Isolating Objectives and Demands for the Movement

Submitted by Justin on

Forums: 

There are two components of what the Occupy Movement must do.  The first component is coming into internal agreement about what it demands, and being somewhat secure that these demands will fix the system.  The second component, to be addressed separately is the strategy to ensure that these demands will be met.

Here is my opinion of what the movement should demand, in order of precedence:

1.  Have congress pass a constitutional amendment to revoke the Citizen's United Decision and reinstate limits on campaign contributions.  We can't have a real democracy with all this lobbying money controlling everything.

2.  After this, enact legistlation to further limit corporations' abilities to lobby via NGO's and direct campaign contributions.  The system was already broken before the Citizen's United Decision, and we need to bring things to where they should be, not where they were.  We need to analyze exactly how the corporations have gotten around regulations in the past, and make sure they are severly limited in their actions.

3.  Raise the capital gains tax.  If the top 400 wealth holders earn the majority of their gains not through income but rather through the growth of assets, we need to ensure they are taxed at the same rate the rest of the population is.  Let's raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28% where they were in the Reagan era.

4.  A .5% transaction tax on the NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOE, and the CSE.  The London Stock Exchange has this, and did not suffer the same instability.

5.  Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall act.

6.  Revoke oil industry subsidies.

7.  Cut the defense budget by 50%, removing the US' influence out of Afghanistan and Iraq, withdrawing completely.  

8.  Grant subsidies and investment for clean energy, including wind and solar generation, as well as electric vehicles.

9.  Enact single-payer goverment sponsored healthcare.

10.  Equalize the production playing field by demanding that foreign trading partners such as China have equal labor and health rights for its workers.  We need to remove the competitive advantage they have over us in that they exploit their labor.  This will prevent them from having artificial low production costs, and will increase local production.

11.  We need a democratically run media system separate from the corporate media system, that has equal access.  Something similar to KPFK.  The issue is that corporate media is running the minds of the public at large and turning their interests against themselves.

12.  Re-enact commonsense environmental legislation.

13.  Redirect funds to our educational system that have been chipped away.

These demands will be extremely hard to meet, and for that, the movement needs to reach into all members of society and bring them together for this task.  Next message - strategy, how do we pull this off?

Thoughts, opinions, contributions?

Thanks!

Justin

They Cannot Give Us What We Demand

Submitted by voodoo on

Do not demand anything from them, you will fall squarely into their hands.

What the occupations across the world have done is that they have opened up a festering wound in the system -- its cancerous inner workings.

Now the cancer is open for all to see and what they want most of all is to reseal this wound, to hide this cancer. And the quickest way for them to hide this cancer is to SHUT YOU UP AND MAKE YOU GO AWAY. The way they will do that is to offer you to listen to your voice, to listen to your demands -- and placate you. What happens then? Even if they accept and enact your demands? What will happen is things will go on the same way as they have been for so long.

DO NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE. NO ONE HAS A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. IT'S A GOOD THING THAT NO ONE HAS THE ANSWER. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WITH A SOLUTION BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR OR WORSE TRYING TO CO-OPT YOU.

The philosopher Slavoj Zizek have said in a recent talk at St.Mark's Bookshop that the he does not have an answer for the occupiers and that NO ONE HAS THE ANSWER. THIS IS A GOOD THING! He said that occupiers have opened up a vacuum. This vacuum is what they fear, it is ominous. I completely agree with him: EMBRACE THIS CACUUM, EMBRACE THIS UNCERTAINTY . To revert to the all that is certain is a deathnail. And this is exactly what they want you to do: make demands (which they might or might not comply with), you feel good, you go home, and you voice quietly withers away because you gave them a chance to hide their cancer.

One last word. 1) Do not let them distract you. Your purpose should to take up space, make your voive heard, make the voice of others be heard, and not give in. Anything else other than that is distraction. 2) They will try to divide and conquer you. They will highlight internal conflicts, they will hype the criminal and violent people in your camp. DO NOT LET THEM.

TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHERS.

 

Nihilism or FUD misleadership?

Submitted by ultrarad on

I've seriously started to wonder whether the champions of the demand-nothing-ever strategy aren't in fact infiltrators deployed to misdirect the movement away from any course with any prospect of effectiveness.

