot in a few states but usually it is just the Democratic candidate.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Hard to get a 3rd party started. The greens frequently endorse dems too! In nys the conservative party usually endorses the repub. Thats how it goes.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Letitia James is a dem who was endorsed by Working Families so she appeared on the ballot under their column.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Even the best politicians must be pressured to do the right thing.

http://www.nationofchange.org/three-quarters-progressive-caucus-not-taking-stand-against-cuts-social-security-medicare-and-medicai

No rest, No time, no shit

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

There has been criticism that the party is essentially "a campaign by a section of the trade union bureaucracy to win support for politicians of the Democratic Party, while creating the illusion of an “independent” third party with a social reformist program."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/wfp-j03.shtml

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

That is what I figured. It looks like that in the states that give them a ballet line it is always the Democrat on their line too.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the content is pretty thin only content by the word progressive

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't understand your objection.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

right

who objects to progress?

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Republican are anti progressive! Is that what you mean?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they're just a front for distraction issues

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who is just a front? Republicans or progressives? for what distraction issues?

[-] 0 points by werone (-37) 2 years ago

Nothing happens without votes.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

indeed!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The people are NOT Conservative! Real representation would NOT be conservative.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/14690/an_unrepresentative_democracy/

[-] 0 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Your Republican party is done ,Finished

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Some progressive quotes by:

While Social Security faces some long-term challenges, the system is not in crisis. - Chaka Fattah

Now we are raising the debt limit 3 times, up to $8 trillion, so that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for the cost of our expenditures. - Chaka Fattah

Regardless of the nature of their crime or any rehabilitation that may have occurred, these ex-felons cannot participate in the decision-making process of this great Nation. - Charles Rangel

“We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” - Maxine Waters

"Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, north and south." - Sheila Jackson-Lee

"20,000 jobs is really not that many jobs."- Jan Schakowsky

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Do you not like these quotes? Do you therefore not like these members?

So you don't think the progressive caucus is progressive? Or do you support the progressive caucus?. Do you support progressive philosophy/ideas/solutions? Is it just these members you don't like?

Thx

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I think that most of the progressives listed above are really not very progressive. They are for the most part quite happy with the way things are; they are particularly happy with their jobs which land them squarely in the top 5% income bracket.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh well. Guess we gotta agree to disagree. I don't think the amount of money people have is the measure! I think their voting record probably is a better measure than one quote taken out ofcontext. In any event I'm gonna trust Bernie Sanders. I think he knows better than all of us. I think knows MORE than all of us combined.

Perhaps you and I can agree that "real progressives", pushing real progressive solutions is the best hope of resolving our problems.

Agreed?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I believe that very few in Gov have earned our trust, and results over the past 40 years have been disappointing at best.

If you make a list the top ten changes in the last 40 years that have the greatest effect on you personally (things that have had the greatest impact on your life), to whom do you credit for each of those changes?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who knows.? The parties are corrupted. Only hope is with progressives. We must elect more Sanders like progressives! And protest protest protest!

"It's the only way to be sure"

Perhaps you and I can agree that "real progressives", pushing real progressive solutions is the best hope of resolving our problems.

Agreed?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 2 years ago

What I would like to see is the progressives base and conservitive base start their own parties. Right now it is all about voting for the lesser of 2 evils or just voting based on the D or R infront of their names. If we had multiple parties it would A) ensure that it would be harder to buy off our politicians and B) give a greater range of option that would reflect the diversity of our nation. Always remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

OOO! Thats a good one. I think I have that bumper sticker!. It would be nice to see 2 extreme parties created from the base. Not sure how that would effect elections but I definitely want multi party access. Until then I will have to vote for the imperfect but better (not lesser evil) party. The party that includes the progressive base, and the progressive caucus.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Progressives who haven't signed the commitment to not cut SS Medicare

http://www.rootsaction.org/take-action/601-progressive-caucus-members-who-havent-stood-up

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I am not so interested in what folks push for. The only thing that counts is what they achieve. Best efforts, best hope, pushing for, God willing and the creek don't rise, well intentioned ideas, all of these are meaningless without results.

I agree with you that we have problems (although our problems are small compared to other places in the world, or the problems that the US faced in , say, 1930), but I have seen little evidence that our Gov has either the capacity or inclination to solve them. Most of them like things just the way they are.

