Occupy Wall Street Movement

[tedteague]

lol...allrighty then...you go right on thinking its not a science if you want while the people who know it is use what they know to work the system.

Numbers don't lie. Cliometrics and it's uses in Political Science are well known factors that involve a lot of in depth statistical analysis.

If money wasn't a factor Romney wouldn't be pulling back ahead of Newt in the primaries right now.

On another note :

There is a lot of overlap in things the Tea Party and the Occupy movements want and I think they would be better served by combining their independent efforts and dropping or excluding the two primary parties from participation....haven't we seen this before with the Reform and Whig parties back in the day?

How can you establish an empirical, causal connection between campaign contributions and candidate electability. One could say that Huntsman receives no money because he is not popular, OR that he is not popular because he receives no money from PACs and special interest groups. This is my problem with the social sciences AS A WHOLE. the only two I can tolerate are econometrics (not micro or macro) and Psychology. The others don't seem to establlish much of a conclusion. And econ is rapdily losing any of the meager credibility it had before

[tedteague]

1) no im not
the tea party isnt one united group, and there's quite a bit of differing opinions from within it. Half of the tea party is neocon and the other half is staunchly libertarian, and the two factions think one another are nutjobs. (for example the tea party began as a libertarian/anarchist movement, and ended up wanting palin to run for office)
and once again, if you're implying that voters know nothing about the issue (which you seem to be if equivocating politicians can sidestep issues so well they never say anything meaningful) or that voters don;t remember simple things like breaking promises (obama said hed close gitmo), then you assume the average voter is uninformed.
either way, there is no conclusion to be reached, and even though i question the words relevance in this sense, it sounds cool, so i wil also say no catharsis will be achieved
happy holidays

[Hamishlacastle]

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

[js207]

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS THE SIMPLE SOLUTION.if the banks have the technology to protect my identity the government should be able to duplicate this. What I propose is simply that every citizen can vote on all government
business from their home computer or a library one. They would have a secure ID that only they can use. the elected
representatives would be expected to inform us on issues. we can vote on all government legislation thro DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Also there would be a summary page of upcoming business of the day which we can choose which we prefer to vote on.

I'm not sure about voting directly on every issue, but we could certainly do with a lot more direct democracy - in particular, something like California and Switzerland's initiative process: get enough voters to endorse a question, it gets put directly to the electorate in a referendum, the results of which will be binding on the government. In the same way the threat of a Presidential veto can be enough to influence legislative actions, just having the option of overruling the legislature if it gets out of line would be a positive influence.

[Thorne]

The problem with a direct democracy is that you run the risk of a majority group legislating minority groups out of the system. Civil rights for African Americans probably would not have been able to get past a direct democracy. It took legislators doing what was RIGHT rather than what their constituents may have wanted. You would run into the same thing with gay rights, religious minorities, almost any group with insufficient votes to sway the majority's minds.

[js207]

The problem with a direct democracy is that you run the risk of a majority group legislating minority groups out of the system. Civil rights for African Americans probably would not have been able to get past a direct democracy. It took legislators doing what was RIGHT rather than what their constituents may have wanted. You would run into the same thing with gay rights, religious minorities, almost any group with insufficient votes to sway the majority's minds.

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality? Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right. If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is? Yes, there's a risk of a "lynch mob" in individual cases, which is why there are bans on bills of attainder (politicians are just as prone to that kneejerk reaction as the public, if not more so) - but on a policy level, I'm not at all convinced politicians are any better or more trustworthy than the electorate as a whole - and, of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

[Thorne]

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality?

I didn't say I opposed democracy, only a direct democracy, with every citizen voting on every aspect of law. To be frank, most people, no matter how well educated, do not really understand law. Most think that it only applies to other people, not to them, and that what's good for them must be good for everyone. At least in a democratic republic, which is what the US is supposed to be, the people elect those who are, theoretically, well versed in law and rely on them to do what is right. Sadly, though, that ideal has been corrupted by mass media, among other things. We no longer elect the most qualified, but more often the most photogenic, or the most outspoken. And yes, sad to say that, given the situation as it was in the 50's and 60's, most Americans would probably have voted against the Civil Rights Act. After all, it didn't affect them, only those OTHERS!

Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right.

How is preventing people from limiting or eliminating the rights of a whole group of people morally right? How is giving equal rights to gays any different than giving equal rights to blacks, or to Muslims, or to Catholics, or to anyone else you choose to name? Remember, the majority is not always right.

If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is?

