What Is Your Opinion On The Occupy Wallstreet Protests And Would You Join Us?

Well I am glad that is not true because if it was, not saying it is but if. We have been wasting our time voting and just need to go to DC as a lynch mob and nip this in the bud.

 

I wouldn't advocate a lynch mob but I'm all for enforcing the Constitution as written as well as the oaths of office that legislators take. I think that every legislator (and judge too) should be investigated, prosecuted and jailed for any willful violations of their oaths of office or the Constitution.

 

You never have to hang a coward as they are already dead. The threat alone is enough.

 

You're almost there, but you don't quite seem to get it. It is the influence of money on the electoral and legislative processes that results in the corruptibility of the government. It is that the government is corrupted that results in the powers it has being abused. There is no way to limit a corrupted government's power without eliminating it's corruptibility. By working towards limiting the power and scope of government without working to eliminate the corrupting force of money on the electoral and legislative processes, you are effectively treating a symptom and not the disease.

Government is a tool designed, at least in a constitutional representative democracy like we have in the US, to protect the interests and the rights of the people of the US. As we have allowed the influence of money to determine the outcome of the electoral and legislative processes, we have allowed those with economic advantage to wage disproportionate influence over the government, culminating in the manifestation of a plutocracy or corporate oligarchy that uses their influence to push a big government for big business agenda. They use government to externalize costs to their businesses while simultaneously using government regulations to create barriers to market entry for small and medium sized competition. They then use their media machine to promote the false dichotomy of a big business party (Republicans) vs. a big government party (Democrats), polarizing the people into supporting one side or the other that both end up pushing through the big government for big business agenda.

So long as the people are reliant on either the Democrats or Republicans to facilitate any change, we will only continue to have big government for big business.

 

I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said here, except that you seem to think its possible to do more than treat the symptom. I think the disease is human nature. As long as politicians are human and have power, there will be government corruption. Politicians will sell their votes and interested parties will buy it. The only way to treat the problem then, is to treat the symptom, limiting the power that government has by treating the Constitution as a contract that must be enforced to the letter and holding the politicians accountable for any willful contravention of the Constitution or their oaths of office.

This isn't a modern problem. Thomas Jefferson said "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." James Madison agreed, "Whenever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince." We have this problem because the citizenry hasn't been vigilant and has allowed the government to become unaccountable.

 

And I'm tired of people who talk like you. You really sound like a cry baby.

 

It seems that Jefferson and Madison would agree with me that we need to amend the Constitution in order to eliminate the influence of money on the electoral and legislative processes, as it would clearly be a measure of putting more "chains" on power. It is absolutely possible to address the disease. We need to eliminate private money from the electoral process completely. I propose that a solution would be to provide matching public campaign funds to all candidates that qualify for the ballot as well as equal access to promote their campaign on broadcast media. I would also put restrictions in place that disqualify any company that lobbies politicians or engages in, promotes, or funds any political advertising from being eligible for government contracts, as well as preventing government officials from working for companies that have received government contracts.

The only way to achieve any real change, however, is to support independent candidates or better yet run as an independent and refuse to take corporate money.

 

At the end of all that you still have human beings wielding power, which powerful interests will expend resources to influence. Every group and special interest will find ways to convince those Congressmen that their subsidy, tax break or exemption is worthwhile and whether it is for the union vote or the dairy farmer's vote, or some other payoff, your Congressman will sell out.

The only way to address the disease, as you say, is to remove the power they're abusing or remove the humans that are abusing the power. Since we're not likely to find angels to populate the legislature the next best answer is reducing the power in Washington.

 

As I said

When all you are left with is silly hyperbole and you ignore the issues raised you have nothing.

 

You let corporations force you to do something?

 

I'm sorry, but in order for government to function as it is designed, it will always have power that can be abused and therefore will always be a target for those willing to corrupt it in order to abuse such power. I am a fan of decentralization, I am a fan of drastic reductions in government spending (personally, I would do it in stages, starting with reductions on defense spending before moving towards social programs), I don't disagree with your position and I am not under any delusion that eliminating the influence of money on the electoral and legislative processes is a cure all. It is, however, in my opinion necessary for anything to change at all. Right now, politicians aren't selling out for votes, they're selling out for money, and its legal.

 

The republican party can be however regular people, as conservative, republicans, or endorse moderate this movement as well as democrats and liberal even. The corporate controlled means tried to form the holes those within those groups identify against each other. Comparisons of this movement with the tea party or plays on their fear. Occupy Wall Street are actual for all Americans and the world. Everything those, which see that our global economic system is in the decrease and at the grace of some people at the top side. Our democracies and republics are complete in danger of for the sale which leads therefore to fascism. There the only people, which have a saying publicly and which would be economic policy with the money for lobbyists and bribery within ours govts. The time for satisfaction is past we must together, we our nations for our people and our planet.

 

Liberalminority Said: "I have to go beat the bongo drums but I will return to keep you informed on our (OWS) progress."

Tom Brokaw was recently asked, "Will the OWS movement be successful?" He replied, "It's hard to say."

Actually, it's impossible to say unless you have a definition of "successful". Robert Reich, earlier this week, described the OWS movement as a response to inequality between power and people. He points out that (financial and political) power is now in the hands of 1 percent of the people. The other 99 percent is subservient to their interests.

The problem is Robert Reich does not speak for OWS; or more to the point, no single voice speaks for OWS. There is some vague, collective opinion about the movement's raison d'etre; but a collective opinion is no substitute for a unified voice. Without that, "OWS" and "TEA" are just populist movement acronyms that will soon fade away.

Bongo drums may help for awhile; but no form of intermittent entertainment can substitute for direction and purpose expressed by a unified voice.

 

Seems like the most direct way to remove that power is to change the tax basis. A basis which neither requires nor allows subsidies, tax breaks, exemptions or deductions would mean politicians would loose the ability to skew taxation towards one group or another by establishing or removing them. You would remove the power your are concerned about from government.

Income has never been a fair basis of taxation, which is why exemptions and deductions were introduced to make an income tax palatable to most people. You want a fair system and an impartial tax? Consider a basis other than income.

 

How do you expect to accomplish that when the government is bought and paid for by the interests that utilize such tax shelters before any votes are ever cast?

We need to eliminate the influence of money on the outcome of the electoral and legislative processes. That is the corrupting disease that leads to the symptoms such as unfair tax loopholes and bloated government contracts.

 

Well, TV is not a necessity of life.

Food, clothing and shelter are necessary. You die is you can't get it. No one has ever died from lack of TV. It's not elitist to suggest that the best path out of poverty is to live at or below your means. If you use the surplus to get educated in a useful skill rather than pissing it away on luxury items, you'll build a solid base to reach the middle class on.

 

Please start another thread if you need to discuss this further, this one is past its 50 pages.