Pro-tax Occupation Protests Held Across U.S. (O.W.S. Thread)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
yolland said:
Oh no, we'd be talking state legislators. A national convention as per Article 5. Federal legislators are way too massively dependent on campaign contributions to do the job.

Ok, but what kind of numbers would you need? I guess it's hard for me to imagine that because our state legislators here have almost no power or influence.
 
Non violent and they use pictures of tanks? Shutting down the subway, that's really not a productive idea.

I think it's time for them to go, they made their point and winter is coming. Time to channel it into something else-I just don't see how marching to or in DC will do anything either. Nothing will.
 
Leave it to the Left-Wing idealogues here in FYM to fall into lockstep support of OWS no matter what they do, amiright INDY?

:D
 
Ok, but what kind of numbers would you need? I guess it's hard for me to imagine that because our state legislators here have almost no power or influence.
Not sure I understand the question, so I'll just briefly summarize how the process works.

When two-thirds (i.e. 34) of the state legislatures submit applications to Congress calling for a constitutional convention to formulate an amendment on some specified particular subject, Congress is required by Article V of the US Constitution to comply. Delegates to the convention from each state are elected by the citizens of that state; they vote on the final text they create just as Congress does. The proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures (just as amendments proposed by Congress must be).

At the state level, this means your state legislature would first have to pass a resolution that they're going to apply to Congress for an Article V convention on the subject of _______.

Historically, what's always happened when the number of state legislatures applying for an Article V convention (on the same subject) grows to the point where it looks like that two-thirds requirement will actually be met, Congress has succumbed to fear at anyone but them proposing amendments, bit the bullet, and gone ahead and proposed it themselves. The 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th Amendments were all passed this way. Without that nudge from the states, I just don't see this happening. Look how hard it was just to get McCain-Feingold, which was hardly radical reform, passed, and the Supreme Court torpedoed it anyway.
 
Not sure I understand the question, so I'll just briefly summarize how the process works.

When two-thirds (i.e. 34) of the state legislatures submit applications to Congress calling for a constitutional convention to formulate an amendment on some specified particular subject, Congress is required by Article V of the US Constitution to comply. Delegates to the convention from each state are elected by the citizens of that state; they vote on the final text they create just as Congress does. The proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures (just as amendments proposed by Congress must be).

At the state level, this means your state legislature would first have to pass a resolution that they're going to apply to Congress for an Article V convention on the subject of _______.

Historically, what's always happened when the number of state legislatures applying for an Article V convention (on the same subject) grows to the point where it looks like that two-thirds requirement will actually be met, Congress has succumbed to fear at anyone but them proposing amendments, bit the bullet, and gone ahead and proposed it themselves. The 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 25th Amendments were all passed this way. Without that nudge from the states, I just don't see this happening. Look how hard it was just to get McCain-Feingold, which was hardly radical reform, passed, and the Supreme Court torpedoed it anyway.

Ok, now I understand what you're saying... I'm trying to put away my cynicism for awhile and try to imagine this working.
 
Now if only some of the rest of us would take the incentive to get off our whiny asses and campaign for a constitutional amendment that would actually end the cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street. Otherwise it's never going to happen...to wait for a political hero to fix it is to misunderstand the system.
You're basically asking Congress to draft legislation (major campaign finance reform) that does away with the very reason many run for political office in the US (power, influence, the ability to give breaks to buddies in the private sector while robbing the public blind).

Asking politicians to pass transformative campaign finance reform is like asking your kid to go to his room, throw the change in his piggy bank into the drain, and then spank himself until he starts to cry.
 
This way works too... name names.

51DlcslpJ9L._SL500_AA300_.jpg


Throw Them ALL Out - HUMAN EVENTS

60 Minutes confronted many of the politicians named in this book last Sunday about using inside information to play the stock market or cash in on land deals.

Did you know congressmen are exempt from laws that make profiteering off nonpublic information illegal? Neither did I.

Now here's where the Tea Party and OWS can agree and Republicans and Democrats can work together. In fact, they already are:

? Sens. Brown, Gillibrand Introduce ‘STOCK Act’ to Ban Insider Trading in Congress - Big Government
Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., today are introducing the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2011, which would prohibit members or employees of Congress, as well as executive branch employees, from using nonpublic information obtained through their public service for investing or any attempt at personal financial gain.

Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Tim Walz of Minnesota introduced legislation in the House to stop this practice — but the bill, which has been introduced before, has never had more than 14 congressional sponsors. Now, however, there is more interest in the bill after a “60 Minutes” report shedding new light on congressional “insider trading.”