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

[js207]

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

Not frightened people - the populace as a whole, and yes, that is actually pretty much the legal situation, with slight regional variations: if something would be perceived as a significant threat by normal people then the use of (deadly) force is legal. Before you hold up politicians as solving that problem, I should probably remind you Congress has done almost precisely that on multiple occasions in the past - and only admitted to the Census Bureau's rôle in the process in 2007.

No doubt a lot of voters would have voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1963, given the chance, just as a lot of politicians did each time - but considering that the facts that they did elect the President who pushed it, that the House Rules Committee blocked the bill until after JFK's assassination gave LBJ political leverage to pressure them, then had to use backdoor procedural trickery to squeeze it through the Senate with "only" two months of filibusters, after Congress had already rejected the core Title III proposal 3 and 6 years previously, can you really tell me you're sure the same electorate which voted JFK into office would have taken much longer than those six years to approve his proposal?

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

No - because corrupt politicians are screwing over the general population for personal benefit. For the population to screw itself over for its own benefit is a contradictory. They could of course reverse the process, with the broader electorate screwing a smaller subset, but you'll have a hard job convincing those who pay most of the taxes and anyone in an unpopular industry (tobacco, alcohol, fast food, insurance, energy) that isn't what we have right now. When you promise financial benefits to most of the electorate ... well, that's how both the current and previous occupants of the White House got there, and I don't recall anyone calling that corruption yet.

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

Do you really think politicians are significantly better than that? How many of them have even bothered to read, let alone fully understand, the laws they vote on? Remember ObamaCare, with Pelosi's line "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it"? Obama's speech earlier this year, exhorting Congress to pass a bill that hadn't even been written yet?

[Thorne]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

Personally, I think the world would be better off if we didn't need governments. But given human nature I know that's a pipe dream. But rule by mob isn't much better than anarchy.

[js207]

I'm not claiming that the system we have is a whole lot better, believe me. But if you had a system where 55% of the people could make it illegal to be a member of the other 45%, would that be any better? What you're saying is that a voting majority could theoretically pass a law to put an unjustly hated minority into concentration camps, or extermination camps, and it would be justified! Sorry, I don't think so!

No, I was just pointing out that your hypothetical situation has already happened on multiple occasions (only with smaller minorities than 45%) with the current indirect democracy, making it a fatally flawed argument against switching to a more direct form. Yes, in theory it might well to share this flaw with the current system ... so what? That doesn't make it any worse.

[Thorne]

That doesn't make it any worse.

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

[js207]

So maybe the answer is to find a way to make things better for everyone. Like, say, getting rid of career politicians?

Although, I suppose that wouldn't be better for the career politicians, would it?

It would be better for everyone else, though - which is generally what we should aim for. Better that than the status quo, where they arrange things for their own benefit at our expense - ObamaCare exemption, generous salaries and other benefits of the job...

Term limits would be a big help I think - or actually, a slight modification of the Russian term limit on Presidents: require everyone running for office to be out of public office for the preceding term. No incumbents, they never get too comfortable living on the public purse - so every Senator would have spent at least six of the last twelve years living as a regular member of the public, dealing with the IRS, TSA and all the other fun things just like everyone else.

That said, I haven't seen any ways direct democracy would be any worse: it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

[Thorne]

it might in theory be as bad in some respects, but not any worse, and of course on the plus side it is much more accountable and responsive, so why not go in that direction?

Just a thought, here. I've never watched those "reality" programs, where people call or text to vote on their choices, but haven't there been some spectacular fails from some of those? Cases where an obviously better performer was tossed because the public voted for the flashier, but less talented, contender?

The other thing to consider is time. How many people would really want to spend the time studying all of the nuances of a particular issue before voting on it? How many would even bother?

[denuseri]

That still doesn't mean we couldn't have directed voting on different issues and if its something important we can always make it require a 2/3 majority or a complete consensus.

I say cut the corporate owned politicians out of as much as possible!

[StrictMasterD]

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

[js207]

Simply put The TEA Party is for the Religious Right, The Occupy is for the Liberal Left

The Tea Party's largely fiscal rather than social conservatives, hence their use of the eponymous original Boston tax protests. The OWS crowd don't seem to have as coherent a position, but much of the complaining I've seen so far was about the colossal bailout/stimulus payouts - which would actually mean common ground with the Tea Party on issues, if not party lines. Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...

[Thorne]

Another flaw of representative democracy as opposed to direct...

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

[denuseri]

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

According to Political Science it happens in all forms of government...even small and primitive tribal ones.

The real question is how to make a system that takes all the greed and other bad factors out of play or minimizes them.

