A Single Message Proposal

[MamaNelson]

BenBurton said:

You're looking for the "elevator speech" and yes, it would be helpful.

Correct. 

[BenBurton]

I thought this sentence was close to paraphrasing what you were trying to say:

 

MamaNelson said:

The government no longer reflects the best interest of the people, but the vested interests of corporate checkbooks.

 

I think though it needs to be tweaked.  "No longer" is probably too strong and "corporate checkbooks" sounds very rhetorical.  I think something good could come from the sentence though.

[MamaNelson]

What about:

The government does not reflect the best interest of the people, but the vested interests of corporate influences. 

[BenBurton]

Personally, I think that new quote is much closer to something that could get a consensus. I'd like to hear feedback from more people.

Regardless, a message that's direct but easily digestible by a large number of people is important. A percentage of the mass market will continually investigate deeper into the specific topics that they can relate to but the initial impression has to be quick, like Twitter.

[BenBurton]

Personally, I think that new quote is much closer to something that could get a consensus. I'd like to hear feedback from more people.

Regardless, a message that's direct but easily digestible by a large number of people is important. A percentage of the mass market will continually investigate deeper into the specific topics that they can relate to but the initial impression has to be quick, like Twitter.

[Ella Mae]

I don't know if this has been voted on, but I like the above statement by MamaNelson  very much.  It's a really accurate message of what we are about (and encompasses many, many issues within).

[CarlNyberg]

We live in a society that has a political system, economic system and media that are corrupt and dysfunctional.

The economic system rewards people for doing things that don't produce goods and services that increase the quality of life in the society.

The economic sytem has excess capacity to produce goods and services. It has unused labor. And it is awash in capital. Yet it has failed to bring these things together to produce goods and services of value to the people living in society.

The political system has helped create the dysfunctional economic system. The political system has remained paralyzed in addressing the problems of our society. Even after there is consensus to take action, the political system fails to act.

The media is so ruled by economic interests that it has failed to explain the dysfunctionality that produced invading Iraq and the dysfunctionality that crashed (almost collapsed) the economy. No one of significant power has been held accountable, although both these immoral actions enriched the few while forcing the many to pay (or take on public debt).

What do we want?

We want to live in a society that treats people like us with respect. People who want to work should be able to find jobs that pay enough to meet basic expenses and save for retirement.

Health care should not threaten to impoverish people.

Standing up to an unethical employer should not put health care of one's family in jeopardy.

We want to be able to trust institutions (government, private companies and others) to conduct themselves in an ethical manner.

Because corporations have an intrinsic bias toward seeking money (often in ways that take advantage of the fact they have "limited liability") corporations should be on a much shorter leash to ensure they are not abusing their "limited liability" status.

We are particularly concerned about actions by companies in the financial sector which have been particularly harmful.

[wnscown]

I support the single message proposal and see the core issue as some version of "Getting Corporations and their Money out of Our Politics". Regaining control of the political process by the 99% is what will enable resolution of all of our other grievances. Our power focused on this single issue can change the landscape and make restoring social justice possible. Unfocused rage will be distorted, dismissed and wasted. Bring the single message proposal to GA.

[CatfishJones]

I agree that short and to the point messaging is absolutely critical. However, I'm not sure that keeping corporate money out of politics is the right way to phrase the message. I think the message should be "Keeping Money out of Politics." This prevents us from having to argue that campaign contributions from unions, wealthy individuals, etc. are OK while corporate contributions are not. Campaign funds should come exclusively from tax revenues collected for that purpose, which should then be available to any candidate with a requisite amount of signatures.

Another core issue is our doctrine of too big to fail and the moral hazard that always entails. We should be saying "Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist". If a corporation grows to a size such that it's failure would be unacceptable, then that corporation is of unacceptable size. We have a tradition of anti-trust law in this country that can and should be revitalized.

Finally, I think our third core issue centers around labor. Wages and benefits have declined in real terms over the past 30 years despite robust economic growth. This has occurred because multinational corporations have been allowed to force the US labor force to compete with labor all over the world, most notably in China and Latin America. The solution is two fold: first, we need strong unions in this country and we need to enforce our labor laws. Second, we need a way to disincentivize companies from maintaining labor forces outside the US to exploit poorer labor conditions. Our message should be "Strong Unions and Penalties for Outsourcing."

That's pretty simple. What are you protesting for?

"Keeping Money out of Politics"
"Strong Unions and Penalties for Outsourcing"
"Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist"

Thoughts?

[Daniel Flack]

Maybe something along these lines for new messages are easily skewed and misconstrued,maybe we might want to craft the message around an old but potentially still viable document.
The constitution is not inept,it has though been circumvented...

Would like to work with others on crafting this message...maybe something along these lines...


"We are a movement of the people,by the people and for the people We believe in all the right's,perogative's and duties of the constitution.We believe in the pursuit of domestic wellbeing for the whole first and foremost.We believe in the exercise of the greater good,the application of limitations and due dilligence in regards to the economic,political and social wellbeing of the whole of our people.

We believe that government is an instrument of the people,and that our representatives serve at our discretion,and are as servants to the constitution and the whole.And that all processes of government and economy are private in nature though public in their bearing,interelated and therefore subject to the scope of authority and responsible too the whole and the greater good.

We demand there be no law made by any governmental entities,nor any branch of government,executive,legislative or judicial that shall abrige these right's fundamentally or in it's scope
of exercise by our citizen's without benefit of constitutional amendment'



A few suppositions,
We cannot frame truth with reference to propriety of any sort, and serve the greater good. This unfettered pursuit of our wellbeing in the form of truth seeking is essential to freemen. We must choose between our sensibilities and our wellbeing, sometimes choosing being uncomfortable as opposed to catering to our fear of offense.

It is time to call things as they are, not as we would have them.We live with fragmented half truths accepted as socially received beleifs and often truth is subdued because it is unpopular or unprofitable.

We believe that it is not men that must rule,but principle's.we believe that we must place principle's before personality's and that the truth of a thing is not dependent upon it's genesis,source,or who sais it,validate's it,rather a thing is true or not based upon it's internal merit,it's internal merit represent's it's relationship to the truth and not some vested interest,nor shared value's that represent a few of our part's.

We believe in the seeking of justice as a means and a method,not taken to extreme's where as the virtue now become's a vice,rather we seek the median of all thing's large and small and recognize that life is based in and a matter of degree's,for extreme's breed extreme's.

We believe that natural law and nature inform us.