Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why Wall St.

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 2:52 p.m. EST by crrice (68) from Durango, CO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Shouldn't the focus be on D.C. where the lawmakers who allow this sort of thing reside? What is the point of staying at Wall St. when we can almost be certain the institutions there won't change of their own free will? Doesn't it seem that the primary goal should be to get the laws changed, and to that end, shouldn't we be protesting in the capitol where those laws were made?

As powerful as this movement is, I can't see it doing much by staying where it is. For example: I wouldn't take you very seriously if you were protesting my activities/rules three streets over, but bring it to my front door and I might be more worried. Shouldn't we be taking this to the 'front door' of those who can change it, that is, the government?

Thoughts? (Intelligent ones please)

138 Comments

138 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Kulafarmer (82) from Kula, HI 2 years ago

Its funny everybody speaks of greed, to be honest, envy is just as bad!

[-] 1 points by marcxstar (167) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

I wish I had said that!

[-] 0 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

They are synonyms.

[-] 0 points by Kulafarmer (82) from Kula, HI 2 years ago

I suppose you are right, are both two of the seven sins of man

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Wait, both greed and envy are in there? I thought it was traditionally envy, and that greed is just another word for this.

Or did I misunderstand you?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Ever hear the phrase 'Hit them where it hurts'?

When one is considering politics, where it hurts is in the pockets or in this case campaign funds. By putting them on notice that the public is aware of the actions of Corporate America and the actions of the body politic in response to those actions, then Wall Street makes sense.

Politicians aren't any different than anyone else, they will listen to the people the big money comes from before they listen to anyone else.

[-] 1 points by Indepat (924) from Minneola, FL 2 years ago

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This is about Washington and that's where everyone should be.

They are in the wrong place because the people who started this misled them, they stay because they are disorganized, confused and leaderless.

[-] 1 points by cansaveus (24) 2 years ago

How to remove corporate greed thru social financial shift

Once you have say..50% of the public signed on to the cause you can now organize on a specified date for a execution of the plan. The plan consist of bankrupting a company by pulling stocks,refusal to work,withholding pay from bills and from not buying the chosen companies products. For example let's say a multibillion dollar company all of a sudden looses close to half the workers in it's factory while simultaneously a major sell off of it's stock was occurring at wall street. The stock would plummet and the media would be quick to cover the unfolding developments.then as if the shock of a diminished workforce and a stock freefall wasn't enough the payment of half the goods on the books would remain unpaid along with the half empty stores filled with the talk of a giant who had fallen by the sheer will of the people The doomed company goes bankrupt within a very short amount of time and the workers start up a co-op an Employee owned company under new management with the proceeds and increase profit benefitting those that work there and the distribution of the wealth is filtered thru those of us in the community. We can do this to all the multibillion dollar companies and essentially get the money back. It was our money in the first place and it can be done. The benefits of such a hostile takeover of a major corporation are two fold you redistribute the money to the people and you eliminate a sponsor of political corruption.No corporations translates to no lobbyist and crooked deals behind close doors.Not only do you get the money back but in the end you get a political system that actually works for the people

[-] 1 points by blitznstitch (30) 2 years ago

Protesting outside of the capitol building, white house, national mall, etc. who cares...boring, next news story. Protesting and occupying a public space in front of the most influential business leaders of the nation and perhaps world - impactful. So I get why they protest Wall Street. But this movement needs to move, its been 2 months - its time to establish objectives, goals, and solutions to whatever is the reason for the occupation.

[-] 1 points by MisguidedYouth2 (165) 2 years ago

No! Don't you see it all about the number of people we inconvience, the women we victimize in our camps, the extent of damage we can do to private property and the number of police we can injure. As these counts rise we'll get the attention we deserve. http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

And protesting in front of congress or the white house would have a much bigger effect. And the fact is that i believe they have less rules for protesting than you have in nyc. It is public, not private land in DC, payed for by the protesters high tax rates. Remember, wall street money can only persuade politicians as much as the politicians let it......this needs to stop at the politicians! Occupy DC

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Protesting in demand for an article 5 convention opposing unlawful government, basically treason, will make local government VERY nervous about BS enforcement.----

Comprehensive strategy.--- http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html http://algoxy.com/ows/statestrategies.html

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

If a number of states have protests at state capitals demanding that the state apply to congress for an article 5 convention, perhaps 6 at the max (congress has been so unconstitutional this number has become hard to determine) and after 45 days, and congress has not begun to ask states to elect delegates for convention, THEN protest at the nations capitol.------

Personally, I'm done with ALL of them. Don't expose one American protester to their illegal abuses of power from neglect to constitutionality. I'll be advocating protest at military bases demanding a legal, constitutional military intervention into federal government.

