http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/21/occupy-movement-proposes-refusing-pay-back-loans very mature.
I agree, lobbyists are the biggest problem IMO. When the Constitution was created, I'm sure they knew certain states would have more influence (this very debate led to the bicameral legislature we have today, to try to curtail that effect while still having proportional representation) what I don't think they foresaw, was politicans forming policy not based on their constituent's needs, but on donors and select groups' desires.
sorry if already posted, but this lightens the mood (in a dark way at least) http://www.facebook.com/OccupyLulz
Great image, that cuts to the heart of what the OWS is getting at. It's odd how some people on this board are going out of their way to protect the lobbyists.
Name one board member or political ideology that approves of Washington having lots of lobbyists.That's not why OWS is out there inconveniencing citizens. Everyone supports less lobbyists. 'no lobbyists' is not legislation. No legislation is possible that would accomplish that. Earlier in the thread, one poster described this hypothetical legislation as 'if you work for a company and talk to a politician you can then only donate $100 to their campaign'. I would love to hear the rest of the liberals proposed legislation to stop money from affecting politics
What are you or any groups doing to protest against lobbyists? They are the biggest group doing something about the influence of lobbyists.
supporting free markets. What we are doing is winning the biggest election in the last 50-60 years to get free market supporters in office. In a free market one has no reason to lobby. This is how adults change the world, not by throwing a hissy fit in the street. You also didn't answer anything I asked. Who supports lots of lobbyists in Washington? What does your 'no lobbyist' legislation look like?
The woman on the left is what "Occupy Wall Street" should be about. The two duds on her right drive Middle America (swing voters) into the anti-Obama camp (thanks!). Tea Parties would uphold or be willing to compromise on some of her points. The other two fit neatly into Newt's admonition to "take a bath and get a job."
Only problem with the sign on the left is the "tweet new ideas" part, this can't be successful or taken seriously if there's no set ideals they're fighting for.
In another time the quote would be, "let them eat cake" right before the guillotines starting rolling.
the problem is she no doubt voted for obama, and will vote for him again, with no reflection on the point that he and his admin are driving the need for most of her "ideas."
Closing tax loopholes and shelters, to me, and extending curbs on insider trading to Congressional members and staff is desirable. Public financing for campaigns is do-able. Repealing the Bush tax cuts in exchange for reducing federal employment by an equal amount is compromise-able. Breaking up corporations is a non-starter, but outlawing grants of government money to private industry and better regulation of Wall Street / lobbying are acceptable. I don't know what she means by the "revolving door."
