Forum Post: When you say: "Get the money out of politics."
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 12:02 a.m. EST by number2
(914)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Do you really mean it? Like all of it? Or should some special interest groups like unions be allowed to buy politicians exclusively?
If OWS is hypocritical about this, 99% will be a pipe dream and no progress will be made. YOu might as well say it's the 35% or Democrat party with a makeover.
sadly i think people only care when it is their interest being left out
OWS will have no more influence or effect than the democrat party, then.
discuss this issue far and wide then come to the National GA and VOTE! This issue tops the list of grievances: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
Actually the Idea of the slogan "99%" is to express a majority in contrast to the "1%" minority.
Genuine dialogue and collective democratic problem solving is the answer. This is called democracy! Just because OWS says yes to allowing only unions to buy politicians does not mean thats what we should do. Its not OWS against everyone else. Its OWS calling for the people to have the opportunity to decide.
Some people say, "You want change? Then you should vote!" That idea is based on what America was back when we formed the union. There were few Americans then and most people had land and livelihoods of their own. Now we need to overhaul our decision making process to better hear the people and keep these politicians and elites from shoplifting our system and feeding off of America.
If they want to continue to play the exploitation game we will win. We are many and they are few. Corrupt systems always end badly an it would be a pity to allow it to go that way. Just because we are spoiled Americans does not mean we have to be content with the current state of things.
The statements below are interesting..... However, lets realign their priorities and bring them closer to the spirit of our democracy.
We should have capital punishment laws in place for white collar and political crimes.
I love money too. The thing I can't understand is why I don't cheat people in order to get it. Is there something wrong with me or is there something wrong with your assumptions?
you're not a sociopath. There's nothing wrong with you or my assumptions. What did I assume? That literally 99% of the people were in agreement? Obviously not the case but if OWS were smart they would have ideas that a majority of the people could support.
I did not mean that something is wrong with your assumptions as a whole. Perhaps I was not very clear. I mean to say that not all humans will act in a corrupt manner while holding a position of power. They may exercise their power and privilege, but this is acceptable to a certain extent.
Its very difficult to get 99% of Americans to agree on anything.
The movement needs to do a better job of grooming itself. Some of the people involved will only cause problems. Just because someone supports the movement does not mean they are good for the movement. We need consistently higher quality supporters dressed neatly, well groomed, clean, eloquent, with organized thinking skills. However, I think those people are probably still at work...........
not all but most. I would probably get corrupted. I don't love telling others what to do but I do love money.
This is what the masses seem unable to grasp:
If we replace our current leaders with human beings, they will sell out just as far as the current bunch. Our leaders weren't born sold out. Wall Street executives weren't born evil. They were born human. With a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community.
When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.
Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution came mechanized transportation, air conditioning, and television.
We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.
Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, just about everyone wants to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.
How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.
Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan on such corrupt influence. She never intended for any of us to seek or attain extreme personal wealth. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising basic morality.
Extreme wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.
Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this:
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?
Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most corrupt influence in the history of mankind.
I speak the ugly truth.
There will be no reform on Wall Street.
There will be no recovery for the vast majority.
There will be no government "of the people" and "for the people".
Not one of us will live to see it.
Yes well these things don't last. But then a revolution occurs and things get good for awhile; then the people fall asleep again; the pirates come in again and take the country for all it's worth and back at square one. Everything is useless. Defeat is inevitable.
Let's just hand the money over to the corporations and bankers. That would be easier and we wouldn't be playing charades.
It's still worth fighting for tooth and nail. I'll take whatever dent we can make. It would be even worse if we do nothing.
OWS is not influential enough until it is being debated by political strategists on how to utilize it in order to get their candidates elected.
Also, why is OWS largely absent in mainstream news media? How odd....
I think you've forgotten one minor element, and that is this: religion itself is evolutionary and for hundreds if not thousands of years it served to humble us to the communal need. In fact, it is the only force that has ever been capable of humbling us.
We've grown more secular for evolutionary reason: there is less need. We no longer outlive three wives; we no longer bury half our children; we no longer brave the elements in wooden ships, settle in the "untamed" wilderness, or face the unforeseen with the same trepidation. Even government has grown far more protective, on and on, etc. and we live today in relative safety.
Indifference and denial do not equate to disbelief; the desire for the spiritual lies within all as a measure of some lessened happiness.
This movement has all the makings of the spiritual; all elements are there. This could very well be the new-found religion, or even incorporated belief, of the 21st century. So I'm gonna hit ya: You gotta keep the faith.
Concentrated power....whether in the hands of corporations, unions, or evangelical leaders....has ALWAYS, in our history, bred corruption and demagoguery.
you are what OWS needs in it's ranks.
Are you being facetious? If not, thank you for the compliment.
no you are rational and seem to be able to see things from more sides than just the left.
It's "Get the other guy's money out of politics, so my candidate can win."
oh then OWS is as illegitimate as the republican and democrat parties.
I noticed none of these people gave you a straight answer. From what I've read since being on this site (three weeks) unions would not be allowed to contribute. No businesses or corporations. Individuals in unions, of course, could.
well that is fair and reasonable and I think the majority could support it.