Forum Post: my solutions (please feedback)
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 2, 2011, 3:17 p.m. EST by youngandoutraged
(123)
from Iowa City, IA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
1.) Publicly fund elections, or at least set a campaign spending cap. we need to judge politicians on policy not commercials. 2.) Make democracy a more participatory sport. by taking some of the money out of politics, we open the door for more public discourse not just about candidates, but on all issues regardless of whether or not it is election season. End corporate personhood. 3.) Our foreign policy is a mess. If we must cut some of our many ties with Israel in order to avoid the rage of Islam, it would not be the end of the world. besides trying to foster peace in the middle east we must co-habitat with China by building products jointly and stopping the progress of the trade war we are losing badly. 4.)Merit based pay for teachers, period. Teachers unions have been remarkably anti student in this regard. Teachers should be judged by a combination of their students, parents, and other teachers. A certain amount of time should be spent in other classrooms observing other teachers and their practices. 5.)Stop for profit prisons and colleges. both of these institutions have very negative effects on our ability to maintain a modern workforce and a peaceable society. you are more likely to default on student loans at a for profit college and more likely to join a gang in prison. 6.)Marijuana is the number one cash crop in the US, more so than corn and soybeans COMBINED. Not taxing it has helped allow our nation to sink into tremendous debt and allowed a violent cartel system to develop from south america to within our own borders. This is unacceptable.
Most sound pretty reasonable. While the war on drugs is a colossal failure, the old people don't want to change things and people will just use the issue as a culture war thing. How about this idea: Right now there is only one US Rep. per 720,000 people. It's no wonder they don't listen to the people anymore. There is nothing in the Constitution that says it has to be that high. If we reduce that number, the Reps will be closer to the people and their increased number will be much harder for the lobbyists to corrupt. And it will scare the shit out of them.
I've had the same thoughts lately. I think it would also be profitable to hold mid-term confidence votes to determine or not to cut a politician's term down to 3 years. If a politician knows s/he won't get re-elected without doing what the people want, s/he may be a little more inclined to do so.
Good idea, something definitely needs to happen to encourage politicians to listen to the public
Band-aid solutions for festering wounds (global warming, peak oil, geometric world population growth, the funny-money wall street scams), we need radical change like abolishing money & establishing technocracy.
Teachers are one of the most oppressed in this country. I have an 11 year old and I have watched since 3rd grade as teachers become more and more distressed because must cater to these ELA tests each year rather than teach.
And I don't know about other states, but NY has hit hospitals, nursing homes and schools the hardest. Teachers aren't making even $50k a year. Not even close. Allow them to TEACH and things will improve dramatically.
Publicly funded campaigns, yes.
Get rid of the electoral college, too. I still don't get the point of that.
Peace in the middle east is not our problem. Not that we couldn't come back to that later... but our money is better spent at home right now.
Pot. Whatever. It's a global thing, not country. For that matter, it's a state thing, too. We could make some money off it, sure. But California is still the worst state in the nation regarding debt. Pot sales didn't pull their ass out of the fire.
Look, teacher pay can start at a reasonable figure for all I care, I'm not trying to impoverish teachers as my mother is one. However, in my recent high school experience (graduated 2008), I had brilliant 1st year teachers and some of the most uninspired 15th year teachers. Then budget cuts came, and because of their seniority, the teacher that used movies as a stand in for education stayed, and the ones that inspired a love of learning in me were told to find work somewhere else. This tenure is what needs to change.
Well, as an adult who has been out of the school system for 20 years... and looking at the reaction my own child has to the variety of teachers he has encountered in his 6 years of schooling... it is the ones who've been in the game longer that reach him in difficult times. The younger teachers have a lot to learn... mostly in the arena of separating friend from teacher, getting over being "cool" and having the kids "like" them.
Sure, some teachers get burnt out. And they should be subject to losing their jobs if their performance fails. But cutting pay... or denying pay...
Well, we have enough trouble enticing potential teachers into the field as it is... let's talk merit in terms of keeping their jobs, not just in terms of keeping their pay rate, I suppose.
well I hated a few of the teachers that, in retrospect, did the best job getting me interested in the material. There are teachers who truly enjoy what they are doing, and there are some that seem to be waiting for the bell to ring. I don't want to threaten anyone's security, but I know that I wont be sending my kid to public school unless some serious reform takes place before I start a family.
Unions are a problem. Universally. Not just in the education field. I don't see much benefit to them these days, I really don't. We have a union where I work (medical field) and generally, you watch the young, ambitious workers being let go, while the ones who've worked 20 years sleep in empty rooms.
You have a point, but without some kind of protection, workers would be subject to externalization of cost from above. It does seem that unions have become somewhat counterproductive in the last 10-15 years, but business has been counterproductive since around the time Reagan took office.
You and me both. I agree with most of your positions. And got chewed on for it when I put them forward.
I would be careful with the marijuana laws. I administer a random drug testing program and am proud to do so. I remember the days when truck drivers were driving stoned and mashing family cars on a nearly daily basis (yes, I'm old). There would need to be, along with the new lax marijuana laws, very stiff penalties for use that leads to harm. I feel alcohol laws are not stiff enough (nor texting/calling while driving laws). I've lost loved ones and fellow motorcyclists to these under-performing laws.
"For every freedom; there is responsibility. If you will not take the responsibility; we will. And you won't like it." ~ Mom
Of course. I would be all for very strict laws on marijuana, and possibly even stiffer ones on alcohol. you shouldn't regulate morality, but you have an obligation to punish immorality if it could hurt innocent people. i like the quote
Exactly. If what you do does not harm. I am not against it. If what you do harms. I am against it. There is sitting in your living room having the after dinner wine/joint. Then there is the binge that leads to car crashes and deaths.
Our policy right now is doing much more harm than good. Not just in this country, where many young people who do nothing else wrong are labeled criminals, but especially south of the border, from Chile to Mexico, we are basically supporting terrorists. But just because those terrorists are only killing Mexicans, Venezuelans, and Colombians, we don't seem to have a problem with it
Well, there are other things at play in Mexico. Mexico basically has no government (my poster child for "small government") and the US gets a large chunk of oil from Mexico. We are not going to say boo to them or stop their cash cows: drugs and illegal immigrants.
That's our problem. We let detractors dissuade us from tough decisions, and that's one of the ways we got here. We must make tough choices like these if we are to put our planet on the right track.
But business hates tough choices. It messes with bottom lines. They want business as usual and go with the path of least resistance. They want cheap labor and a quiet populace that leaves them alone.
So we need to end business? No, we need to make these tough choices regardless of their consequences. for the sake of our children (or grandchildren)
No, we need to look at the tail end of the Great Depression just prior to the Second World War and see what labor demanded. Before the war our economy was on the upswing. The war ramped that up but we were, before Pearl Harbor, getting back to work. Ask your grandparents (or great grandparents....god I'm old....my mother lived through the Depression). Now, look at how we got out of that mess and then what gains the working public achieved. Then do yourself a favor and look at the period between 1954 and 1972. What was special about that period?