That said I can think of no better time to be alive than right now, except maybe in the future (double meanings included). By most measures things today are much better in the the US and the world than ever before. When some one tells you they pine for the good old days just say one word: dentistry.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LoL. Thats good!.

Ok then your good with everything. That's great.

I'm doing pretty good as well and I agree that historically speaking we have never been better off.

I suppose my concerns and efforts are to keep that improvement going, & having that improvement spread to those thus far left behind.

Good luck to you in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I wish more people had your optimism. That virtue goes a long way in helping to solve problems.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm a little concerned about this issue. What do you think?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/and-now-the-tea-party-is-in-on-the-republican-vote/

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Based on all the evidence that I can find voter fraud seems to be in the noise and I don't understand the preoccupation with it.

That said pretty much every other developed country requires voter ID and the US is such an open place we have more than 50,000,000 ineligible voters. So I don't think that it is right to call everyone that wants to insure a fair election a racist.

Calling someone a racist is a vile thing and requires that you know that person's mind; which is not possible. So I avoid it.

[-] 6 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So then you think that voter suppression is not happening? Just noise? Or do you think it is happening and it is ok?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I think that the frequency of voter fraud is in the noise and efforts to try to prevent illegal voting will actually increase the turn out of eligible voters. Sounds like it might be a win-win. Americans are not very good at showing up at the polls; this might improve that situation.

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't begrudge Beyonce or the rich their respective good fortune. I only want the people who created the economic crash/debt (the 1%) to pay their fair share. Since 2007 we the 99% have struggled and sacrificed. They have continued to enrich themselves off of our work!

So I don't buy the story oh we shouldn't tax the wealthy cause "their money can't pay for much of the debt.". Those same people say we gotta cut all programs for the 99%, THAT cannot pay down the debt much! But it would hurt people who cannot spare the cuts.

I think the 1% have plenty to help their country out of the recession they created.

So I say don't worry if it ain't enough, let's have a go at it. At least they won't go hungry or have to choose between paying for medicine, and rent (like the cuts will result in)

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Its the .01% that brought the crash. The typical millionaire had nothign to do with it.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Ok. Take 100% of all the money that the top 1% make. Do you really believe that the Gov will use that money to pay down the debt (or for any other worthwhile purpose)? They are at best inept and at worse crooks.

Gov has a dreadful track record for using your money. Giving them more (no matter where it comes from) is like giving Viagra to the guy that's raping you.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The 5 trillion added to the debt recently was left to us by Bush! The same way Clinton left Bush a surplus, Bush left us a deficit!

Pres Obama attempted to cut it and the treasonous repubs obstructed the plan! Like you they don't want to raise taxes on the 1%, and only accept cuts to pgms of the 99%.

So once again it is always republicans to blame.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

All progressive policies good? probably not for everyone. All conservative policies bad.? Maybe not. I'm gonna avoid dealing with absolutes in this regard. That is for extremists.

I say elect progressives because that approach considers others and I support what I've heard. It is support for the general approach that is most useful.

Whatever approach we consider can be picked apart to find some negative, or twist a positive into a negative.

What do you support? You've offered a list of so called conservative positions, and offered a defense of tea party values. Why don't you take a stand.?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Take a stand on what subject?

[-] -1 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

progressives are communists/sociaists. No Thanks. I want capitalist.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I base my statements on the facts of the last 2 years where repub controlled state legislatures have introduced scores of new voter requirements in a clear effort to suppress democratic votes.

I guess if you don't believe it's happening that's one thing (discouraging certainly) To suggest somehow it is good is a bit baffling.

Do you support OWS and the 99% or are you a republican.?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There are 40 million Reps in the US. Most of them are in the 99%; probably close to 90%. Are they allowed to support the 99%?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 2 years ago

Occupy has many supporters from the republican side. You're earning your paycheck again today? If you had a real job, you wouldn't have to bite your brothers back. Think on it, traitor.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So.. You believe there is A massive 40 state effort by Republicans to suppress Democratic voters? But you think it will be good for Democratic voters?

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It may turn out to be good for all eligible voters Dem and Rep. I believe that the issue may get folks out to the polls on both sides. I admit that I am basing my conjecture on anecdotal data, but the assumption that there will will be massive voter suppression is also conjecture.

