http://occupytogether.com/forum/categories/politics/feed.rss Thu, 23 May 13 14:57:53 -0600 Politics en-CA http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1803/occupy-a-legislative-seat-recall-republicans Tue, 06 Dec 2011 10:59:51 -0700 Jed 1803@/forum/discussions
I'd love to see the Occupy movement take on Republicans in the House and Senate starting at the top with Eric Cantor and John Boehnor, and working the way down. Start a movement to "occupy" their legislative seats by systematically recalling and replacing Republicans with a representative that will stand up for the 99%. It's already happening in Wisconsin with Gov. Walker. Let's make it a national movement.]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1051/what-will-fox-news-report-on-this-wall-street-protests Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:49:56 -0600 wallstreetisbad 1051@/forum/discussions http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1752/fire-all-members-of-the-house-ss-we-can-and-should. Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:28:26 -0700 albert 1752@/forum/discussions http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1881/i-blame-politicians-for-being-too-conservative- Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:38:05 -0700 hereincapitalism 1881@/forum/discussions
Let's start with the question period. Exactly who do they think they're fooling? Asking a bunch of questions regarding policy and giving some cleverly arrogant remark as an answer is NOT holding members of Parliament accountable in a democracy. In fact, the very same questions posed by the opposition are the same ones they promote when they switch power roles! You hear the NDP and Liberals questioning Harper about bad conditions on reserves, and if the NDP and Liberals were in power, you'd hear the conservatives doing the exact same thing! I'd like to really hold members of Parliament responsible and ask them to pay off my student loan because I had no other choice but to take one out. That's a real democracy. The rest is just a circus, and it's not even entertaining.

In terms of their hard work to push for progress, do you think that maybe once, just for the sake of saying you did it, political parties could go beyond a really watery welfare state? Everything you hear is about pushing for these radical changes to society where really poor and undesirable people will receive 50 dollars more a month or a year so that this can be a country of compassion where we the elite take care of our pets. And, if you refuse to do anything that goes beyond this model, could you at least make it happen? This country is so conservative that it won't even allow minimal welfare state changes into society! Everything, it seems, is fixed by having people work minimum wage jobs and wonderful "social programs" that will let you eat tuna and kraft dinner for the rest of your life. I'd love just once to hear financial exploitation that's involved in almost every institution to leave the mouths of these social democrats, and just once to hear the conservatives say something about it. But, this is politics, not real life. I just wish my leaders were a bit more grounded in reality. ]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1736/republicans-framing-the-narrative Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:14:03 -0700 MundusVultDecipi 1736@/forum/discussions http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/republicans-being-taught-talk-occupy-wall-street-133707949.html]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1263/fedral-sales-tax Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:00:52 -0700 dennisbischof 1263@/forum/discussions Consider the following;

Abolish the current complex Tax System by slowly phasing in a simple Progressive Federal Sales Tax and Watch what happens!

First: When you get paid $10 per hr. you receive $10 per hr. Remember no income tax! (A progressive sales tax is were you buy an item, lets say from $0 to $10 and the sales tax might be 0% and a $10 to $100 item might be 5% and so on.) So now the tax is higher on big ticket items. The rich pay a bigger portion of the taxes because they buy more expensive things like Hummers, yacht and personal jets. Rather than less taxes because they can afford expensive accountants, who can find loop holes built in to the tax laws by their friends in Washington. This is true trickle down economics!

Second: Whenever making purchases, all of the following criminals and tax cheats will pay their fair share of taxes. Drug dealers, prostitutes, money launderers, thieves, racketeers, illegal gamblers, illegal aliens, people who work under the table, people who make tips and those who lie on there tax returns, etcetera to infinitum. (To many to mention) These job titles do not get put on 1040 tax returns at the end of the year.

If all these taxes were collected, and you are an honest tax payer, the percentage of federal sales taxes would be miniscule and the amount you pay in taxes would go down dramatically. The sheer volume of these uncollected taxes is staggering! It could conceivably abolish the national debt with enough left over to bail out social security and cover national health care costs.

Third: If these people were paying their fair share of taxes, the criminal activities they are engaged in, would become considerably less profitable and they would be less likely to start, succeed or continue in that criminal activity. This would result in a reduction in all crimes across the board and free up law enforcement so they can better take care of the honest citizens.

