Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: We have added two more grievances to the petition for redress

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EST by ms3000 (253)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We have added Term Limits and President Clinton's Plan to eliminate foreclosure:

See the 99% Declaration and Action plan:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home?pli=1

Elect delegates from all over the country to present these demands!

39 Comments

39 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Hey folks. I completely understand the urge to make demands. Believe me, I was once clamoring for this too. But you know what? It's too early. Our movement has matured enough for us to make demands. Demands at this juncture will only serve to divide us. And it's division that has allowed the tiny minority of plutocrats (the 1%) to rule over the 99% for so long.

I think (and so do many many others) that we should all take a deep breath and realize what this movement is about. If we focus on what we have in common right now we can build strength. Then, later once we've gotten to know each other, learned from each other and realized we're all in it together, we can go to the next stage. And if we approach it this way, we'll be making DECISIONS from a position of unified strength rather than DEMANDS from a position of divided weakness.

I'm being very serious now.
The official statements of goals and the widespread powerful direct non-violent action that will take place are, relatively speaking, the "easy" part, hence our desire to jump to that second step.

The hard part is right now, building the constituency of the 99%. In order to do that, we have to take some time and let the fruit ripen before we pick it. There's no need to rush or worry. Look how far we've come so far with no official demands and no official leaders. Let's focus right now on discussing what we have in common rather than dividing ourselves with demands. Once we, the 99%, realize all we have in common, we'll awaken to the absurdity that we've allowed the 1% to rule us despite the fact that we really have all the power. It will take time for that epiphany to percolate around the nation. Give that a little time. Then we'll be able to make decisions rather than demands. Then it will be the plutocrats who are in the weak position. If we pick the fruit too soon and make official demands and designate official leaders, they'll pigeon hole us and take us down Rove style. If, on the other hand, we allow the fruit to ripen, we'll be unstoppable.

There's nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. The goals/demands are just details. The idea whose time has come is the recognition that we have more in common than we think. We must focus on and nurture that revelation. Once that penetrates our consciousness collectively, we will find our voice...and we will sing. Oh how we'll sing.

[-] 1 points by FaithfulSkeptic (1) 12 years ago

You took the words out of my mouth. Well, maybe the unintelligible thoughts out of my head... you definitely put it better than I would have.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

This morning is one of those defining moments. And it will be measured not by the results but by how we handle the process no matter what the results. We should be peaceful, calm, kind above all else. America and the world are watching. In my view, a win is actually quite possible, even likely, becIse I define a win as "America and the world seeing a heroic group of people in the park standing up (or sitting in / lying down) for what they believe in while at the same time being kind, calm and above all else, non-violent no matter what the results." That's the win here and we have complete control over that. Let's be that change. Let's show all of America, all of the world, the best of us.

Solidarity, peace and love. There's nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. The rising comes from the firm commitment to the cause through non-violent means. Therein lies our power.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

Please read the action plan, we are not calling for a demand, only a national election of delegates to confer on a list of demands, This meeting won't take place until 7-4-12.

Here is the action plan:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

I'm kind of indifferent on the Term limits thing. It's both good and bad. Personally, i wouldn't include that in any demands because it's a non issue that could be made into a big issue.

Love it or hate it, Does any one really care either way ?

Anyway, i like the rest of the demands. The only thing i can add is, should we ask for a few demands or 9000 ? Personally, i think we should get the money out of Washington first and then we can tackle the tough issues we don't all agree on.

[-] 1 points by kendroe (9) 12 years ago

I'm not in the New York area but all these demands sound good. However, it would be useful to focus on just one area. I think the main area of importance would be that of creating laws to limit the ways the 1% can use money to influence politics. If this were done well, then it would be much easier to persuade the law makers to address all of the other issues.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Just a suggestion: This is kinda big news. You should make this an official pronouncement...

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

This was also sent to us and again, very smart and useful if we are to organize and LEGITIMIZE this movement:

I like what you are trying to do, and I really hope you succeed. I'd even highly consider trying to become one of the delegates, but I do think there are a few things you might have to resolve first. These are just suggestions.