Comprehensive strategy.--- http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] 1 points by Ruck (5) 2 years ago

Excuse (Authorized)

[-] 1 points by Ruck (5) 2 years ago

You are protesting in the wrong place. OCW should be protesting outside the WHITE HOUSE. After all, Obama was the man that ortherized the BAILOUT of the Banks, GM, Chrylser and many other large businesses. They could not have been bailed out without the President. He should also be held responsible.

[-] 1 points by NortonSound (176) 2 years ago

GM and ford just signed agreemtns with the unions. They are rresponsible corporate citizens. The banks were going to take our entire economy into the Great Depression (new and improved with 200 million victims) any Congress at that time would have capitulated to that troubling consequence. This is simply the result of cutting too many jobs, foreclosing too many homes and trimming too many worker's benefits. It is not cheaper to hire a new employee, than to send the sick one to the doctor, really.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Yes, therein we see collusion outside constitutional limits. On the other hand we see oback barama associated with fraud in the solar energy industry which basically sabotages efforts to see sustainability. Time for Article 5 and unity in democratic control over the principles of the republic.

[-] 1 points by yosteve (64) from Newbury, OH 2 years ago

http://www.psandman.com/col/GoldmanSachs.htm

It may not be illegal, but it's not right.

[-] 1 points by Avoice (81) 2 years ago

You couldn't have picked a better place than Wall Street if you want Washington DC to listen to you.

[-] 1 points by BHicks4ever (180) 2 years ago

Both D.C. and wall street suck, but I don't like how people on the right always want to blame the government for everything. There are other people out that that are bad. Wall St. being one.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

because the govt takes the bribes......if govt officials would stop being in bed with wall street we wouldnt have this gigantic problem. It's like blaming mcdonalds for fat kids and not the parents who buy the stuff for their kids.

[-] 1 points by CJY (26) 2 years ago

We should look for ppl who defaulted on their mortgage and protest in front of where they live now for contributing to this chaos. They should not have purchased a home when they knew they could not afford it. In fact, they should go to jail for cheating the banks and therefore cheating us who deposited money in those banks.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

If one looks at the actions of government, we see major enablement for the baddies, then after a while we see our gov doing the bad to other nations, based on fraud, now the gov is doing it to us when it starts to hurt.-------

When people realize that gov MUST operate under law that WE control it democratically through Article 5, THEN blame can be properly placed.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

I agree, but merely blaming them won't change it. The change has to come from D.C. Thats the point here.

[-] 1 points by BHicks4ever (180) 2 years ago

The change has to come from both.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Correct, and DC will only respond to law. Therefore the protest coming up in DC needs to have those of us that realize the lack of lawful strategy is disabling the effectiveness of the movement MUST gather behind the use of laws to legitimize the protests.------

To gather support for an article 5 convention is the only law that can have great force now, because the constitution is so compromised.-----

A effort each evening to create a web conference to discuss Article 5 is beginning.--

http://www.articlevmeeting.info/

Comprehensive strategy.---

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

Because they know WS fraud is in large part the problem. It will not take long until this will be taken to the 'front door' or many places/cities/countries, including DC

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

I hope so.

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

So do I

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

I agree that Wall Street is a better focus. Protesting the goverment has been done and done and done, one party goes, the other comes in, both are bought from the start. Tha being said, has there been any thought about pushing for a change in the corporate MODEL and a push for a move away from maximization of profit to corporate social repsonsibility, coupled with a focus on employee ownership of businesses? Just an idea... http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Papers/Reinhardt_&_Stavins_in_Oxford_Review_2010.pdf

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

the banks did nothing illegal. they were "bailed out" with a loan which they have now paid back in full with INTEREST. they have done nothing wrong. why dont you visit the car companies that laid off thousands and took money and have not paid it back. they owe the american people something, not the bankers

[-] 1 points by jk1234 (257) 2 years ago

The banks did do things that were illegal - people know they have been hosed, and not know exactly why, but they know where it came from (hence the OWS) . . . http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Look, I'm not saying they did anything illegal, or that the bail-out was wrong (my views on this are beside the point).

I wonder why they had to be bailed out in the first place, and I think that there should be laws in place to prevent that sort of situation from ever arising.

[-] 1 points by CJY (26) 2 years ago

They got bailed out because the mortgage backed securities became worthless. They became worthless because the 99% stopped paying their mortgages. Therefore, blame the people who stopped paying their mortgages for the government having to bailout the banks.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

two points

1.washington has shown they are immune to protests, wallstreet is not and bet your ass they are calling washington for help every single day.