Fourth: Think of this! No IRS in your life. No April, 15 deadlines. No complicated tax codes you can’t figure out and that favor the rich. No paying expensive accountants to do your taxes because you can‘t. No saving receipts and records for years. No audits by our friends at the IRS! No more 1040 instruction books that keep getting larger every year. Think of the money the government will save by not printing and mailing them. Plenty more you can think of yourself

Fifth: Most states already have a state sales tax in effect, that has been proven to work. The IRS could oversee the collection of the taxes, by the businesses collecting them just as the states do, rather than intimidating millions of honest working Americans. The businesses collecting and submitting the taxes could be compensated for their part by giving them a small percentage of the taxes collected. The US Government should welcome this form of taxation, as it would increase tax revenues and reduce the work load of the IRS. No business man would dare to cheat the IRS and jeopardize his business, just to give someone a break on their taxes!

Sixth: You wouldn’t pay taxes until you spend the money, thus encouraging saving and investing, boosting the economy. Ask your self, how much of your earnings did you manage to keep last year?

Seventh: The current income tax system, taxes your income thus discouraging earning more money. The more you make the more they take. Unless you are rich and can afford one of those high priced accountant, who can find you that loop hole, in which case you will not want this type of taxation.

Eight: You don’t need to figure out what kind of a complicated IRA, ROTH, 401K, or KEO you need to retire on. You don’t pay taxes until you spend it! So just save in what ever fashion gives you the best return and get interest on all your money, then pay your federal sales taxes when you retire.

Finally: You will notice that no politicians are promoting this tax system. This is a very good sign that it is in your best interest. This system, will not line the pockets of their rich cronies.

]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1486/oligarcy Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:52:25 -0700 musely 1486@/forum/discussions Why is the occupy movement demanding a reinstate of a democracy? it does not appear that there ever was a democracy. Since the creation of the U.S. federal government, money played a role in creating a voting class. In order to vote one had to be a white male with $250 dollars in the bank. The requirement inherently created a ruling or "elite class".
In order for the movement to strengthen itself I ask why are people not calling an apple an apple? America never had a true democracy. We had an oligarchy which functioned as a republic. The republic functioned as a democracy within the confines if its courts. Inside the courts was the only true place democracy took place. Asking for a democracy back is taking words out of context.
Asking for America to be a democracy is asking for the fundamentals of the government to change. The oligarchy is to embedded in itself.The government must be either re-written or over written by a while new system. Who is up for re-writing the government into one that will be any better than the one we have?]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/708/liberty-and-justice-for-all- Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:20:22 -0600 dealdoctor 708@/forum/discussions

My brother and I are veterans and served in during the cold war. My father and father in law career officers fought in WWII and in the Battle of the Bulge. We are red, white and blue to the core. We served for freedom and justice for all Americans.

When Martin Luther King, Jr. marched in the land of liberty demanding Justice he marched right through our rural Alabama County. Almost all white citizens there hated him for what he was doing. He pointed to our own Constitution and its simple words of equality and justice for all. Most of us were blind to what his idea of justice for ALL really meant. Now most of us can see the injustice we were blind to then.

Injustice is always about an abuse of power and it may come from an individual tyrant or from a class like white people or rich people. The key thing is that fairness, justice for all, is ruined because someone or some group is tolerated as a bully class or tyrant. When the abuse is long standing and part of tradition it is almost impossible for most people to see. It is as normal as the air they breathe or like water to fish. There is no problem to fix as far as they can actually see.

Think of a bully on the playground or a group of bullies who are stealing the lunch money of the other kids. They get so much money that they can then bribe the teachers and principal from stopping them. They set up a power system that works to their advantage and bribes the authorities.

It is ironic now that there is all this news now about the problem of bullies in our school systems, tyrannical dictators in the Middle East and Americans can see these abuses of power. However, we are mostly missing the bullying and systemic injustice being done by the financial elite and multi-national corporations.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is denigrated in the same way people in my small Alabama town denigrated MLK, Jr. “ How could a minister of the gospel act this way? Look at the low life group surrounding him! He is pitting Americans against Americans. He is a Socialist. It’s not American.” Those were the common views of the powerful white people of our town. To us he looked more like Flea Party than Tea Party.

Fifty years later we all would be horrified to hear people say such things of Martin Luther King, Jr. Now people there see the injustice for what it was. It was exploitation, injustice.

