Occupy Wall street
-
@solo said:
"A great industrial nation ..."
here are the two sentences w.wilson said just prior to what you quoted:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.A great industrial nation...."
Woodrow wilson is the man that was duped(?) into handing over a big chunk of our govt to the banks in the first place..
via wiki:
He began bankrupting America by signing the Federal Reserve Act. This also introduced the IRS, which would tax the income of citizens to pay off the interest on US government loans. The constitutionality of the IRS has been in question based on the fact that it was never properly ratified, and that it may be seen as a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments. -
In order to fix the way the government affects us we need to fix the way the government is elected and to eliminate, or at least greatly mitigate, the effect of personal wealth on who can run for election.
States of the United States are required, like the federal government, to be republican in form, with final authority resting with the people.
*%(#8000FF)["The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.
Article IV of the US Constitution guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government. This was required because the states were intended to create and enforce most domestic laws, with the exception of areas delegated to the federal government and prohibited to the states. The founding fathers of the country intended most domestic laws to be handled by the states. Requiring the states to be a republic in form was seen as protecting the citizens' rights and preventing a state from becoming a dictatorship or monarchy, and reflected unwillingness on the part of the original 13 states (all independent republics) to unite with other states that were not republics. Additionally, this requirement ensured that only other republics could join the union.
The original 13 British colonies became independent states after the American Revolution, each having a republican form of government. These independent states initially formed a loose confederation called the United States and then later formed the current United States by ratifying the current U.S. Constitution, creating a union of sovereign states with the union or federal government also being a republic. Any state joining the union later was also required to be a republic."]*
But, over time, the powers of the states have been continuously eroded by the federal government and the representatives of the people are not elected by popular vote.
Furthermore, the election process has become an extraordinarily expensive marathon affordable only by the very wealthy, taking nearly a year with primary elections and associated campaigning.
IMHO, two steps in restoring control to the people would be to eliminate the electoral college so that representatives are elected by popular vote; and limit primaries and associated campaigning to three months.
Three months!! Yes, because with TV, and especially the internet, anyone wishing to reach the people with their message can certainly do that in three months. This is not the 19th century anymore where it took months just to get the word around; or even the 20th century with radio and ultimately television.
-
See my other post here;
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=40678
(so I don't double post, and break forum rules
) -
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." ~ Henry Ford
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves." - A. Einstein
A couple of fitting quotes for the times ...
Cheers
-
I am so NOT proud of what happened in my country yesterday...
-
It looks like the Occupy Wall Street movement is gaining momentum! More details can be had here, http://www.occupytogether.org/
It also looks to me that the 'powers' are quite afraid of this movement and not willing to put the troops / police in, to stomp it out as they would have done in the past. It appears Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is afraid of You Tube! Maybe he was joking but I think not!
I feel something like this would have been unthinkable 20 /30 years ago but these days the power of the Net is practically untouchable. I imagine the 1% in financial control are wondering what to do next. No longer can they manipulate the economies of the World from behind closed doors with impunity. Its now quite easy to identify who these people are. I imagine they don't like this one little bit! There is only, so high, a security wall can be built and they know this. Anonymity has been a great security wall, pre the Net (You Tube, WiKipedia etc), but not any longer.
What's going to happen? I have a feeling this movement will grow simply because there is no 'head' to it. It reminds me the Ganhdi movement in a way but more effective because, as I say there is no 'head' that the 1% can try to 'buy off'.
Maybe we are getting closer to true Democracy in the Western World? A Democracy whereby each citizen will be able to cast their continuing support vote via their mobile phone on a regular basis also debate and table solutions on a regular basis that all can vote on. This probably sounds over simplistic in one way and very complicated in an other, but I feel some way possible with the standard of 'instant' communication we have these days.
In this day and age, it just does not make sense to me that I elect a politician based on what they stand for and says they will do and then they go back on their word and do as they please or are 'encouraged' to do by the 1%.
If I employ someone to do a job for me over a 5 year period and find that after 6 months they are not doing that job I would like to be in a position to force them to do the job as agreed or sack them, not grit my teeth and wait for a further 4 years and 6 months before I can kick them out of the job! Okay, no political system can be changed overnight so we will have to live with the political party system for a while to come!
But what if, an elected Government, having a majority, would also be required to have a majority of citizen continuing support votes on an ongoing basis in order to pass bills / laws as stated in their election manifesto. Surely something like this would keep them on the 'straight and narrow' AND more importantly NOT give the 1% the inclination or ability to 'buy them off'!
Okay, it will be argued that this would be unworkable. But something along these lines would make sure that politicians and political parties would have to be straight on policy matters when seeking election. Once they diverge from their stated policies they would need further approval from the citizens. Its not enough to rely on the 'back benchers' as most of them will sit on their hands dreaming of future promotion etc.
Such a system would also encourage citizens to take more of an interest in politics ..... more that than the candidates hair
Does anyone have any more 'What Ifs'?
Mike
-
Regarding the What If's: "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" to paraphrase someone memorable.
-
I'm not sure what will be achieved as there are so many causes being represented and I fear the main message will be lost within it.
I would like many things to change but I am a realist, you cannot change something so big so easlily.
My main wish is to get the money out of politics (both campaign finance and lobbyists) and prosecute the banksters that created the crisis.
-
Why prosecute bankers? Prosecute the real culprits, Governments!!
In fact forget prosecutions- far too expensive! Form new parties with new, progressive politics and throw these dinosaurs out!
-
@tfdesign said:
Why prosecute bankers? Prosecute the real culprits, Governments!!