2.corruption does not pop out of thin air. it takes money and just like any other monetary crime, you follow the money.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

See my discussion below with MattLHolck.

[-] 1 points by tesn1 (212) 2 years ago

There are many misguided efforts, and it seems that the OWS movement has become a platform for just about any concern. A movement needs to focus and be very clear on what it seeks to accomplish.

I have spent nearly 4 years researching and educating myself on the law and rules that make up the basis on how business is financed and how the rules affect business and the individuals who own them and work for them.

First let me say that this problem is not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican but it is a common problem we all share. One key point must be stressed we are all affected by the issue at hand.

Now, let’s look at the laws. If you look at the fall of the exchange in 1929, its cause and the reaction by the government you will find most of the problem. In 1929 only ~10% of all businesses were public and the remainder was private. ~2% of the population were involved in trading stocks and most of the individuals we very heavily leveraged (They bought on credit).

Next the market dropped, individuals lost their ability to pay off their margin accounts and wiped out the capital overnight in the banking system, Couple that with the hysteria of the people running on the banks to get there gold out and you have a recipe for disaster.

For most they were not initially affected by the falls of the exchange in 1929 but when banks failed they felt it. Businesses lost credit to operate, accounts were wiped out and small private business failed. No fault of their own but the fault of the overzealous banks. Individuals found there savings wiped out alongside the private businesses and the world plunged into the abyss.

The reaction to this was FDR. and the 1933 securities act and the 1934 securities and exchange act. What these two pieces of legislation did was strip the ability of the small private business (who did not cause the market collapse) to raise capital in a traditional form, Bonds. Direct investment was for many years the mainstay of the entrepreneur. It put the restrictions on who could invest (Qualified institutional investor) and how the investments could be sold. It stripped the ability of the individual to invest and make the high returns they became accustomed to and placed all of it into the hands of the very few 1%.

Today if you are a business owner there is a glass ceiling of about $3 million dollars where a business could potentially get debt to expand, retool, or modernize. The Wall Street and Banks prefer an Equity offering. How often do small business owners sell the majority share of the company they own under a public offering or private sale (sale to high net worth’s) to raise the capital they need. The horror stories of this arrangement are very clear. They give up control, get voted out of the company and the new share holders shut them down move the product manufacture to China to maximize the return to the High Net Worth investor (new owner).

The laws perpetuate the problem. Now remove the Glass-Steagall Act and it becomes a high net worth orgy.

Focus, access the laws, and fix the system that perpetuates the behavior.

FIX THE LAWS

[-] 0 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

The right lies! You are master of manipulation. FDR incarcerated the bankers for causing the crash and you blames FDR the same guy that restore our economy after the crash.

[-] 0 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

The right lies! You are master of manipulation. FDR incarcerated the bankers for causing the crash and you blames FDR the same guy that restore our economy after the crash.

[-] 1 points by tesn1 (212) 2 years ago

FDR put the laws inplace to comprimize with the banks. He needed them on his side so he could spend money on projects. Government and banks have coluded for a long time. The Fed is private yet quasi public. Think about it. FDR gave us a Raw Deal Without the banks the Government has no money. Money is power and control. We gave up value (gold standard) for a power standard (fiat currency).
No lies only the truth, and it hurts does it not.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

“Without the banks the Government has no money” Don’t you see anything wrong with this statement? Dude it’s about empowering our own government not the banks.

[-] 1 points by insidervoice (21) 2 years ago

This movement needs a coherent voice and focus. Occupy leaders need to demonstrate that they grasp the issues and can present rational and pragmatic alternatives.

Read the following: http://seekingalpha.com/article/299918-occupy-wall-street-thoughts-on-an-agenda?ifp=0&source=email_authors_alerts

[-] 1 points by jpbarbieux (137) from Palmetto Bay, FL 2 years ago

Wall street has the option to act responsibly and self regulate, if they refuse. Regulate the hell out of them. Not the best option for investors. Convincing wall street to change their morality. This would work. Perpetuating greed will never work.

[-] 2 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

The chance of this is low. No greedy person is going to change their mind knowing full-well that they can get away with what they want anyway. We require regulation.

