Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We the People, In order to... a Proposal

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 13, 2011, 9:42 p.m. EST by Rico (3027)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

From the Citizens of America, to all that may hear us, hear this,

We the People of the United States, in order to sustain a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity; to further ensure that Government of the People, by the People, for the People, shall not perish from the Earth do hereby declare the stench of money has corrupted our Union and our Representatives answer not to the People but to moneyed interests. To remove this stench from our Democracy, we demand a ban of all moneys, favors, and other compensation to any elected or appointed official beyond that established by the Constitution of these United States, acceptance or offering of said outside compensation to be prosecuted as a bribe punishable under Law. Further, we demand the establishment of a Federal Election Fund which shall finance all public elections for any candidate to Federal Office having collected supporting and unique signatures from 1,000,000 or more registered voters of these United States, said fund being the sole source of funding to be used in campaigning so the poorer Citizens of our Nation are not disenfranchised.

We are the People, and we demand the return of our Government.

EDIT: Please see the AWESOME interview conducted by Tavis Smiley on PBS. The link is in my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-want-my-government-back-now/

97 Comments

97 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

This is definitely something that has a decent chance of being accepted by "the 99%"

Note: actually 99% of Americans (that means liberals, independents AND conservatives) not merely partisan trolls squeeling about "being the 99%", while demanding idiological purity to whatever cause espouse.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

What? and you didn't get offended by my "fancy language" ? ;o)

Kids these days, no appreciation for the power of grand rhetoric and historical reference!

Maybe I assumeth too much? People DO recognize the Preamble to the Constitution and the concluding lines of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, right ?

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

the young may find it a bit much, but I (mid 30s) find the eloquence of our founding documents to be inspiring.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 2 years ago

Federal Election Fund which shall finance all public elections for any candidate to Federal Office having collected supporting and unique signatures from 1,000,000 or more registered voters

So basically third parties would receive zero funds, and would be locked-out of the elections. In fact 1 million voters exceeds the population of most House of Representatives districts. They'd be locked-out by the current Republicrat duopoly.

[-] 5 points by Elysium22 (95) 3 years ago

/agree

[-] 3 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 3 years ago

Well, I didn't know "stench" was in the same subset of vocabulary that the Constitution utilizes, but this works for me.

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

I figured it rhymed with "wench," so maybe it would be OK ;o)

As I said above, there's probably an English major out there who should make it better, but I think connecting our effort to the grand tradition of our Nation can only help.

[-] 3 points by bdubatdi (11) 3 years ago

Very good

[-] 3 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 3 years ago

Good

[-] 3 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

That is actually a proposal that everyone, Democrats and Republican alike, can get behind, albeit maybe with a little less fancy language. OWS needs a simple, MODERATE goal to gain mass appeal.

Protests for ideologies may be nice and all but ultimately without widespread support they are really just a waste of time because no change will occur. You need mass support to promote change and the USA is diverse enough that things need to be moderate and simple to gain that mass support.

The above message is something that nearly all Americans will likely agree on.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The "fancy language" is to show people that we respect and accept what has come before, and that we are only concerned with the perfection of what was begun by our forefathers.

We can DEBATE all our other differences, liberal vs conservative, etc, in TRUE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE after we the PEOPLE TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

Oh I agree with you, I like it. But most American's aren't that bright and probably wouldn't get past that first sentence that is 4 lines long before they give OWS a pass.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

LOL ! You DO realize that is in and of itself a bit SAD, right ? Alas, Literacy and thine sister Rhetoric, where hath tho gone ? OK, OK, OK, I'm kidding.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

Yeah its sad and all but it's true. I would be a grand that 95% of people who clicked on this thread did not read that entire paragraph word for word.

OWS needs something that can go on lawn signs and tshirts if it wants to blow up and make people accept it.

The idea though, is great. It really does represent the 99%, which is something that is almost nonexistent on these boards.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Oh, that's only the FORMAL statement. Our T-Shirts can say "We Demand Our Government Back"

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

Fair enough. You would even get Tea Partiers to stand behind that.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

EXACTLY. That's the point.

We FIRST need to GET OUR GOVERNMENT BACK. We can then use an UNCORRUPTED Democratic process to work through our OTHER differences.

If we try to tackle all our differences NOW, we end up breaking the Nation into FACTIONS that have no POWER ... JUST the way the Status Quo WANTS it !

