I think you’re on the right track, but I also fear that even if this were to happen, corporations or people with lots of influence would still find ways to influence. The problem is when their influence supersedes that of the people.
How many votes should a large corporation get? Surely, if they employ thousands of people and have a huge economic footprint there should be recognition of that, but to how much disadvantage of individual voters?
Hey, I like that portable police lookout tower. Is it mounted on a trailer? Probably a pretty handy piece of equipment for a place like NYC.
The problem isn’t corporate influence, but the fact that the government has so much stolen loot to disperse, and is deemed to have authority over all of us in everything we do, that makes it very beneficial for the large corporations to want to influence the political process.
Limiting political donations will not change this. Political donations is only a very small part of the current political order.
With back rubs? Anyway, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
The employees have their votes. Banning donations doesn’t mean the corporations wont be recognized as important in the economy. Just that policy is less likely to be formed in the interests of corporations, and the economic footprint would be considered more objectively.
So it wont stop corporations wanting to influence the political process, but it will limit their ability to do so.
I don’t think it is a panacea, I think it is a positive step.
That “want” should be removed from what I said to mean what I meant.
Anyways, my point is that limiting their political donations will not change anything regarding corporate influence. The cost to lobby or otherwise influence is small compared to the benefits large corporations can get because the government can hand out money and make regulations that benefit the corporation by limiting new entry into that corporation’s market. Corporations will come and go, but it’s the political apparatus itself, with it’s coercive power and monopolistic nature, that will continue to loot and inflict pain on the disadvantaged on behalf of the powerful.
That’s like saying a slave owner should get more votes.
When the CEO and shareholders reap a higher and higher percentage of what the workers generate, it doesn’t benefit the workers one iota when “the corporation” gets to vote. They don’t vote, they just buy Congress.
I was watching the news today and the newscaster posed the question: “Have the protesters turned a corner now that there have been incedents of violence?”
I think it is quite appearent who has become violent - the police have used force to remove the 99% from the public parks at the request of the local elected officials. Not the protesters.
The public has the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Should the local governments be held legally liable for denying the people their Constitutional rights by forcefully removing them from public places? Again, all the coverage I’ve seen has supported the position that the protesters were assembling peacefully until acted on forcefully by the police.
Arrests were expected. But tonight I’ve learned of the two-tour Iraq War vet having his skull fractured allegedly by a police projectile. I fear that this is only the beginning.
The Republican “talking heads” describe this as class warfare, and they are correct, but refuse to acknowledge their party’s role. The bottom line is that the preferential treatment given the top 1% of the country over the past three decades has created such a disparity in wealth in this country that the remaining 99% (Dem/Rep/Ind) have finally decided to demand fairness.
I think it is extremely insulting and hypocritical of the Republican presidential candidates to blame the unemployed and the forclosed on for their own situation while accusing President Obama of waging class warfare. The people at their rallies cheer executions and electric fences while they boo gay soldiers and government ( the very government that has made it possible for them to enjoy the highest quality of living in the free world - the free world that is only free because of our government’s strength over the past 200 years. )
I’ve heard several balloon heads say that it’s wrong to demonize the successful, but if the successful have become so by utilizing loopholes in the tax codes, shipping jobs overseas and enjoying the tax breaks for doing so and hoarding huge profits instead of reinvesting back into the system (employees, company, community, society) then it is not just unfair but almost criminal. The big bag of money has tilted the table to the point that people are starting to notice - and ask questions - and want answers.
Neither party is completely innocent, but several recent independent polls have shown that the majority of the people polled (60 -70%) believe that Republicans push the agenda supporting the rich. Their candidates positions on relevant issues as they jockey for the nomination has done nothing to dispell these poll numbers. I’m sure that the primary winner will change his tune next year - the flat tax which is being used to woo the ultra right-wingers will be replaced with a more palatable plan that will be more pleasing to the moderates.
Bottom line is that the people in the street are starting to be portrayed as a violent mob through no fault of their own. They are the people that have been lied to, have been short-changed by the wealthy, have done more than their share with less recognition, have been stripped of their Constitutional Rights and have waited long enough to be treated fairly. I think they’re tired of waiting.
I did watch the video…and it supports my post to the “T”. To protect and to serve? But to protect and to serve who?
I am puzzled by the police’s situation - they are protecting the system that at this very moment is voting down their funding. I’m not saying they should jump the fence and let anarchy rule (or am I?), but I think it must be hard for some cops to bash in the heads of the people fighting for cop/fire fighter/teacher jobs.
Our priorities are screwed up in this country. We accept the fact that a guy is paid tens of millions of dollars a year to put a ball in a little metal ring or sit on a bench 4 hours a night and occasionally stand in a field while the people who protect our lives and save us from fires and teach our children are bumping along just above the poverty line. Sure, I realize that athletic programs support large economies in their host cities, but does that justify the hugh salaries? They are the best at what they do, but the enormous paychecks and extravegant lifestyles of “professional grown-up playground guys” is why I don’t watch pro sports. NFL millionaire players striking for better treatment from NFL billionaire owners - you can keep 'em.