I do agree, however, that a system based on greed is inherently flawed.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

agree

[-] 1 points by Kulafarmer (82) from Kula, HI 2 years ago

People have to be careful what they wish for, if wallstreet fails it will take down so many ordinary people it will really get ugly, how many states and cities have their entire retirement fund invested in one way or another, how many unions, how many IRAs how many 401s

[-] 1 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 2 years ago

you think what they did wasn't bad? you want what? the same old failed policies that got us here? Wall Street is a main problem with our political system now, so that's why OWS is there

[-] 1 points by Kulafarmer (82) from Kula, HI 2 years ago

Never said that just think it really needs a cautious and thoughtful approach rather than just condemnation,

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

What is wall streets motivation to self regulate when they can just pay for legislation to do their dirty work for them?

[-] 1 points by jpbarbieux (137) from Palmetto Bay, FL 2 years ago

This is what OWS is all about. Regulate them.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 2 years ago

Who regulates them? The legislators that are in their back pockets? This is where the "regulation" hounds fail. What we have right now is the worst of both worlds. We have a system that is unregulated enough to be "dangerous" but there is no risk of failure for big business. Don't you see that? If the system was unregulated AND "too big to fail" didn't exist, there would be motivation for Wall St. to self-regulate.

Thomas E. Woods said it best in his book Meltdown: “blaming the crisis on 'greed' is like blaming plane crashes on gravity". Big business doesn't take big risk unless there is certainty it won't fail.

Here is a good article on the book: http://mises.org/daily/3396

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

It takes authority to regulate. A constitutional government can do this.

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 of the US constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

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

US Immigration Law is being take advantage of by ALL of WALL STREET as far of the benefits & tax exemptions they get for outsourcing US CITIZENS JOBS. Go to T4 JFK and assemble

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

God I wish I could ban your posts. The downside of public forums...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Money is the problem. Wall Street is a symbol of money. Wall Street is a big part of what is wrong with our country. Greed and corruption. Wall Street is the epicenter of greed and corruption. Its like the ground zero for greed and corruption.

[-] 1 points by Ruck (5) 2 years ago

You are protesting in the wrong place. OCW should be protesting outside the WHITE HOUSE. After all, Obama was the man that authorized the BAILOUT of the Banks, GM, Chrylser and many other large businesses. They could not have been bailed out without the President. He should also be held responsible.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

But the greed and corruption runs wild because there are no laws to restrict it and/or laws that allow it.

My point is that we should protest such laws. The greedy people won't change, but maybe the laws will.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Or laws citizens might use to stop the corruption are not recognized and upheld by courts.

We need an Article V convention NOW! We need to be certain our information is valid so you good decisions can be made in a purify election system. Media needs to be dealt with first so the masses can have enough truth to make real decisions with.------

If we simply reach for the tools to know and share truth, as something inherent to constitutional intent, logically needed to defend itself through our uses of the agreement, or need for its consistency unifying us, defense and continuity of life is assured.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Of course. We will need to get laws changed. My #1 hope is election reform. But if we can irk Wall Street in the mean time, that is a SMALL price for them to pay. Since they darn near DESTROYED the entire economy! And the rest of us pay the abysmal consequences of their criminal greed. Besides, as far as I am concerned, part of this protest too is about bringing Wall Street to justice for their crimes.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

The location is still silly. The majority of people that will be 'irked' will have had nothing to do with the financial crisis. They're just normal people.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 2 years ago

its much easier to protest on the giant mall in DC, and it looks more impressive as well.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Well, I would think that being a little irritated by noise on the street is a small price to pay for these people getting their democracy back. That we are fighting for! They will benefit from. What's more irritating, noise on the street, or lack of democracy?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

But wouldn't getting their democracy back be better accomplished by moving to D.C.?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

It probably will have to move south for winter anyway. At least its a little further south. Until then, modern technology will do.

But why do you seem so anxious to let Wall Street off the hook so easily? Their criminal greed nearly destroyed the whole economy and Wall Street is the epicenter of money and corruption. I actually think the location is pretty ingenious.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Are you sure they aren't just hired thieves? The military industrial complex needed some controlled and corruptable people in key positions that would help siphon mass money out of the nation.---

We need to see the ultimate form of democracy, we need to use our first constitutional right, article 5 of the constitution. This is the only way any demand will be met.--

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 because congress has no control IF 3/4 of the states are ratifying Meaning, we need to stay in our states and make the demand for an article 5. We only need 2 more states then congress is in OBVIOUS violation of the constitution and the military, YES, the military will have to defnd the constitution. -

If the state won't, apply, you are looking at a state controlled at key points by the nwo- jack up the pressure! talk about "lawful government" a lot and cite violations of laws on a federal level that impair the states constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Have you noticed how many state legislatures are entirely owned by the 1%?

