Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Intense]

The problem is not only Corporate, Government Workers are Unionized, and that in itself lies a very big influence. Disallow Government Workers from Unionizing.

Absolutely not. Strange as this may seem to you, given the misconceptions the right seems to have about the left being in love with government, I don't trust government agencies, and those who work for them shouldn't have to trust them, either. Collective bargaining is an essential right for everyone who works for someone else. That's no less true when the someone else is the government.

Take away the public unions' right to contribute to political campaigns and any concern about corruption should disappear.

End Tenure. Open genuine competition in all fields. You want Fair Labor Laws, write them and support them. Think Impartiality. End the Monopolies, compensate Companies fairly for what they provide and maintain.

All right, but how are you going to get any of that through Congress -- setting aside whether or not I agree with you, which really is sort of beside the point here -- when Congress has its strings pulled by corporate donors who in many cases are the very ones consolidating the monopolies?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this is NOT a partisan problem. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.



This isn't just speech. It's bribery. In fact, more than that, it's extortion. The cost of campaigns nowadays means that anyone who hopes to get elected MUST take contributions from the big donors, and that means they MUST adhere to rules (mostly unwritten and underhanded) about what can and cannot be proposed.

Why do you think the big Wall Street banks and financial institutions gave so much to Barack Obama, both in 2008 and now? Because they like him better than the Republican alternative? No, it's because realistically they know he might win, and they want to have a handle on him, have him be beholden to them and dance to their tunes. It works, too. He does. By giving to both him and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be), they can determine what both candidates are allowed to advocate and, in office, to do.

We have laws against bribery of the old-fashioned kind (where the politician pockets the cash and spends it on himself, to improve his lifestyle) precisely because it corrupts public officials to the service of private, selfish interests instead of the public good. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and third-party campaign spending, although not illegal because the politician doesn't pocket the money and spend it on his own lifestyle, is just as corrupting and just as bad. And it's going on wholesale.



They are, but they're corrupted BY private interests. If we get the big money out of politics, the parties will cease to be corrupt. They'll respond to the voters instead of the donors, because the voters will BE the donors.



Suppose you are a Congresscritter and your reelection is coming up next year, as it is for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Suppose that you know the voters in your district want, oh, let's say an end to ethanol subsidies. But agribusiness funds a lot of your campaign expenses and their lobbyists insist you keep the ethanol subsidies flowing. You cannot offer to end the subsidies because if you did, you would lose that money and not be able to campaign effectively. Neither can your opponent, for the same reason (the interests that want the subsidies make sure of that). So ending the subsidies is vetoed. It's off the table and off the ballot. The voters can't vote for it, because neither candidate dares advocate it.

That's how it works.



Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you questioning Marbury v. Madison? Judicial review? That's what it sounds like. But the court does have that power. It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it follows logically from what is explicitly stated, namely that the Supreme Court has "the judicial power," which means the power to try cases under the law as to both facts and law. As such, the court can say, "This law violates the Constitution. Therefore, we rule that this case, which was tried by the lower court on the basis of this law, is overturned (or upheld, as appropriate). Moreover, we declare that we will rule similarly on any more cases under this law that come before us." "We declare the law unconstitutional" is just shorthand for that. Since the court obviously does have the power to try cases, it has the power of judicial review automatically.

True, Hamilton was a Schemer from the start, and misled, Still, Madison Style Federalism, should we ever try it, keep the Federal Government so much more accountable and in check. The Conglomerates could never have achieved their current state, without the cooperation of the Federal Government.

Two answer to this. One, removing the corrupt influence by removing the government's power to serve it won't work, for the simple reason that the influence will demand that the government resume that power immediately. Two, a modern industrial economy has to include a lot of government involvement or it breaks down. Madison governed a country that was still largely pre-industrial. Even so, after the War of 1812 he moderated a lot of his earlier opinions and accepted the re-authorization of the Bank of the United States, recognizing that turning our backs on modernity could result in an ass-kicking. (Having received one under his presidency.)

Progressive Government by It's Nature, created, supported, Partner shipped, and ran cover for the Conglomerates, and discouraged Small Enterprise. Progressivism is in part about Centralized National reach. Progressivism is about Control.

No. You are attributing to progressivism, or modern liberalism, characteristics that actually belong to modern capital-friendly conservatism. Encouragement of conglomerates and discouragement of small enterprise are aspects of government involvement in the economy pushed by politicians that would today call conservative, not liberal. Progressives push instead aspects of government control that would fight against monopoly and protect the rights of workers and (more recently) the environment. Both accept the necessity of government involvement in the economy, but for different ends.