The Civil Rights movement was really not about liberty for the black Americans it was about justice. It was not about capitalism vs. socialism. It was about justice. It was not about freedom but rather it was about inalienable rights for all. It was about a more perfect union for all not for some.

All Americans are for freedom and liberty. Take a vote of Americans and ask for everyone against liberty and freedom to raise their hands and no one will do it except perhaps 1%. In America freedom is just not a debatable issue. Everyone from the most conservative Tea Party to the most liberal Democrat wants liberty. The Statue of Liberty is as American as our flag. You oppose a top down dictatorships? 99% do. Now what about justice for all? There is the rub! Do you really want to stand up against the powerful who abuse their power? You might need the 99% to win. The powerful are powerful.

Should the Alabama Highway patrol have unleashed dogs on Civil Rights justice marchers? How about NYPD using pepper-spray and clubs on Occupy Wall Street justice marchers? Such action is protecting and serving only abusive bullies.

France’s slogan was,” liberty, equality and fraternity”. They wanted a bottom up democratic nation that had a family feeling to it. All free but free as one equal caring family. Dysfunctional families and nations tolerate bullies. Americans shortened “equality and fraternity” in our pledge to “and justice for all”. Our pledge of allegiance with hands on our hearts ends “ with liberty AND justice for ALL” Why? True liberty for all is impossible without justice. Occupy America with justice or choose to tolerate power abuse by the 1% and lose your dear liberty and mine. Glory Hallelujah! His truth is still marching on.


]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1238/a-critique-of-the-new-york-times-report-on-the-ows-movement Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:11:13 -0700 JonathanMFeldman 1238@/forum/discussions
Analysis: Some in OWS call for a kind of constitutional convention or system to throw out the Congress. That is not conveyed by this statement.

Quote: "Some academics say that while the occupation of the park was a good tactic, it is time to move beyond it.
'It’s not a tactic that puts any pressure on the 1 percent,' Jeff Goodwin, a sociology professor at New York University, said. 'It’s inconceivable that the movement can get what it wants without engaging legislatures.'”

Analysis: I don't know what else was said to the reporter by Dr. Goodwin, but the choice between electoral politics and Occupying Zuccotti Park is a false dichotomy. First, the movement repeats itself nationally and globally creating a media space that is a third factor (variable, an intervening variable). Second, members of Congress have changed their tune and speeches. The New York Times and CNBC each showed this. This indicates that the political Occupy-Media Capital circuit creates a social change system which may be a preliminary step before electing people (hence a false dichotomy) (thus, the organizing trajectory is misunderstood). Third, sociological literature on the division of labor between rioters and counter-rioters suggests that militant protests empower a more "sober" group of reformers that gain or produce leverage, e.g. in legislative branches or elsewhere. A colleague has made a similar point elsewhere. Fourth, the OWS movement is not simply occupying the park and the occupying the park is not the key question anyway (in my view), i.e. there is an ensemble of activities that this article does not capture. Fifth, what about bank transfers that directly impact the system without legislative intervention, i.e. by direct consumer power?

Quote: "History has not always been kind to leaderless protests. David S. Meyer, a professor of sociology and political science at the University of California at Irvine, said that in the past, grass-roots groups with similar democratic structures — the movement against nuclear power, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee — followed one of two paths. 'It falls apart, or it gets seized by disciplined factions from within,' he said. 'All made big gains,' he added. 'But they couldn’t survive their success.'”

Analysis: The collapse of the Students for a Democratic Society partially was based on the entry of verticals, e.g. Progressive Labor Party and the breakdown in the coordination between certain ideals and certain leaders early on in the movement. These leaders did not understand how to appeal to economic reconstruction. So, the vertical character of SDS may have weakened it, a counterfactual that Dr. Meyer does not seem to understand. The OWS structure does not seem like SDS's structure, it has more accountability systems, the range of its ideology is far broader, it has far more public support than SDS has, it even has champions in established media and it has the benefit of Democracy Now as a broad media support structure. Also, I still think the movement is not leaderless, i.e. it has informal leaders who do the things leaders do, e.g. there are people who emerge as press spokespersons and those who are more vocal than others, etc. Also, it is not so accurate to say the New Left fell apart. Yes, the movement died in 1975 more or less, but a lot of former SDS people entered other movements and did other things. As for the anti-nuclear movement, its failure may have had to do with its singular focus, whereas OWS is far more diversified.