They have been putting big money into races in the states.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

If the people of states find that their legislators do not support using the US constitution to protect itself, they can make a special election to purge unconstitutional members in defense of the state constitution and federal.-----

Demands will have to be imbued with natural law by the people to raise consciousness to get this done. We need to see the ultimate form of democracy, we need to use our first constitutional right, article 5 of the constitution. This is the only way any demand will be met.--

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 because congress has no control IF 3/4 of the states are ratifying Meaning, we need to stay in our states and make the demand for an article 5. We only need 2 more states then congress is in OBVIOUS violation of the constitution and the military, YES, the military will have to defnd the constitution. -

If the state won't, apply, you are looking at a state controlled at key points by the nwo- jack up the pressure! talk about "lawful government" a lot and cite violations of laws on a federal level that impair the states constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Does it really matter? We have the modern technology of the television! With sound! Washington can see us and hear us!
Besides, everyone protests in Washington. It's not very original. Kinda boring.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

This is about effectiveness, not novelty.

But the technology thing is a good point.

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

Familiarize yourself with the L-1/H-1 Visa quota system that is in place that WALL STREET & all large tax exemt companies are taking advantage of & has taken a job that should be yours but has been outsourced. Go to T-4 and find out who these thousands of people a day on L&H visas are.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Your comments have no relevance to the discussion here. If you post, post about the phenomena of people not protesting in D.C.

Otherwise, leave.

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

You guys must assemble @ Terminal 4 JFK where all of the L&H visa holders from India & other countries are entering the United States taking away YOUR jobs that have been outsourced to foreighn workers @ a below market salary.

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

You guys must assemble @ Terminal 4 JFK where all of the L&H visa holders from India & other countries are entering the United States taking away YOUR jobs that have been outsourced to foreighn workers @ a below market salary.

[-] 1 points by iceaxe (1) 2 years ago

The movement will likely have to move south as weather settles in, anyway. Eventually it will have to move south of winter, and if it has to move inside due to inclement weather, there should be a more concrete plan for online civil disobedience. Clog websites, keep up the conversation in the blogosphere, and pepper politicians with call, letters, emails. Need an online campaign that is focused and organized. Just sayin'.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

It would help (maybe), but actual in-person campaigns have always had more influence than internet based ones. It's easy to say no to a screen-name, but harder to a real person.

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

The legislature is listening.

Washington's been occupied so many times that protest there are not taken as seriously.

Further, Occupy Wall Street has inspired a decentralize approach where people across the nation and world are occupying areas in their own cities.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

The question is, as large as this movement is, you don't think they'd listen a bit more if we were right up on their door-step?

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

no.

as I said washington is used to protest

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Alright, here's an example. Imagine that you had some dude on your lawn who protested your going to work every day for a year. You wouldn't care to much, I'll grant.

Now suppose that 10000 people protested you going to work, but they did it ten streets over. You would care, because there's a lot of them.

Now you're telling me that if those 10000 people do it in front of your house, you would care less? Seems implausible.

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

DC is a fortress

crowd can be corralled

there are back entrances

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Are you serious? If you're going to criticize my argument, then point out what's wrong with the analogy.

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

http://ampedstatus.com/

Dr. Cornel West and 16 Others Arrested Protesting Corporate Power at US Supreme Court in DC

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

fair enough

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

I am merely carrying on a conversation

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

This discussion is not proving to be productive. Unless it becomes so, I see no reason to continue it.

[-] 1 points by marcxstar (167) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

The people don't need to petition D.C. The people can bring down the Corporatacracy by following this one dictum:

"Don't Comply"

  1. Avoid buying corporate goods, corporate foods, corporate anything. Avoid buying anything that is advertised on TV. Buy locally grown organic foods from farmers markets. Put the worst of the corporations out of business buy NOT BUYING THEIR GOODS ANYMORE.

  2. Stay healthy. Eat well. Avoid pesticides, preservatives, chemical additives and any other corporate poisons whose end is to make us sick and dependent on a corporate-run health care system.

  3. Take your money out of corporate banks and use credit unions instead.

I'm sure there are many other great ideas out there to help us to AVOID SUPPORTING THE CORPORATACRACY. Please add yours.