DO NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE. NO ONE HAS A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. IT'S A GOOD THING THAT NO ONE HAS THE ANSWER. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WITH A SOLUTION BECAUSE HE IS A LIAR OR WORSE TRYING TO CO-OPT YOU.

So in other words, the only strategy is to express dissatisfactions as obtrusively as possible, and provided we advance no answers at all, through the magic of some Jedi mind-trick we will hypnotize "the masses" to rise up and then, mysteriously, the causes of our discontents will resolve, all without there ever being a plan.  Really?  Interesting paradigms for social change and political action ya got there.  MLK must have been a misguided amateur. 

Do not demand anything from them, you will fall squarely into their hands.

Maybe, if you're not smart in how you go about it.  But unless the presumption is that all occupiers are stupid, demanding nothing does not follow.

the quickest way for them to hide this cancer is to SHUT YOU UP AND MAKE YOU GO AWAY. The way they will do that is to offer you to listen to your voice, to listen to your demands -- and placate you. What happens then? Even if they accept and enact your demands? What will happen is things will go on the same way as they have been for so long.

Only if people let themselves be placated, and only if demands are poorly specified (particularly if establishment politicians are permitted to shape/twist them towards their own agendas.) 

The answer is not to decline (default), the answer is to be smart, disciplined, focused and persistent, and to pin down specifics so they can't be twisted or co-opted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

It's tempting to think that

Submitted by PC on

It's tempting to think that people who advance this sort of obscurantist horseshit are infiltrators.  But I can tell you from long years of experience that there are plenty of people in "activist" circles who quite sincerely believe it.  Most of them are just young.  Many of them, from what I can tell, are plenty smart enough that they'll get past it once they acquire some knowledge and (mainly) wisdom.  That doesn't make it hurt my brain any less to have to listen to it, though... :)

 

...after I posted that...

Submitted by ultrarad on

...the relevance of his/her username to his/her paradigm for action sank in. 

LOLs

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radical also means staying critical and not drinking anyone's kool-aid.

What We NEED to do!

Submitted by Justin on

Havamal, great thanks for the invitation.  

Voodoo, here's my perspective.  I understand where you are coming from.  The system and its system of wealth elites will do anything and everything to subvert the movement away from acheiving its true potential.  Even better for them, if they can make inspire enough internal friction to weaken our resolve and ability to take directed action.  I see what you mean, they would absolutely love to marginalize and diminsh the movement.

Unfortunately for us, we don't have the entire majority of the populace both on our side and willing to take collective action, so I don't know how we can do what you're saying, and redo everything, without at least getting the majority on board.  Those of us in the country who are Occupying represent the majority interest, and perhaps the majority sentiment, but the majority are not yet on board in terms of action.

So thereby, we ask the question, what will we do that is definitively better than the system that's been imposed upon everyone.  People in the middle, who have yet to join the movement are asking, "If I commit to this movement, will the movement definitively make things better than the way they are.  Because if the movement can potentially make things worse, I cannot afford that."  How do we get these people on board who are with us in sentiment, but are on the fence.  What we need to do is have a strong cohesive plan of action that says, "Look, if you join us, and we institute these measures, at a minimum, things will be signficantly better and on the right track."  And it is completely understandable why the whole of the population still hasn't joined us.  There's a corporatized media system trying to marginalize us and diminish the grounds on which our convictions stand.  So we need to reach out to people and say, we have legitimate cause, and we have a means to rectify the situation.  Because the people don't know that this is the case.

If you want to talk fair, I'm willing to talk fair.  The wealth elites should be completely stripped of their power, and the contracts that they've illegitimately obtained should be revoked.  The populace should nationalize and reclaim the productive, material, and labor resources of the country.  The wealth elites have done nothing better than ride us out into the desert and have us compete amongst ourselves for breadcrumbs and drops of water.  The abuse of the system that has taken place is atrocious and unfair.

But given all that, there can be no revolution without plan of what to put in the system's place.  Further, there can be no change without the gross majority of the populace getting onboard.  In order to get them on board, we need to have something that we can sell them that is both safe and promising.  That is why, in order to build the movement, I believe it is necessary to start, but not limit ourselves with a core list of common goals and demands we wish instuted.  And the demands we make must be such that they can occur, immediately, and irrevocably, if passed by law.  So let's get the population on board with a set of things we can all agree on, and then we can go for the stars once we got something accomplished.

Whether you want to overthrow the system or you choose to go the route of election and elected officials, you still need the majority of the populace onboard.