Quote: "Yet some grass-roots movements have had potency. Doug McAdam, a sociology professor at Stanford University, noted that most groundswell uprisings did not have an organized central structure, among them the civil rights movement, the modern women’s movement and, more recently, the Tea Party. He said the protest could inspire a more concrete movement. 'Successful movements start out as expressions of anger, and then quickly move beyond that,' he said. 'It’s very difficult for opponents to control or repress a movement that has many heads.'”

Analysis: This part of the article makes more sense. One has to recall Herbert Marcuse's observations about the dangers of a centralized movement, its vulnerability to repression (a theme taken up earlier in the article). The movement is relatively young, it has mailing lists, list serves, etc. to sustain it into new activities. It's clear that it may be the tip of the iceberg. Necessity is the mother of invention anyway, so movements often invent things. What blocks innovation, however, is sometimes a bunch of centralized would-be Lenin type shmucks at the top who would rather kill a movement than lose control over it. This quote sort of gets at that and Dr. McAdam seems to have the best analysis of those quoted.

Finally: Many sociologists of social movements are cheerleaders or don't have much experience as political organizers. I doubt much of what they say and you have to figure in an economic analysis of the type sociologists don't always count on. The very structure of the movement has not been articulated very well. Of course, who knows what these people told the Times. Maybe some of what they said was not even quoted.

]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/1235/jobless-and-clueless Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:46:16 -0700 statusquobuster 1235@/forum/discussions
Consider the results of a new survey of unemployed adults this month:

“More than half of those polled said that they had experienced emotional or mental health problems like anxiety or depression because of their lack of work, and nearly half said that they had felt embarrassed or ashamed not to have jobs.”

“More than a third said that they had had more conflicts or arguments with family and friends because of being jobless.”

“Threats of foreclosure or eviction were reported by a fifth of the unemployed, and one in eight said that they had moved in with relatives or friends.”

“More than half said that they lacked health insurance.”

“A fifth said that they had received food from a nonprofit organization.”

“Nearly two-thirds said they would probably not have enough money to live comfortably during retirement. More than half said that they had taken money out of savings or retirement accounts.”

“7 in 10 of those receiving unemployment benefits said that they feared their benefits would run out before they could find new jobs.”

So far, all those results paint an unsurprising profile of unemployed, suffering Americans.

Now, consider the result that blew my mind, the reason I am writing this, because more people need to understand something critical about delusional thinking that ultimately makes getting deep, sorely needed reforms of our government and political system extremely difficult. Without that our economy will stay awful, unfair, promoting even more economic inequality.

“Two-thirds of those surveyed said that they still believed it was possible to start out poor in this country, work hard and become rich — only a little lower than the three-quarters of all Americans” not in the unemployed category who held the same view and were surveyed at the same time. In fact, considerable research in recent years has consistently found that upward mobility in the US is no longer a hallmark of the society. Indeed, there is more upward mobility in Canada and a number of European countries than in the US. Moreover, the jobless more than most should be able to comprehend the ugly reality that downward economic mobility is now a large part of American society.

No surprise that the cover story on the new Time magazine is What Ever Happened To Upward Mobility? The basic theme of the article is that the US is no longer an “opportunity society.” In other words, our country is no longer a place where everyone, if he or she works hard enough, can get ahead. But despite this reality, conservatives and Republicans love to publicly proclaim that the US still offers everyone upward economic mobility.

Those two-thirds of the unemployed will probably pay a steep price for their false optimism about their country. They are likely to fall prey to the political propaganda of either Democrats or Republicans. If they are delusional about the American Dream, are they also delusional about other things that may stand in the way of them getting a job? Rather than feel ashamed or embarrassed about being jobless they should get some feedback from others so they can fix their thinking.

As Ezra Klein noted: “Americans are in the odd position of fervently believing in upward mobility while not actually having very much of it. Europeans, conversely, don't really believe in economic mobility but have plenty of it.”

Those jobless with this delusional thinking, refusing to think critically, judge the facts and come to a hurtful conclusion, are not the ones I expect to be participating in or supporting the Occupy Wall Street protesters, about three-quarters of whom now disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance as president. Though the Occupy protesters speak of the rich 1 percent, that is a big underestimate. As Anne Applebaum correctly noted “Despite all the loud talk of the ‘1 per cent’ of Americans who, according to a recent study, receive about 17 per cent of the income, a percentage which has more than doubled since 1979, the existence of a very small group of very rich people has never bothered Americans. But the fact that some 20 per cent of Americans now receive some 53 per cent of the income is devastating.” Becoming part of even that larger group of rich Americans is now more difficult than ever.