Hand-in-hand with the OWS movement should be a definitive statement about non-compliance with the corporate agenda.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Bone up on what's giving rise to crony capitalism. Out of several, one really good place to start is at its root- the monetary system.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6507136891691870450

[-] 1 points by gekko (75) 2 years ago

you have fun with that buddy...and while you're at it- throw out the computer you are using, your ipod, your tv, stop renting or seeing movies, sell your car and then move out of your shitty house because corporations MADE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE. you are a fucking moron and the people like you are the reason why more people are marginalizing this movement. it is the federal government and federal reserve we need to be mad at because they have the power to control the criminal activity these corporations are involved in and unrig our credit markets

[-] 1 points by marcxstar (167) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

I think you are looking at a smaller picture than I am.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

No need to be hostile. I'll grant it probably wasn't thought through very well but at least it was well-intentioned. I'd like my thread to NOT become a flame-fest.

[-] 1 points by gekko (75) 2 years ago

sometimes people need that tho lolz

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

CORPORATACRACY is rule by corporation? Better word might be Oligarchy (rule by the elite, in this case, corporation).

Also, this sort of thing is not really possible because it requires a financial investment to begin with (the kinds of goods you listed are more expensive), which most Americans can't do. This is a capitalist solution to a capitalist problem and it can't work because we don't have the means to implement it on a scale big enough to matter.

[-] 1 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 2 years ago

Because this movement has actually been created for Obama's re-election. It has been carefully orchestrated by Moveon.org. Of course it won't protest in front of the White House and the government, that will make Obama look bad. Instead it creates the "straw man" enemy of Wall Street to take the blame off Obama's failed administration and aid in his re-election.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't know and that's why I am asking. Who are the people behind OWS?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Any evidence for this claim? I don't like these Obama re-election claims. Why should I believe it, and more importantly, why should I care? Agreeing that there is something fundamentally wrong with the government as is, (i.e. agreeing with this movement) does not commit me to supporting Obama's re-election. So what if he funds/supports it, the reverse doesn't have to be true.

[-] 1 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 2 years ago

Here you go:

Obama re-election strategy to center around OWS: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html?hpid=z1

Obama extends support for protesters: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/052226f8-f80c-11e0-a419-00144feab49a.html#axzz1b4L0hsrC

Moveon.org looks like the official site for OWS: http://www.moveon.org

Moveon.org speaking on behalf of OWS bashing republicans & backing Obama (VIDEO): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAQAHr6pAb0

It's not hard to see, just read the news. More evidence will come out in the near future.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Alright, suppose I grant that Obama will try and use this (still going through links, not sure yet, but ill suppose). If he really supports this and is in agreement, why shouldn't I vote for him?

[-] 1 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 2 years ago

Because he failed to do everything he promised before in 2008. You really want to get fooled again? Also he is the largest beneficary to Wall Street money.

If OWS wanted real change they would begin to support and get the word out about a third party candidate.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I don't know who is behind OWS. But my gut feeling is that it is a classroom project which they will all use for a real-world thesis or something. This has obviously been planned and thought out. I don't think it is a political establishment thing pushing this.

But I could come up with a another angle on the Obama theory. Perhaps the President decided that he too has become a victim of a corrupted system. He wanted to be the change guy, grassroots and all. And he was for a time. Then the BIG money grabbed him. And when the BIG money grabs on they DO NOT let go. Then Obama can say, Lets all do Election Reform. Everybodys a winner.
Could be that if Obama is behind it, maybe it is part sincere, and part political calculation. If so, it may be the best political calculation in the history of the world. Assuming the protest succeeds of course.
I don't really think thats the case, but I'm just sayin'. There is another angle to consider.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Hmm. I agree that a third-party candidate would probably be superior.

I imagine that most presidents are probably lobbied pretty hard, so pointing this out doesn't phase me too much (unless there's some kind of extra info).

True that Obama did break a few of his promises, but I'm of the opinion that he's done at least fairly well, though not as well as I had hoped. I see no reason to think that he would break from a commitment as large as this if he made such a commitment. It seems more likely that he will try and vaguely support this, in which case, my support for him would diminish substantially.

[-] 1 points by marcxstar (167) from Los Angeles, CA 2 years ago

Agreed. We need some stronger evidence for a statement like that.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Ah. You'll forgive me for not seeing these. I neglected to check other posts before I made this one. Reading them now.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

You are forgiven:) -

But did you post in those threads? This strategy is equal and diametric opposition to the infiltraition of the forum in a completely positive way.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

I did not, though I did read them. While interesting, both this thread and those appear dead, and thus I feel that I am unlikely to receive any responses.

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

It serves the infiltration of the forum to post in the issue based threads rather than the solution based. A fundamental solution is targeting the cause of problems rather than the subordinate it uses as a shield. So the fact you see these threads as dead indicates a level of infiltration that is able to keep useless threads visible all on its own, or a factor including such misinformation to the public that they are un wittingly participating in the infiltrators subterfuge. It indicates the public inability to see this logical structure of what is happening and counter it.