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

"factions"

Funny, George Washington in his fairwell address had a few warnings about factions (what we today know as organized political parties).

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Did he really? I didn't know that ! Where can I read what he said ?

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter." -George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Awesome and so TRUE ! Thanks !

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

I think we can all relate to this snippet:

"to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

that's (somewhat) what the Tea Party was saying (prior to being hijacked by the social conservatives and party apparatchiks)

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The People that supported the ORIGINAL Tea Party are still out there, and THEY'LL support this.

In doesn't matter if we FAIL this time around, it only matters that we NOT GIVE UP. With PERSEVERANCE, the People ALWAYS WIN. Just ask India, Egypt, Libya, etc.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I'm going to get bashed for saying this but both OWS and the Tea Party are two groups with some really good ideas being drowned out by a bunch of wackos.

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

Hear hear.

[-] 1 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

I agree. The Tea Party has been hijacked and nuetered, what remains to be seen is if "the 99%"/OWS (whatever you call it) suffers the same "ideological purity purge" the ended my support for the former.

[-] 3 points by c0lex (40) 3 years ago

If you want to take part in a set of proposals that is accepted by the public, go here: http://declarationof99.wikidot.com/

It's a wiki, so instead of a whole bunch of disconnected people posting their version of the demands, we can all edit the same document until it reflects our unified vision of America. Then it will be presented to congress.

[-] 3 points by Markmad (323) 3 years ago

Thanks for the link. I'll do.

[-] 1 points by le9 (3) from Canisteo, NY 3 years ago

hello - read the post to edit the proposal, but there it recommended coming here for discussion, i would like to discuss, so following is what i was working on and think relates to this post..

hi- drag about cleaning: mighty fine distraction in details - Mayor...

I think a Constitutional Amendment limiting constitutional protections and rights to only individuals, who are born and die, could be an agreeable pursuit. The slippery slope of the 'citizens united' has corrupted civic discourse and turned it into a theatre of rank propaganda. (e.g.. hope)

the response nationally to the protests has been solid... still it would be a real climb - but a tough climb is better than getting mired by distractions, details, cleaning details. that's how they've achieved their coup thus far - distractions

i get it, the problems with laundry list demands, but i do think that this most beautiful idea of the citizen, with rights, privileges and responsibilities of free men, is what we have lost. and lost it by any number of ways... pursuing our own satisfactions, or with guile believing an economic system would look out for us, forgetting that we need to look out for one another, is what underlies the protest.

lastly disgusted is disgusted and I have been disgusted since 1983, it would be good to do a something big, we are running out of planet time and obviously corporations don't care - see the above, born live die. they are the undead...

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 3 years ago

“we are running out of planet time”

How true. Worsen when top with never-ending spurious entertainment. How can one reason?

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 3 years ago

Constitutional articles as a hole may be daunting unless you limit it up to the original ones and scratch most illicit revision that gave rise to tax anthology and creation of bogus institutions as UN, WB, IMF, clear unconstitutional.

[-] 2 points by NachoCheese (268) 3 years ago

thanks for link, I think it look great. I may not agree with all of the content, but isn't that part of compromise?

I hope more people can get a chance to read it and contribute if they chose. I will make it a point to spread the word...

[-] 3 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

As a Citizen (rather than a "1%'er), I THANK YOU for your efforts.

I have no PRIDE of authorship and don't CARE who writes the final bit. I was just trying in my own feeble way to connect what we're trying to do to the grand history of our Nation and it's guiding Principles. It's DARNED hard to laugh at or dismiss a statement that ties what we're doing to the most cherished documents of our Nation !

[-] 2 points by c0lex (40) 3 years ago

Thank you very much Nacho, I appreciate you spreading the word and contributing to the document. And yes, absolutely, we all have to compromise somehow -- in order to live together. Otherwise we might as well get our guns and go to war, which is just ignorant.

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

Wow fantastic link. Thank you. Going to take some time to digest...

[-] 2 points by jmcdarcy (158) 3 years ago

Nice. I'm not sure why you capitalize so many words, but I assume you maybe know about some grammatical rule that maybe I don't know about. I like everything you said. Especially the idea to create a federal election fund. But I actually advocate making the language more modern and simplistic. Maybe say "reestablish" instead of "establish" justice. But I'm really just playing devil's advocate. I basically like everything that you wrote.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The words out of the Constitution's preamble were already capitalized a certain way, so applied that same style to the except from the Gettysburg Address then tried to carry it through. I'm NOT a writer, and I bet there are some English majors out there who could tune it up.