What I posit, is get everyone onboard, and get the power to oust elected officials unless they go the direction of the movement, which should be internally determined in a democratic matter.

Thoughts everyone?

Justin

What We NEED to do!

Submitted by Justin on

Havamal, great thanks for the invitation.  

Ultrarad, here's my perspective.  I understand where you are coming from.  The system and its system of wealth elites will do anything and everything to subvert the movement away from acheiving its true potential.  Even better for them, if they can make inspire enough internal friction to weaken our resolve and ability to take directed action.  I see what you mean, they would absolutely love to marginalize and diminsh the movement.

Unfortunately for us, we don't have the entire majority of the populace both on our side and willing to take collective action, so I don't know how we can do what you're saying, and redo everything, without at least getting the majority on board.  Those of us in the country who are Occupying represent the majority interest, and perhaps the majority sentiment, but the majority are not yet on board in terms of action.

So thereby, we ask the question, what will we do that is definitively better than the system that's been imposed upon everyone.  People in the middle, who have yet to join the movement are asking, "If I commit to this movement, will the movement definitively make things better than the way they are.  Because if the movement can potentially make things worse, I cannot afford that."  How do we get these people on board who are with us in sentiment, but are on the fence.  What we need to do is have a strong cohesive plan of action that says, "Look, if you join us, and we institute these measures, at a minimum, things will be signficantly better and on the right track."  And it is completely understandable why the whole of the population still hasn't joined us.  There's a corporatized media system trying to marginalize us and diminish the grounds on which our convictions stand.  So we need to reach out to people and say, we have legitimate cause, and we have a means to rectify the situation.  Because the people don't know that this is the case.

If you want to talk fair, I'm willing to talk fair.  The wealth elites should be completely stripped of their power, and the contracts that they've illegitimately obtained.  The populace should nationalize and reclaim the productive, material, and labor resources of the country.  The wealth elites have done thing better than ride us out into the desert and have us compete amongst ourselves for breadcrumbs and drops of water.  The abuse of the system that has taken place is atrocious and unfair.

But given all that, there can be no revolution without plan of what to put in the system's place.  Further, there can be no change without the gross majority of the populace getting onboard.  In order to get them on board, we need to have something that we can sell them that is both safe and promising.  That is why, in order to build the movement, I believe it is necessary to start, but not limit ourselves with a core list of common goals and demands we wish instuted.  And the demands we make must be such that they can occur, immediately, and irrevocably, if passed by law.  So let's get the population on board with a set of things we can all agree on, and then we can go for the stars once we got something accomplished.

Whether you want to overthrow the system or you choose to go the route of election and elected officials, you still need the majority of the populace onboard.

What I posit, is get everyone onboard, and get the power to oust elected officials unless they go the direction of the movement, which should be internally determined in a democratic matter.

Thoughts everyone?

To Ultrarad and PC

Submitted by voodoo on

Before I get to your comments I'm going to break a bad habit we dwellers of the internet have naturalized: comfort of the internet handle. It is easier for you and I to throw verbal shit at each other when we are behind our pseudo anonymity. It is harder to confront someone in person, so.

My name is Vu Nguyen, I'm 31yrs. old. I live in Orange County, Ca. If either of you feel like you want to step outside the comfort zone of the computer screen and talk to me face-to-face, I would be more than glad to do so.

The one thing I concede is that I was belligerent when I said "anyone with a solution is a liar" in the original post. It's a gross generalization.

Ultrarad, although you didn't call me names or my argument "horseshit", would you have honestly talked to your friends, classmates, coworkers, or even strangers on the street the way you had, at me? By the way, my handle is a convenient extension of my name people gave me, it does not carry any semantic weight whatsoever.

PC, would you have honestly called my words "horseshit" if I were sitting next to you and we are having a conversation?

Please be mindful of your comfortable web anonymity and not throw personal invectives all over the place.

Regarding your comments:

My original post is a provocation and a proposed tactic. It is not a declaration, nor it is a manifesto, nor is it a doctrine set in golden tablets. Furthermore, it is not a "strategy" -- a strategy presupposes that there is a plan. I don't have a plan and I'm skeptical of anyone with a grand plan for what should be done. My proposed tactic came out of my increased concern that the occupiers are slowly bowing to outside pressure brought on by both conservative and liberal media. If you keep tabs of the news you would know that they are incessantly demanding the occupiers have demands... "What do these people want?", "What are their demands?"