Your ideas are great. The public financing is an idea long post due. In order to make politicking more of a participatory sport, I believe people would have to have more free time. Raising children, providing shelter and keeping with the joneses has most people strapped for time. Also, you need to understand that political parties are like sport teams. The team is only as great as its weakest player. I don’t believe most politicians are innately corrupt, but individuals really don’t have much say when it gets right down to it. The party has to be strong in order to get stuff done. One of the biggest problems the Democrats have is that there are too many groups caucusing in their tent. You have Blue Dogs, Independents, progressives, and liberals all trying to set the agenda; where as, the Republicans only have one or two Libertarians and the rest are Conservatives. That is why the Republicans are more of a united front. Maybe Proportional Representation could alleviate this dynamic. The Foreign policy problems, in my opinion, are caused mostly because of the quasigovernment agency known as the Council on Foreign Relations which is the most influential foreign-policy think tank. I believe this problem should be over looked for now. I read a book called the End of Work that pretty much says that the hours we work as a nation is relic of the twentieth century. The technological advances we have had should be an incentive to cut the hours we work. If we went this way, not only would parents have more time to better educate their children, but maybe they would be more politically active. The for-profit colleges and prisons are blights on this nation, and they can easily be fixed. And as far as the draconian marijuana laws, I believe they are there to manage the work force and keeps the prison industrial complex well fed.
So the question becomes, why are these perfectly sensible things being overlooked? Everyone agrees we have problems, the solutions are obvious, is it merely the confluence of money and power that has prevented us from moving forward as a nation? And if so, what is the best way to go about tearing that down? We can't just protest, there needs to be some sort of action. I deeply care about my country, but my country is standing in the way of my future. What can I do?
as an independent, my vote is dependent on the unemployment rate. If it is above five percent, I vote Democrat. If it is below five percent, I'll be enticed to vote Republican. Instead of voting as a reactionary, I use my vote as a carrot and stick. I want a robust Social safety net when the unemployment rate is high, and I'm willing to reward the job creators when they do their job. But this was my strategy before all hell broke loose. I may have to come up with a new strategy after the fall out of this
protest. Maybe a new caucus will emerge from this protest.
Americans Elect
Our answer to your issues and solutions was to create full extensive Direct Democracy voting system
www.uponlocal.com
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/issue
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/solutions
We studied what testimony in court and advice from the person created the code used to setal Ohio 2004 election and built it in OIpen Source Drupal using pure stock modules.
Court Video: http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/stolen-why-you-want-direct-democracy-drupal
None of the code is modified.
We need Board Members, Volunteers, and Designated Code Monitors from every community.
The system is indexed to the geonames databse and will automaticall create an election for anywhere in the world.
It can be used for towns, cities, states, countrys.
We even to a step..and created a voting system for the NEW United Nations, only this one allows every country to have a Vote.
We need suggestions on how to improve that are detailed, not just chat comments....
Need to be successful: , people posting Issues/Solutions, and of Course, people stepping up as Candidates.
Apply direct democracy towards a Resource Based Economy
http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy
I personally agree with that strongly. Drupal has a Mutual Currency module. It is extensive and well developed. We installed it on the site.
It allows for currency to be created for;
Global National; Local
The value can be based on anything. We have not activated it yet as we are needing debate on what the index should be.
Personally, I say stay away from Silver and Gold..they work fine already as currency and bear no interest.
Interest Free Dollars/Credit need to be based on something, and personally it should be based on Food,Shelter, Clothing...or resources of real things..as you suggest and does the link material you posted.
The Mutual Currency Page is here: Please consider joining the Board and advising us all.
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/content/community-coins
Unfortunately, for a new currency to be formed debt forgiveness will be necessary across the globe. Much of the debt is due to fraudulent transactions such as fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing, usury, and speculative trading.
This means that many countries internationally will be affected if our economy is to make any drastic changes. A corrupt international central bank is already in the works and unless other countries share our disgust for the debt-based economy it will be utilized with a single international currency. They could in turn pressure America to join by devaluing our dollar overseas and limiting our trade.
A resource based economy however, does not rely on currency for exchanges because it doesn't hold the position that people 'owe' each other for performing particular tasks.
This only makes sense if all significant menial labor is automated/mechanized which it can be. And if all remaining tasks can easily be fulfilled through volunteers which again is possible.
So money itself is not used in such a system. Instead distribution is determined based first on what is available and then on the subjective desires of people.
This in turn requires a unique form of decision making normally seen in science but not in politics. Problems are posed and solved in a technical manner with extensive peer review. And subjective desires are determined through surveys and direct democracy.
A resource based economy is essentially a sustainable gift economy run with very advanced technologies.
So the alternative to an international central bank/ global government is a resource based economy run by the people.
what can we do to get us from this system, to an intermin system and onto that system as we meet the tech level in our world?
This depends on who you ask.
Some believe the current system must fail in order for a RBE to be adopted. I don't believe this however, as a much worse system can easily be implemented in it's place and the infrastructure needed to build a RBE test city may be destroyed.
But all agree that the general public must become familiar with the ideas of a Resource Based Economy. This is why the zeitgeist movement has people working among grassroots organizations and creating media. Another group, The venus project, is working to create a major motion picture film that would explain in detail how we can transition into such a society.
From there, enough funds would be generated to create a test city so the distribution mechanisms and any bugs can be addressed before mass producing more high tech cities.
Along with testing the venus project recommends that the world and all it's resources be declared the common heritage of all people. In otherwords, a new common social contract is created which phases out private property and ownership on a voluntary basis.
They are also in the process of organizing interdisciplinary teams to make the shift into such a society much easier.
The transition can easily occur within this society. We already have the technologies and infrastructure. It's simply a matter of spreading awareness and getting enough people involved before the inevitable financial or ecological collapse occurs. (Both are products of the current system)
Also, having a program which can ensure direct democracy is not corrupted (easily hacked) would be beneficial.
I dont want to see a crash cause people are gonna get hurt.... some would argue it will stop the hurt...
I got taught you do not stop trying to save a persons life until they are dead.....and then you have to get yourself to stop...and it can be very very hard to let go of a soul.
it is probably the same for a society
my aim is to help mature what us here now.
My biz is solar and wind, led lighting, energy efficiency, lithium storage....
on my spreadsheet, what current costs are...we could be rebuilding fast and be way ahead....financing at even 6% and be saving cash now over what we pay for energy.....
we almost had that nationally in the PACE loan program for hmeowners..till lobby efforts and Fannie Mae killed it...
We need to rebuild the planet....(unless your an ecologist looking for depopulation ignited by riots).....but that will take mass cooperation...that is what I work for..