Do unemployed have the right kind of jobs to aspire to the top one percent of income earners? Consider the jobs that account for the top one percent; the top four categories account for nearly 70 percent: corporate and business management not in the financial sector, medical, financial industry executives, and lawyers. This also shows how difficult it is to somehow negatively impact the one percent by protests by the Occupy movement.

In our delusional democracy with its delusional prosperity thinking that hard work, great ideas and superior performance will get you into the top one percent is self-delusion, even getting into the top 20 percent is a long shot. The economic system is too rigged against economic justice. Sure, every once in awhile someone starting out poor or average becomes superrich, but that is like winning a super lottery. Best to stop believing in the rags-to-riches myth, unless the system is reformed.

A new report by a German foundation examined the nation members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, essentially the world’s democracies. The US ranked terribly low for poverty and poverty prevention as well as income inequality. Only Chile, Mexico and Turkey were ranked lower than the US. What a story.

The US two-party plutocracy has allowed the rich and powerful to buy the political system. Except for the rich, the results are dreadful. This is why 89 percent do not trust that government will do the right thing. The best solution is what you find at the getmoneyout.com website, a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.
]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/983/constitutional-amendment-as-an-ows-goal-term-limits-for-congressional-representatives Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:32:36 -0600 smk2020 983@/forum/discussions
I think that many of the problems the Occupy Movement has could be addressed by proposing a Constitutional Amendment for terms limits for Congressional representatives. I envision term limits similar to that for the President. Either 2 or 3 terms per representative in each house on Congress, perhaps on a staggered basis, where say 33 seats come up for election every 2 years.

Much of politics in Washington and the references to how politics gets done in Washington are the real problems. Becoming a lawmaker was supposed to be a temporary position the founding fathers envisioned where people would come to serve and then return to being productive memebrs of society. That has degraded to the career politician track where the goals are mostly to get elected at all costs for the sake of getting elected and not actually doing anything but bickering until next election season. If perhaps we had politicians who were not engrained in the current system of Washington politics, perhaps they would be inspired to actually perform their jobs well and not cater to lobbyists and special interest groups so much and actually make good on the promises and serve the public. I feel that always putting in fresh faces would help, and perhaps would eliminate some of the old and inflexible stooges that we have there now.

I suggest this because one of the criticisms of the movement is that there are no articulated goals. I would like for this idea to be thrown into the mix in the hopes that it can be formulated into an articulable goal for the movement.

There are two ways provided for in the Constitution for enacting an amendment. 1 is by a supermajority of Congress, which is just impossible these days, and 2, vote by 3/4s of the states. The second measure has never been used before and I feel that this is the appropriate period in history to do so. There have been no formal procedures implemented for this version but perhaps the OWS movement could begin to either get petitions from citizens of the various states to begin a populist count. Perhaps these petitions could each be brought to the respective state representatives who would be instructed to institute this proceeding. Certainly Congress will not act to change itself and so we will need to rely on populist voting to force our State officials, probably the Governors as the heads of state to vote on this and come to a resolution.

Once adopted, hopefully we would get in fresh congressional leaders, and with an influx of over 300 new people each time in the term, maybe we could increase our chances of getting higher quality candidates and prevent the entrenchment of career politicians, which got us to our current state of events.

I don't believe that if OWS has goals that it would slow down the movement, rather defined objectives will help get the ball rolling. Please discuss, debate, and circulate massively. ]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/978/right-to-protest-qa Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:30:49 -0600 oppositefear 978@/forum/discussions
A. No. The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the content of speech. However, this does not mean that the Constitution completely protects all types of free speech activity in every circumstance. Police and government officials are allowed to place certain non-discriminatory and narrowly drawn "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Q. Where can I engage in free speech activity?

A. Generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional "public forums" such as streets, sidewalks and parks. In addition, your speech activity may be permitted to take place at other public locations which the government has opened up to similar speech activities, such as the plazas in front of government buildings.