I would agree with either of you if you say the occupiers need to be working on what they want -- internally, for now -- including some of what Justin had proposed. However, working on what they want should mean what they desire not what drives them. What is driving the protesters is righteousness indignation, followed by the sense of urgency which is then codified as priorities. They feel the urgency to make things right. But why so urgent? We don't know what we want yet, so we should not make concrete plans. We should be asking more fundamental questions, What do we really want? Why? and more importantly Are we asking the right questions? What form of social organization do we want? If you think you have already answered these fundamental questions then you are much more confident than I am. With all that said, what the protesters had given the world, so far, is the valuable space to think, to dream and to ask honest questions of the system and of ourselves. Take advantage of this space and dream of true alternatives, dream big, dream what we desire -- we have the space for it. This is an encouragement if you've misread it any other way!

To: PC,

I'm not an activist, I have never been an activist, and I doubt I would make it as one. I'm a designer sitting comfortably here in the office writing this post. However, to dismiss my argument as "obscurantist horseshit" and to imply that I'm inexperience and unwise is rather premature, and even immature.

When you charge my argument with obscurantism, I would venture to say that you took a quick look and reacted to my verbose language, otherwise you would have taken the argument apart. You didn't even give me the courtesy of a thorough read. I would also venture to guess that you quickly dismissed my argument and me because what I said struck you as something you haven't heard before, something that deviates from the refrains that are playing in your head: it is an argument antithetical to what your convictions, and it scares you. It scares you because anything that lies outside of what you know and believe is dangerous to you set mind. Furthermore, when you charge me with obscurantism you presupposes the existence of transparent logic, that language is clear and honest. If you believe that then we do not have poetry, because poetry relies on the opacity of the sign, not its transparency. The people who believes in the transparency of language, more often than not, believes in the transparency of their own language and their own thought -- they have conviction in their righteous deeds which is predicated on the conviction of their thoughts. The rhetoric and action of all tyrants hitherto has been couched on the same logic. So please, do not mistake, for one second, your conviction for your being good -- good enough to dismiss someone's argument as "horseshit."

As far as your premature judgment that I'm inexperience and unwise, you are right! I'm not even inexperience with activism, I don't have any. But would that disqualify my argument? Would that disqualify me? Under what authority? Under your "experienced" life? What kind if life have you led that makes you the authority on life experience? On Activism? Activism is itself a brand you have purchased with your conviction. Have you ever lived under the reign of communism?  Have you ever had to fend for life and your hungry children's life against the authority of the government? My parents have -- every day for years, and I witnessed it all. Have you ever been homeless and jobless waking up in your car in ninety-degree weather without a shower for days and wonder "did I eat last night?" I have -- for months. How many books have you read that makes you so wise and me unwise? How many sages have you been disciple to that makes you the authority on wisdom? How many philosophers have you read that makes you so learned? Do I not have the rights to weigh in on our future? The next time you dismiss someone prematurely as inexperience and unwise make sure that they don't take revenge on you with a bagful of words propelled by their life's scars.

 Vu

Moving forward!

Submitted by Justin on

So how can we get to a core set of demands or suggested changes to get the majority of the populace in this country involved.  We don't need them out on the street persay, but when the crtiical moments come, and we need to run a referendum to peacefully boot those in power out of power, we need the majority of the people in this nation to back us.  And how can we get our viewpoints that we posit here integrated and considered by the movement as a whole?  Is there anyone reading our conversation?

Justin

My thoughts on moving forward

Submitted by wdkaye on

Hi Justin.  Thanks for starting this conversation.

I've come to realize that this movement really is defined by the General Assembly - we can write whatever hopes and desires we have for Occupy LA here on the internet, but unless those sentiments become audible at the GA then they don't really represent OLA.

There *is* a demands committee that is supposedly meeting, discussing, and formulating demands, and I like this, but these demands will not be seen as legitimate unless they are presented to the GA and people like what they hear.

I like where you're going with your train of thought - and I think the key part of our strategy must be constitutional amendment.  Amendments are usually devised and passed by our national Congress.  But if you've noticed, Congress has completely broken down and can't pass anything.  I believe they have been complicit in allowing the injustices that we are protesting against to come about, and that they are the root of our problem - Congress itself is what needs to be changed.