Absolutely not. Strange as this may seem to you, given the misconceptions the right seems to have about the left being in love with government, I don't trust government agencies, and those who work for them shouldn't have to trust them, either. Collective bargaining is an essential right for everyone who works for someone else. That's no less true when the someone else is the government.

Take away the public unions' right to contribute to political campaigns and any concern about corruption should disappear.

Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control. You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable. Consider Union's Roll in the Corruption of Politics, they are on borrowed time. The solution they lay claim to, can just as easily be accomplished through Just Labor Laws. Unionism, especially Government Workers, have become the New Middle Class, on Someone Else's dime. We are tired of the abuse. Your voice is your vote, in part, just like the rest of us. You want to remove Union's from the Political Spectrum? That may be a compromise.

All right, but how are you going to get any of that through Congress -- setting aside whether or not I agree with you, which really is sort of beside the point here -- when Congress has its strings pulled by corporate donors who in many cases are the very ones consolidating the monopolies?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this is NOT a partisan problem. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.

There should be no Privileged Class concerning Employment, where People Can't be fired short of being convicted of Robbing a 7/11 or a Bank at gun point. That goes for Unions too. If you cannot do a Job competently, there is no reason for others to have to pay you for Inferior work.

This isn't just speech. It's bribery. In fact, more than that, it's extortion. The cost of campaigns nowadays means that anyone who hopes to get elected MUST take contributions from the big donors, and that means they MUST adhere to rules (mostly unwritten and underhanded) about what can and cannot be proposed.

Why do you think the big Wall Street banks and financial institutions gave so much to Barack Obama, both in 2008 and now? Because they like him better than the Republican alternative? No, it's because realistically they know he might win, and they want to have a handle on him, have him be beholden to them and dance to their tunes. It works, too. He does. By giving to both him and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be), they can determine what both candidates are allowed to advocate and, in office, to do.

We have laws against bribery of the old-fashioned kind (where the politician pockets the cash and spends it on himself, to improve his lifestyle) precisely because it corrupts public officials to the service of private, selfish interests instead of the public good. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and third-party campaign spending, although not illegal because the politician doesn't pocket the money and spend it on his own lifestyle, is just as corrupting and just as bad. And it's going on wholesale.



They are, but they're corrupted BY private interests. If we get the big money out of politics, the parties will cease to be corrupt. They'll respond to the voters instead of the donors, because the voters will BE the donors.



Suppose you are a Congresscritter and your reelection is coming up next year, as it is for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Suppose that you know the voters in your district want, oh, let's say an end to ethanol subsidies. But agribusiness funds a lot of your campaign expenses and their lobbyists insist you keep the ethanol subsidies flowing. You cannot offer to end the subsidies because if you did, you would lose that money and not be able to campaign effectively. Neither can your opponent, for the same reason (the interests that want the subsidies make sure of that). So ending the subsidies is vetoed. It's off the table and off the ballot. The voters can't vote for it, because neither candidate dares advocate it.

That's how it works.



Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you questioning Marbury v. Madison? Judicial review? That's what it sounds like. But the court does have that power. It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it follows logically from what is explicitly stated, namely that the Supreme Court has "the judicial power," which means the power to try cases under the law as to both facts and law. As such, the court can say, "This law violates the Constitution. Therefore, we rule that this case, which was tried by the lower court on the basis of this law, is overturned (or upheld, as appropriate). Moreover, we declare that we will rule similarly on any more cases under this law that come before us." "We declare the law unconstitutional" is just shorthand for that. Since the court obviously does have the power to try cases, it has the power of judicial review automatically.

We need Transparency and Full Disclosure on Political Donations. On Projects, Proposed Planning, we need competitive Bidding and Ratings on Competence and Ability. Watch Dogs. Limits on Contributions? Sure. That is for Congress and the States to decide. Representatives Affiliations or Interests with Major Companies, Full Disclosure.

Judicial Review in Constitutional Context is discerning Meaning and Intent of the Constitution, connecting the dots that are there , not inventing dots out of ones Imagination and making false claims and connections. It is not the Role of the Court to Construct from Fantasy. Too many 5-4 splits over the Years to suggest Nobility or Wisdom. Precedent is not a Free Pass to declare same results for similar cases unless Reason Dictates, like when the Parameters are alike. To use Precedent, saying your hands are tied because of similarity or coincidence, Knowing the Decision is Unjust, is a miscarriage of Justice at the Highest Level. The End Cannot serve Injustice and be Just. Try Harder. There is the Weight of the Matter, and Context. We signed on for 3 Equal Branches of Government, not a Majority of 9 Unelected Jurors, to decide issues destined for the Legislative or Executive Branches. There have been enough Supreme Court Decisions Overturned, to prove Fallibility. There have been enough 5-4 Split Decisions.