Q. What about free speech activity on private property?

A. The general rule is that free speech activity cannot take place on private property absent the consent of the property owner. However, in California, the courts have recognized an exception for large shopping centers, and have permitted leafleting and petitioning to take place in the public areas of large shopping centers. The shopping center owners, however, are entitled to impose regulations that, for example, limit the number of activists on the property and restrict their activities to designated "free speech areas." Most large shopping centers have enacted detailed free speech regulations that require obtaining a permit in advance. It is unclear whether the courts will extend this "shopping center exception" to other types of private property, such as the walkways in front of large free-standing stores, such as a Safeway or a Costco.

Q. Do I need a permit before I engage in free speech activity?

A. Not usually. However, certain types of events require permits. Generally, these events are: 1) a march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk and other events that require blocking traffic or street closures; 2) a large rally requiring the use of sound amplifying devices; or 3) a rally at certain designated parks or plazas, such as federal property managed by the General Services Administration. Many permit procedures require that the application be filed several weeks in advance of the event. However, the First Amendment prohibits such an advance notice requirement from being used to prevent rallies or demonstrations that are rapid responses to unforeseeable and recent events. Also, many permit ordinances give a lot of discretion to the police or city officials to impose conditions on the event, such as the route of a march or the sound levels of amplification equipment. Such restrictions may violate the First Amendment if they are unnecessary for traffic control or public safety, or if they interfere significantly with effective communication with the intended audience. A permit cannot be denied because the event is controversial or will express unpopular views

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

Q. If organizers have not obtained a permit, where can a march take place?

A. If marchers stay on the sidewalks and obey traffic and pedestrian signals, their activity is constitutionally protected even without a permit. Marchers may be required to allow enough space on the sidewalk for normal pedestrian traffic and may not maliciously obstruct or detain passers-by.

Q. May I distribute leaflets and other literature on public sidewalks?

A. Yes. Pedestrians on public sidewalks may be approached with leaflets, newspapers, petitions and solicitations for donations. Tables may also be set up on sidewalks for these purposes if sufficient room is left for pedestrians to pass. These types of free speech activities are legal as long as entrances to buildings are not blocked and passers-by are not physically and maliciously detained. No permits should be required.

Q. Do I have a right to picket on public sidewalks?

A. Yes, and this is also an activity for which a permit is not required. However, picketing must be done in an orderly, non-disruptive fashion so that pedestrians can pass by and entrances to buildings are not blocked. Contrary to the belief of some law enforcement officials, pickets are not required to keep moving but may remain in one place as long as they leave room on the sidewalk for others to pass.

Q. Can the government impose a financial charge on exercising free speech rights?

A. Increasingly, local governments are imposing financial costs as a condition of exercising free speech rights, such as application fees, security deposits for clean-up, or charges to cover overtime police costs. Unfortunately, such charges that cover actual administrative costs or the actual costs of re-routing traffic have been permitted by some courts. However, if the costs are greater because an event is controversial (or a hostile crowd is expected) – such as requiring a large insurance policy – then the courts will not permit it. Also, regulations with financial requirements should include a waiver for groups that cannot afford the charge, so that even grassroots organizations can exercise their free speech rights. Therefore, a group without significant financial resources should not be prevented from engaging in a march simply because it cannot afford the charges the City would like to impose.

Q. What should I do if my rights are being violated by a police officer?

A. It rarely does any good to argue with a street patrol officer. Ask to talk to a superior and explain your position to her or him. Point out that you are not disrupting anyone else’s activity and that your actions are protected by the First Amendment. If you do not obey an officer, you might be arrested and taken from the scene. You should not be convicted if a court concludes that your First Amendment rights have been violated.

Specific questions about Members of Congress:

Q. Are there any restrictions on protests on the sidewalk in front of the home of a Member of Congress?

A. These states prohibit residential picketing: Arkansas, Arizona, Hawaii, and Michigan.

These cities and towns prohibit residential picketing, sometimes with a specified number of feet

link: http://www.democrats.com/right-to-protest]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/755/the-great-ron-paul-debate Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:01:50 -0600 skoalbite 755@/forum/discussions
Here's some questions before I get into Dr. Ron Paul:

Do you want to rid the government of the department of energy--a cabinet level office designed to address energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions http://energy.gov/mission ?

