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

[deep]

I hope these guys load up their Facebooks real good, with pictures and stories of all these wonderful sacrifices they are making for all of our benefits

one place they will never occupy?

is any of the several rental housing units I provide for decent members of the 99 %,
nice affordable units, within a block of the beach here is sunny California.

[Caleb8844]

Seems like public opinion here on OWS has changed quite a bit over the last few weeks.

[deep]

they earned it.

[Caleb8844]

Oh I'm not disagreeing that they earned the change in opinion. It's just interesting how fast and hard that change came

[BVS]

If the Tea Party decided to take on long term protests the same thing would have happened, the more extreme factors(which were already present) would have taken over. It's just the nature of the beast. There are less and less people that associate themselves with the tea party today and it all has to do with exposure.

[yolland]

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

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.

Here's the problem as I see it. It would take a joint effort by both sides, so that would be a feat in and of itself to recognize they have something in common. And then it would take people with political power to willingly commit political suicide. Do these people exist?

[INDY500]

Thursday is a "day of action."

November 17th Day of Action | OccupyWallSt.org

[PhilsFan]

I still disagree that marching on Washington would do anything. Wall Street hires Washington. Campaign money is what elects people, not votes.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by BVS

And then it would take people with political power to willingly commit political suicide. Do these people exist?

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

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.

[MrsSpringsteen]

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.

[maycocksean]

Leave it to the Left-Wing idealogues here in FYM to fall into lockstep support of OWS no matter what they do, amiright INDY?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Can't wait for my commute Thursday

[yolland]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

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.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by yolland

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.

[yolland]

I already responded to that misreading.

[INDY500]

This way works too... name names.



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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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

Originally Posted by INDY500

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