What we need is a Congress that can learn to form consistent, clear, and concise Legislation.

Two answer to this. One, removing the corrupt influence by removing the government's power to serve it won't work, for the simple reason that the influence will demand that the government resume that power immediately. Two, a modern industrial economy has to include a lot of government involvement or it breaks down. Madison governed a country that was still largely pre-industrial. Even so, after the War of 1812 he moderated a lot of his earlier opinions and accepted the re-authorization of the Bank of the United States, recognizing that turning our backs on modernity could result in an ass-kicking. (Having received one under his presidency.)

By limiting the Role of Government, and applying the Checks and Balances to keep it on track, we keep it more honest and accountable, that was the point from conception. Government by the consent of the Governed. We should not have to be justifying that, sorry. Principle, has nothing to do with Modernization. The War of 1812 was fought, in part, over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that, nor the Kentucky Resolution. We Construct through Amendment. It isn't Rocket Science. You have a plan, lay it out, build up 2/3 Support and we will here it on the Floor. 3/$ Approval, is a nice high bar to remove all doubt.

The National Bank could also have been easily founded on more Federalist Principles.

You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.

 

[Intense]

By KATE ZERNIKE

The New York Times

At a Republican candidate forum last week outside Fort Worth, Texas, a tea-party activist turned Senate candidate proclaimed the Occupy Wall Street protesters "unemployed, uneducated and uninformed." To which the conservative radio host moderating the panel added, mirthfully, "This is the first occupation many of these people have seen in years."

More and more commentators — and President Obama — liken the "Occupy" forces to the tea-party movement. But as they have, conservatives and tea-party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968.

It is a culture war, young versus old, left versus right, communal food tables versus "Don't Tread on Me" flags.

The two movements do share key traits. They emerged out of nowhere but quickly became potent political forces, driven by anxiety about the economy, a belief that big institutions favor the reckless over the hardworking, grievances that are inchoate and even contradictory, and an insistence they are "leaderless."

"End the Fed" signs — and even some of those yellow Gadsden flags — have found a place at tea-party and Occupy Wall Street protests alike.

Nation & World | Tea party refutes comparison to Occupy forces | Seattle Times Newspaper

Where We differ, is the Tea Party does not advocate Revolt, Insurrection, Overthrowing the Government, or the Disillusion of the United States.

 

[Big Fitz]

Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's book The Almanac of American History beginning in the ninth century. Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk than a scholarly study.

Well THANK you, Cliff Klavin! Of course it's good to note the viewpoint of the author by what he was involved with. Might note a small bias perchance on things? I've seen a few historical revisionists in my day and had them as professors. They are not content to present the facts as they are, but rather prefer to push their idea of what they want them to mean.

Case in point on why I'm dubious of his skills as a historian.

Schlesinger's name at birth was Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; his mother was Elizabeth Bancroft and the family has long assumed (without hard evidence) that there is a blood connection to America's first great historian George Bancroft. The ancestries of George [13] and Arthur [14] imply they were both third and fourth cousins, five times removed. Since his mid-teens, he had instead used the signature Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (Schlesinger 2000, pp. 6–7 and 57)
He had five children, four from his first marriage to author Marian Cannon and a son and stepson from his second, to Alexandra Emmet. His son Stephen Schlesinger is a social scientist, former director of the World Policy Institute at The New School University in New York City and contributor to the Huffington Post. His third son Robert Schlesinger and stepson Peter Allan also write blogs on Huffington Post, as did Arthur Schlesinger himself.
As a prominent Democrat and historian, Schlesinger maintained a very active social life. His wide circle of friends and associates included politicians, actors, writers and artists spanning several decades. Among his friends and associates were President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Edward M. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John Kenneth Galbraith, Averell and Pamela Harriman, Steve and Jean Kennedy Smith, Ethel Kennedy, Ted Sorensen, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Kissinger, Marietta Peabody Tree, Ben Bradlee, Joseph Alsop, Evangeline Bruce, William vanden Heuvel, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer, Philip and Katherine Graham, Leonard Bernstein, Walter Lippmann, President Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Lauren Bacall, Marlene Dietrich, George McGovern, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Jack Valenti, Bill Moyers, Richard Goodwin, Al Gore, President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Many, a rogues gallery of people who wrecked this nation.