How about the Department of Housing and Urban Development--the only place to complain if you've been discriminated against in housing?
http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD

Maybe you think the Department of Commerce is wasteful, and want to rid the taxpayers of that burden? http://www.commerce.gov/about-commerce/faq

Of course, the Departments of Interior and Education are also wasteful right? (I'm sure you can look them up on your own)

Well, in Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America you get exactly what you want because that's the first point of his list. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Additionally, he wants to change the Medicaid and other social services to block grants to the states, which will allow all the flexibility a state could want (though the stability of services could evaporate), and have the added benefit of direct cuts without direct effect (Congress can always blame it on poor state management). http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/pb34.pdf

He wants to lay off 10% of the Federal work force, but at least he's austere about it and cuts congressional pay and perks, and also his own.

Do you want your government to reduce the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% (at least of those who pay it anyways)?

Do you want a Presidential candidate who's plan makes no mention of cutting loopholes for corporations or additional taxes on the wealthy?

Do you think all the Bush tax cuts should be extended? (Which benefit the rich at the expense of the poor http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0928_least_effective_stimulus_gale.aspx )

How about the repeal of the Health Care Reform Act? (At least look a little bit for yourself without letting the talking heads tell you what it is before you decide)
http://www.healthcare.gov/?gclid=CL64rcK096sCFcTb4AodjxG0tA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

Think the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was a bad idea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

Maybe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ( which created the Public Company Accounting and Oversight Board--charged with overseeing accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies) needs to go?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act

Then look no further Ron Paul is your candidate. But really, it's not just him. Some parts of his plan will most certainly appear under any Republican candidate--it's got all the things that party loves to not tell you about when it's crying out to "broaden the base" and "limit government." Lower tax cuts for the rich, no oversight for corporations, and deep cuts in social services to those who need them.
]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/922/what-you-can-see Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:56:55 -0600 politicstahl 922@/forum/discussions 1. If you’re working, or on retirement, you can see that you can buy less and less for nominally the same amount of money.
2. If you’re out of work, you will find it extremely hard to make as much money at your new job, if you get one, as you did at your old job.
3. You see and hear of others you know who are in the same position.
4. You know that wealthy people continue to get wealthier, no matter how the companies and institutions they run do.
5. You know that the country has been at war for ten years and millions of people have been killed because of what, we are told, 19 foreigners did ten years ago.
6. You know that when campaigning Barack Obama said, “I will end this war, and you can take that to the bank.” You know that this statement has been forgotten as if it were irrelevant.
7. You know that his campaign was based on the promise of reversing the policies of the Bush administration. Under him, those policies have been strengthened. The president and his friends now watch people being executed at his command, and those subject to summary execution include U.S. citizens. After promising an end to secrecy, secrecy has increased.
8. You know that social services are increasingly diminished under the excuse that there is no money to pay for them, while the fact that the money that used to pay for them is being spent on Halliburton and Xe is ignored as if it were irrelevant.
9. You know, if you have read _The End of America_ by Naomi Wolf, that the pattern of events she describes was initiated by 9/11, and if that event was subject to suspicion, then the cascade of subsequent events it started, including your lack of purchasing power and the endless war which causes it, is just as suspicious.
10. If you have a smidgen of curiosity, you will wonder how 2 airplanes could cause 3 steel and concrete buildings to turn into dust in seconds, and why Obama’s organization spent millions on legal fees to keep his past private.

]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/842/reform-or-revolutions Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:58:39 -0600 JoeBialek1 842@/forum/discussions http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=9521

I had the opportunity the other day to watch a most enlightening program broadcast by UCTV. The one-hour program was called "How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?" presented by President Clinton's former labor secretary Robert Reich.

"Inequality of income, wealth, and opportunity in America is wider now than it's been since the 1920s, and by some measures since the late 19th century. Yet the nation seems unable or unwilling to do much of anything to reverse these trends. What happens if we allow the trends to continue? Will they "naturally" reverse themselves? Or will we get to a point where disparities are so wide that we finally find the political will to take action? Alternatively, will the disparities themselves grow so wide as to discourage action, by fostering resignation among the losers and indifference among the winners? And if the latter, where will it all lead?" SOURCE: Goldman School of Public Policy UC, Berkley

The presentation made excellent use of economic graphs to demonstrate how large of a gap has developed between the upper class and the middle class (not to mention the lower class) with regards to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States between the years 1962 to the present. The trends are alarming to say the least. The speaker correctly points to birthright as the beginning of the disparity that allows for advantages in everything from diet and healthcare to education and connections. Being born into a middle-class family myself, I have truly benefited from my birthright in terms of these advantages right from the starting gate. Some people would argue that many a poor person has risen up by their "own boot straps" but I would argue that in today's society, most (not all) poor people can only rise up with a good pair of athletic shoes or a willingness to sell drugs. Otherwise they have to remain content with working in the service industry for comparatively lower wages than their upper-class counterparts. Mr. Reich further points out that one of the elements keeping our society glued together is the belief or perception by the lower class that opportunity in this country still exists and that if one is willing to work hard, they can be successful.