1. I don't think it should be 1 male and 1 female. That implies that gender is important in some way, which is already going to create an issue. Why not one black and one white, or one muslim and one christian, or one gay and one straight? If women and men get represented, why shouldn't everyone else? I think people should elect two representatives, regardless of race, gender, etc. You will probably save yourself a headache.

2. You might want to find out if this is legal or not. Yes, technically speaking it looks like its protected under the constitution, but that isn't safe to assume. Free speech is protected under the constitution, but people are still getting hit with batons at the protests, etc. I would consult with a constitutional lawyer if you are serious about this, and find out whether or not there have been any kind of supreme court rulings on anything like this, etc. Whether or not 'the people' creating their own congress would be, for example, considered an act of treason, or an attempt to exit the union of the united states, etc. Gotta be careful with that sort of thing. People will be more hesitant to get involved if they don't know how safe it is.

3. What medium are we all using to elect these delegates? I didn't see anything mentioned. You can't leave it up to the people to determine the methods themselves. That would lead to chaos. At least suggest a method, such as internet voting, local paper polls, school votes, whatever.

As I said, I really do like the idea, but I think more work needs to be done. In the meantime, if you are interested in participating or helping to spread the word about my own project, it would be greatly appreciated: http://declarationof99.wikidot.com/

People all over are editing the Wiki declaration which gives everyone a chance to voice their opinion, instead of a whole bunch of different messages getting muttled together and drowning each other out, we are combining them into one message. If your project pans out, maybe we could bring the wiki declaration to the temporary-congress and have them use it as a basis for the discussion, so they had a good starting point.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

I am an attorney and assisted in writing it; as long as the delegates legally assemble for the purpose of drafting a petition for the redress of grievances, it is protected speech. That is why the election of delegates and holding of a national convention on July 4, 2012 must be organized. No calls for violence. No calls for the violent overthrow of the government.

For this to work, it must be a peaceful, legal, non-violent demand for change of the government by organizing and legitimizing our movement.

Once organized and the delegates have been elected by direct ballot in all 435 districts. they must demand that our elected leaders take action. If they do not take action within one year of the demand, we will demand their mass resignations and that new elections be held so we can take back our democracy from the corporations and those who BUY power and influence with MONEY. Yes this includes unions and lobbyists.

The Citizens United case must be reversed and ALL private money must be BANNED from politics and deemed bribery. Elections must be publicly funded so that everyone has a chance to run for office and the success of an election is based upon the merit of the candidate not how much corporate money he or she has!

Please read our SAMPE declaration and petition of grievances here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Please read our PROPOSED action plan, ten steps to non-violent revolution, which we are going to start implementing on 10-15-12 at the General Assembly in NY, here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution

We are not trying to tell people to do anything, these are merely suggestions for a plan of action.

We are the 99% and we will take back the republican democracy promised to us and our children by our forefathers.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

look... after the Woman's lib movement,,, if we don't require one woman and one man... the men will never get a chance..... hehe ;)

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

I think we need to make sure that we have one male and one female from each district. Look at the system we have now: almost all OLD WHITE MEN. Women make up more than 50% of the population and are very under represented. besides, look how men have run the world into the ground. Let's give the ladies a try!

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

yes... I agree... I lke it ;)

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

BTW I am a middle ages white man from the top 2% and I want corporate money OUT of politics.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

This was emailed to us and I though it was very thoughtful:

Two impediments to fed-to-99% direct lending (which would benefit this economy to a great extent), which could be addressed in the grievances, to make #17 eminently more practical:

  1. Servicing: It is possible that, with the addressing of #5, the burden on the IRS for enforcing the tax laws will be significantly reduced. Thus, the IRS could have the added capacity to implement the servicing of such loans. This would minimize the cost of servicing (IRS being non-profit in this). They have the infrastructure already in place to handle the filings and transactions, including modern electronic mechanisms.

  2. Determination of lending risk: Currently, there are little/no regulations on credit rating agencies, and they are all private. They are permitted to keep their methods opaque, while at the same time controlling most aspects of a citizen’s economic life and well-being. There should be significant overhaul in regulation of these agencies, or the federal government should create a transparent and open rating agency. For the latter, private lenders (banks etc…) should be required to pay into this agency, in the same way the pay into the FDIC insurance. In return, they could have the assurance that if they made a loan based on a credit rating of a specified minimum number (i.e. a “safe” loan), and the federal rating agency erred, then the fed would buy up that bad loan. This works in harmony with the spirit of #18.

