The 99% Declaration

[kochman]

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Glass-Stegal was only one of many insanely stupid pieces of deregulation that screwed over the country?

Please cite others and how they directly effected the current economy?

 

[G-Max]

progressive, graduated income tax


Medicare for all American citizens


give the Environmental Protection Agency expanded powers


a comprehensive job and job-training act


Student loan debt relief

blah blah blah

This is a left-wing wishlist. While these people may represent 99% of Democrats, they sure as hell don't represent 99% of Americans.

 

[Lovelace]

That's just by a matter of fact that one has to affect the other more.
Point 1: White married men tend to be more republican than non-married black women. That doesn't mean we must have a representative of both of these parties in order for a system to guarantee equal representation.

Point 2: The demographic differences between man and woman are nothing very substantial. Women tend to be a few percent more likely to be democrats but that is all. Issues that you may think are exclusive to women actually involve men as well. Therefore, it does not take a woman to defend the interests of women, a man can do it just as well. So even my previous comparison cannot be used other than for the purposes of rebutting your argument.

I didn't want to go into a lot of detail when I responded to you at first because I was afraid of going off-topic -- and maybe a little bit shy, since that was my first post and all -- but after some thought, I've decided that, as a discussion of the advisability of one particular point in the 99% Declaration, the following is relevant to this thread.

First of all, party affiliation doesn't have anything to do with this. As you yourself pointed out, there are plenty of women in either party, so it's kind of a moot point.

The question is whether a legislative body full of men can adequately represent women's interests. To show why they can't, let's take your second paragraph, above, and swap out some words.

The demographic differences between Georgia and Alabama are nothing very substantial. Georgians tend to be a few percent more likely to be democrats but that is all. Issues that you may think are exclusive to Georgia actually involve Alabama as well. Therefore, it does not take an Alabaman to defend the interests of Alabama, a Georgian can do it just as well. So clearly there's no need for every state to be guaranteed representation in Congress.

The demographic differences between Britain and the American colonies are nothing very substantial. Colonists tend to be a few percent more likely to be upset about taxes but that is all. Issues that you may think are exclusive to the colonies actually involve Britain as well. Therefore, it does not take a colonist to defend the interests of the colonies, someone living in Britain can do it just as well. So shut up about this taxation without representation nonsense. Your interests are being defended just fine!

These both seem really silly, right? You would say that these groups of people obviously are different and should both have a voice in the process, right? And you would say that because otherwise, a subset of group A (Georgia, the British, men) is actually making decisions, while group B (Alabama, the colonies, women) is over on the sidelines making suggestions. This would represent a needless imbalance of power between the two groups. In the case of something like the OWS assembly, it's even worse because it's a one-off event, so voting delegates out of office if they do a terrible job obviously isn't an option.

I think it's great that whoever wrote the Declaration is institutionalizing balanced representation for men and women. My one complaint is that the wording seems to exclude folks who don't fit into the typical gender binary, but that would be relatively easy to fix.

(Addendum: other kinds of diversity are important, too! I hope that the delegation, when it's assembled, is also diverse with respect to race, sexuality, religion or lack thereof, socioeconomic status, etc. But institutionalizing other kinds of diversity would be very difficult in practice -- I'm not really even sure how that would work -- so it seems like whoever wrote the Declaration did what they could.)

 

[Cutlass]

Please cite others and how they directly effected the current economy?

Allowing unlimited mergers and aquistions. Both in and out of the financial sector. Not enforcing pretty much any regulation while Bush was in office. 1000s of little things. Pretty much any of 1000s of pieces of deregulation of finance, most of them individually small, add up to more importance than just the repeal of Glass-Steagall. We have been deregulating finance since the Reagan administration. And all of the effects of it have been bad. And all of them have added up to the financial crisis. Pretending it was all that one thing, because you can call that one thing equally as much Democratic frak up and Republican frak up, is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Cutlass]

This is a left-wing wishlist. While these people may represent 99% of Democrats, they sure as hell don't represent 99% of Americans.

Ironically, Integral is a libertarian centrist.

 

[amadeus]

So what your saying is, is that you trust financial power even less then these people, and want to circumvent all potential abuses of power, rather then limit action to addressing actual ones?

Neither! I don't want anyone claiming to make decisions on my behalf. I din't trust either to know what is in my best interest.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Let's suppose they manage to organize a proper national assembly, make some decisions, send them to everyone who is supposed to care and nothing happens?
What then? Civil war?

A general strike?

The declaration is overwrought and bloated.

Some of it is clearly over-reaching, but then you have to be ambitious in the beginning so as to be able to negotiate your way down.

What Nano said. If anything, the declaration may be too reasonable. Then again, the media can spin any declaration into something it's not, so maybe caution is the better part of valor here.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Neither! I don't want anyone claiming to make decisions on my behalf. I din't trust either to know what is in my best interest.

Well you've got to choose one. You can't be a country unto yourself. Unless you intend to become a hermit in the mountains.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

WOW! Starting to sink in, is it!
Now, tell me, who signed the Glass-Steagall? Who voted for it?
Clinton... and almost the entire Senate...
BOTH SIDES.

I don't think Bill Clinton was even alive when the Banking Act of 1933 was signed.

As for things "sinking in," you could profit a bit by considering that lesson yourself: both sides do this crap, they're not alternatives they're two sides of the same coin, and that coin is quite Right of Center.

 

[Integral]

First: welcome to the forums Lovelace!

Second, I've been thinking a bit about the declaration. I think it'd be better served if it were pared down to the absolute essential, which is campaign finance reform. The remained - healthcare, student loan forgiveness, &c - is simply illegitimate on a document of this type and serves only to dilute the message and detract from its main goal.