[-] 1 points by racheldot (11) 2 years ago

I like it too! And we are thinking along the same lines: I also suggest a simpler, more concise version for purposes of explaining QUICKLY what the movement is about, before anyone has a chance to be turned off by "fancy language". My suggestion for articulating the Occupy movement's overall demand:

We seek government of the people, by the people, and for the people - with liberty and justice for all.

Everything else flows from that! We MUST focus on what unites us (ALL of us)... I think this might be it.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Believe me, I have no "pride of authorship." I just happen to love the grand old rhetoric ! What's important is that we focus on a message that will get all of America behind us, and I think the "WE WANT OUR GOVERNMENT BACK" is a damned good one.

Heck, all the crazy radical ideas aside, if we do nothing more but return the People's government to them, we will have accomplished a huge change in America that will be forever remembered as a great turning point in our history.

[-] 1 points by sinthytechstudios (22) 2 years ago

I think this is a great idea, the only problem is that to put this plan in motion you have to go through the same corrupt system. There is no way you can get that pack of criminals to give up their bribes. These guys have unlimited reelections and their net worth while they are in congress increases ten fold. I don't care how many people you get to sign any petition or how loud you yell, you will never stop these people from taking bribes.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Agreed. It will be very hard, even harder than you state; did you know that the media companies count election years as revenue producers just like the Olympics? Media companies receive a huge portion of the money in politics, and we can expect them to fight any proposal to eliminate it.

The difficulty in fixing this one problem is what makes me feel this single issue should be our sole issue. It's broad enough that ALL Americans can get behind it regardless of their political affiliation, and it takes that kind of broad support to make something like this happen.

[-] 1 points by Pathfinder77 (1) from Perrysburg, OH 2 years ago

Congrats, this is very much along the lines of what I was thinking of to help fix our government. I never in a million years would believe we'd be able to efficiently police the politicians on what moneys they take and for what, but I like the thought of it. I'm hoping to start a petition in OH to ban campaign contributions from businesses so there are no favors for them. The Federal Election fund will have to be supported by a flat tax that all must pay for it to be fair. And I think we've agreed that 1,000,000 signatures is a bit much for a presidential nominee. Great job, and keep working on it. I think this might just take off!! :-)

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I wouldn't couple this idea with the flat tax as that will only divide those who might otherwise support it. The number can be fixed, probably as some percentage of population in the affected voting population (House, Senate, President).

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 2 years ago

Heres how to fund the national election fund and a few other things. But please stop the inflammatory comments like stench........be mature...work within the system thats allowing this to happen....check out www.nationalday911.org and get OWS to include the basic idea....

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Now that's how we do . . . .

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 2 years ago

I'm basically on board with this, assuming some tweaking including that million voter bit - I think we need a different bar to cross, but not sure what is suggest just now, and some spiffying up of the language. But the heart & soul of it, I'm on board.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I'm flexible on the number, 1 million was just a nice round number.

We do need to keep the number of candidates down because we'd only have a certain amount of "air time" (C-SPAN, PBS, etc) to work with. Maybe the top 5 or 10 candidates with the most signatures ?

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 2 years ago

wow... the discussion in this post from 1 month ago is sooo refreshingly non-partisan compared to more recent discussions

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

The discussion under ALL my posts is generally pretty civil. I find that we can engage in respectful discourse as long as at least one party is committed to it. This post is particularly civil and non partisan because I think most everyone agrees we need to do something about the money in politics. Personally, I am of the opinion we really only need to fix two problems 1) Money in Politics 2) Responsible purchasing. Both return the power to the people.