I think that you are giving the Reps way to much credit for being effective at anything.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Rape is an offensive analogy. Please refrain.

repub admins HAVE been very reckless with our money. Reagan, & and the Bushes blow up the debt (by design to then later claim we must cut pgms for the 99%), The Dem (Clinton) left a budget surplus. So I think if we have a Dem Admin we have a good chance to pay down the debt.

So are you saying the wealthy cannot contribute because it won't pay down much, AND that we shouldn't even try because the govt won't pay down the debt?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Obama has increased the debt by $5 trillion in three years! That's an additional $64,000 of debt per tax payer. Have you got the money? You currently owe more than $200,000. What evidence do you have that he will not continue to increase it in the future?

I am saying don't throw good money after bad.

Two things have to happen to stop the Gov from increasing our debt.

  1. Cut off their funding (Cut taxes and prohibit borrowing)

  2. Reduce the size of Gov. It now accounts for almost 50% of GDP (Local, State, and Federal).

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

obama has spent ( wasted) more money in his 3 1/2 years than all of the 43 presidents that came before him , COMBINED .

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Well it's ok I don't mind disagreeing if you don't. And I realize 90% is a huge number I suppose I am assuming we would never get that much. It's just the debt has been blown up so much and the riches have skated along with little pain while the 99% have struggled.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I don't begrudge the rich their money in the same way I don't begrudge Beyonce her good looks. She is beautiful, I am not. I don't wish that she should become ugly so that we both have equally poor appearance.

What's the point anyway? If you took all of the earnings of the top 1%, all of the earnings, you could only run the government for about 5 weeks. That's right, 5 weeks.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

How about taking a stand on:

  • public financing of campaigns (no contributions)

  • 90% tax rate on all income over $1 million.

How about that?

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I favor item 1 but would also want the following:

  • Campaigns may not begin until November

  • Elections must be held on the third Tuesday in April (right after tax day, maximum six month campaign cycle)

  • Private campaigning is permitted but for every dollar spent, two dollars must be given to the campaign fund of the opposing candidate.

I have an opinion about your second item but I fear that it might diminish your blossoming affection for me.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I appreciate the lesson in how to avoid labeling republican voters.

As you suggest though the policies are what matter! And I see the conservative approach very damaging, while I see the progressive approach as the best way resolve our problems.

Values that embrace the isms you mentioned are bad and should be considered! But the policies we implement are the best measure of how to choose which lever to pull.

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree, but when you pull the lever it is always a trade off.

Did LGBT folks have to hold their noses if they pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 because they knew his stated position on gay marriage?

BTW, are all progressive policies good and all conservative policies bad? Don't you have a list of things that you want to conserve? I bet you can think of a few that do not fit neatly into these categories.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Is your goal to have me not support dems? (I mean aside from listing pro repub items)

I am a registered independent! I support progressive solutions, because conservative policies have created all our problems. The dems have failed miserably in standing up to the right wing. Dems have failed profoundly when they inevitably vote for conservative policies.

So I may vote dem but not because they are perfect, they are subject to, and part of the same corruption repubs are.

If I vote for dems it is because they ARE better. Because there is a slim chance we can lay the ground work for our new system. Because there is some chance we can drag them to the left and pass progressive solutions that will improve the lives of the 99%.

So have at it. Change my mind if that is your goal. It is not likely.

But good luck in all your good work.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I found the list that I sent you on a website reporting Teaparty values.

The point is that most folks have shared values, but may have differnent opinions about Gov policies that best promote those values. That does not make them bad people. When you go into the voting booth (just like them) you can only make one choice. It is not likely to be a perfect choice. It may actually be a close call. So close that someone else with values not unlike your own, might pull the other lever. That does not make them a bigot, racist, homophobe, pick your pejorative.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"allowed"? to support the 99%. Of course! If only! when they finally break the brainwashing of the republican 1% tools promising them wealth and priviledge, and realize they ARE the 99%, then things will finally change.

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

But they republicans. All 38 million the of them. How is it possible that they support the 99%?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

item #1 no evidence repubs believe everyone equal. Quite the opposite. Dems do. So this is a Dem idea.

item #2 now the repubs have blown up the debt they are spewing this lie "we shouldn't spend our childrens future" So they can cut programs for the 99% now. That's been their plan for 30 years. (run up the debt, gut pgms to pay it) Of course I don't agree because it is dishonest. Repubs didn't worryabout the 'children" when they ran up the debt! So in fact it has been Dems who actually kept budgets under control. This is another Dem Idea.

item #3 Repubs have exploited the 9/11 attacks and eroded out constituional right by starting indef det, warrentless wiretaps, and others. So While I agree with this general concept i see repubs as only giving it lip service. They misuse the constitution for nefarious ends rather than seek to uphold it.