I'm sorry to say a crash is inevitable
Every country is in debt partially due to private central banks loaning nations their own money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzR3UAyXao
They are also in debt because of speculative trading (e.g. At least a 700 trillion dollar derivative bubble)
Then of course there are typical reasons displayed on the main stream media such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and War.
None of this is taken in conjunction with Ecological destruction but this is again a direct by-product of monetary economics. Companies won't stop using oil unless it becomes profitable to do so, and food (exported from 3rd world countries) won't be distributed to the very same country unless it is profitable to do so. e.g. India is an agricultural country with high rates of starvation.
In fact problems are profitable, and many are purposely perpetuated/created to generate higher profits.
Debt-based economics, also known as monetary economics is simply unsustainable. It won't allow for a steady state economy which means the our planet's ecology will crash if we do not successfully make the transition.
Home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Oh, I was not referring to an currency collapse...
I meant a societal collapse where people are fighting....total collapse
This economic system must collapse. ie stop, for all the reasons you state.
so, create a better system, and we just drop the old one...yes? Ever heard of the Global Resource Bank GRB
http://www.grb.net/
I havn't heard of that group, I'll take a look.
I won't go into too much detail but there are many suppressed technologies which can prevent a collapse of the current economic system if certain groups allowed the market to adopt them. (Just say our energy technologies are extremely outdated)
So a financial collapse is really up to one of two major groups. The elite that have control over certain technologies/financial markets and/or the people. If it's the former then an even worse alternative is just around the corner. (This seems to be the case since all sorts of simple preventative mechanisms were fubared over the years)
If it's by the latter, then a ton of corruption will be revealed beyond the financial markets on an international level. And a global system run via the people is necessary to create a steady state economy.
I agree, studied physics and am aware the vacuum calculus was ignored, the 64 sided tetrahedron, and ..zero point
peswiki.org Pure Energy Systems is trying to Open Source that tech area...
Yes, agree, one or the other...and they would prefer the former over latter as preemptive...
agree, need a voting system for that day...and an interest free economy that values people.
We have the Drupal Mutual Credit system installed, you can look at the developers over at Drupal...
http://drupal.org/project/mutual_credit
I'm glad to hear alternative energy systems are going open source.
It would be even better if they showcased their technologies within OWS to help generate heat and prove its feasibility. In that way many more people would become aware of such technologies and be able to support them.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
We, the 99% are the real problem. How else could 1% devastate us. We have to think big and then act big or go home.
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
ya, go big..if we cannot form a government and run it, leave it to those who are
The government cannot be "fixed" because it already is.
We will build a new socially conscious and responsible system to serve the needs of the people. The old order will simply be marginalized and abandoned.
Exactly...build the new voting system, , identify issues, develop supported solutions...get a new set of elected persons to carry it out.
Am I understanding you correctly?
The GA is a new system, and it is necessarily evolving as it grows. Exactly what it will grow into who knows? It does not have to be a representative government. The representative model we have has utterly and completely failed.
The solution is a National Audit Body (NAB) who has a small budget but budget grows as a percentage of the costs cut from other government agencies and contractors. The problem is that government growth is unobstructed and fostered to grow but NAB will only grow by chopping the FAT in government. The opposing goals of NAP and normal government will cause a reduction of waist or corruption with those making the decisions accountable for the decisions made. NAB can report to congress for budget cuts to government agencies and the IRS with the DOJ for cases of government corruption or contractor corruption. Based on the cuts made by congress, the NAB gets an increase in the NAB budget as a percentage of the actual cuts made to other agencies or contractors. The increases in the NAB budget can be phased out over a three year period resulting in a reduced NAB budget as the waist and corruption in government is eliminated. By this the whole government will run effectively and reduce in size as more value is delivered to the people. The mandate of the NAD can be to audit government and government contractors, set up standard accounting and documenting practices, and make all recommendation to congress regarding budget cuts, corruption and waist. In the case of corruption, the DOJ and IRS will be provided documentation to further investigations. This should be the focus of 99%. By this the whole government will run effectively and reduce in size as more value is delivered to the people because the government will be incentivized to achieve a value for the people.
This is a great example of the huge number of good ideas out there that we have yet to hear anything about from politicians. my advice? write a piece of legislation and sent it to every congressman
Post the Issues and Solutions on a Direct Democracy voting system...
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/issue
http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/node/add/solutions
People have been writing to congress now for decades to little effect
Occupy McDonalds headquarters in Illionois. They sell their shitty food, killing us slowly, taking our money, exploiting the poor, underpaying workers. They get huge tax breaks and even used to get their advertisment overseas paid for by our taxes.
They get government handouts, because corn is subsidized. Corn is fed to cows for burgers and for corn syrup for the colas.
Thank you. I live in Iowa and I can clearly see that most of the corn we grow is not even edible for humans. It is a disgusting setup in which corporations benefit at lower income citizens expense.
Merit pay for teachers? Why not politicians? Their salary can be based on how well the economy is doing. How about police? If there is too much crime their pay goes down. How about merit pay for Fire fighters? If there are fires then they don't get paid. Maybe the military. If the conflict is not quickly ended/won then all the soldiers take a pay cut. I think you get the idea. Singling out teachers to blame for some schools doing poorly is just a lame, simplistic strategy being put forth by corporatists wanting to do away with public education and replace it with a corporate based privately run, for profit system. Support our teachers and schools don't blame them.
Right, except we have supported our schools with more and more money every year, and we have seen almost no improvement since the 70's. Germany is a great example of how education reform (10 years ago) has greatly benefited all sectors of society.
How much have we put into defense and we still have wars? How much do we put into police and we still have crime? My point is that rather than singling out one profession to take the entire blame for a societal problem that is systemic, we should first look to correcting the flaws in a system that have made it more difficult for teachers to teach (e.g. legal and illegal drugged students, dysfunctional families, under/malnourished children, sensory overload, non-interested/non-supportive families, etc., etc.) I can see that you are passionate about your ideas and can only advise that you make every effort to avoid the corporate trap of pitting one occupation or group against another.
As one of the 99% we must stay united.
Agreed. I have several other points listed that I think can achieve wide support among liberals and conservatives, and I am more than willing to put this one aside for now.
1) I think we can all agree that we need to end private financing of campaigns and that we similarly need to do something to break up K Street's influence over Capitol Hill.
2) You're right on that, and corporate personhood either needs to go, or be followed to its logical conclusion as described here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/so-corporations-want-to-be-people-huh/
3)My idea: start out publicly supporting Israel at the same level we do now, but actually go over there, meet with their leaders, and start laying down the law behind closed doors. Give them a deadline, and require that they recognize people's right to send humanitarian aid to Palestine, freeze settlement growth, and begin seriously looking at either a one-state solution with desegregation and full citizenship to Palestinians or a two-state solution involving a return to 1949 borders, Jerusalem as an independent entity a la Vatican City, and reciprocal free movement agreements so that Palestinians and Israelis have full access to both states plus Jerusalem. Set actual measurable goals for Israeli leaders to meet by given deadlines in order to retain funding, and then take the whole thing public. At the same time, quietly inform Palestinians that we're in the process of making Israel learn to behave and offer them additional humanitarian aid in exchange for beginning the disarmament process.