“Members of Congress should live under the same laws as everyone else,” Brown said in a statement today. “If they trade on inside knowledge to line their own pockets, they should be punished. Serving the public is a privilege and honor, not an opportunity for personal gain.”

The legislation would also require members of Congress and employees to report the purchase, sale or exchange of any stock, bond, or commodities future transaction in excess of $1,000 within 90 days.

So let's be vigilant and see what "forces" in Washington D.C. kill, stall or weaken this legislation.
 
Did you know congressmen are exempt from laws that make profiteering off nonpublic information illegal? Neither did I.

I heard Rush and Laura Ingram reporting on this this week, which I thought was interesting because I heard about it 2 years ago on NPR :shrug:

So let's be vigilant and see what "forces" in Washington D.C. kill, stall or weaken this legislation.

This shall be interesting to watch :corn:
 
if I was a 'card carrying' liberal or progressive, I would be embarrassed by these occupiers.


if I was a 'card carrying' conservative or republican, I would be embarrassed by these tea partiers.

slide_1398_20093_large.jpg


Descent.JPG


tea-party-racist-signs-04-back-to-kenya.jpg


1776.jpg


912-TeaParty-DC-We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg

001.jpg


and an oldie but goodie

morans.jpg
 
Serious question--does anyone know why the (self-professed) 'anarchist' contingent seems so much larger in the Pacific Northwest than elsewhere? Is it an outgrowth of the radical arm of the environmental movement or something?

I saw a PBS special that made the claim that alot of the anarchists were made up of or started out as radical environmentalists who were involved with the ELF and those groups.
 
Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes - Nov. 16, 2011

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- A group of two dozen millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday, demanding lawmakers raise their taxes.

"We want to pay more taxes," said California millionaire Doug Edwards, a former marketing director for Google (GOOG, Fortune 500). "If you're fortunate, and you make more than a million dollars a year, you ought to pay more taxes."

The millionaires want Congress to allow the tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush administration to expire. Some want higher taxes generally.

They planned to push lawmakers to reject any deal that the so-called super committee delivers that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires. The 12-lawmaker panel has until next Wednesday to agree on $1.2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years or risk automatic spending cuts.

"If the super committee bill doesn't raise our taxes, we will ask our fellow citizens to consider killing the bill," said Eric Schoenberg of Franklin Lakes, N.J., an adjunct professor of marketing at Columbia Business School.

They planned to take their message to members of the super committee, Tea Party Republicans including Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, and even anti-tax champion Grover Norquist.

The group was formed a year ago to push for expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and includes several current and former Google employees. Some of the better-known millionaires in the group include economist Nouriel Roubini, and a few celebrities, such as "The Sopranos" star Edie Falco and filmmaker Abigail Disney, who didn't make the trip to Washington.

Five different members declined to say what their annual income is, only acknowledging that they could be called millionaires.

Massachusetts millionaire Farhad Ebrahimi, a 33-year-old philanthropist who inherited his money from his software entrepreneur father, said he also supports the so-called "Buffett rule" that would require millionaires to pay a higher percentage of their income in federal taxes than those who make less than a million a year. The rule is named for the measure's chief supporter, Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA, Fortune 500) chairman Warren Buffett.

But he said the first thing on the group's bucket list is convincing Congress to allow Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy.

"What we're all here today representing is to request the Bush tax cuts be allowed to expire -- that's simply the bare minimum," said Ebrahimi, who has also participated in protests in the Occupy Boston movement.

California venture capitalist Garrett Gruener, founder of Ask.com, told left-leaning House members on the Progressive Caucus said he doesn't buy the argument that hiking the tax rates for the wealthy and forcing them to pay more in taxes would stymie business growth.

"Not once have any of my personal investment decisions been a function of marginal tax rates," Gruener said. "We just don't think about it."

First Published: November 16, 2011: 3:53 PM ET
 
A woman old enough to be a grandmother is quickly becoming the face of Occupy Seattle.

Dorli Rainey, the 84-year-old, pictured in the photo below, has been an activist since the 1960s and even ran for mayor of Seattle in 2009, according to the Atlantic Wire. She ultimately dropped out of the race saying, "I am old and should learn to be old, stay home, watch TV and sit still."

As the Atlantic points out, she certainly didn't seem to listen to her own advice.

Rainey was among a group of Seattle protesters scattered by police on Tuesday. A pregnant 19-year-old woman was also reportedly hit by pepper spray Tuesday, The Associated Press reported, though police haven't confirmed the incident.

