Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why this movement is failing - And an open letter to Alan Grayson

Posted 2 years ago on March 3, 2012, 11:32 a.m. EST by badlimey (48)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

To operate a movement that has a horizontal decision process that implements action is an undisciplined and naive approach to achieving long term goals. This is not the time to reinvent the wheel, before that can take place we have to fix the one that we all ride on. Not talk about it, protest about it or whine about it, but as Nike says (probably to the children who make their shoes) "Just Do it".

Alan Grayson a former Congressman from Florida has said that he doesn't mind being labelled as the person that represents this movement and the causes it stands for, but who is he? We have to take on the system, within the system, and for that we need our own person in political office.

So I have asked this man via his website to tell me what his plan is? I am pasting a copy of this message here and I ask those of you that are ready to progress this movement visit his site to monitor this thread to see what, if any, response he offers.

It's time to walk the walk, I hope you will walk with me.

Hello Alan,

I do not know you personally so please tell me how your message is not just more rhetorical bullshit, flavored by Ron Paul? There is one issue that if not addressed will lead to imminent and global (planned) financial collapse, I am of course referring to the cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

Ron Paul has introduced numerous bills to hold them accountable and all, without exception have died at the sub committee level.

I have a specific and actionable plan to take back our financial system for the benefit of it's patrons that provide it credit, the citizens of the United States of America. Do you have a specific plan to hold them accountable and punish those responsible for their crimes?

I've hear the words now what's the plan? Would you be willing to sit down with me, an ordinary citizen and listen to what I have to say? Will you help me to help you? Of course I don't expect that you personally monitor this site so I ask the staffer that reads this to please pass it on.

I will report the results of this request, and provide a copy of this message to the members and monitors (both for and against) that participate in the Occupy Wall Street Forum.

I look forward to your reply. Message to Alan Grayson delivered 3/32012 10:34 AM CST.

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by sal3 (8) from Gilead, ME 2 years ago

I'm in my dotage now, I have a fairly long perspective on this topic and it seems to me that Occupy has it about right for starters. Anyone seeing a short and ineffectual life for Occupy has some serious gaps in first hand knowledge of "The Movement" and lack of appreciation for the real implications of it.

A bit of Root Cause Analysis applied to general aspects of the many grievous problems we face as a nation yields one major Root, i.e., the pathology of corporate money/influence corrupting our electoral, legislative, and judicial processes. Apparently, that fact is just too much for our corporate-controlled news and information media to grasp and render in sound bites.

The proposition can easily be tested by simply transposing the terms and asking a few easy questions: a.) what would our problem set look like if we removed all corporate money from those core processes. b.) What would the inertia to positive, human-oriented change consist of, absent corporate money/influence corrupting those processes? and c.) What kind of people would lose their incentive to run for public office? and conversely, what kind of people would be encouraged to run for office if they didn't have to buck corporate money?

On evidence, it appears that Occupy, et al have it about right and the rest of the world had better wake up to it and join the parade. Until that particular Root Cause pathology is under control, the inertia to meaningful, durable change will remain insurmountable.

[-] 1 points by badlimey (48) 2 years ago

It is a movement that is largely confined to a demographic that has little influence in the reality of the world we live in. The entire movement is being manipulated and directed by the very people they seek to bring down.

The rest of the nation is lying on the couch being fed reality TV apathetic and disinterested.

This protest will ultimately lead to more and more violent conflicts either from within or through enemy plants. Without a political agenda no lasting or significant change will take place. They are rubbing their chubby little hands together right now, everything is going exactly to plan.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Perfect analysis of the Tea Party. Well done!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Here Here, and HEAR!

I liked that so much I want to make sure everyone heard it correctly.


2 points by sal3 (0) from Gilead, ME 5 minutes ago

I'm in my dotage now, I have a fairly long perspective on this topic and it seems to me that Occupy has it about right for starters. Anyone seeing a short and ineffectual life for Occupy has some serious gaps in first hand knowledge of "The Movement" and lack of appreciation for the real implications of it.

A bit of Root Cause Analysis applied to general aspects of the many grievous problems we face as a nation yields one major Root, i.e., the pathology of corporate money/influence corrupting our electoral, legislative, and judicial processes. Apparently, that fact is just too much for our corporate-controlled news and information media to grasp and render in sound bites.

The proposition can easily be tested by simply transposing the terms and asking a few easy questions: a.) what would our problem set look like if we removed all corporate money from those core processes. b.) What would the inertia to positive, human-oriented change consist of, absent corporate money/influence corrupting those processes? and c.) What kind of people would lose their incentive to run for public office? and conversely, what kind of people would be encouraged to run for office if they didn't have to buck corporate money?

On evidence, it appears that Occupy, et al have it about right and the rest of the world had better wake up to it and join the parade. Until that particular Root Cause pathology is under control, the inertia to meaningful, durable change will remain insurmountable. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

In spite of a progressive agenda, and in admission of the fact that I don't really know that much about him, graysons being the 11th wealthiest member of congress, and his ties to Ron Paul, would absolutely preclue his ever being a leader of this movement, as far as I'm concerned.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

Ron Paul has been discredited to the point of political obliteration. Please do not reffer to him on this site again. His major backer makes spying technology for the CIA.