I wonder when some up-and-coming reporter is going to corner one of the Wall Street bankers for an interview? When are we going to hear from the other side? Are they going to defend why they gambled with America’s financial future for their own monitary gain? Will they defend pushing junk stocks on the public while sending each other emails to personally stay away from said stocks? Why were wealthy investors given sweet deals and advanced notice while they pushed junk on the rest of us? HOW MUCH MONEY DID YOU MAKE WHILE THE PEOPLE YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AND GUIDE WENT BANKRUPT?
The video makes a good point: Our country views foreign demonstraters as ritious crusaders fighting for their rights and freedoms while we tend to view them in this country as young hippies with a hair across their asses (again!). From what I could tell, the violent protests in the video were from other countries. But like I said - we view that as necessary to the cause - in other countries. We do not like our “protesters” to become physical (much too messy) as they then become “demonstraters” and the ugliness is revealed for the rest of the world to see.
I thought they were just imposing time limits (varies by location). Nobody has been stopped from peaceful assembly. The problem is that the chosen method, to occupy the spaces for as long as possible, has downsides including not being legal in a lot of those places. If they just showed up every day I don’t think there would be a problem. In fact, I’m not sure if taking an “occupy” approach is any more effective. Except in that it leads to the events generating this publicity. If they just camped out in the parks and everbody was fine with it, there might not be any news coverage. They need controversy to keep the press paying attention.
That seems to be also part of the occupiers’ problem. What’s fair? I haven’t heard a lot of specific demands for change, only a lot of general bad feelings about the current state of affairs.
Those are potential talking points for the occupiers. Closing tax loopholes (and similar) should be on the list. Shipping jobs overseas is a harder one. If you keep making your stuff here and everybody is shopping at Wal Mart, you’re just going to go out of business and all your employees will still be out of work.
I want to live in a country where it’s possible to become very wealthy. Filthy rich. The American dream! And I don’t think that’s the specific problem these people are having. If they are, I’m not a fan. This should be about the financial community and others in power being more responsible, and more responsive. It should not be about “You have too much and I don’t have much, you owe me.” I don’t agree with that approach.
I’m all for that! They need to ask better questions perhaps, and keep shouting for answers. Get everybody on board. If they can convince lots of the people “in the middle” that they all want the same things, the momentum will start to roll. It will take a lot to budge those financial types.
The problem with “great” tax ideas is that it seems to be impossible to implement any of them, no matter how much sense they make. I guess it’s just another, very entrenched, part of that financial community that’s going to be very hard to budge. No matter how adamant a candidate is about his own tax plan, it means nothing if he can’t get Congress on board after he’s elected. Voters need to keep this in mind when choosing their candidates…
That’s called doing their job. Fortunately soldiers aren’t political either, or we would be militarily weak. The public servants may be completely on the side of the protestors, but they’re doing their jobs. Most of them, that is, with the few who end up being in the situations that end up in those videos.
I’m sure it is. But is that what the occupiers are fighting for? I haven’t heard much about cop/fire/teacher jobs. Of course you can’t talk about those fields without talking about the large and powerful unions that are part of the equation…
Cops & fire? Those are good jobs. You’re not going to get rich, but the pay is decent and the benefits are still very good (at least for now). Those aren’t poverty jobs. Being a starting teacher is less great, but gets better after the first few years. There are tons of people out there, though, trying to live on $10/hour, many with no benefits. That’s definitely poor by our standards, though still not compared to most of the people in the world.
No, I’m not a fan of huge salaries for some athletes. Don’t forget it’s not just the athletes of course, there’s a lot of high-paid owners, managers, agents, etc. in the mix. All those high salaries take away from the “economy” of a sports team that also employs large numbers of people working for low wages. Like concessions workers, probably around the $10/hour with no benefits. But I don’t hear the occupiers saying anything specific about that either. It should be pretty easy right now, while the NBA is on strike and “the people” get no pro basketball!
I’ve already heard from them. It’s easier to be specific when you’re defending past actions. They didn’t do anything illegal. Huh. That makes it harder to nail down what they did “wrong”, and that’s probably where the occupiers should be focusing their message. They need to focus on something.
I hear a lot of that on the conservative talk radio I sometimes listen to. If you focus on what the people look like or smell like, you’re losing the argument. Problem is, the other side needs to have a better argument but so far they don’t seem to.
Believe me, I’m on their side–I think. I’d have a more concrete opinion if I knew what their side really was. I think their message needs to be along the lines of demanding responsibility in the high places, and consequences. Continue speaking truth to power. Focus on that truth. Be specific! Maybe we can budge something somewhere on Wall Street to put it in more of a “listening to the people” mode. But it’s not going to be easy.
