Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And I see we are getting closer to getting some goals...
I found this on occupywallst.org just now.... - Widespread deregulation that has eliminated common sense regulations that have insured long term prosperity and protection from predatory business practices
- A Tax code that is cumbersome and rife with loopholes and language that favors an economic minority at the expense of the majority of wage earners
- A Supreme Court decision that has put into place the unprecedented concept of extending first amendment protections to political donations
- Jeopardizing the future of social security through investiture and privatization schemes
- By reducing funding to our education system our future generations are provided a lesser education that previous generations received because of increased class size and reduced resources
- Because of decreasing funding individuals are saddled with higher student loan debt
- A political system where even the most perfunctory tasks of government are partisan battles
I can get behind all of this. But they need to clean it up, slim it down. Instead of calling this "Occupy Wall Street" they need to call this "The Workers Right Movement". |
"Workers Right Movement" is your idea? That sounds kinda socialist to me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Then instead of bitching about Wall Street they need to target the root of the problem - Which isn't Wall Street at all, it's Washington.
|
I believe that the OWS protests are in part a reaction to the control that Wall Street exerts over the politicians in DC, and that the protesters are targeting both Wall Street and the RepubliCrats, whom are the simply the agents (proxies) of the Plutocrats that are manipulating the puppet strings.
Quote:
Plutocracy: The wealthy minority exerts influence over the political arena via many methods. Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporations or advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system, in which major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments.
While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, politicians have a personal interest in serving the needs of their campaign contributors: if they fail to do so, those contributors will likely give their money to candidates who do support their interests in the future.
Unless a quid pro quo agreement exists, it is generally legal for politicians to advocate policies favorable to their contributors, or grant appointed government positions to them. In some instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected officials, and press them for favorable legislation.
Owners of mass media outlets, and the advertisement buyers which financially support them can shape public perception of political issues by controlling the information available to the population and the manner in which it is presented (see also: fourth estate).
Within government bureaucracy, there is often the problem of a revolving door: the employees of government regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, often transition to and from employment with the same companies they are supposed to regulate. This can result in regulations being changed or ignored to suit the needs of business, since the regulators are more likely to later find employment in the private sector if their government work was beneficial to their new potential employer
|
Basically, we need political leaders that work for the 99% or 100%, and not politicians that simply look out for the top 1% (except when it is politically expedient to do otherwise), which certainly seems to be the status quo.
#OccupyEarth (with Peace and Love),
ADG