For remarkable examples of how civil we CAN be see the discussions under some of my other posts listed below. It's AMAZING what we can talk through when we're civil with one another !

http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-students-choose-poor-majors/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-is-money/

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 2 years ago

Hi Rico, big +1 to you. I haven't read thru the discussions under you OP's yet, but very much appreciate the tenor and material content of those top posts. I like the wsj spreadsheet on unemployment numbers vs careers vs popularity. I have an CompSci+EE degree myself, lots of hours of homework and cramming in the 80s to get that. If i were in school now, i'd be gunning for a bio-engineering background... not very popular, but what a difference that stuff can make in the coming decades.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

I hear you. I TRIED to get my daughter to do bio-engineering and my son to do materials-science. She ended up a flight officer in the USAF, and he's a pretty successful mechanical engineer now. I suppose I can't complain ! I'm a Systems Engineer, by the way, but I'll be retiring next year.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 2 years ago

A pilot, very cool, my dad's a former USAF single seat-fighter pilot (F100-super sabre). Bridge truss structures is fun stuff too but not so cool as 9-g turns in an F16 ;) Congrats on the soon to be retirement!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

It seems we have much in common then. My father was USAF, I did a stint in the USAF, and now my daughter is USAF. We're also fellow engineers. I bet you're also handsome, quick witted, and well liked by the ladies too ! ;o)

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

Any sort of 'ban' on anything (drugs, sex, violence, etc) does not eliminate the thing itself. Only the removal of the incentive can do that. The commerce clause in article 1, section 8 of the constitution is the inventive that leads to corporate owned government. It is the clause which grants to government absolute power over commerce (the economy). THIS is what must be abolished in order to protect they system of government laid out in the Declaration of Independence (A government which recognizes individual rights [Life, and the logical extensions of that basic right according to the specific nature of that life] and exists solely to protect those rights).

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 2 years ago

Well said!

[-] 1 points by AdamForChange (9) 2 years ago

A quick note on eloquent language: our forefathers wrote to the English King that they were tired of being treated like slaves...while keeping slaves. There's something to be said for eloquence, but much more for substance and being able to pass the straight-face test.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Sure. Many a flawed man has sparked a good idea. The ideas our Forefathers sparked DID eventually result in freedom. At least they were able to see beyond what was to what should be. For that, I thank them and forgive them their sins.

[-] 1 points by polo (63) 2 years ago

do you not think it will be much easier to get 1,000,000 signatures if you have $100 million dollars, then you can travel more easily and start campaigning much faster. You can't ban people from spending their own money. Furthermore, how much should each person get from the fund, it can't be unlimited or it has the potential to be abused.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Details to be worked out for sure.

Do you think it's THAT hard to get signatures these days? Look how many people OWS, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc are able to rally using twitter and text messages !

I don't think we have to spend a lot of money. We might allocate equal time on C-SPAN and/or PBS. We might call in our "public service" clause on the broadcasters, etc. We could use exiting Air-Force planes to fly the candidates around, etc.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Please also see the AWESOME interview Tavis Smiley conducted on PBS last night. The link is in my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-want-my-government-back-now/

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

I agree, but the number of signatures should be a percentage, not a number as population is always changing. What percent of the voting aged population should be required to secure a spot in an election? I'd say ~10%

[-] 1 points by TalkingHead (101) 2 years ago

Sounds good to me, where do I sign?

[-] 1 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 2 years ago

End corporate person-hood. Support the Human Worth Amendment. To learn more, please go to: http://occupywallst.org/forum/human-worth-amendment/

[-] 1 points by AZvotenow (44) 2 years ago

Spent yesterday reading OWN sites. This 1st I have seen by civilized people. I don't agree with all and comments seem to have gone to personal greed goals. Retitle this and get it out there again. If the real people with goals outnumber to destructive ones this movement has a chance for real change. I still think the vote is everyone's last weapon. I want every American to register AND vote. IF voices are heard people not corrupted by $$$ will be elected. MAKE IT HAPPEN

[-] 1 points by Hellomynameis (243) from Aptos, CA 2 years ago

I'd sign it!

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 2 years ago

While a great start, it wouldn't eliminate the corruption entirely. Public campaign financing would remove one part of the money flow, direct contributions, but does nothing to prevent indirect work on behalf of a candidate.

With public financing it is still possible to set up PAC's and Super-PAC's, pouring millions of dollars into campaigns, as long as it is not coordinated with the candidate.

How do you prevent swiftboating while maintaining the first amendment?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

We probably can't do anything about super-pacs insofar as they do nothing but broadcast opinions; anything more that broadcasting an opinion is NOT free speech, however, so that's ALL they could do. We can also very publicly provide details as to the funding sources of PACs so the public KNOWS who's broadcasting those opinions.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 2 years ago

Nice. 1 million signatures is quite a lot

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Yes, but then we must also balance the limited air-time available on the Federal Election Channel (or CSPAN, PBS, etc) over a reasonable number of candidates.