4) NO. Merit-based pay sounds great in theory but it is so ripe for abuse it's not even funny. I just graduated from the Bronx High School of Science, and the current principal has been unfailingly corrupt, tyrannical, and racist for the vast majority of her ten-year tenure here. Even with the protections provided by the union she still drove away whole batches of teachers, including a number who were just plain brilliant and whom we never deserved to lose in the first place. She simply was already handing off the really bright, self-motivated kids to her favorites to cover their incompetence; if she were able to similarly hand unruly idiots who were borderline passing at best to the teachers she didn't like and then dictate teacher pay as a result the place would have come apart.
5) For-profit prisons are crazy and should never have been allowed in the first place; you're creating an industry that actually needs crime and recidivism to survive and that's scary. For-profit colleges need to be shut down and traditional low-cost educations through community, city, and state colleges need to get a boost to compensate.
6) Fine, but make it American-grown marijuana (think California's 99-plant program only without maximum production and possession quotas). I don't want us to legalize it just so that it can be one more thing we import (unless of course you want to tariff foreign weed out the wazoo) but if it's grown in America without immigrant labor I have no problem with it being legal.
Take that power out of the hands of principals to start. I know that a way of monitoring teacher performance would need to be put in place, but we need to weed out bad teachers who teach bad habits and ruin otherwise good kids. We need to reward good motivated teachers who teach (the bad teachers are much in evidence on this board with the bad spelling and hideous grammatical errors...painful to read.)
I have gotten much resistance to teacher pay ideas, but something certainly needs to change. However, there are much more important issues that we agree on, and there are almost no valid refutations of those points. Now is the democracy part. We need to work on introducing legislation that would make these realities.
great move with bank of america,they withdrew their debit card fee afraid this movement would cripple them.we have the power, many people will follow a well thought out target for boycott.pick a bank or corp.that has shown they care more about their bottom line and bonus money then fair and honest dealings with the american people and call for a nation wide boycott,this will work.once you have a measure of the people who are behind you the direction can change to the next election.if you start a vote out every incumbent plea until solid no loophole laws are in place to keep special interest money from paying for elections and those elected doing their biding those in office will only have one term and gone.they wont pass anything on their own when the money that got them elected is controlling their votes.it is a fast peaceful way to show our anger at what this system has become.
0 Comments
0 Comments
That one girl's petition and people like me who called and emailed directly with the message: "I have a credit union and I'm not afraid to use it." That's what scared them.
the latest poll shows 70% of the people agree with the ows dont kid yourself b.o.a doesnt realize that influence
I agree with most of these. I would add re-enact Glass Stegall and even stricter financial reform. Also, strengthen Anti-Trust Laws. Big corps have gotten too BIG, any percieved benefits are outweighed by higher overall costs to society.
This is a great place to learn, debate and clarify your positions. Just don't expect anything to get done by this movement beyond camping out in the park and echo-ing about more blankets at the General Assembly meetings. But they have managed to gain alot of attention. I give them credit for that.
Right, that's why I am trying to get these folks to express their opinion of what needs to be done. This cannot continue as a goal-less campaign of hatred against wall street. I think at least a few of the above could get bi-partisan support in the short term and help to reshape our democracy in the medium term. We need to start proposing legislation, we cannot wait for opportunist politicians to use our outrage to get themselves elected.
This movement is an experiment in Direct Democracy by anarchists. It has purposefully managed to take advantage of every social/political/economic frustration to gain attention.
However, Direct Democracy in a park will not translate to the government of a country that is the greatest country on earth and leader of the free world. Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, gave us a Representative Republic. No way is a group of anarchists going to improve on what our Founding Fathers gave to us.
I suppose the 98.99% should give proper credit to the anarchists for launching this experiment. It has helped us to discuss and speak out about many legitimate frustrations and problems in our country.
However, no OWS GA will ever take up the legitimate demands of the majority (ie: campaign finance reform, financial reform, corporate personhood) with the purpose of affecting change through government. Because this is not their goal. Their goal is to use the majorities legitimate frustration to gain support for one thing: Direct Democracy and some brand of anarchy.
I believe that 99.99% of people will reject Direct Democracy beyond the park. It is up to the 98.99% to move our legitimate issues with government out of the park. To work with government and through government to enact the positive changes that we want for our country.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html
If you are serious about making change happen through government, I suggest you go here.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/
Best I can tell so far, it is free of anarchy and this group has every intention of working through government on the issues.
End Corporate Personhood:
Yes you can do something about that. Sign the petition at the White House:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/restore-democracy-ending-corporate-personhood/KQYzl8S5
Quote: Publicly fund elections, or at least set a campaign spending cap. we need to judge politicians on policy not commercials.
That's the Japanese model, in America it's unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court Citizens' United ruling for one: ie free speech rights of corporations.
repeal it now.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/restore-democracy-ending-corporate-personhood/KQYzl8S5
Quote: 4.)Merit based pay for teachers, period. Teachers unions have been remarkably anti student in this regard. Teachers should be judged by a combination of their students, parents, and other teachers. A certain amount of time should be spent in other classrooms observing other teachers and their practices.
Why not merit pay for Congress? Congress and State governments are the bigger cost to society than teachers.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/link-congressional-pay-to-performance/
There are some reasons why merit pay for teachers is not entirely a good idea. The main reason is that many of the things teachers teach student are not measurable on standardized tests: civics, civility, and creativity are among them.
Well testing is not the way i would go about determining merit. I think that after a certain age, students could be polled about not if they like the teacher, but whether that teacher was effective in engaging their interests. That, combined with a peer review process like most of the scientific community, could definitely produce better results than we are seeing now.
I vote for the teacher who gives me an A. You might not but many students would...It is human nature. There would be no crime in the world otherwise.
Have you ever been a teacher? Do you know teacher's have a lot of homework for themselves? It's called preparation. There's a reason why a class lecture goes smoothly, and 99% of the time it's because the presenter/teacher prepared in advanced. Anyone who has ever given a corporate presentation will tell you the same.
If you don't trust teachers enough to give them a sure wage, why would you trust them not to collude on giving themselves good peer reviews? Not, it would have to be an administration review, from school administrators rather then their peers.
you're state has a particularly hard time with poor teachers. Which leads me to believe you are in a teachers union. My mother is a teacher in Iowa, and we still have excellent first year teachers and very poor 20th year teachers. The system of tenure and non merit pay is degrading the education system and thus degrading the country. Cant you tell by my horrendous grammar?
No I'm not a teacher, but when I taught, I only teach university students.
You may have a point, but that is not the point of why so many people are protesting. You are proposing a solution to what you see as a problem that few other people think is a problem right now. Ie. you are, sorry to be direct, missing the point.