The speaker talks of two potential outcomes for this growing disparity. He uses the metaphor of the rubber band to illustrate his point. Our society will either "snap back" with a series of reforms supported by all three classes and the government to regain a sense of fairness when it comes to income, wealth, and opportunity in the United States. This has occurred at least once before in the history of our country during a time referred to as the progressive movement. The other potential outcome is for our society to "snap break" whereby this country exists with two entirely different societies. The problem with the latter outcome is that it often leads to the arrival of a demagogue who plays upon the emotions of the middle and lower classes all for the hidden intention of personal gain. We have seen this all too often in history with the likes of Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin etcetera. Mr. Reich suggests somehow that the upper class are not a group with malicious intent but rather are nothing more than a naive self-indulgent class of people who don't know any better. Here I beg to differ. I believe the upper class is guilty of a careless disregard for their fellow countrymen. They have the arrogance to believe they are superior and deserving of extravagance regardless of how they attained it and regardless of how it affects the rest of society. Once again, history shows us what happened to those monarchs who behaved the same way. Do I think there will be a violent revolution in this country? I hope not. Do I prefer a new progressive movement over even a peaceful revolution? Absolutely. My fear however, is that we are already rapidly approaching the point of "critical mass" beyond which there is no turning back. The question today before the American people is what are YOU prepared to do?


http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=9521]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/699/govt-by-the-people-not-the-funders Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:38:39 -0600 tocqueville 699@/forum/discussions http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/a-letter-to-the-occupiers_b_1007459.html]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/598/we-the-people... Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:15:46 -0600 roborob99 598@/forum/discussions • Shall establish The Common People’s Party
• Shall allow only those with a net worth of less than one million dollars to join the Party
• Shall remove from elected office any and all wealthy politicians whose net worth is more than one million dollars
• Shall replace those politicians with elections of and by the Common People for just causes
• Shall support any and all causes that help the Common People to achieve a better life
• Shall support a “Greed” tax for those making more than one million dollars annually
• Shall re-deposit any and all monies with local community banks and/or local credit unions
• Shall seek to nationalize any and all Energy companies (oil, gas, water & electric etc.)
• Shall support F.D.R.’s Second Bill of Rights

F.D.R.’s SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS
“ It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known.

We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. ”
]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/187/stopping-individualism-in-politics-and-economic-theories... Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:19:17 -0600 Zarathustra 187@/forum/discussions
Communism’s influence on individualism/objectivism

Individualism’s influence on American politics

Individualism’s influence on capitalism

Capitalism’s influence on Campaign finance

Capitalism's influence on American Politicians and legislation

Balance of world economies

Causation and effect on world standards of living.

Radical monotheistic religious motives.

Religion vs. Economic Moral

Economic Moral vs. Humanity

Deception and miss use of capitalistic principles/motives

Balance of economic inequity through productive achievement.

Historical vs. forecast/speculation

THESIS
“Individualism’s influence can’t be contained by hope or force”.

Hypothesis
Individualism/objectivism/liberalism/capitalism falls short of an utopian solution for the human condition with no foresight for symbiotic relations and the collective sub-conscious.

Conclusion
Individualism vs. Collectivism.
Unification is ultimate security thought laws those being secular and non. When non secularity is allowed to rule un-idealistic economies, the government which has allowed this is failing to use instinct forgoing it for reason and the requests of few at the expense of masses.

Objectivism denies balance.
Human emotion can not be reasoned with, and that which should be unreasonable. To deny that is to deny human experience.

Objectivity without experience.

Prudent governments must act to chase individualism from government entirely but must above all seek out a non-zero-sum solution in dealing with the inequalities of Judeo-Christian slave economies that have come to crest in America's richest 1%.

]]> http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/17/patriot-act Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:11:34 -0600 MundusVultDecipi 17@/forum/discussions