Maybe we could just take the "top 10" number of signatures or something?

If nothing else, this will break the hold of the two-party system. We NEED to hear a wider range of opinions, and the current system forces folks to "toe the line" of the parties agenda. Herman Cain, for example, clearly does NOT agree with much of the core Republican platform, but has HAD to reverse himself several times ONLY because he has to run under THEIR party (I'm not for or against Cain... just an example).

[-] 1 points by aphrodite837 (145) 2 years ago

I agree. I think that we need to organize a group to accomplish campaign finance reform. I'm trying to figure out who would be interested. Please let me know at http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-the-money-out-of-politics/ if you are interested.

[-] 1 points by lyn123 (123) 3 years ago

Great work Rico -I agree that #1 on the agenda must be to remove campaign finance! It would be much easier to focus on one demand that should be initiated prior to the next election. There is a fighting chance after this is codified. Then the current system has a chance to begin correcting itself for the good of the country. There is a lot of work to do and hopefully we will be provided some acceptable candidates that will be up to the challenge.

[-] 1 points by antipolitics (127) 3 years ago

Best proposal yet. Yes, nicely put.

[-] 1 points by 53PercentDude (29) 3 years ago

1. END THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives power to Congress to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” John F. Kennedy was the last President that attempted to restore this power back to where it belonged. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that is owned by powerful international banking families. The “Federal Reserve” is as “Federal” as is “Federal Express.”

2. END THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

Adopt a Federal value added tax (VAT) OR a flat tax that is fair to all.

A VAT would fairly tax all individuals and corporations based on consumption with unprepared food and medicines being exempted from taxation. Those who can afford to purchase a luxury yacht, a private jet, a mansion with an ocean view and lavish dining at an exquisite restaurant would pay a much higher amount in consumption taxes whereas those who can only afford a picture of a yacht, a round-trip airline ticket to go to visit grandma for Christmas, a studio apartment with a parking lot view and an occasional meal at McDonalds would pay much lower taxes for their consumption. It would take very few federal employees to administer this form of taxation.

A flat tax would tax all individuals and corporations at the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no exemptions, regardless of how the income is derived. A federal tax return, regardless of the amount of income should be no longer than one page and the corresponding regulations should be no longer than 25 to 30 pages.

Both forms of taxation would serve to eliminate lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

3. END ALL WARS AND ALL FOREIGN OCCUPATIONS THAT UTILIZE OUR MILITARY.

Our military should continue to be the best and most well equipped in the world but should be utilized to protect our borders from illegal invaders. Bring the troops home and see how quickly we can begin to reduce our federal debt.

4. IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL TARRIFFS ON GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE PRODUCED BY U.S. CORPORATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The United States is still the biggest market in the world. U.S. Corporations that have manufacturing operations in China, Mexico, India and other countries so as to exploit lower labor costs should be required to pay high tariffs to sell their products in the United States. I have no doubt that most of those manufacturing jobs would move back to the United States if those high tariffs were to be imposed!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

You are reposting, so I'll repost as well ;o)

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

You are MISTAKEN in your assertion that the Federal Reserve Bank is private. Please READ Title 12 Chapter 3 of the US Code at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12.html. ALSO consider reading the description at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-1552100128.html. I quote:

"Designed by Congress and subject to congressional authority, the Fed is a politically independent and financially self-sufficient federal agency... The Fed's primary policy-making group is the seven-member Board of Governors. Appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, members serve for one fourteen-year term only. A member who is appointed to fill an unexpired term may be appointed for an additional full term. From among the seven members, the Board's chairman and vice chairman are also appointed and confirmed by the president and the Senate for four-year terms."

On a side note, people who want to understand the Federal Reserve must ALSO understand the Bretton Woods agreements, how the objections of the economists to the dollar serving as the RESERVE CURRENCY were overruled, and how the resulting Triffin dilemma has contributed to the situation we (and the WORLD) find ourselves in today ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma ).

TAXATION

Flawed as it IS, the current TAX system is an ELASTIC system that provides the ability to encourage savings and investment (PRODUCTION) and/or spending (CONSUMPTION). You advocate ELIMINATING the ability to BALANCE incentives, and that would be a MISTAKE. In addition a pure VAT tax as you advocate is REGRESSIVE insofar as the poor spend a LOT more of their income than the rich.

