Proposal for Up-Down vote on Concrete Demands

[evelyn]

I propose an up-down vote on concrete ACTIONABLE items that Occupy Chicago stands for. Here's what I have worked out, in the simplest language possible. I am sure there are more, but we can always adopt more in the future. It is paramount that we are able to say what kind of REAL change we want to see in our government.

 

1.PASS HR 1489 reinstating GLASS-STEA­GALL ACT.
2. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts
2.FULLY INVESTIGAT­E AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis
3.Reverse the effects of CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentiall­y said corporatio­ns can spend as much as they want on elections.
4.Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation, close corporate tax loopholes, prohibit hiding funds offshore.
5.Revamp the SEC
6.Limit the influence of LOBBYISTS and eliminate the practice of LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATIO­N that ends up on the floor of Congress.
7.Eliminat­e ability of former gov't regulators from working for ... corporatio­ns ... that they once regulated.
8.Eliminat­e "PERSONHOO­D" status for corporatio­ns
9.Reestabl­ish the public airwaves so that political candidates ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME for free at reasonable intervals during campaign season.
10. Campaign finance reform.
11. Forgive Student Loans.

 

I think it is imperative that we vote on these at the Friday GA.

[idsinchi]

Substance of all the individual parts aside, this big, long, proposal is too unwieldy for a GA.  One at a time or something. 

 

That being said, being you are underneath the Board of Trade, the 1%'s, owned by CME (where the hedge fund mgrs hangout), recipient of Chicago TIF funds, please give strong consideration to reigning them in with a grievance.  There is a post in the forum on the subject of Commodity Traders that makes a lot of sense.  Also, search for "commodity traitors" with "american scientist" for a Sept. 22, 2011 post on how war and hunger is fueled by commodity trading.

[Billy]

     I've said it else where but I proposed a new committee for working through the wording of stuff like this. I am very interested in comments and input.

 

http://occupychi.org/forum/pot.....committee/

[ninetyninepercent]

Voting up/down on 4 of these per night seems more wieldly, agreed.

 

As a friendly amendment to all proposals involving legislation, provide a link to the legislation and a summary for those non-versed in legalese.

 

As friendly amendment regarding TAX CUTS, relanguage as:

Repeal All Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Initiated By Bush And Renewed By Obama.

 

As a friendly amendment to the WALL STREET CRIMINALS charge:

Send it back to the Research Committee and have them identify names and charges for the SEC to act upon.

 

As a friendly amendment for REVAMPING THE SEC:

Send it back to the Research Committee to specify the corrective restructuring.

 

As a friendly amendment to CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:

Send it back to the Research Committee to specify methods.

 

As a PROPOSAL:

Problem: Wrongly incentifying elected positions with six-figure salaries attracts public officials with more interest in six-figure salaries than serving the public good.

Solution: Adjust the annual salary of elected federal officials to the United States' median income.

[Billy]

     If I have not made it sufficiently clear previously I am not at all pleased with the manner in which these have been put forth and find it a bypass, perversion or subversion of the democratic process.

 

     This issue has become a huge point of contention and it has pissed some people off and a solution which seems reasonable to those opposed has been offered forth. The pushing through of these demands under the current offering with > 20 person stack lines I find to give insight into the intentions or motivations of those that continue to push this forward without addressing the issue.

 

     One of these was voted down not on the merits of the proposal specifically but on the idea of specific demands in general. When the opposing voters realized that they were going to have to fight the same fight 11 more times before their voice would be heard it was obvious that this was a violation of the democratic process and a few got pissed and left which made the rest pass.

 

     I strongly urge you to stop voting on these demands and get a discussion going at a committee level on this to come to a solution to this that fits with in the framework of the process.

 

     To state this more clearly I believe the process has been violated. That violation is not being acknowledged or addressed. It is not just myself that feels this way but many of the rest of us that succeeded in voting one of these down.

 

     I realize how serious of an accusation I am making here and am further bothered by the level at which this has been repeatedly blown off when I bring it up to the submitter of the proposal as well as both of the moderators that have handled it.