There is a second technique to creating a constitutional amendment, described in Article V of our constitution, that has never been used before.  If two-thirds of the state legislatures of the nation demand a constitutional convention, Congress is constitutionally obligated to do so.  This is how we can create policy change.  We need to communicate our message to Sacramento, and encourage the other Occupations of the nation to petition their state legislatures.

As far as what to demand, I think we can only expect to pass constitutional amendments on topics that have overwhelming popular support - 99% support.  Namely, the banks got bailed out, executives received bonuses, and meanwhile they haven't been held accountable and everyone else is fucked.  I personally like your ideas about cutting military budgets and supporting clean energy, but these aren't the central issues of OWS and probably are best pursued via other methods.

Re # 1, 2 and 7 from Justin's objectives/demands post

Submitted by sfine2 on

Considering #1 and 2, I'm copying here my post "One Small Problem" to another thread: 

RUSSELL SIMMONS COMES TO OLA AND PRESENTS A NEWLY PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT by Yvonne de la Vega, because it directly relates to this issue.

But first, a suggestion re #7 from Justin's post, which reads: "Cut the defense budget by 50%, removing the US' influence out of Afghanistan and Iraq, withdrawing completely." -- I would work on the wording and specificity of that, but in general: YES!!!  About time OLA focuses on the war economy, which is run by the 1%.  Awareness of that as a core part of the problem has been lacking, in that it is rarely mentioned even as an issue of the OWS movement.  If you scan the Declarations (top left link on this website home page) you will not find one direct reference to 'the wars or the war economy'.  The closest is a reference to colonialism at home and abroad, whereas many other broad general issues are broken down into more specific items included under the long list of facts detailing how corporations run our government.  Do not the corporations run our government's foreign policy, as well?  So, what I propose is an amendment to the OWS Declarations, hopefully to be adopted by the OLA GA.  (I know, this is a stressful time with the City pushing to evict, but if normal biz goes on, then why not squeeze this one in.)  If you agree, then perhaps Justin could take it to his committee and run it by them?  I’m suggesting this amendment for two reasons: 1) to address this missing core declaration in OWS list of Declarations, and 2) to lend support to #7 from the Objectives/Demands list Justin posted.

Amendment to Declarations:  “They determine foreign policy, including wars, despite the catastrophic failures and corruption their policies have produced and continue to produce at home and abroad, for the sake of maintaining and expanding the war economy which serves their interests."

The wording of this amendment is based on one of the facts in the OWS declarations list.  This one: “They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.”

The foreign policy “declaration” should be inserted above or below it.

Here is my response to #1 and #2 above, which address the issue of corp $$$ in politics.  Since writing this (last night), I would add that the solution may be to combine the best elements of the three amendments I discuss below.  (For the Russell Simmons amendment, check out Yvonne’s original posting.  It’s featured top of the website right now.)


ONE SMALL PROBLEM / Submitted by sfine2 on Tue, 11/22/2011 - 9:05pm

This addresses the problem of private financing of elections, and that is good.  But if "elections" is narrowly interpreted as a candidate's electoral campaign funding, then that leaves the door open to private financing of every other avenue of persuasion for or against a candidate during the election.  That can easily sway an election regardless of the candidate being limited exclusively to public funding of his or her campaign.  This is where the other side of the coin of the Citizens United decision comes into play, and must be addressed as well.  But people easily miss this point when discussing doing something about Citizens United.  It is a double-barrel threat to democracy so it must be countered with an amendment that addresses both issues.  For instance, if this amendment included language in effect overturning the Citizens United decision, and set limits on private funding of private entities in election campaigns (dream on), then it would be fine.  Maybe it could lift some of the language from the below amendment:

From Rep Deutch (D. Florida):

 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures."

This amendment is sweeping and targets Citizens United in its broader implications.  I could get excited about this amendment if it didn’t have one gigantic flaw: excluding only "for-profit corporations", which leaves a mega-loophole for the same corporations and mega-wealth individuals to do a quick little shuffle with non-profit or not-for-profit front groups, and your Aunt Mimi if she's up for a little money laundering.

As for Move To Amend, they have a petition for a "motion" to amend the constitution for you to sign.  But it reads more like an inspiring preamble to a proposed amendment without there being, in fact, an amendment.  It appears that is yet to be drafted.  (At least above you have two actual amendments to consider, er, actually, just one, the Deutch amendment, because the Simmons is waiting for a sponsor.)  If I'm wrong about Move To Amend’s offering, if that motion to amend IS the constitutional amendment, then where does it say below anything specific about excluding non-public funds from elections?