All this said, I AGREE we need to simplify the tax code. The code we HAVE is nothing but a historical collection of SPECIAL INTERESTS and there's not even a HINT of "Equal Protection under the Law" or "Due Process" to be found (see my proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ ). I ALSO agree with a FLAT TAX applied equally to individuals AND corporations with ZERO deductions/credits/loop-holes etc, but we need to exempt the bottom 30% of wage earners (but NO MORE; we can't run a Democracy when a PLURALITY of the population pays NO taxes and can vote themselves whatever they want WITHOUT suffering even the SMALLEST cost).

WARS AND FOREIGN OCCUPATIONS

I hear you brother, HOWEVER, the USA is the worlds largest super-power and, thanks to our LEGACY CAPABILITIES developed in WW I, WW II, the Cold War, etc, we are the ONLY ones who can EFFECTIVELY project power WORLDWIDE.

Until such time as 100% of ALL people born in this world are less than PERFECT, there WILL be bullies on the playground who pick on the kids smaller than they. While we might WANT to stay out of the conflict, the fact is, we're often the ONLY ones who can step in and HELP. I find a MORAL IMPERATIVE to do so. We consume the VAST majority of world resources and CREATED the current world order. We have benefited GREATLY in this role, and I think it IMMORAL to not USE our wealth and power to HELP people. We HAVE made mistakes over our history, but BY AND LARGE, we have been a BENEVOLENT super-power. We have even fought for MUSLIMS being persecuted by CHRISTIANS, and poll after poll in Afghanistan and Iraq indicates the people think their life is BETTER now.

All the above being said, I would LOVE to see us CLARIFY the term "WAR" in the Constitution to mean "ANY action by the US Government that results in the deployment of ARMS for ANY REASON."

IMPOSE TARIFFS THE FOREIGN OPERATIONS OF U.S. CORPORATIONS

There are SO MANY things wrong with this idea, it's hard to even decide where to START a commentary. Let's just touch on two OBVIOUS problems...

First, by imposing tariffs on ONLY the US Corporations, you are making US companies less competitive. You would, for example, make computers made by Apple, Dell, and HP more expensive than computers made by Sony, Acer, etc. That doesn't seem too SMART to me.

Second, if you impose tariffs on imports ACROSS-THE-BOARD, you will HAMMER our RETAIL sector that provides many of a remaining JOBS. My wife and I surveyed four local retailers yesterday, and could NOT find a SINGLE product that said MADE IN THE USA. As a result, a broad tariff on imported goods will be tantamount to raising prices ACROSS-THE-BOARD. We better get some CHOICES on the shelf BEFORE we start taxing imports. This entails the CONSUMER find and BUY US PRODUCTS whenever they can. See my discussion at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/

I do NOT intend to INHIBIT your efforts to think of solutions, I'm ONLY providing you some feedback. PLEASE keep trying !

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 3 years ago

some caveats: where will this general election fund come, and how would it be distributed?

Also what about third party campaigns like Libertarians?

Also how will the funds be used? The salary of campaign managers, or advertising? Because that could be terribly abused.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

The fund will come from the PEOPLE and will be provided to ANYONE who collects 1,000,000 or more unique signatures from registered voters. Frankly, if 1,000,000 of my fellow citizens think a man/woman has something to say that I should consider, I'm WILLING TO LISTEN. Lord knows we need some NEW IDEAS !

If I had MY WAY, the COST of campaigns would APPROACH ZERO. The debates and other appeals would be broadcast on CSPAN and PBS alone. We could ALSO ask the licensed users of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to broadcast under their PUBLIC SERVICE charter. We simply DON'T NEED to spend so much MONEY.

Yes, like ANY FUND, there COULD be ABUSES, but at least WE WOULD be able to SEE how the money was being spent.

[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 3 years ago

Ok. sounds good. check out this link too:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[-] 1 points by ConcernedEconomist (67) 3 years ago

/signed

[-] 1 points by teamok (191) 3 years ago

Here here in full agreement. check this out. http://www.getmoneyout.com/

[-] 1 points by OccupyCapitolHill (197) 3 years ago

Oh Lord...not the Gene Roddenberry-ite Star Trek utopia of a world without money...where everyone magically works together to better society...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo

[-] 1 points by coolnyc (216) from Stone Ridge, NY 3 years ago

Brilliant. I reminds us of the dream that founded this great experiment, and points out why it's gone wrong. This is the critical first step. All other goals depend on the success of this singular and universally supported goal.