Let's be on the safe side, and prosecute both. Not that much difference between politics and the world of high finance anyway.
-
It would be interesting to see what people here think of international corporations such as Greenpeace and the WWF?
-
@tfdesign said:
It would be interesting to see what people here think of international corporations such as Greenpeace and the WWF?
From my readings, it appears the OWS protests are pretty much focused on companies within sovereign borders. If you wanted to discuss "international corporations" then perhaps Union Carbide and BP would be more suitable examples ... It seems to me that you picked 2 corporations that would probably spark more visceral responses ...
Cheers.
-
..... I think the whole thing will have to hit rock bottom AND only at that point will some fairer more equatable system of governance be adopted and run for a time before the greed factor turns it upside down again.
The 1% are worried! They are now dealing with a well informed and educated populous for the most part. Knowledge is power! They are finding it difficult to locate the right 'scraps' to throw to the masses and time is running out quickly.
When I recently heard some hot shot arrogant Wall Street stockbroker declaring on TV that he loves to see recessions coming along because it creates more money making opportunities for him, it stuck in my craw!
These leeches have to be far more controlled. Eradication, no! Nature has a place for all parasites but She controls their propagation and maintains a balance. We have lost the balance in the Western World's finances and we must emulate what Nature would do to regain it, enforce a balance by what ever means necessary
It will happen one way or the other, sooner or later. The 1% will always need food, clothing, shelter. 'protection' etc etc as they are skilled at is manipulation finance. They can't survive without their 'hosts', the populous!
A byegone parasite IMO, Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote states, Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. We still have these parasites in our midst!
-
@idahoj said:
From my readings, it appears the OWS protests are pretty much focused on companies within sovereign borders.
Further proof that no one really knows what they are marching for!
On the radio this morning the 5 major energy companies in Great Britain announced even more price rises. Some bills have increased over 100%!!! Yet the government are doing bugger all (why am I not surprised?). Labour interjected, with the same old "we would have done that" when everyone knows quite well, that in power, they wouldn't.
With energy, it's down to investment, and it's something we won't see with "renewables"- well we will, in the way of wind turbines, because they cost millions to put up and service. But that all comes out of our pockets as energy corporations don't want to invest- and with a population frightened off by a nuclear only future, is that hardly surprising?
....and this is why I raised the point about Greenpeace and the WWF. Yes it probably will "spark more visceral responses", but they, and privatisation (as well as public share holders) are very much part of 'the problem' too.
-
@unknownuser said:
In this day and age, it just does not make sense to me that I elect a politician based on what they stand for and says they will do and then they go back on their word and do as they please or are 'encouraged' to do by the 1%.
...
But what if, an elected Government, having a majority, would also be required to have a majority of citizen continuing support votes on an ongoing basis in order to pass bills / laws as stated in their election manifesto. Surely something like this would keep them on the 'straight and narrow' AND more importantly NOT give the 1% the inclination or ability to 'buy them off'!
I agree that this is a crucial problem in every country in the world, and a good suggestion...I would only add that there should also be more influence of people on media (TV, newspapers), which forms public opinion in a way those 1% wants, for money. It specially affects younger population and kids.
I'm glad the conversation like this is taking place
. It is really good way for better World, thanks to the internet. -
@mike lucey said:
A byegone parasite IMO, Mayer Amschel Rothschild quote states, Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. We still have these parasites in our midst!
Mike, I know it wasn't your intention, but I'd be really careful how you use the word "parasite"!
-
@tfdesign said:
Mike, I know it wasn't your intention, but I'd be really careful how you use the word "parasite"!
Can you think of a better word to describe this type of low life!
-
"jammy bast***"?
"lucky bas*****"??!
-
@tfdesign said:
Why prosecute bankers? Prosecute the real culprits, Governments!!
maybe.. but.. what happens if the bankers are the govt?
the banks/corporations have infiltrated our government.further, I think it's time to start prosecuting individuals for their crimes instead of piling them into one group "the government" or "the banker" etc.
maybe start off with dick Cheney. this guy owns possibly the largest construction firm in the world.
he blows up entire countries then hires himself to go rebuild the place for billions of dollars.
Or maybe he likes to use his governmental position to force third world countries into 'modernizing' their electrical grid or plumbing system.. placing them in debt to the u.s. banks/corps for the next 60 years or so.
Cheney is the government, a corporation, and a banker... and there are plenty of others just like him. -
@tfdesign said:
Further proof that no one really knows what they are marching for!
to an extent, yes.. no one really knows exactly..
we (at least americans?) generally have no idea how our monetary system actually works.. there's no way in hell the bankers are going to teach us their system or rules of the game in schools.. they won't make that information easily available either..
if we really knew what was going on then their game would be over. immediately.. even someone like my mom wouldn't stand for the b.s. but as is, she's probably a bit scared by these protests.. she's probably thinking the protesters are terrorists or something because she's so uneducated about the u.s. financial institutions.but, she does know that it costs her $5 to take money out of a bank.. her own money!
she does know that she's struggling to keep her house and keep her husband alive (heart issues)
she works 50+ hours per week in a factory.. she's busting her ass.. and she's having a hard/stressful time just to keep a shelter over her head..
this same scenario is happening a few million times over in the u.s. and in many cases, much worse..we are taught to work hard and we'll have a comfy life.. the american dream..
well, the american dream is a hoax and the country is finally waking up to it..
people are getting too greedy.. they are taking too much.. and they are going to fall because of it.
Advertisement