A priest was also among those pepper sprayed during the protesters' march from their camp at Seattle Central Community College to Westlake Park, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Police officers on bicycles attempted to block the protesters' way. After tensions mounted, the police used pepper spray to disperse the crowd.

"Pepper spray was deployed only against subjects who were either refusing a lawful order to disperse or engaging in assaultive behavior toward officers," Seattle police spokesman Jeff Kappel told the Seattle Pi.

Pepper spray has been used on multiple occasions against Occupy protesters in the last two months, first by NYPD officers in September. In late October, an Iraq war veteran at Occupy Oakland was injured after police fired a projectile at his head.

PEPPER-SPRAY-DORLI-RAINEY.jpg
 
How much beyond what they legitimately owe does anyone think any of these people actually pay? I didn't think so...

"I didn't think so..." What does that even mean?

They could start by going here:

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

Of course, bitching and moaning and pretending you care is a lot easier than actually doing something. :up:

You're missing the point aren't you? The point is sustainability. A company could get a great donation one year and be able to run for quite awhile, but if they don't have a system of revenue set in place it's not sustainable.
 
You're missing the point aren't you?

I'm sure I'm not. I hear these "patriotic millionaires" demanding that they pay more in taxes, yet are unwilling to give some of their plenty to the government voluntarily. How are you missing that?

This video displays the hypocrisy wonderfully:
Patriotic Millionaires | Higher Taxes | Treasury Department Donation | The Daily Caller

According to these guys, it's more patriotic to wait to be drafted than it is to proactively enlist.

A company could get a great donation one year and be able to run for quite awhile, but if they don't have a system of revenue set in place it's not sustainable.

But it makes no sense for someone to say "I really truly want to make a donation for the good of the company, but I only will if other people do, too." So remember everyone, when you see those red kettles around town for the next few weeks, only put money in there if you see other people doing it too. :up:

To them, it's about perceived compassion. Not action.
 
2861U2 said:
I'm sure I'm not. I hear these "patriotic millionaires" demanding that they pay more in taxes, yet are unwilling to give some of their plenty to the government voluntarily. How are you missing that?

This video displays the hypocrisy wonderfully:
Patriotic Millionaires | Higher Taxes | Treasury Department Donation | The Daily Caller

According to these guys, it's more patriotic to wait to be drafted than it is to proactively enlist.

But it makes no sense for someone to say "I really truly want to make a donation for the good of the company, but I only will if other people do, too." So remember everyone, when you see those red kettles around town for the next few weeks, only put money in there if you see other people doing it too. :up:

To them, it's about perceived compassion. Not action.

It's basic economics 101. It's not about if they would donate it voluntarily, we don't know if they would or not. They want a more permanent solution. This is not the Salvation Army this is our government, not a good analogy.

It's baffling to me that you think because you earn less that you should pay more percentage wise. Even Ronald Reagan is on record for supporting this notion.
 
Right...but that more or less confirms the observation, doesn't it? I mean I've always thought of the 'Pacific Northwest,' at least as a cultural zone, comprising WA, OR and northern CA...is that not the case?

The air is - literally - freer up there, as opposed to more industrialised and consumerist environs which are contaminated by the fumes from hamburger gases and other noxious odors emitted by the fat useless eaters that live in such places.

Hence, the citizens in the Pacific Northwest are comparatively less brainwashed than the average consumerist drones and still have the normal human ability to come up with their own ideas free from the odious influence of corporate capitalist oligarch tyranny, which is clearly fucking the entire global with its noxious trash, propaganda, evil and lies.

Simples!
 
I'm wondering how these "Occupy Protesters" can take off from their jobs for so long to protest.

Many of them don't have jobs, you complacent moron.

But maybe you'd prefer if they stayed at home gorging themselves on junk food and, I dunno, smoking cigarettes and watching shit soap operas on television or some such.

You hold yourself out as some great keeper of the spirit of historic traditional American values or whatever, but actually the last time I checked, revolution is innately a part of US history, and innately a part of history full stop, anywhere and everywhere. And the super-rich have been screwing the middle and working classes for a long time now - that's just economic fact. So maybe it's time for another revolution, how about that then?

Maybe that's your problem, maybe that's a lot of Christians' problem. You want your rebels to be safely tucked away in a historical box in the Bible, like the big JC. When a contemporary real-life rebellion presents itself, you run off home with the tail between your legs.
 
Back
Top Bottom