Keep the focus on campaign finance reform and perhaps something will come of this.

--

EDIT: in particular,
Nothing here reflects my own political endorsement. Insstead, I'm just suggesting what should be reasonably cut out to bring forward a more focused, integrated document.


1. Public financing. KEEP
2. Reverse Citizen's Uinted. KEEP.
3. Close the revolving door between regulators and regulated industries. KEEP.
4. Ban on lobbyist bribes to regulators. KEEP.
5. Tax issues. Keep or drop, the thrust stays on the "top 1%".
6. Medicare for all: DROP. We just had a massive overhaul of healthcare. Nobody wants to fight that fight again this soon. It dilutes the message.
7. EPA regulations: DROP. While they might be a fine idea, they detract from the message.
8. Debt reduction: DROP. Good idea, not for this document.
9. Jobs training plan: DROP. Self-serving politics. Unemployed and semi-employed students want jobs package? Ripe for attack regardless of whether it's a good idea.
10. Student loan relief: DROP. See above. Students want their debt relieved, water is wet and JerichoHill is an economist. Come on, this is begging to be attacked.
11. Pass the DREAM Act. DROP. See above.
12. Redeployment of military personnel. DROP. Talk to Ron Paul about this one.
13. new education goals: DROP. This isn't about a New New Deal, it's about campaign finance. Keep the focus, this is getting embarassing.
14. Ditto.
15. China. DROP. Bad economics, bad politics, bad for the proposal.
16. Glass-Stegal. KEEP.
17. That Fed nonsense .DROP.
18. Foreclosure freeze. DROP.
19. Additional campaign reform. Fine, keep it, I don't care.
20. Withdrawal from Iraq. Drop, what is this doing here, &c.

Excuse any typos. My eyes haven't recovered from surgery yet.



EDIT EDIT

Ironically, Integral is a libertarian centrist.

Even as a centrist I can get behind a not-inconsiderable portion of the declaration, politically.

 

[Elta]

Excuse any typos. My eyes haven't recovered from surgery yet.

I don't know what it was about, but I am glad to hear you are in one piece.

Enjoy the the doctor supervised abuse of perscription drugs

 

[Oerdin]

I'm fundamentally against most of it. One of the basic points that is overlooked by the whole anti-corporation movement is that most of the stock in those corporations is owned by retirement plans. Destroy the ability of the corporations to make a profit and their stock value falls. Stock value falls, retirement plans are wiped out. Retirement plans are wiped out, and it results in negative feedback through the economy. Great Depression II.

You don't get it. No one wants to end capitalism or "destory the ability of corporations to make a profit" and instead everyone is pissed off at the fact that America's political system is highly corrupt with every politician for sale to the highest bidder. We want the money out of politics (virtually all of which is from corporations) because it is literally nothing more than legalized bribery. As the tea baggers used to say "we want our country back" because it's been stolen by corrupt politicians and corrupt corporate paymasters who run it in their best interests instead of what the people want or what is in the people's best interests.

To paraphrase Clinton's 1992 retort to Bush Sr "It's the corruption, stupid"; we want it to end and we want it to be made illegal to give politicians any money at all. Public campaign financing, as is done in many countries already, is the only way to end this corruption.

 

[Elta]

^ I agree with this post.

 

[GoodGame]

Sounds like class warfare if you exclude the 1% from your Constitution.

 

[luiz]

You don't get it. No one wants to end capitalism or "destory the ability of corporations to make a profit" and instead everyone is pissed off at the fact that America's political system is highly corrupt with every politician for sale to the highest bidder. We want the money out of politics (virtually all of which is from corporations) because it is literally nothing more than legalized bribery. As the tea baggers used to say "we want our country back" because it's been stolen by corrupt politicians and corrupt corporate paymasters who run it in their best interests instead of what the people want or what is in the people's best interests.

To paraphrase Clinton's 1992 retort to Bush Sr "It's the corruption, stupid"; we want it to end and we want it to be made illegal to give politicians any money at all. Public campaign financing, as is done in many countries already, is the only way to end this corruption.

A honest question about public financing is what is stopping private citizens from creating pressure groups (NGOs or whatever) that receive money from corporations, unions or whatever and then use that money to buy TV and newspaper space endorsing candidate X or attacking candidate Y. There is no need to directly donate to someone's campaign in order to help him.

 

[Elta]

Sounds like class warfare if you exclude the 1% from your Constitution.

This term is thrown around so much what people actually mean when the use it escapes me.

What does it mean to you personally GG?

 

[Ayatollah So]

I've been thinking a bit about the declaration. I think it'd be better served if it were pared down to the absolute essential, which is campaign finance reform.

You sir, are a freaking genius. Attack the point of maximum leverage. Hit him where he ain't, as MacArthur said about Imperial Japan.

 

[Integral]

You sir, are a freaking genius. Attack the point of maximum leverage. Hit him where he ain't, as MacArthur said about Imperial Japan.

There could be a legitimate argument for broadening the stance of the declaration. Clearly the authors think so. I'm just saying that it's a bad argument. No need to make fun.

 

[REDY]

Hm I will not analyze declaration since my English is bad but I am confused that in declaration isnt blaming FeD, cartel of banks, helping them from public budget, printing tens of dollars and increasing, public debts? Arent these main problem?

 

[Mise]

I haven't read the thread but there doesn't appear to be much coherence here. It's a typically incongruent left-wing political manifesto, rather than a rallying point for a demonstration. They should stick with one or two points and attack those points coherently and consistently. There isn't any focus or coherence and that's a huge mistake by whoever is organising this thing.