The point is the government no longer represents the will of people, and lots of people are out of work, frustrated, and neglected. Consider thinking of how to get the economy growing again (JOBS... or lack thereof is the problem.. merit pay for teachers is not) and how to get government to work properly.
Regarding excellent 1st year teachers, and lousy 20th year teachers, I would suggest that the education of teachers has improved tremendously in the last 20 years. In the last 20 or 30 years, people have studied how to improve teaching, come up with new teaching methods. Perhaps the solution to that problem would be teacher retraining/refresher courses on new and more effective teaching methodologies. If you consider this as helping your fellow teachers, they will more inclined to respond favorably, than if you approach them with a stick like merit pay.
I realize that this is far from the fray, so to speak, but without a reform in education I am very uncertain of our democracy's ability to govern itself in the future. In my opinion we might as well include something like this into any platform of reform that comes into being.
Quote: without a reform in education I am very uncertain of our democracy's ability to govern itself in the future
The same can be said of reform in Congressional pay, and Congress has a more direct and immediate effect on democracy's ability to govern itself, not only in the future but also in the present, wouldn't you agree?
yes. both are issues that need resolution
Which do you think is more urgent, and will have a more immediate impact?
Taking some of the money out of politics is step 2. I think that covers congress as i was not just talking about elections. reforming education comes after that.
so we agree?
True, marijuana reform will have an immediate impact on tax base and cartel activity
Actually marijuana reform is more important than teacher reform.
We have some of the brightest students on the planet, and not only because we have more people than other countries. Just look at where the recent Nobel laureates come from. (For that thank the teachers who have been around for 30 or 40 years.) I forget, they were disproportionately Canadian. Do they have merit pay for teachers in Canada?
There is an easy way to publicly fund elections but it would take a committment of a few tax dollars. When you file your income taxes, there is an option where you can contribute money to a campaign fund. I would gladly contributed 5.00 of my return if it were going to such a fund where politicians running for a particular office would all be granted the same amount. This amount can be set depending on the office they are running for. The rules would be that under no circumstances can they solicit or accept money from any, person(s) corporation(s), or concern(s). They can only used the money from the grant to run for office. Once it is used up, that is it. they can't borrow any more or use any of their personal funds. If this type of system was in place. We would certainly learn a few things about this person running for office. 1) How resourceful they are in dealing with challenges, and 2) How well they manage the grant money in running should they win. If the winner does a good job and managest the money well, I think there is a better chance they will do a better job of managing our tax dollars once in office. This still doesn't proclude me from wanting to overall the whole system our gov't uses for all aquisitions. Part of our dept problem is that there needs to be a solution much better management of spending on all levels. I have some ideas about that but that is a whole different subject.
I have heard this articulated before and i think it would be an excellent way to fund elections. i know i would gladly give a small amount in order to ensure my democracy was fair.
Publicly funded elections would be unconstitutional.
Taxpayers would be "forced" to finance candidates they do not support. Publicly funded elections would also be a "prior restraint" on free speech rights and would be a substantial infringement on free speech rights.
I do not agree with your statement "Taxpayers would be 'forced' to finance candidates they do not support". Tax payers would be financing the election process which they willingly do today. I do not consider money and speech to be the same thing. By allowing money to buy election results, we give more power to one person than another which is a clear violation of one person, one vote.
Your opinion means little. Especially if it is wrong.
Under case law, money does equate to free speech. There is an old saying ... "Freedom of the press is not free, unless you own the press".
Elections are not bought by people or groups expressing their opinions. The public can always choose to disregard the info, change the channel, or throw the literature in the garbage.
What you and others like you wish to do is censor free speech. There is no way around it. You can frame your argument any way you wish, but it comes back to nothing but censorship and restriction of free speech. That is un-American.
An excerpt from the case ....
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
RicoSuave, First we need to show respect if we want others to listen to our arguments. Second, I agree that opinion not backed up by a clear presentation of facts is of little value! My opinion does mean something if I can back it up with a convincing argument.
Before there was law, there was right and wrong. Laws can be unjust. Laws can be changed. Just because we made mistakes in the past does not mean we cannot correct them now.
On this issue I think you may be correct. But, people are swayed by false arguments.
I woke up this morning thinking about how to solve our problems.
We have a republic. It is not the opinion of the people. it is the opinion of our elected officials that determine the course of history.
The people only need to elect the people who will do what is right.
The problem is the process we use to make law.
We need to be using a problem/solution approach rather than serving money.
But, the people could remove money from politics if they so choose. Money and speech are not the same thing.
Not sure that is true, but if it is then we have a constitutional amendment. Just like they are doing now to reverse the Citizens United decision.
http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
It is true. Publicly funded campaigns would never pass constitutional muster. You can't "force" taxpayers to fund candidates they don't support.
There will also NEVER be a constitutional amendment restricting free speech for anyone or anything.
I bet you know very little about the Citizens United decision other than what has been falsely claimed in leftist propaganda circles and OWS propaganda.
ok - so enlighten me. Tell me what I should know about publicly funded campaigns and the CU decision. Or give me some good links to research. I would appreciate.
Read through the decision yourself. It is available online. I suggest in the future you do that with court decisions instead of relying on lies from professional propagandists.
I see people all over OWS claim that the CU decision made corporations "people" or gave them "personhood". WTF! Where does this crap come from? It's lies. All lies.
The Citizens United decision only held that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from censoring the political speech of any entity, and that includes independent expenditures that fund political speech.
That decision should be applauded by EVERYONE.
People who say otherwise, or who are against the decision don't support free speech.
A fundamental right in our society is free speech for all. That means individuals and groups. Anything to the contrary is un-American.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
You see to be more sure of your self than the court itself. There were dissenters.
Most times there are dissenters whenever a court has to come to a decision as a group.
The dissenters on the court failed to make a valid argument in order to make their opinion a majority.
I guess that's your opinion. No more no less.
Opinion? Well .... thankfully the courts agree with me. Not you or OWS.
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."
I think the question is, are speech and money one and the same.
That question has been answered.
Read the case decision ....
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Well next time I have a bill to pay,maybe I can pay it in speech, instead of money.
I am aware that CU did not grant personhood. I think some people use this interchangebly. Because that is the way it is percieved.
I support free speech. But I think the argument for free speech is outweighed by a greater need for equal and fair representation. Unlimited amounts of money swishing around the political process is not beneficial to the whole of society. I believe groups have the right of free speech of course. But I do not think money should be speech.
What would you offer as a solution? Publicly funded elections would also level the playing field amongst candidates and make it unessary for them to solicit money from corporations or lobbiests.
Corporations are not allowed to donate to political candidate's campaign funds. Same with lobbying firms.
We are not a socialist country and publicly funded elections are a violation and affront to the rights of the taxpayers and the public at large.
As I told the other guy ... you and many other OWS people just don't like free speech. You want it limited and restricted. That is un-American at it's core.