[-] 1 points by ComplexMissy (291) 3 years ago

Great! Good start.

[-] 1 points by CapitalismRulesPeriod (160) 3 years ago

so you would rather tax the citizens for campaigns instead?

[-] 2 points by le9 (3) from Canisteo, NY 3 years ago

1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter only were allowed to spend the $29.4 million each they received from the Federal Election Commission.

not that long ago to seem so impossible...what happened?

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

What happened? Polling, demographics, ELECTION MACHINES run by the likes of Carl Rove and David Axelrod who have PERFECTED the art of ELECTIONEERING. They know EXACTLY what to say to WHOM, and they spend FORTUNES to put those words in the FACES of each DEMOGRAPHIC. In the end, they've turned it into a WELL DEFINED PROCESS where, all other things being equal, the candidate with the most money WINS. These candidates are like BRITNEY SPEARS... MANUFACTURED by a MACHINE, and they don't seem to BELIEVE in much of ANYTHING except GETTING ELECTED.

MONEY is the OIL that runs the MACHINE. Let's GET RID OF IT!

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Yes. Elections should be funded by the People.

I'm a 1%'er and for THIS purpose, I'm willing to agree you can RAISE MY TAXES ;o)

Note, however, that if I HAD MY WAY, we wouldn't even NEED any money. We would simply REQUIRE that all those using the PUBLIC airwaves provide the necessary airtime as part of their PUBLIC SERVICE obligation. It's ONLY because I'm a CONSERVATIVE that worries about Due Process and Private Property Rights that I decided we should PAY them ;o)

Notice, by the way that this approach also TEARS DOWN the "TWO PARTY" system as ANYONE can get funded as long as they get 1,000,000 signatures from registered voters. In MY opinion, if 1,000,000 of my fellow citizens think their man/woman has something I should hear, I'M WILLING TO LISTEN. Where in the CONSTITUTION does it say we should only have TWO PARTIES anyway? They sure haven't done much for US. I WANT to hear others.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 3 years ago

Good point, obfuscated by too much pompous preamble.

Few people will read past the 50th word bro.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Few YOUNG people perhaps, but the older folks, the Tea Party folks, and everyone ELSE will appreciate that we know and respect what has come before and are only concerned with the perfection of what was begun by our forefathers in the interest of all.

We can DEBATE all our other differences, liberal vs conservative, etc, in TRUE DEMOCRATIC DEBATE after we the PEOPLE TAKE BACK OUR GOVERNMENT.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 2 years ago

Federal Election Fund which shall finance all public elections for any candidate to Federal Office having collected supporting and unique signatures from 1,000,000 or more registered voters

So basically third parties would receive zero funds, and would be locked-out of the elections. In fact 1 million voters exceeds the population of most House of Representatives districts. They'd be locked-out by the current Republicrat duopoly.

[-] -1 points by rd1box12 (14) 3 years ago

change the system so we the people vote on the issues via phone !instead of the house of rep ,s which can be eliminated to save money and time

[-] -1 points by ThinMan2 (46) 3 years ago

Capital One Home> Personal Banking> Savings & Money Market Accounts> InterestPlus Online Savings

InterestPlus Online Savings Account

Print
Contact Us

Click to Chat With an Online Representative

Features
How It Works
FAQ & Demo
Disclosures

Get Paid. Twice

Earn 0.85% APY* with a balance of $1,000 or more
We offer one of the highest rates among top national banks
Receive a 10% bonus on your interest earned
Get quarterly bonus based on your interest earned with an average balance over $10,000, or an active Capital One credit card
No Fees
There are no fees associated with your InterestPlus Online Savings account
[-] -1 points by PlasmaStorm (242) 3 years ago

This topic represents grandstanding. There have been laws against bribes for 200 years. This is absolutely no different from them except that it has your name on it so that you can pretend you accomplished something.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 3 years ago

Really, then why are our Representatives allowed to collect "contributions" from special interests. See http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

What is DIFFERENT is that I am calling those "contributions" by their TRUE name: BRIBES and calling for them to STOP.