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

•                Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

•                Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.

•                Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

      But be happy.  This means the right amendment (covering both sides of the private money corrupting government issue) hasn't been drafted.  As soon as people focus on both sides of the issue, it will be.

Move To Amend  http://movetoamend.org/motion-to-amend

Deutch Amendment  http://teddeutch.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DEUTCH_036_xml.pdf

New amendments and legislation

Submitted by Justin on

Hey sfine2!

Thanks for contributing to my post.  I've just watched the suggested constituional amendment and it sounds great!  Get private capital in all forms out of elections.  But we also have to stop NGO's.

We're missing a few more things I feel.

1.  We need to return control of the US military to the people in this nation.  To often Presidents are going to war for the industrial military complex.  The decision to go to war needs to be placed back in the hands of the people.

2.  We need to bring sustainability and autonomy to this nation.  Our food get harvested here, then sent off to third world nations where exploited labor processes the food and sends it back to us.  There's a real problem in the system when real costs of labor are artificially modified via currency differentials and the low price of oil.  In reality, the cost of a worker in China and Thailand should be equivalent to the cost of a worker in the US, because the actual labor provided is equivalent.  But the issue is that an inflated US currency distorts this cost and ships labor outside of the country.  We need to change the system is such a way that government supports local production and does not reward outsourced labor, production, or goods and services.  In 2010, the exports of the United States was $1.28 trillion, while the imports into the country were $1.95 trillion.  That means the country was importing, or bleeding out, 52% more than it was exporting in 2010.  We need to put a stop to this.  Whether we tax imports and risk the consequence of our exports being taxed as well, or we adust the price of oil to accurately reflect reality, we need to have some sort of legislation to remedy this issue.  One source of our country's problems is that its trading partners do not have the same labor rights and health standards that this nation has.  Hence, countries such as Thailand and China are at a competitive advantage, separate from currency differentials.  We need to have legislation that gradually (as not to shock anyone's ecoomic systems) limits our trading with partners that don't carry the same worker's rights standards that our nation carries, at a minimum.

Can we please get some more voices to contribute to the discussion and at least let us know we're being heard out here?

Thanks,

Justin

Larceny, not greed, s/b OLA's focus

Submitted by HankQT on

Corporations confiscating America’s savings are the root cause of our current financial state.

I have worked the trenches. I am a retired computer financial systems analyst.

A decade of looting has impoverished the middle class to subsidize corporate goals: Lavish executive pay. legions of lobbyists, profit growth exceeding GDP growth, campaign funding as of 2010, M&A frenzy, etc. The illicit transfer of funds from the masses to a few created a huge wealth gap. With fewer solvent customers, commerce slowed and the market tanked. Retirement dreams have faded. Jobs outlook is bleak.Housing is kaput. Ad nauseam. This crime wave has brought us to the brink of ruin.

A democracy is being traitorously forged into a plutocracy.

Greed is not illegal but larceny is.

Alert the Administration, daily. Harangue your Congressmen. Enlighten your friends. 

If you incurred substantial losses since 2000 insist the FBI investigate your situation.

Impale or hang in effigy the SEC as a poor guardian / rogue cop / gang leader.

pjmaxx's picture

A good list of thirteen (13) demands

Submitted by pjmaxx on

A good list of thirteen (13) demands on Congress. Let’s work with the Occupy movements throughout the country to petition Congress for a redress on those 13 issues.


And how about petitioning the City of Los Angeles? Let's demand, among other things, an increase in resources for homeless individuals, especially in Skid Row which many of us traversed en route to support OLA in the final hours of its occupation of Solidarity Park, chanting "Housing for the Homeless." This is something the City can and should do.


And by that, I don't mean Mayor V. and the councilmembers can and should have joined in our chant, although that would have been nice. Innocent Of course, I was referring to the allocation of resources for homeless people who need them the most. Because their need is so great, it can, if done wisely, be viewed as a use of resources that is equally as great. This is only one demand, of course. But I believe it's a good start-- something that is very necessary and doable. And it builds on the eviction from Solidarity Park, recognizing that event not a setback but a stepping stone to major reform of U.S. society for economic justice.

Pages