Ok, then how about a reasonable campaign spending cap? we could better compare candidates if they had the same (small) amount of money, and it would level the playing field in terms of influence on politics. the average vote would be worth more if the average candidate spent less, because we are sheep
Spending caps would never be honored. Just as any campaign reform legislated in recent years. It was either ignored or they would figure out a way around it. If all campaign funds were pulled from a pool that was centrally managed, there would be even greater transparency of the spending.
Agreed. even if they couldnt advertise, campaigns would pay individuals to spread rumors and such. So sheep will always elect sharks? maybe we should stop trying
Then it would be even more difficult to run against an incumbent.
Even more so than now??? Why would it make a difference? If people are not happy with the incumbent, they will look for an alternative.
It takes money to overcome the non-financial perks of holding office. Just being reported upon in the paper gives name recognition over the challenger. If you limit campaign money,. you limit the counterbalance the challenger can have to offset the powers of incumbency.
that would be irrelevant with a combination of transparency and an informed public. and anyway, I said these were not perfect solutions. what do you think we should do?
There should also be a website that contains more career information about that politician and a catagorization of their voting record. Did they vote what number of times for legislation that supports; Other polictians (salary raises, perks), Corporations/Unions (relax or impliment legislation that inhibits fair compition for product/service), Favors ( to friend or relative works on project that legislation supports), Higher Taxes (Just that or increased fees), The people (supports improving the lives of people). If you took a politician's voting record throughout their entire carreer and catagorized every vote. You would get and immediate sense of what that politician is about. Quite frankly if more of what he voted on was in support of a corporation or other politicians, I wouldn't want that guy in office, would you?
Absolutely. Despite some lingering computer illiteracy, i think web based democracy is the only way to take our country into the future. Sites like opensecrets are good, but there also needs to be a platform where one can compare 2 or more candidates next to one another, and see their views in plain black and white backlit
Well, not what you suggested. Transparency, yes. Very difficult to do, because that works against incumbents. But, it needs to be done by candidates who win on that platform. An informed public would be great. Sadly, our government provided education system works against that goal.
Here is a suggestion. There needs to be term limits, but there needs to be a second election where an officeholder can be punished at the ballot box by not living up to his platform. Everyone would get two terms, but the compensation would be skewed to the second term. Little money and no pension benefits the first term, with much more salary and some (but less than now) pension benefits. This would make everyone win a re-election to get fairly compensated for their time and efforts. Also, eliminate as many perks as possible for the incumbents. For instance, no longer would governors have signs at the borders welcoming people to their state, with the governors name on the sign. That is just free political advertising. There are a lot of those instances that are purely political and need to be eliminated. Also, end the feeding of the egos by naming things after a politician. At the soonest, the politician should have to be dead for ten years before anything can be named after them.
So, there are a couple of items.
Good. this was exactly what i wanted. I have wondered why we have term limits since before i could vote
What term limits have we had since before you could vote? The presidency, yes. Various state and local offices, yes. But not the all-important US House and Senate.
sorry, I have wondered why we Don't have term limits
It wouldn't level anything. Spending caps are also a "prior restraint" and infringement on free speech rights.
You and many OWS people just seem to hate free speech and are in a quest to restrict it and/or eliminate it.
i just think that money is not speech. if you want to spend your time campaigning for someone, do it. if you dont care enough to do that, then your monetary contribution should not be allowed to affect the election.
Money is free speech. It costs money to get a message out to a wide audience.
It costs a lot of money to run a political campaign. This is a big country and planes, buses, hotels, meals, campaign offices, advertisements, etc. all cost money.
The courts have already settled that money does equate to access to free speech.
You are thinking with your emotions and not intellect.
I don't want to insult you but it is that kind of complacent thinking is what has allowed this country to fall into the mess it's in now. Rather than shoot down the ideas of youngandoutraged. Why don't you propose some of your own that would really make a different with ths issue. You are telling youngandoutraged that he/she is thinking with his/her emotions. At least he/she is thinking. All you are doing is regurgitating that (usually republican) argument that we have to allow unbridled campaign contributions by any source to politicians because it is freedom of speech. This is NOT freedom of speech. When I can't afford the same level of access as a corporation and so my voice never gets heard. Have you seriously considered what that does? What it means is that it would be absolutely impossible for any regular person like myself to ever run for office without being independantly wealthy or whoring to some corporation with the expectation that they get favors down the line. This has got to stop. It will only stop if you and many others change your thinking on the subject. BTW corporations don't have any problem buying of a politician from any party that they think will serve them.
If you think supporting free speech is "complacent", there is something wrong with YOU.
Either everyone has freedom of speech, or none of us have freedom of speech.
You and some of the others want to restrict freedom of speech. You are advocating censorship. That is radical and un-American.
I support freedom of speech for all. It is not my burden to defend free speech.
The burden is on you to defend your restricting of free speech and instituting censorship. You are the one who wishes to remove rights from our society and the constitution be damned.
So do you support corporate 'speech'? It just seems odd that although you may support one candidate, you can be a shareholder in a company that uses profits earned from your money to support an opposing candidate.
I support free speech for everyone and everything.
You can't be a free country and restrict speech to only certain types of people or entities.
Corporations are not allowed to give donations to political candidates.
You just don't like free speech and don't want to openly admit that fact. Just like many in this OWS movement.
How old are you .... if I may ask?
21, and very idealistic. Your point is taken, but it will be very hard to convince We the People that corporations are part of us
You are wrong. The citizens of "liberal" states like California and Oregon have already voted down speech restrictions in ballot referendums.
Even citizens of those states value free speech for all.
Your so-called "idealism" is a bit misguided. I suspect you may have been dishonestly influenced by others in your life. Seeing your age, I'd bet it was leftist teachers.
since i answered your question, may i ask what you do for a living?
I work in the financial industry. Otherwise known as "Wall Street".
Cool. I think it is unfair how wall street has been portrayed recently. After all, the CRA encouraged subprime lending, and I'm guessing you didn't have a direct hand in betting against the assets of your own firm. I would rather occupy washington than wall street. That being said, I disagree with trading paper to make money. Not that there should be some sort of insurance firms could buy to cushion their own risks, but the leveraging was absolutely ridiculous
We need to change that paradigm with candidates who have strong positions and proposals on all important issues, and we need an informed citizenry that can evaluate those candidates without the pressure of campaign money. my solutions start to tackle these issues so we can get on with the real task of fixing a broken world
I think we all need to stay present time. What this means again is rather than attack or blame anyone for it, the deed is done, the mess is upon us. What ideas do you have to resolve it. Personally the banks are just as much to blame as the legislature. If you look who has benefited from it and continues to do so is the banks. They have yet to be held accountable for any of their criminal acts in all of this and they continue to post record profits. There has been talk of boycotts, why not an organized mortgage moritorium. This is where you organize as many people as possible who are current on there mortage to do something ratical like sign a potition of intent that they will in a designated month some time in the near future stop paying their morgage. Can you imagine how this would get the attention of the big banks if even 1/2 million to a million people stopped paying their morgage all in the same month. The condition for not doing this would be for the banks to embrace and ingage in a workable program of helping people who are; still working and would like to keep their homes; who were possible victims of adjustable morgage misrepresentation..etc. These corporations only care about their bottom line. If you can devise a way to affect that then you can get their attention. Example: B of A was going to institure a 5.00 charge for using your debit card. They lost customers in droves to credit unions and online banks. That is what works, protesting might not.