As long as you are driving past 99% demonstrations twice a day anyway, why not park and do a little politicking? Go directly to the source, and ask what is going on.

The logistics don't allow it. Instead, I let their signs and screaming do it for them. If they're shouting these inanities, perhaps they mean what they say? Besides, do I really want to get within smell range of them? Or are they just teasing? Kidding? Not quite sure what they're screaming?

Is that air you think you're breathing?

[bemused]...hmm.[/bemused]

What have you got to lose, except perhaps your incorrect assessment of the OWS.

In other words, "Who're you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

You sure your education stuck, or did you spray the inside of your skull with Pam?

I always open my windows, wave my arm and honk my horn when I drive past to encourage them.

Only things I want to encourage them to do is:

1. take a bath
2. get a job and do something for a living instead of bitching and screaming 'gimme'
3. stop breeding and polluting our gene pool
4. stop voting and quit fucking up our country with their stupidity

I am sorry that the economic victims of Wall Street excesses clutters your view of your city.

Victims???? VICTIMS??? I didn't realize parasites were 'Victims' of the dog they're trying to suck dry. I've seen more authoritative 4 year olds than this lot. The only power they have is the threat of violence to achieve their cause, against the cowardice of politicians and corporate boards. I will lay dollars to donuts that 80% of those people there have never invested a dime a day in their lives.

Any chance you might be missing a point here?

Nope. I know you are.

 

[Big Fitz]

Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's book The Almanac of American History beginning in the ninth century. Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk than a scholarly study.

Well THANK you, Cliff Klavin! Of course it's good to note the viewpoint of the author by what he was involved with. Might note a small bias perchance on things? I've seen a few historical revisionists in my day and had them as professors. They are not content to present the facts as they are, but rather prefer to push their idea of what they want them to mean.

Case in point on why I'm dubious of his skills as a historian.

Schlesinger's name at birth was Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; his mother was Elizabeth Bancroft and the family has long assumed (without hard evidence) that there is a blood connection to America's first great historian George Bancroft. The ancestries of George [13] and Arthur [14] imply they were both third and fourth cousins, five times removed. Since his mid-teens, he had instead used the signature Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (Schlesinger 2000, pp. 6–7 and 57)
He had five children, four from his first marriage to author Marian Cannon and a son and stepson from his second, to Alexandra Emmet. His son Stephen Schlesinger is a social scientist, former director of the World Policy Institute at The New School University in New York City and contributor to the Huffington Post. His third son Robert Schlesinger and stepson Peter Allan also write blogs on Huffington Post, as did Arthur Schlesinger himself.
As a prominent Democrat and historian, Schlesinger maintained a very active social life. His wide circle of friends and associates included politicians, actors, writers and artists spanning several decades. Among his friends and associates were President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Edward M. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John Kenneth Galbraith, Averell and Pamela Harriman, Steve and Jean Kennedy Smith, Ethel Kennedy, Ted Sorensen, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Kissinger, Marietta Peabody Tree, Ben Bradlee, Joseph Alsop, Evangeline Bruce, William vanden Heuvel, Kurt Vonnegut, Norman Mailer, Philip and Katherine Graham, Leonard Bernstein, Walter Lippmann, President Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Lauren Bacall, Marlene Dietrich, George McGovern, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Jack Valenti, Bill Moyers, Richard Goodwin, Al Gore, President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Many, a rogues gallery of people who wrecked this nation.

As long as you are driving past 99% demonstrations twice a day anyway, why not park and do a little politicking? Go directly to the source, and ask what is going on.

The logistics don't allow it. Instead, I let their signs and screaming do it for them. If they're shouting these inanities, perhaps they mean what they say? Besides, do I really want to get within smell range of them? Or are they just teasing? Kidding? Not quite sure what they're screaming?

Is that air you think you're breathing?

[bemused]...hmm.[/bemused]

What have you got to lose, except perhaps your incorrect assessment of the OWS.

In other words, "Who're you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

You sure your education stuck, or did you spray the inside of your skull with Pam?

I always open my windows, wave my arm and honk my horn when I drive past to encourage them.

Only things I want to encourage them to do is:

1. take a bath
2. get a job and do something for a living instead of bitching and screaming 'gimme'
3. stop breeding and polluting our gene pool
4. stop voting and quit fucking up our country with their stupidity

I am sorry that the economic victims of Wall Street excesses clutters your view of your city.

Victims???? VICTIMS??? I didn't realize parasites were 'Victims' of the dog they're trying to suck dry. I've seen more authoritative 4 year olds than this lot. The only power they have is the threat of violence to achieve their cause, against the cowardice of politicians and corporate boards. I will lay dollars to donuts that 80% of those people there have never invested a dime a day in their lives.