 

     I understand that some of you are pissed that you did not get your way when we voted down the 3/4 rule but if you are going to ignore the process how are you any different than the corrupt government that we currently have in place and why should I continue to support something that appears to be dead set on becoming a carbon copy of our current system only with you in place as the tyrant instead of Barack Obama?

[Henry George]

If the demand for so-called change is not tied to any specifc goal or mission like learning Henry George's theories, ideas, and principles, it's way too vague, this movement will become sluggish, get in neutral, and this wonderful movement will eithe lose it's momentum and die, or just be pre-empted by the Extreme Left, Right,  and the Centrists, is that what you people joined this group really want?  As both A follower of Henry George and a new member of this movement I don't think so!  The only way to actually move this group forward is to learn The Henry George way As Soon AS Possible!

[Billy]

     Goals and concrete demands are not one in the same. Goals are result based and more difficult to subvert. Concrete demands however are in my opinion extremely easy to subvert. Not only that but as I have already stated our current power structure has proven repeatedly to be very proficient at it.

 

     I will not go into it again as I have address this elsewhere but I have submitted a challenge to come up with examples of laws in recent history that have brought about any real change above the level of lip service. Off the top of my head I can come up with many that have not and have issued this demand before.

 

     When you come in here and matter-of-factly state something like specific goals or demands are the only way forward, as in no other way can work, and refuse to give so much as one example where it has worked you loose a lot of credibility with me.

 

    The level at which your comment generalized and categorizes so as to assert assumptions where they do not belong I find to border on offensive or insulting. If you are a result of Henry George's teaching I'm not really interested in hearing what you/he has to say.

 

     I respect your opinion and your right to say it but take offense at your tone and find your abuse of this forum as a marketing platform for you own self gain to be irritating and run counter to the horizontal structure of this group.

[Billy]

feature=youtu.be

 

     Naomi Klein in Liberty plaza rejecting concrete demands around 6:10

[relampagos]

Billy said:

     If I have not made it sufficiently clear previously I am not at all pleased with the manner in which these have been put forth and find it a bypass, perversion or subversion of the democratic process.

 

     This issue has become a huge point of contention and it has pissed some people off and a solution which seems reasonable to those opposed has been offered forth. The pushing through of these demands under the current offering with > 20 person stack lines I find to give insight into the intentions or motivations of those that continue to push this forward without addressing the issue.

 

     One of these was voted down not on the merits of the proposal specifically but on the idea of specific demands in general. When the opposing voters realized that they were going to have to fight the same fight 11 more times before their voice would be heard it was obvious that this was a violation of the democratic process and a few got pissed and left which made the rest pass.

I agree with the above. I attended GA for the first time on 10-08. I was very uncomfortable with the format and the fact that there were many voices going unheard. I think the point of whether or not OccupyChicago should have a list of demands is one that deserves serious consideration. As ShyViolet posted in the General Discussion forum (http://occupychi.org/forum/gen.....he-system/), this represents a major ideological split within those hoping to support OccupyChicago. 

It seems that addressing this fraction within the group should have precedence over voting line-by-line on a list of demands. How can a vote on a list of demands be held when not everyone is in consensus that there *should* be a list of demands? It's putting the cart before the horse. 

And, please forgive me if this point is off-topic in this post, but I was also made uncomfortable by the 9/10th majority vote needed to pass proposals. From reading up on the forums, it seems that a proposal to change that to a 3/4ths majority was recently rejected-- the reasoning being that as the GAs grow in numbers, it means more and more voices will go unheard. I agree. However, even at the current size, and with a 9/10th majority vote, voices are already going unheard. Cutting off a 20-person stack in the interest of rushing through proposals doesn't seem in the spirit of what's trying to be accomplished. 

These are concerns that might be better addressed by consensus-based decision making processes rather than a majority vote. 

 

In any case, I do look forward to attending more GAs. I plan to make Monday's at the least.