Barney Frank is still meddling in national financial affairs. He has to be stopped. I agree that economic sanctions have an impact.
Pretty hardcore, but i dont think building a fence is a good idea considering illegals have no incentive to enter the country right now and many are actually leaving
It's OK...that one is not for you. Hard Core is losing your job and home and credit. Choose another and act on it.
If what you say is true, then there would be a net outflow of illegals to Mexico. That isn't so. Just because the net inflow to the states has decreased somewhat does not mean the problem is solved.
you have a good grasp of the problems, but we need specific solutions in so many places that a two party system is naturally overwhelmed. there will always be one decisive issue and other important issues will be left untouched
It is amazing to me that 500 Lawyers(congress) can't do 2 things at the same time. Reach Agreement on a real New Jobs Act Now is the priority, has been the priority, and will be the priority for a long time.
Good start for discussion. Please see my problem list at http://www.kwbsolutions.com/TCV/CVCP.htm for my list.
The list is overwhelming in its completeness. Where do you want to start? I have 20 Fighting Points: http://fuzzythinker.WebStarts.com/ows-_fighting_points.html We have congruence on lots of stuff. I want this movement to articulate 5 Top Things to Congress to Act on.
FuzzyThinker, I have reviewed your 20 points. Again, I think it is a good start to a list of solutions.
But, I think we have the cart before the horse.
First, build a list of problems and then build a list of solutions for each problem and then prioritize and build an action plan.
We need to document where we want to go, current problems, proposed solutions and then get agreement to implement the solutions.
We need support from all political factions that the ideas are acceptable to a majority of their members. We need consensus if we are to achieve our goals.
In theory I agree with you. While the consensus is being fine-tuned, there are 5 obvious issues with specific solutions that will give a boost to the Movement. There is a web site with the structure to accomplish your priorities: http://uponlocal.com/up-on-local-media/Candidate-Issues-for-Voter-Elections-direct-democracy-now
Thanks for the pointer. I will compare our notes over the next day or so and get back to you with my thoughts.
Democracy can only work when citizens come together and present their own ideas to affect positive change. These are small steps, but in the right direction, I believe. Please post your own suggestions and maybe we can reignite the democracy we have almost lost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
Too vague and radical.
"we pay for those things with taxes. A social contract exists so humans can live together, but business came late to the party, and they type of externalization businesses do is on a much larger scale, in a different realm entirely"
"We" pay for it, as a society. But most of "us" don't. Under the progressive taxation system, there is massive wealth transfer from the rich to the middle class and the poor. I am fine with that. But I just wanted to make it clear that the poor and the middle class do expect to benefit from the taxation that the rich funds.
Given that, why are "we" so cross when businesses try to do the same? After all, it is not really "our" money. "Our" money was paid back to us already in the form of free education etc.
Look, Germany has the worlds highest corporate tax rate in the world. It is also by far the most robust economy in the world, given the size of its population. However, we have an economy far larger, yet we have lower corporate tax rates, and business wants to lower them even more. In order to participate in the largest marketplace, you should expect to pay the largest user fee. anything else is nonsense. Yet somehow we have been brainwashed into trusting that the rich will reinvest their profits in the economy, despite glaring evidence to the contrary. The type of externalization that is killing us is the type that allows other countries to benefit at the cost of Americans, while those companies can still sell to the the worlds largest marketplace. Adam Smith would be appalled at this disgusting twist in capitalism.
If corporate taxes are raised, don't you think corporations will have no choice but to cut costs even more which will increase unemployment even more? Either that, or they have to raise prices, which will hurt the middle class and the poor.
I didn't say raise them, especially not now, but definitely don't cut them either. You have to pay to play. Without home bias and morality, business has left us high and dry. Not just as Americans, but as world citizens
Lack of home bias for corporations is what is allowing billions in the third world to become rich. Is that not a good thing for global citizens? Is forcing those people to starve through tariffs the moral thing to do?
Is that what the OWS movement is all about? Make the Chinese starve so that Americans can buy the dream house in the suburbs?
You were saying earlier that we should reduce Americans wages to be more competitive, eliminating jobs overseas. Now I see that you are merely a detractor and have no relevant input, and I bid you Adieu
OCCUPY WALL STREET Pinback Buttons! - only 99 cents
A portion of proceeds will go toward the local movement in the form of food and water. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples or anything you can to the folks outside in your community!
Free Shipping Offer! http://buttonbasket.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=25
"Medicare and food stamp budgets would skyrocket. tax revenue would decrease. Other countries would have trouble getting their citizens out of poverty. Almost everyone loses."
Then what is the solution? Keep Americans out of jobs because the salaries can't go down?
Wage decreases only hurt those at the lower end, here and abroad. I support a small tax decrease for companies that can show they are stimulating growth, and the higher tax rate will remain for those who have their jobs overseas. This bridges the gap between lowering corporate taxes and maintaining revenue. Got a problem?
No problem but I don't see how that creates jobs. Taxes are on profit. If companies can't be profitable at current wages, then no amount of tax rebates will stimulate employment.
Your focus on job creation is irrational, as in the future, if not already, there will not be enough jobs to meet the worldwide demand. a lower retirement age with garaunteed benefits could lead to global full employment and a more productive planet
If fewer people are working because of lower retirement age how can there be enough taxes to pay guaranteed benefits? Do you want the elderly to starve?
That is very imperfect, but i dont know what else to say, you need to debate an economist.
I think we all will need to learn to live with less.
I have been poor all my 21 years, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, but I have thus far been too proud to accept any welfare like food stamps, and although I am currently uninsured, I don't plan on accepting medicare as I believe that in 2014 I can expect to be covered. A decrease in wages would absolutely crush me and almost everyone I know. I am all for living with less, and I have been, but you are asking the wrong group to live with less.
Do you think money should be taken from the Wall Street guys and given to you and others like you?
No, I have actually found myself remarkably allied with those who want the focus more on washington, but business in general has a nasty habit of externalizing costs onto society, and this seems to be a decent platform to voice my outrage.
But don't all of us want to do the same - externalize our costs? For example, free education, free roads, free healthcare ... why blame businesses for doing what individuals already do?
we pay for those things with taxes. A social contract exists so humans can live together, but business came late to the party, and they type of externalization businesses do is on a much larger scale, in a different realm entirely
But Vladimir, as we move away from the growth based model to a more sustainable paradigm, and as globalization brings cheaper goods to more and more industries, money will be less of a problem, provided we enact sensible policies soon.