For #5, one of the greatest tax dodges is the mechanism for compensation for many executives, and even to higher level middle management such as Directors:

  1. Deferred compensation. Not every employee is given access to this. In fact, only very highly paid Directors and executives are even allowed to access this. And just because they can afford to defer much of their paycheck, they wiggle out of being in the higher tax brackets or AMT. It gets around the limits on retirement vehicles such as 401Ks and IRAs, allowing only certain persons to defer much of their career’s earnings to their retirement years, when they can trickle it out at a rate which yet again avoids higher tax brackets and/or AMT.

  2. The use of stock as compensation. This allows some terrible tax dodging trickery. Here’s a scenario that speaks volumes to it:

· CEO gets 20 million a year in restricted grants or extraordinarily cheap options

· When exercising, the marginal rate is used on the date of exercise for the profit between the actual cost and the fair market that day.

· The CEO holds on to the remainder in stock form.

· If the stock value goes up, the CEO sells long-term and pays only 15% on the gains. Thus, the marginal tax rate has been avoided on compensation. The 99% can’t avoid marginal on their compensation, even if they wanted to choose to accept the risks etc…

· If the stock value goes down, the CEO claims a loss. This allows him to avoid paying taxes on other compensation, since that is also in the form of capital gains, or worse, get a refund from the government. Thus, the taxpayers are paying for this CEOs personal “losses”. In other words, the taxpayer takes MOST of the risk for the CEOs gambling. The 99% is not allowed to claim a pay decrease (or pay loss as a result of unemployment) as a deduction against subsequent years of IRS filings. That’s an idea – unemployment is a business loss to the 99% household, and should be permitted deduction across multiple years of filings on the same schedule as capital gains losses are to the 1%.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

I think we should somewhere add something like a "People's Veto"... where the "People" as a body themselves can organize and Veto any Bill based on a 75% of registered voters vote.. or something ...

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

great idea and I think it is novel as well, I hope you run for one of the 870 delegate spots if we can get this off the ground on 10-15. Please come to the NYC GA on 10-15 if you can make it.

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home/the-steps-to-non-violent-revolution

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

ok... let me see if I can get some corporate backing... brb.. ;)

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

cute, no thanks, we already have about 535 purchased politicians

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

could even explore a "People's Legislation" ... if ever deemed necessary ??

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

How about stop funding all the bilateral intuitions since it’s unconstitutional.

[-] 1 points by deadkip (3) 12 years ago

thats the point stop looking for a leader and become one, if not shut-up and obey who ever comes out on top. its what yall are good at so stick with it and stop telling ppl what they should do unless your going to do it... there are no demands because we need more ppl to get involved, diversify the group, and put their input in, so when we make a group demand it encompasses everyone's wants and no one group gets alienated.... how can we make a collective demand of the ppl to the governments if every person hasn't came and voiced their opinion?

[-] 1 points by Bongo (6) 12 years ago

Uhh, who is this "we" that came up with this absurd idea and keeps adding to the "plan"? How is this election going to be held? Who's conducting it? Who's paying for it? Who's will certify the result? Why are we forced to have one male and one female delegate? Who is deciding that these are the 20 issues andhow we stand on them? What about those of us who consider some of those 20 to be idiotic?

Until the movement has A leader and A demand we're wasting our time.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

"....What about those of us who consider some of those 20 to be idiotic?..." speak up and tell us what is idiotic... that's what this all about

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

ok... we elect Bongo as leader.... ;)

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

We have tried to be sensitive to the wide array of views in the 99%. We repeatedly point out in our posts that this declaration, petition of grievances and plan of action is just a proposal, W are only suggesting a non-violent and specific means to elect 870 people to debate and vote on a plan of action and list of grievances while the protests continue between now and the election in 2012.

We (a group of lawyers and students) are working with some of the organizers on the ground in NYC and other cities but it takes time to get people to organize and accept responsibility.

