Things Occupy Wall Street activists should demand

JihadJane said:
hey are experimenting with horizontal power structures and the movement is likely to hugely expand after the next financial collapse and demands for more bailouts from the banksters.
Click to expand...

No, they are making puppets and having pajama parties.
 
Travis said:
Rather than knock on them for their many faults. Let's get to the meat of what they should be demanding if they wanted to do something about what they are mad about.

End agricultural subsidies.
Cut DOD spending 20%.
Close corporate tax loopholes.
Subsidize state universities to close tuition gap.
Negotiate with major banks for new grace periods for student loans.
End linking funding to prolific standardized testing in schools. Appoint multiyear review committees on performance instead.
Cap campaign donations.
Reinvest in infrastructure improvements.
Bust up key defense contractor and aerospace monopolies.

Anyone got anything else they may want to add?
Click to expand...

Yeah, here's one; Free Deprogramming Services led by Tea Party Patriots to cure Lefty, socialist brainwash inculcated by the government schools.
 
amused said:
One change is all it takes to make all the other changes possible - Do away with gerrymandered US congressional districts.
Click to expand...
I hear sounds of 'Racist'.

Then we would have actual representative government that is responsive to voting citizens. As it is, 85-90% of incumbents win every time because the districts are gerrymandered to give the controlling party a clear advantage. Which frees the congressperson to ignore the voters and pander to the high dollar donors to the party.
Click to expand...
No one has a clue as to what would happen if gerrymandering was not done.

I suspect representative govt won't be the outcome; congresscritters are smarter than most, and would just find another way to stay in office.

ymmv.
 
The Don said:
Lockheed and Northrop couldn't afford to get into the civil airliner game, that's why Boeing is the only US-based manufacturer of large commercial airliners. The reason why these companies have consolidated is to allow them to make the multi-billion dollar investment necessary to develop new weapon systems.

If you're going to reduce DOD costs by 20% it will require some combination of:

  • Fewer people in the military - resulting in fewer employed people
  • Less spending on equipment - resulting in a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector
  • Lower spending on services - resulting in job losses in the service sector
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the most important consideration: What is required to secure the nation from foriegn threats. I see no attempt here to evaluate this at all. The 20% cut that the OP recommends is just some arbitrary number he pulled out of thin air. If such a cut jeopardizes the country's security by making us vulnerable to attack, it isn't justified no matter how much money it saves. On the other hand, if the amount being spent is more than what is necessary, no amount of concern for job losses justifies the expenditure of tax dollars that would be wasted (to say nothing of any amount that would be borrowed at the expense of the economy and future generations). The military was created to achieve an objective. Spend only what is necessary to acheive it.
 
Even if you're right, Craig24, there is no objective means to evaluate whether a reduction in our military would increase or lessen our vulnerability to attack. Those who support more military will say yes, those who oppose will say no. Each will cite what they believe are rational bases for their opinion. In short, any answer to the issue is not dispositive.
 
AlBell said:
amused said:
One change is all it takes to make all the other changes possible - Do away with gerrymandered US congressional districts.
Click to expand...
I hear sounds of 'Racist'.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I live in Austin, a liberal enclave in central Texas. My district was gerrymandered to go over 100 miles east to Houston to pick up enough Republican votes to cancel us out. Our 'representative' refuses to even meet with us. And, since he's assured of getting those votes, he really doesn't have to respond to them either. Most gerrymandered districts are done so for the same reason - to disenfranchise voters, not to represent them. This is not representative government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom