Occupy Wall Street Demands

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

No, it's not. We are a not a democracy. We're a republic that is bounded by laws.

Our politicians are not suppose to change laws becuase a majority wants it changed or because some "fat cat CEO" wants it changed.
blah blah blah

, then they'd see that A) you have a right to spend your money how you want and giving money to a candidate is political free speechblah blah blah

I'm just going to quote this for all too see
Perhaps someone else would like to run with this one

[derf]

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

If bp wants to elect a pro gulf of mexico deep water drilling candidate then all they have to do is give 50 million to crossroads super pac 501c, then that organization gives that money over to a reporting political action committee or directly to a candidate and pooff, legal money laundering.

[Tmall]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

No, it's not. We are a not a democracy. We're a republic that is bounded by laws. Our politicians are not suppose to change laws becuase a majority wants it changed or because some "fat cat CEO" wants it changed. Maybe if someone above would actually read more than a googled search of the constitution and get an understanding of what the founding fathers intended when they wrote it, then they'd see that A) you have a right to spend your money how you want and giving money to a candidate is political free speech B) treating our country as a democracy is the dumbest thing that has ever been brainwashed into the American (and worldwide) public.

THe whole deal is I, you, nor anybody on this planet has a right to tell a private individual what they can and can't do with their money.

You're a democratic republic. That's why you have those voting thingies on the same time line as the olympics..

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by derf

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

If bp wants to elect a pro gulf of mexico deep water drilling candidate then all they have to do is give 50 million to crossroads super pac 501c, then that organization gives that money over to a reporting political action committee or directly to a candidate and pooff, legal money laundering.

Would you support the restriction of all campaign contributions and publicly finance campaigns?
Each candidate gets a set amount.
Make allowances for limited types of contributions.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

I'm just going to quote this for all too see
Perhaps someone else would like to run with this one

Fuck that. You woke up him, you explain why the Sun's out.

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

No, it's not. We are a not a democracy. We're a republic that is bounded by laws. Our politicians are not suppose to change laws becuase a majority wants it changed or because some "fat cat CEO" wants it changed. Maybe if someone above would actually read more than a googled search of the constitution and get an understanding of what the founding fathers intended when they wrote it, then they'd see that A) you have a right to spend your money how you want and giving money to a candidate is political free speech B) treating our country as a democracy is the dumbest thing that has ever been brainwashed into the American (and worldwide) public.

THe whole deal is I, you, nor anybody on this planet has a right to tell a private individual what they can and can't do with their money.

Sigh.

JC

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by derf

But large companies should still not be allowed to donate unlimited funds to campaigns without the politicians reporting where the money comes from.

But what if Oprah did? Or Bill Gates? Or fuck it, Warren Buffett? They are individuals so they should have a right to do what they want with their money. Or is it okay that millions of people donate a max of say $5k to a candidate because they promise them free Ipods and unicorns by taking money from a single enitity?

Politicians reporting on them. I'd be up for debate on that.

Probably one of the most important things ever written in American history when it comes to Democracy. And a prime example of why our founding fathers hated the idea of a democracy.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Originally Posted by James Madison

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person (sounds like what many people think our government is), can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists

Are we a Democratic Republic now? With the passing of the 17th amendment, maybe so. Maybe a foreign king who visited the Greek assembly said it best "I find it astonishing that here wise men speak on public affairs, while fools decide them". A democracy of any kind would accomplish just that.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

But what if Oprah did? Or Bill Gates? Or fuck it, Warren Buffett? They are individuals so they should have a right to do what they want with their money. Or is it okay that millions of people donate a max of say $5k to a candidate because they promise them free Ipods and unicorns by taking money from a single enitity?

Politicians reporting on them. I'd be up for debate on that.

To be honest I don't care who gives what to whoever in whatever amount. I wouldnt care if BP gave a bazillion dollars to elect Michelle Bachman as long as it is documented that she took that kind of money or that an organization supporting her took that money. Oprah gave obama a shit load of anonymous donations through the last election through shady loopholes in campaign finance laws. My issue is that as a publicly elected individual politicians should be required to report who donated to them, but the rules have been changed in favor of people and corporations with super large sums of money to give anonymously

crossroads america and crossroads GPS are two great examples of how campaign finance rules are avoided in favor of supporting on politician over another. Crossroads GPS is a 501c4 that can take donations anonymously, and they donate all their to ultra conservative political action committees such as crossroads america. Crossroads america is a 527 PAc which is required to report all donation it receives, but if I donate to crossroads GPS then that money goes to crossroads america and is reported as being donated by crossroads GPS. Those two organizations share the same damn office building! Along with a few other conservative PACs. That should be illegal no matter which side of the aisle it comes from, its a loophole that needs to be closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)

Again give all the damn money you want, but make sure its report-able.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by derf

Sorry, but not everyone is able to get grants and a free ride to college. My brother is currently $180k, graduated high school with a 4.0 gpa, plus extra curricular activities, but couldnt get a scholarship or any grants. his 1st year roomate was from the same HS, had a 2.9 gpa and got a free ride through 4 years because of a race based scholarship (both to a state school). How is that fair?

That's all on him for picking an expensive school. What, does he think his job prospects will improve substantially because of the Rutgers name? Sure, it could, I don't know much about Rutgers or its programs.......But since he's studying engineering, it isn't as important. If he were a non-technical major, it would be more important. Those people have a much harder time finding jobs, so the name of the school matters alot more (as well as your extracircicular activities and how good of a personality you have).

I mean, $180K in debt? That's only acceptable for law or medicine, IMO. Anything else you should have gone to a cheaper school.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I mean, $180K in debt? That's only acceptable for law or medicine, IMO. Anything else you should have gone to a cheaper school.

Word.

$180k-$300k for a state undergrad?

You deserve to be in debt.

[derf]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

That's all on him for picking an expensive school. What, does he think his job prospects will improve substantially because of the Rutgers name? Sure, it could, I don't know much about Rutgers or its programs.......But since he's studying engineering, it isn't as important. If he were a non-technical major, it would be more important. Those people have a much harder time finding jobs, so the name of the school matters alot more (as well as your extracircicular activities and how good of a personality you have).

I mean, $180K in debt? That's only acceptable for law or medicine, IMO. Anything else you should have gone to a cheaper school.

Its a state school was supposed to be cheap until the school needed to pay for a new football stadium for a team that was on track to be a nationally ranked team then the money started to dry up and the school hiked their fees for 'other stuff' (books, project fees, all kinds of nickle and dime stuff). Private schools were much more expensive for him.

He did in fact get a good job, that pays pretty good (shitty schedule though) and should have his school bill paid off in 3 years. but with a 80k/yr +commission for jobs income he still considers himself 99% (even has a picture holding up one of those nifty hand written signs)