PS No matter how often you repeat that mantra, the movement is only failing in your dreams.

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Grayson is not the answer. Try again.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

To anyone not familiar with Alan Grayson, he was targeted for defeat by the koch machine - nuf said !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i blame every american that asked for more for their home than they paid for it, they caused the financial collapse. in most everything else, when something is old it depreciates, not appreciates. You dont see us paying 30k for a truck and then selling it for a 100k 10 years later. They made their bed now its time for them to lay in it. At the same time, of increasing the prices of homes, it put more money in the hands of both bankers and government. People are dumb.

and as for naive action, a naive action is better than no action. it is by small and simple means that great things are brought to pass.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You really like distortion don't you.

Imagine individual homeowners running the Real-Estate Market.

Who else do you right comedy for?

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

and yet the collapse of the homeowners speaks loudly for itself, takes a bow.

but seriously try to imagine our society where old homes automatically depreciate in value, what a stimulous this would be for building new homes. There would be 2x as many jobs, just like people like to buy new cars, there would be alot of incentive to buy new homes, and the price of older homes being lower would help keep the price of new homes lower thus leaving more money on the table for american families who have to pay for them. Not to mention for the old homes, people would be extra motivated to replace carpet, remodel, and such.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Homes don't depreciate when the population rises. Law of Supply and demand makes home prices appreciate as long as more people need/want housing. Depreciation in the face of demand is called deflation, and shrinks the economy as a whole, leading to job loss, capital loss, and recession. It is particularly harmful to workers who need the equity in order to retire.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

interesting you mention the equity in order to retire because I have been thinking shall i pay 200k for a house that someones grandmother paid 20k for it so I can sell it to your child for instance for 2 million in another 20 years? (My wifes parents paid 19k for their home and sold it with an apartment add on for $450k 20 years later. Im thinking there is a flaw in that philosophy. Or maybe inflation will be so high that a gallon of gas will cost a thousand dollars in 20 years.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Home prices have, until the bubble, risen mostly along the lines of normal inflation. They have not appreciated much in relation to that. (A little, but not much.) A retiree can sell his home to downsize (after the nest is empty) and have a bit of cash available to supplement whatever retirement income he may have. But if the home DEPRECIATES, he can't do that, unless evert OTHEr home depreciated, too. And at what point does the depreciation stop? Does the home eventually become free? Does the owner pay for someone else to live in it?

The simple fact remains that there will always be more housing needed, as long as there are more people needing it. And that means it will never depreciate.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

actuallyl depreciation of our homes can help the elderly for retirement. he doesnt have to downsize, he can stay where he is because if the home is paid off sooner, he can save money for his retirement instead of give it to bankers, or instead of relying on the next poor sucker who has to pay more for it. Did anyone give any thought to how the next poor sucker who has to pay more for someone elses old home will be able to save for his retirement? we need to get off the pyramid scheme thinking of having others pay for our sustainment or else we are no different than the elitists.

As a minimum I'd like to see us share the land like the indians do, and let people park a camping trailer on it so they can save for their own retirements, But government has aligned themselves with elitist, making zoning rules so that you cant park a trailer anywhere except in trailer parks that puts the money forever into the hands of a few men, who never let the people own the land they live on. this government alignment with elitists, bankers and corporatism was a quote from Thomas Jefferson's , and now all that remains is for the children to wake up one day homeless on the land their father's conquered.

No the home never becomes free. For instance a 4 wheel drive truck never goes below 4000 and a 2 wheel drive truck never goes below 2000 dollars.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Well, it's an interesting idea, but it will never happen. As long as there are more people who want housing than there are homes, (and that will always be the case as long as population continues to rise) inflation, at the very least, will determine prices.

What's more, it limits choices for homeowners, not increases them. If I have to relocate (or want to) if I sell my home for next to nothing, I have next to nothing with which to buy my next one unless it exactly matches the age of the one I have now. If all housing stock appreciates at the some rate, downsizing creates a net gain of cash, while moving to a comparable home becomes nothing more than a swap. There is no loss.

And the economy as whole would be depressed by your scheme, since there would be virtually no market for new housing, given that older housing is so much cheaper. The construction industry would tank.

This is not some diabolical scheme. It is simply how markets work. And the problem isn't the markets, it is the gross manipulation of them by the bankers, and excessive interest rates that do nothing more than serve their greed.

What I would prefer to see is strict rent control laws across the country, and extending the equivalent tax deduction for rent as homeowners have for their mortgage payments.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

or we could have government finance our homes interest free from taxes of the rich.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

None of that is the issue at hand. Pie in the sky accomplishes nothing. Read what Sal3 wrote at the top of the page. THAT is the issue. Everything else is a distraction.

Get the money out of politics and most problems would be solved in short order, or at least debated with more honesty in the halls of power.