Again, the 20 points listed here https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/home?pli=1 are nothing but SUGGESTIONS. The final list of grievances must be voted on by people elected by us or it is not a democratic process. If we could have 300 million people debate and vote on it we would but that type of direct democracy is just not practical. If you gave each person one minute to give a list of their concerns to vote on, it would years just to allow each person to give his or her ideas because takes about 11 days just to count to ONE million!

We are going to try and introduce the plan at an upcoming general assembly in NY to try and elect an executive committee of 11 people to organize a larger national election of OWS 870 delegates, two from each congressional district.

These delegates will begin meeting at a "convention" or "congress" in Philly on July 4, 2012.

[-] 1 points by Wafts (53) 12 years ago

I would like to know specifically who the "we" are. Not vague, like "a bunch of lawyers and students". Isn't it fair for those who you have elected yourself to represent to actually know who you are, what your qualifications are, what your background is? I cannot accept the rules of someone who won't event honestly give their name. I am hearing some good stuff In this forum (and true, some I don't agree with too), but it is not genuine to ask people to follow you, but then withhold your identities. It feels like your saying, "you don't need to know who we are, just trust us", like some sort of Jedi mind trick. Stand up and declare yourselves!

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

come to the GA on 10-15 in NYC and meet us.

[-] 1 points by Wafts (53) 12 years ago

Not everyone is so rich they can just jump on a plane. That is not a fair reply for a movement like this in my opinion. Only people who can afford to come and see you in person are allowed? Now you have me worried with doubts about a movement where the leaders talk honesty and transparency, but hide themselves. I know you'll prob call me a troll for saying that. But really, I am just starting to have doubts with that as the basis. It feels wrong to not let the people you want to lead know who you are if you want them to follow.

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

Haha, most of us are students up to their eyeballs in debt.

We are from NY so that is the GA where we will propose this plan. We choose not to identify ourselves because our anonymity will protect us while we organize the election of delegates. We propose that anyone who has attained the age of 18 may run to be delegate.

In our view, the first step is for each OWS city to elect an executive council or committee of 7, 9, or 11 people (they can remain anonymous) for the purpose of organizing this proposed election and make other decisions like applying for a permit to being in port o potties, I am an attorney and have repeatedly offered to help the OWS protesters apply for the permit but it costs money to apply for permits and then pay for the toilets, potable water and sanitation. I believe OWS has raised more than $1 million and can start paying for basic human needs to protect the protestors health. We also need tents that can be legally heated for the cold months coming up.

[-] 1 points by Wafts (53) 12 years ago

Wait, two things: What about cities where their is no organized OWA movement. You are excluding entire populations from having a voice. Also, you are going to make people get a permit before they can be in a port o potty? That doesn't sound right!

[-] 1 points by ms3000 (253) 12 years ago

two people from each of the 435 congressional; districts will be elected by their own people by direct ballot

[-] 1 points by mattthecapitalist (157) 12 years ago

Foreclosure is negated through paying your bills. Term limits are a non-issue.. as we have elections in our great country.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 12 years ago

Actually, I'm all for Term Limits. People in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx have had the ability to vote and they still vote Rangel in and he hasn't really done much to help their plight... The same holds true for Clyburn in South Carolina... congress needs term limits so people can go back to serving constituents humbly instead of ruling districts with lifetime benefits...

[-] 1 points by mattthecapitalist (157) 12 years ago

I'm not for term limits. As you said, the people in UM and the B have had the ability to vote and still vote for Rangel. That is their choice-their vote.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 12 years ago

Fair enough -- I guess I'm not in favor of career politicians who have evolved to the point of ruling rather than serving (Pelosi, Frank, or Reid for example). They have a ruling entitlement mentality. People should serve their constituents for their designated time and move on in life.

[-] 1 points by mattthecapitalist (157) 12 years ago

You know, back in the day.. that used to occur. People would go 'serve a tour' for a couple election cycles and then head back home, or back to their occupation prior to being elected. It is interesting how that has changed...

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

maybe that is only the case because there is money in politics... if the money was removed maybe the term limits would not be an issue

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

however... at this time,, I tend to agree with some sort of term limit... do we really want lifetime representatives?... a retired rep can still stay involved and active even after they have left the seat... and often those even accomplish more after they are retired...

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

furthermore.... if the reps knew that their term was up... there would be no jockying for next election...as we see now...