4 Citizens involvement in govt. I agree but repubs do not. The are in the midst of a massive effort to suppress Dem votes. Everyone else supports this concept. But definitely not repubs.

5 Money in politics, It was repub appointed judges who found in favor of Citizens United and unlimited money in campaigns. Repubs are lovin this obscene flood of billionaire money. I've only seen dem/progressives fighting against it. So I agree but certainly not a republican idea.

Thanx

[-] 4 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If you find evidence that Dems don't support items 1 - 5 will you withdraw support?

[-] 1 points by electron (-492) 2 years ago

Obama this, Obama that.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I didn't say the 40 million support the 99%! I'm saying that the republicans attack OWS. I have only seem attacks from republicans on OWS. If any republican supports OWS, they are of course welcome.

Ain't met them. Not here, not on the street, not on the streaming videos, not on the TV. Are you saying you know republicans who support OWS?

[-] 3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Reps may have different ideas about the best way to improve the lot of the 99%. 90% of Reps are in the 99%, maybe they have some ideas worth considering (or at least show them the courtesy of listening with an open mind).

Do you favor these ideas:

Everyone is equal and deserves an equal opportunity.

It is wrong to spend our children's future.

Protect the US constitution and the erosion of our liberty.

Citizen involvement in government is essential to a healthy nation.

American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2737) 2 years ago

Yep they will be so excited to stand in a three hour line after work.

Vote day should be holiday.

Our mail in primary got a whopping 36 percent vote return.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

You want to improve voter turn out?

Get rid of the withholding tax and require that all Americans personally write a check for their taxes once per year on April 15. Then hold all elections one week later. I wager it would increase the turnout by 50%,

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"If you took all of the earnings of the top 1%, all of the earnings, you could only run the government for about 5 weeks. That's right, 5 weeks."

Incorrect. The federal budget is about $4 trillion, about 25% of GDP. The top 1% make about 23% of GDP. Their earnings could run the government for 11 months. Instead they run it by political contributions and lobbyists for just a few billion.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_N4XvePkmKjA/TRlCOjKYTHI/AAAAAAAAAUA/hrorAeWMQx4/s1600/Top+income+shares+of+income.Saez.jpeg

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Let's give it a try. Certainly they have more money than the working class. And they haven't sacrificed at all during this Bush great recession.

I don't buy those republican talking points. Fair taxes.! Stop corp welfare, end all deductions, loopholes, shelters for the 1%. They got plenty! The 1% are hoarding $32T in overseas accounts. Lets get some of that. And lets disregard any defense or objections. Just TAKE it, for the 99%!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You might want to save some of the links to the hard facts of economic inequality so you can rebut those Republican talking points. Always let them leave the argument knowing they've been lied to.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Why can't I just express my opinion.? You and they can disagree. You and they can use links. But I don't HAVE to do I.?

I disagree that the wealthy can't be taxed enough to address our deficit/debt. I haven't said that is all we should do. I support other tactics. We can cut the military by 50%. That's a good one. They always scream about that one. No good? I'm not even against cutting any waste, fraud from pgms that serve the 99%. But very little.

Most of all I support economic growth. That in the end is the only thing that will resolve the deficit/debt problem. So that means some govt stimulus investment.

Aaaaand..... the screaming begins again. LOL. Why bother with the links? This is common sense. If they don't agree so be it. I can't make people believe. But I can argue. And that is what I intend to do.

You don't agree perhaps.?

Oh. Is my partisanslip showing?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If both you and your opponent don't use factual information to back up your arguments, and instead just repeat arguments you've heard and not checked, just as sealyon did, the arguments then are nothing more than hot air. Without substance an argument has no merit.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow. so you have relegated my comments to hot air because I don't conform to your preferred form of debate. LoL

What are you? The discussion police.? Who said I ain't checked? Who said I ain't got no factual info to back up my argument? Did I say that? NO! I didn't! I said I don't have to use links! Honestly, What the fuck are YOU talkin about?.