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 2 years ago

Very intelligent post

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Yes, it has a proper focus of questioning the targeting of wall street, servants of the infiltrators of government, violating the first layer of law, the constitution, over and over; rather than the government.------

The infiltrators of government deflect and defeat efforts of using free speech.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 2 years ago

Going to Wall Street was the first best move, because that is where the problems originate. However there is no more point staying at Wall Street now that the public has been made aware of where the source of the problems are. It is Wall Street who is pulling the strings and robbing the public blind, and sinking the entire economy down with it. Going to Wall Street brought these issues to light, and now everyone is talking about it across the country.

The movement should now focus its efforts on Washington D.C.

Occupy D.C!!!

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Interesting idea. Certainly it's true that people realize Wall St. is pulling the strings by giving money (among other things) to the lawmakers. But have the people as a whole really changed mindsets? I think that most people still want to focus on Wall St. because they want these institutions to stop giving money, when they ought to focus on telling D.C not to take it.

[-] 1 points by JD516 (4) 2 years ago

Perhaps now that we've gotten everyone's attention, we should at least begin to occupy our local congressional offices and remind our bought congress who's really boss. I'm kind of new to activism, so any tips on how to organize at the local level?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Get some friends together, send a few letters maybe. See if there's an event you can go to where you can talk, or at least see, one of your representatives.

Thats where I'd start.

[-] 1 points by JD516 (4) 2 years ago

Thank you!

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Considering the fact that most federal representatives seem complicit, and the authority needed is over them, not through them; and to get over them citizens must invoke the constitution through the states power to amend; demonstrations at state legislations demanding application for an Article v, is the most direct action to federal compliance to the law of the land. Unconstituional tampering by congress and the supreme court needs reversing, but, to do that the public needs the truth so corporate media has to be dealt with at the BEGINNING of first convening.-----

That needs to be clear for logical sequence.

[-] 1 points by JD516 (4) 2 years ago

Thank you. Very good points. So, how best to deal with corporate media?

[-] 1 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Imagine getting as far from corporate anything as possible, a place they just could not go. The people of them could, but not the corporation. That is where to start. Natural law of the deepest kind----

Basic human civil society is maintained by positive human attributes. Parents teach these. There are instincts related to the attributes and speech relating to the instincts can invoke the instinct. We need to have public criteria for the difference in order to make more than free speech, to be sure that the needed meanings of the speech are known and understood, or, the citizens, us, will not know what they need to know to survive.-----

This is the basic primordial interaction we need to undertake. It is done by accepting a simple and competent series of words and of concepts to protect the next generations future. The concept is that through understanding, the human psychological positive attributes of; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, which will logically protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therein is justified public support of speech or expression that will create those things when it is shown VITAL aspects of our lives are involved.

This was actually a concept in existence before the Declaration of Independence but was cut up and used in it then the Bill of rights later with the First Amendment and free speech. The philosophical doctrine is called, the "Greater Meaning of Free speech". I've integrated it with the basis of the existing first amendment in draft here.------

http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.htm

Once difficult truths are out, and the fear of being the point of exposure is past, PBS and commercial media can handle quite a bit, . . . or they expose themselves as complicit:)

Every now and then corporate media will have citizens will have official order giving some hours of prime time to the peoples need of vital information to pretect life and defend the constitution

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 2 years ago

You're correct. The question is this - once the overwhelming majority of people come together on getting money out of politics. What needs to happen? The only thing I can think of (within the current system) is a Constitutional Amendment making it so.

So yes, Occupy D.C is where the action should be now.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

A constitutional amendment is too strong I think. A simple law will do. Though a constitutional amendment would be more permanent. Maybe it will be better.

Time to weigh pro's and con's...

For now though, we should focus on a mere law, simply because that's easier to bring about. Later on we may move to an amendment, but not yet.

[-] 1 points by JohnB (138) 2 years ago

No, a simple law can be overturned by the very rich we are trying to stop. Only a constitutional amendment can be established in stone. Once it's written, it becomes a lot, LOT harder for money to slip in, other than in secret parking garages.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Very true, but once in place, the outrage that would erupt if ever overturned might scare congress enough to leave it alone.

But yes, I do think something stronger needs to be in place, but what you're looking for is permanence, and to that end, an amendment is (probably) too much.

I believe, and it's been a while since I took government, that once passed, it would take a two-thirds vote to overturn it? I feel like I'm mixed up, but if that were the case, it would remain fairly permanent if passed.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

There are so many violations of the constitution by congress that only an article 5 convention stands a chance of preserving the constitution.