Any chance you might be missing a point here?

Nope. I know you are.

 

[chanel]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

 

[editec]

Interested in following this event in real time?

http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

 

[EriktheRed]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

"colleges"?

 

[Intense]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

Yep, one of the biggest perpetuated scams in History.

 

[Samson]

I've read a little from the postings of the OWS crowd to add to my initial conclusion that they not only want jobs (or if they have jobs they want more money), but they have also begun to rewrite history to support their fantacy. You may have seen some of it posted here:

'Post WWII USA was a golden era of cooperation between employer and employee because employers understood that employees represented more than a cost of doing business. It was a symbiotic relationship, in which companies would employ and pay workers MORE than they might be worth in terms of productivity. In return, employees would buy goods and services from the company.

This ended during the 1980's, when investors began to control employers, and employees became just another cost to be cut in return for higher ROI. This is how the actual value of US corporations began their decline: Instead of reducing costs, they actually reduced the consuming power of the population upon which they had relied for sales.

The Goal of OWS is to reverse the predominance of investor interests among public corporations, and return to the good old days when they hired people out of the goodness of their hearts; concern for the little guy.'



While this fairy tale sounds wonderful, there's no more evidence to support the theory that employers ever, before, during, or after WWII employed people because they thought they would do any more than produce a profit for the company. OWS will oftem sight Henry Ford as an example to contradict this, claiming he offered higher wages so his employees could afford a Model-A.

Sorry, um NO.

Like all employers he offered higher wages to attract better workers, so they could produce more goods and higher profits

 

[Intense]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

You keep insinuating that The Government Serves Big Business, Yet Government, not Business has the force of Law behind It. That includes the Cops, the Courts, the Prisons. You are missing an integral part of the equation. You act like Government has no control over It's direction. That is not true.

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

"colleges"?

There are corporate colleges on the scene already.
Kaplan comes to mind.

Even State Universities rely on Wall Street to invest their endowments wisely.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.

 

[Samson]

.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.

I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?

 

[Dragon]

Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control.

Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.

You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable.

To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.

Consider Union's Roll in the Corruption of Politics, they are on borrowed time. The solution they lay claim to, can just as easily be accomplished through Just Labor Laws. Unionism, especially Government Workers, have become the New Middle Class, on Someone Else's dime. We are tired of the abuse. Your voice is your vote, in part, just like the rest of us. You want to remove Union's from the Political Spectrum? That may be a compromise.

I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.

I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.

We need Transparency and Full Disclosure on Political Donations. On Projects, Proposed Planning, we need competitive Bidding and Ratings on Competence and Ability. Watch Dogs. Limits on Contributions? Sure. That is for Congress and the States to decide. Representatives Affiliations or Interests with Major Companies, Full Disclosure.

The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in Citizens United tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.

Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.

By limiting the Role of Government, and applying the Checks and Balances to keep it on track, we keep it more honest and accountable, that was the point from conception. Government by the consent of the Governed.

I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.

The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the federal government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.

As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.

Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?

Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.

The War of 1812 was fought, in part, over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that

My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.

What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.

You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.

Very true. Especially in a time like this, it's necessary to think outside the box.

 

[Samson]

I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.

Is there any evidence of Union support for this?

 

[editec]

I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.

Is there any evidence of Union support for this?

Some.

Unions are now flocking sto support the OWS demonstrations.

As a significant complaint of the OWS movement is the fact that corporations have personhood, if the OWS movement got their way unions would not be able to donate to poltical campaigns and neither could for profit corporations.

.

 

[Samson]

I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.

Is there any evidence of Union support for this?

Some.

Unions are now flocking sto support the OWS demonstrations.

As a significant complaint of the OWS movement is the fact that corporations have personhood, if the OWS movement got their way unions would not be able to donate to poltical campaigns and neither could for profit corporations.

.

Has ANY union said they would support a rule preventing them from donating to poiltical campaigns?

Which one?

 

[georgephillip]

Exactly. College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises. They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly" chanting "Education is a right. It's not just for the rich and white". He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white." And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities. In fact, it's the law.

The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.

You keep insinuating that The Government Serves Big Business, Yet Government, not Business has the force of Law behind It. That includes the Cops, the Courts, the Prisons. You are missing an integral part of the equation. You act like Government has no control over It's direction. That is not true.

Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.

 

[Samson]

Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.

Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"




huh?

Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?

 

[georgephillip]

.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.

I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?

They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.

I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.