Do you agree with the substance of the discussion? Or are you stuck on some imaginary protocal that you need to discuss.?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You said "Why can't I just express my opinion.?"

Because when Occupy members present a weak defense, we all look bad. Your personal opinion will not convince an opponent of anything. The facts that underlie you argument will win over personal opinion hands down.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm sorry I'm not debating properly! I will try harder. Please don't report me.

Uh you said republican. That was your last complaint against me. Is that allowed now? And you have switched to this new complaint because I haven't discussed the political parties.?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Yeah, I shouldn't use the "R" word either. My fault. I'll edit to "opponent".

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever. I argue about issues with many different people here and in real life. Some use detail info to back up their positins. Most do not. in any event, there is a great give and take of opinion with no complaints. Except from you!

And guess what? I don't see your comments with many links either. So what gives? You got a problem with me personally?

And you have yet to comment on the substance of the issue at hand. Is this just an effort to distract and deflect.?

Why don't you let me argue how I prefer. I am pretty convincing. And it's my business how I debate. You debate how you want. And good luck.

At least I discuss the issues and don't go off on the tangents of "you're not debating properly" or " you shouldn't be political".

Rule boy. Break the rules! RULES? We don't need no stinkin rules!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Read my reply to DKA.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I read it. But it didn't include any links of factual info, does that mean I should disregard it.? In fact I don't think any of the comments in your reprimand of me included any links of factual info.

I suppose your rules only apply to me?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"What is this link about?"

It's about why people can't get out of a certain mindset even when presented with facts that show that mindset to be false.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just read it. very interesting. not surprising. not illuminating. not necessary! not trying to be offensive. but I already understand this concept. Did not to read npr's little blurb on it. thx

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What? Why do you think I need that?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"What? Why do you think I need that?"

Everyone needs to understand this to be effective in debate and to make sure their own beliefs are based on fact and not illusion.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

My beliefs ARE based on facts, not illusion. Just because you don't like the amount of links I use doesn't mean my positions ain't backed up by facts.

And let me assure you boss anyone can find interweb links to backup any nonsense argument they want to.

And I assure you I do not feel I have to prove anything, nor educate anyone. I'm perfectly fine stating "this is my opinion, I believe you are mistaken" mostly they will not be swayed but if enough people make the same/right argument they will question and research on their own.

Really most people will not really accept my backup as valid since they don't agree to start with. Better a person find there own info upon there own search.

y'know?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Facts won't convince a RINO of anything - except that the program needs to be speed-ed up cause people are starting to wake-up. Now real republicans may have a chance of waking up - and apparently many have as they are leaving the party and going independent.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Facts do eventually change peoples opinions. I grew up thinking this country was great, everything it did was just and fair. Slowly the facts that became painfully apparent began to change my view. It happened over a period of years, and not from any left wing influence, just from an honest look at the facts.

The reason why people are unable to change their views when presented with irrefutable facts is a condition known as "cognitive dissonance". The reality that is presented is so painful that they prefer the false comfort of a preconceived illusion. I felt the pain when I began learning some of the truths about America's history of oppression. Eventually I got over the pain and found greater freedom in knowing the truth. Don't give up on a single person, no matter their viewpoint. Keep hitting them with facts, not opinion. Eventually they will change if they have the courage.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is a reason that I am here on this forum. To find and circulate needed information.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well, here is where I got the number:

Total personal income: $ 13 trillion

( http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm)

% of total income earned by the top 1 %: 17%

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/14/top-1-percent-pay-37-percent-of-income-t, http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Total cost of Gov (Federal, State, and Local). $6.3 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Total number of weeks that can be funded if all of the money is taken from the top 1 %: 17

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Here's a simpler method. GDP divided by federal spending is at 24%:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Untitled1.jpg

Here's the latest from Saez on the 1% share of income. 20% and climbing in 2010.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/03/income-inequality The personal income numbers are short of GDP numbers by 1.5 to 2 trillion.

The combined state, local and federal spending sounds way to high. That would put us in the same percentage as Sweden at about 50% of GDP. 28% of GDP is the common figure for total taxes that I have seen.

[-] -2 points by brudlo (-454) 2 years ago

a list of the bottom of the political barrel.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Elect progressives, vote out anti OWS conservatives.