I posted (somewhere?) earlier that with a movement of this size, it may be all but impossible to really nail down a specific plan or list of demands/grievences. I think just the fact that the people are taking to the streets shows that the general mood of the population (some polls show that up to 60% support the OWS movement, some less) is one of change. These are people who should show up at the polls on election day - provided that the Republicans don’t succeed with their plans of voter suppression (ID requirements in states such as Ohio, S Carolina and Florida which blatently are targeted at the poor, young and minority people that traditionally vote Democrat).
I never wanted to be rich. I firmly believe that with wealth comes greater greed and the associated problems(fraud, insider trading, Ponzi schemes). I went to school. Graduated and was immediately employed at a good job for a company that has treated me well for the past 20 years. I am not rich, but we do well enough to have what we need and some of the things we want. I do not want the rich guy’s money. I do, however, want him to pay his fair share. I pay my taxes. I have no problem with taxation. It’s how civilized societies have supported themselves for thousands of years. Somehow, recently, the rich have convinced the middle class that the country can run on no taxes - just cuts. What the middle class suckers should realize is that the cuts they are talking about are to the programs that the middle class have held dear for many years - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, student load programs, family planning, EPA, heating assistance and food for poor programs and funds for infrastructure (our bridges are starting to have a nasty habit of falling down and killing people) to name a few. Of course, if you have alot of money, you don’t need such programs( I guess you would still need bridges, unless you’re very rich and have a helocopter, or jet pack - that would be cool…).
At one point during the Eisenhower years, the top 2%(?) paid 90% income tax. So I really don’t think it’s perposterous to require the wealthiest Americans to pay 50% in this trying economic time (which some of them contributed to) or even 39%, like during the Clinton years when we experienced the greatest economic growth since the 1960s and actually had a budget surplus (which GWB blew in less than 1 year). I remind you that the top 1%'s income has risen by 275% over last 30 years while the median income (60th percentile) rose by only 40%. Yes, they can afford it.
Unfortunately, our elected Republican servants signed douche-bag Grover Norquest’s pledge to not raise ANY tax - EVER. Way to cut your own throat. They are elected by the people to serve the people, not Grover’s wealthy backers - they should never have signed such a binding pledge without any input from the public. And now they are being held to that pledge with threats from their own party (mainly the Tea Baggers). How is a country, or even a company, expected to run with no capital flowing in? You can’t run an economy on cuts alone and still say that you are concerned with job creation. The programs you cut are staffed by people - people who loose their job when the program is eliminated. This all reverts back to the abuses and corruption on Wall Street that caused the economic collapse of 2008.
Yes I’m pissed. I have a better job than my father did. My mother was a stay at home mom. My wife and I both work, but our standard of living may be only half that of my parents when they were my age. And like I stated before - we don’t live extravegantly or beyond our means (almost no credit debt). I’m pissed that my children are going to be shafted even worse. The American Dream - go to school, stay out of trouble, work hard and life will be a bowl of cherries - has become a lie for alot of people.
And where’s my jet pack?
They skipped demonstrating at the White house and went right to the ones giving the orders–Wall Street.
Their message is economic justice! The huge and growing divide between the 1% and the rest is due to corrupt policies and laws. Polls show the 99% are tired of this.
now that police shot an Iraq War veteran in the head and put him in critical condition, trouble is brewing .
Could you be the spokesman for the Occupy Wall Street throng? You say it so much better than I’ve heard from people on the street I’ve seen interviewed.
Isn’t that mathematically kind of ironic?
I heard an interesting speaker on the radio today, talking about his theory of the current state of the economy. He believes we’re in a long-term economic cycle which is affected by the aging of the Baby Boom generation. Once people reach age 46, according to his numbers, their spending plateaus. Once all the children are gone from the nest and out of college, the parents’ spending then gets less and less as they age. His theory is that the recessionary trend will continue for years, and we can’t be “stimulated” out of it.
But meanwhile, I think what the protestors need is to get enough people mad, to cause some actual change in the entrenched “money controllers” in (and related to) Wall Street. The ones that can’t lose no matter what. Golden parachutes, making their own rules, controlling regulations and legislation, etc.
Oh and about those jet packs? The ones you’ve seen have something like a 25-second flight time on a full tank. Short commutes only!
No, I don’t think I ever comparred my situation to that of a person living in a third world country. I believe I was referring to the “American” Dream. Please don’t give the Republicans any ideas - next they will be telling me how well I’m living comparred to those in Bangledesh - or is that what you are trying to do?
When God asked me where I wanted to be born, I picked Bangledesh as my first choice, but Altoona Pennsylvania had the next opening - sorry, just lucked out I guess.
Wow! You’re good. Sorry, I momentarily was drawn into a pissing match with a member of the peanut gallery. I should know better than to try to debate an issue with someone hurling taunts from the audience. Now - adults, back to the issue…