Something the framer's of our Constitution knew very well and were very concerned about making allowances for...when you read their personal musing during the process it becomes very apparent that even the most optimistic of them was mired in a very healthy dose of pessimism concerning the nature of their fellows and the effects holding power had upon the human psyche. They knew (as explained in the history of Political Science) that all governments have a tendency; no matter how well intentioned, to eventually move in directions that acquire and secure more and more power for the rulers at the expense of the ruled. Which is why Madison was so big on modeling us on the Romans...His hope was that by adopting what was useful from the worlds longest lasting Republic we would have time to figure this out and change as necessary (hence the elastic clause of the Constitution).

Adding a direct voting element is already in play in a lot of states on different issues and in the entertainment industry.

The main issue at play in the States is usually the item being voted on is an amendment of some kind and worded in such a fashion that only a lawyer can tell you in laymen s terms what happens if its passed or not.

[js207]

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

It isn't exclusive to representative democracies, but worst there - when you're voting on specific issues it will be greatly diminished. Far more people would vote for a candidate they disagree with on an issue because of his party association than would vote directly against their own beliefs because some party platform or figure said so.

[Punish_her]

holy shit was i drunk last night

[Thorne]

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

just because someone claimed land as his property first, that doesn't give him right to hog it or ask me to pay.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

And that seems to be the crux of Omega22's complaints: Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. And it also seems to be the problem of the OWS movement, too. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Until the poor have the money, and then they'll complain about having to pay the taxes.

soon they will identify who is parasite sucking their blood and will try to do something.

The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!

[Omega22]

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.

You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well, but you will notice that you have no place to live anymore, because they doesn't need your hard work, they only need your land.

The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!

Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?
I guess it is not these poor uneducated people.
And I think you know what happens to government that refuse to obey, they all end like Qaddafi and Saddam.

[Thorne]

You miss my point.

Probably because I haven't been able to see one.

I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor.

Are you kidding? The USSR was one of the worst polluters in the history of the planet!

Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.

Then maybe we need to start looking OFF of the Earth.

we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

But it's the lazy bums who are increasing the population! The workers know enough to limit the number of children, generally. It's the uneducated, unemployed, lazy bums who have nothing to do but screw all day that are bringing more and more kids into the world for the workers to feed.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii.

I haven't been on a plane in more than 10 years, and almost all of my plane trips were work related, earning those privileges which you want for nothing.

You are burning what belongs to everyone.

I am burning what I've paid for with my hard work! Or aren't I part of "everyone"? If I decide NOT to use gasoline so that you can have more, what are you going to do with it? Give it away to someone less fortunate than yourself? Sooner or later, someone is going to burn it! And if I can pay for it, than I say I should be the one to do it.

If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

And just how am I preventing you from getting your share? Oh, that's right! You deserve it because you were born! Well, do like the oil companies did! Go out and find the oil, and drill for it, and transport it to your refinery, and turn it into gasoline! What? You don't have a refinery? Well, then you'll have to build one. Or maybe you can rent one from your neighbor. He'll probably do it for a share of "your" oil. And don't forget to give him HIS share, too. Even though he hasn't gone and dug it up himself.

Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?

At one time it was the USSR. I'm sure the Chinese are still supporting North Korea, too.

[IAN 2411]

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

What a surprise, I asked this same question of someone the other day and they accused me of living off their taxes because I was a pensioner. As soon as I said one of my pensions was an Army war disability pension, I was accused of defrauding the government because I could still [would you believe] walk.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter.

It is in that statement that you have hit the nail on the head. In one word it’s, “Jealousy.” Most of the people complaining have not yet got to retirement age, but they want the perks that the secure not wealthy pensioners get without paying into the pot. As far as I am concerned they can sit outside St Pauls until their balls drop off from the cold weather that is about to hit them. I would think that most of them are on benefits anyway, and as they are not seeking employment they should lose that.

Be well IAN 2411

[IAN 2411]

You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

It was such a good system that they pushed walls over to get out of it. What you’re saying is that you don’t want to work, and everyone should do the same so that you don’t feel guilty.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

By those remarks, so too is every bus, taxi, lorry driver. Military aircraft, ship and vehicle that looks after your ass. They are all burning your air without thinking of you. Is it because you don’t own anything of value you feel that no one else should either. There is nothing stopping you earning money and flying anywhere.

So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well.

I find that hard to believe, they might take a look at the west see the state it’s in, give you a couple of hundred £/$ to keep it and piss home.

Be well IAN 2411