Here, the supreme court unconstitutionally attempts to rewrite the constitution.-

http://www.foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/Coleman.htm

Are we going to allow this? Consider, media should have been telling us about such a decision. If they didn't they are complicit in working to usurp laws made under the constitution. THAT must be dealt with too, immediately at the onset of article 5 convening.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

They will stay here because those who actually control this movement WANT it focused on Wall Street....and not on them. Why do you think so many of the people on Forbes's annual 400 "Wealthiest Americans" have either visited Wall Street or publicized their support for OWS?

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ Knowledge is power.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Sorry, this thread has gotten too long to follow and I can't find what you were responding to. Who are you suggesting is controlling the movement? And what does the Forbes 400 have to do with it?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Can you confirm that it's a majority, or at least on par with the level of support (percentage-wise) that comes from the general population?

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Not until you can confirm percentage wise, EXACTLY what the level of support is from the general population. You're going to have to interview a hell of a lot more people than I would.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

10000 might be a reasonable sample size for our needs. But in any case, what's to say that the individual's themselves are lying. Perhaps they do support the movement, and are just as confused as the general population about where the protests should be?

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Perhaps they are, but you don't hear any of them saying it should be moved.

Let's go with your idea that the reason they are at Wall Street is because it IS an easy symbol for people to latch on to-a central location well known for commerce, money, banking, economic processes. Making Wall Street the big dragon who needs slaying-keeps the focus off of individuals/ companies themselves. In painting ALL of the wealthy as evil, corrupt, wicked manipulators-it allows the fewer, actual, horrible people to stay out of the spotlight they deserve to have shined on them.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 2 years ago

Alright. That's true. But shouldn't we then lobby to move to D.C. and protest the laws that allow these people to do the things they do at all?

And if they're trying to resist this move, then we should shine the light on them specifically? Is that your argument? If so, then I agree to an extent. I would then say that we should note that they are doing so, and then simply ignore them and move anyway. Educate the general population, and the change will come.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 2 years ago

When you can, listen to John Allison. He teases away the crony from capitalism and is qualified to do it because he's seen the difference most of his adult life. He ran BB&T for many years. Check out his clips on YouTube. I think that there are five of them, each starting with the phrase, "on the Financial Crisis".

[-] 1 points by thinkfirst (2) 2 years ago

i agree! why are you targeting wall street? the people who work in finance are just regular people -- i know because i'm married to one. what about automobile makers, pharmaceutical, consumer products? think.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

This thread has a superior topic, moreso than many others. If there are Americans on this message board, why haven't they changed their username and placed "ART5" at the end to signify they stand in defense of the constitution under its own principle? At that point they could pick any of these other threads that have quality perceptions about what is functional activism, and actually be working towards defending the constitution rather than being mislead by misinformation, misdirection or infiltration.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/corporate-influence-in-government-and-its-effect-o/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-system-can-it-be-fixed-or-must-it-be-replaced/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-need-to-fight-the-source-not-the-symptom/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/fix-congress-not-wall-street/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/please-consider-this-everyone-focused-on-1-thing/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-more-people-blame-washington-than-wall-st/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-wall-st/

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Really, the lawmakers allowing these things, doing these things, are violating the constitution. This cannot be tolerated any longer. We need an article 5 convention NOW!

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

It really does seem the primary goal should be to deal with law. That greatly protects the protestors and everyone else. The law of the land needs to be upheld.

Article 5 convention NOW!

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

crrice wrote: Shouldn't we be taking this to the 'front door' of those who can change it, that is, the government?END------

And do so with the most powerful tool of democracy, the one that can alter and abolish the contol over the republic, the principles of the constitution.----

No, I don't propose any thing so radical as that sounds. A slow and deliberate process of proposing amendments, education upon them, reformed voting systems and elections, an end to media support for governmental corruptions will begin things nicely.

Article 5 convention NOW! Use the constitution to defend the constitution. We have not ever had a constitutional government in our life times.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

Focus on controlling DC by demanding from your states capital that the state legislation apply to congress for an article v convention.----

Resources on article 5.----

http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

For about 100 years now congress has been inviolation of the constitution, and that has caused all of the problems. Congress should have called an article 5 convention in 1911.-------

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 of the US constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

Article V conference, Mark Meckler Lawrence Lessig at harvard 9/25/11-video comments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-7ikbvu0Y8

Lessig power point on article V http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gpbfY-atMk

A effort each evening to create a web conference to discuss Article 5 is beginning.--

http://www.articlevmeeting.info/

Comprehensive strategy.---

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html