I agree that globalization is the only thing that is sustaining American lifestyle today through cheaper prices.
Tariff foreign products attempting to enter our market so that they're actually slightly more expensive to make abroad than to make here.
If prices go up in WalMart, the unemployed will have even less money to put food on the table.
Here's the thing; we've managed to get ourselves in quite a pickle, and any attempt to extricate ourselves from it is going to involve a painful readjustment period. Slashing wages is going to put a lot of people on the street, on bread lines, in soup kitchens, on the dole, or some combination of the three. Raising prices would have a similar effect, but it could be mitigated by using the funds raised from tariffs to expand the scope of social services programs until the economy readjusts.
If more people get jobs from slashed wages, that should free up money from the current social support programs which then could go to those that will face pressures from lower wages. The same money gets shared among more people and more people have jobs. I think sharing is a good thing.
A job is only worth having if it pays enough to support you and your family. What you're proposing would have everyone working 80- and 90-hour weeks and still needing welfare just to scrape by. The answer is NO.
So what's the alternative? Not work and be on the Govt dole for ever till you find a job that pays you what you would like to be paid, which may be never?
If I'm gonna go hungry or go on welfare simply to survive either way I might as well not go to work.
Is it really fair on the taxpayers - who actually are working - to fun you because you would rather not work?
I'm not speaking about my own situation (I'm at MIT pursuing a computer science degree and can probably look forward to a modestly well-paid job and a fairly good life when everything's said and done) but about your plan in general. If you decide to let wages equalize with what they are offshore there won't be any taxpayers left; 80 percent of society would wind up working poor.
How come there are so many taxpayers in China such that China is loaning the USA trillions of dollars?
That has to stop; we need to stop buying their shit and bring good-paying jobs back here.
They are more likely to be employed if we have manufacturing jobs returned. Tariffs are indeed needed. All the Presidents on Mt Rushmore were pro-tariff.
To bring manufacturing jobs back we need to lower wages. Tariffs will just hurt the buyer, meaning the WalMart shoppers.
That is incorrect. It has been the elimination of tariffs that has eroded the income and the job prospects of american workers. The idea that paying higher wages threatens the ability for companies to make a profit is nonsense.
If tariffs are in place, won't prices go up almost by definition?
Not relative to income. Look at the history of tariffs in the US. Compare that with the economic conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
I am sorry, I don't see any price information there. But this is my very simplistic was of thinking. If a widget takes $100 to produce in the USA and $10 to product in China, then the only way to generate demand by tariffs is a tarrif of $91 at the minimum. Then the cost of the widget in the US market will be $100, no less. That's huge price inflation.
Average labor cost of manufactured goods is about 15%. Your 10 to 1 ratio is not realistic. The labor cost of american made automobiles amounts to about 10% of the final cost. Consumerism drives the economy. If you take the money out of the hands of the consumer, the whole system grinds to a halt. That is what is happening today.
So OWS movement is all about more consumerism?
I speak only for myself. OWS is all over the place in( my opinion), just like America at large.
My solution is a structural adjustment to US wages (downward) so that we are competitive again with the rest of the world.
The race to the bottom strategy, a return to the middle ages, feudal serfs,child labor, hey how about we just bring back slavery?
What's the alternative? Keep people without jobs?
The alternative is to defeat neoliberalism, one of the stated goals of this movement. Stop trying to demonize the word "protectionist". Protectionism is what built the US manufacturing economy. Protectionism was the accepted tool in use from George Washington pretty much though till Reagan. As i have pointed out before, all the Presidents on Mt Rushmore were protectionists.
I am just not sure how that will work out. Explain to me what will happen please?
Maybe a good starting point is to point out that manufacturing creates real wealth. More per hour of worker input, versus, say agriculture or service industries. More real wealth, if distributed by wages to the workers means more money,real money,representing tangible goods, not the imaginary money of the financial industry, is circulated through the economy. In short it is better to pay a little more for products if you have a much greater income. Sending manufacturing jobs offshore is about like depositing your paycheck in some one else' s account
What I don't understand is how my salary goes up a lot but my employer raises prices only a little.
I would suggest instead working on global regulations that instill not free but fair trade. What businesses need more than free trade is fair and uniformly regulated trade. That gives everyone a level playing field.
We should export American regulations and standards across the globe, in a diplomatic way of course, that way work conditions are the same across the globe, safety standards are the same, union regulations are the same etc...There is no point just changing regulation in one country, because then businesses will just move off-shore. If all countries cooperate on regulation then we may all be better off.
That's a colonial attitude. I do not support that.
It's not colonial. It's cooperative. Expand WTO, WHO, BASEL, etc.. The global institutions are already in place. The global community needs to understand the businesses are increasingly global in scope, and as such regulations should be a global and uniform to be fair to everyone.
WTO needs to go.
Why not be cooperative and import Chinese regulations and standards to the USA?
Yes, obviously it would have to be give and take, like everything else in life, but if you have the idea first and the means to promote it (peacefully) and if your regulations are better for all mankind, why not promote your regulations?
Why do you think American ideas are regulations are the very best and better for all mankind? That's a colonial attitude and I can't support it.
I don't. Most people believe their system is the best, except the refuseniks and the political prisoners in China. Again it would have to something to be worked out.. Of course we can always go to war over it like the good old days...
I think the best thing to do is to have no country interfere with another country's internal affairs.
It is not interference. It is cooperation.
Imposing American laws on the Chinese will look like cooperation from the American lens, and colonialism from the Chinese lens. People are funny that way.
Where in my post did I say "impose"?
Well that's fine, but we would also need strict price controls on things like food. Even now, its possible to work 40 hrs a week part time and still qualify for things like food stamps, if you have children. I agree that we aren't competitive, but we would need a China-like price regulation to avoid a dramatic increase in poverty.
What price regulation?
Whether currency manipulation or price ceilings, without those a drop in wages would be very counterproductive for the middle class.
Would the middle class prefer to be without jobs instead?
Drop wages to China levels and companies will create jobs here. It's that simple.
We can even get Americans to do field work after immigrants were expelled from Alabama. your proposition has no traction with voters
That's the problem. There are jobs. Americans simply won't take them.
so you want to make those jobs pay less? you sir, are silly
I want jobs to pay market wages. Illegal immigrants did those jobs at those wages.
I fail to see how this would work toward anyone's advantage except corporations that could pay lower wages.
People without jobs will have jobs. How is that not a good thing?
Medicare and food stamp budgets would skyrocket. tax revenue would decrease. Other countries would have trouble getting their citizens out of poverty. Almost everyone loses.
He who controls the power to create money has the ultimate power ... changes to DC need to wait until the Federal Reserve challenge is addressed.
END THE FED!!!