Skip to main content

9 demands of the 99%

Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless movement without defined demands. No one has the right to issue a set of demands in the name of Occupy Wall Street, and the goals of the 99 percent are still broader. But just as leaderlessness means none of us can speak for the movement as a whole, it gives each of us not just the right but the imperative to speak up and take action for ourselves, for the 99 percent, for a level playing field.

It's in that spirit that we're partnering with Working America on a 9 demands of the 99 percent campaign. The petition starts with eight demands, including basic principles like abolishing corporate personhood and more specific policies like passing a financial speculation tax. These are broad ideas aimed at starting to close the gaping chasm between the 1 percent and the rest of us, about putting the brakes on the continuing growth of that chasm and returning power to the 99 percent.

The ninth demand is up to you. Maybe it's a state or local issue. Maybe it's protecting Social Security and preventing corporations from stealing their retirees' pensions. Maybe it's taking action to close the wealth gap between white and black, or the gender pay gap. Whatever it is, raise your voice and let us know what policy or principle you think would make America work for the 99 percent.

What's your demand?

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Restore All the Solutions the Democratic Party (18+ / 0-)

    proved over half a century from the New Deal thru the Great Society. We don't need any "ideas" or theories, we've got hard answers rusting in the history books.

    It's 100 times easier to sell people on "restoring" something that's in the living memory of millions of us, even if the memory is dimming, than on developing something.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:09:55 AM PST

  •  it sounds like making demands (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JMoore, MKSinSA, Catte Nappe

    of the people, not necessarily on behalf of the people.

    I don't quite see how 6 is enforced, 4 seems to be at least partly covered by Dodd-Frank, and 8 (corporate personhood) is something of a red herring -- the 1976 ruling that campaign expenditures are speech seems to have more to do with corporate influence than revisiting the basic structure of what corporations are.  (And if CU were the problem, how is it that the financial crisis anteceded it)?

    There's no strong reason to have 9 lists, but collective bargaining rights and environmental protections would make sense there.  I suppose many of the industrial unions might not want the latter, and the former is probably the most obvious omission so it doesn't look like the union sponsorship isn't simply promoting its own book.  

    Oh, and to be super-technical, accounting reforms to regulate inter-company transfer pricing to limit offshore tax loopholes.

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:15:59 AM PST

  •  Universal health care (17+ / 0-)

    with affordable copays and premiums, and the balance paid for out of general tax revenues (this obviously requires taxes to go up for those who have income or wealth).

    why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

    by marking time on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:18:22 AM PST

    •  I would settle for health care that isn't more (0+ / 0-)

      than twice as expensive as it should be when compared to other nations with comparable (ok -- not comparable: better) health care systems.

      Get rid of needless procedures, bars to competition, and other abuses in the "system", and most of the problems go away.

      Who knows?  Make the system work like it should, it might even be easier to peddle universal health care as a competitive matter that won't break the back of the budget.

      Might piss off a few doctors, hospital owners, medical equipment and pharmaceutical manufactures, but...

      what the heck.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:13:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Progressive health care tax on all types of income (0+ / 0-)

      should be instituted to cover a single payer system to cover health care for all.  Federal health care expenses should be removed from the federal budget thus allowing the budget to move in the right direction.

      States could then support education reforms, higher teacher pay, subsidized technical training for students not interested in college and also subsidized state universities for all that qualify.

      Forget protecting the rich and the corporations.  Reset America.  

      •  about a "health care tax" -- (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure I like lots of specific taxes - health care, social security, fica, a tax for this and a tax for that.

        I'd rather see a list of things this country will do - and I would put health care, secure retirement, education, unemployment benefits and a few others right up there with defense - and then find the tax structure that funds them all.

        And the final tax strucutre should of course be progressive.

        But the first debate needs to be what we want to do and what we want to be.  Then, how do we fund it.  Starting with what we want to spend and then finding out how little it pays for is backwards.

        why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

        by marking time on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:28:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, you wouldn't have to raise taxes. (0+ / 0-)

      If we altered Medicare to Medicare for all, we'd actually save trillions of dollars over the next decade.

      It needs to be 100% public and publicly administered, with all negotiations for lower prices on the table. But if we do that, taxpayers would actually save hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

      Medicare currently is set aside for the elderly. That is obviously the most costly demo in the country. Open the system up to everyone, including the young and healthy, including the people who can pay in but don't need to take out, and we make the system solvent for centuries.

      In fact, we'd actually run surpluses and could improve benefits.

  •  How will this be used? (5+ / 0-)

    Is there a plan for these demands?

    •  Interesting how they seem to be seeping out now. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      •  Labor doesn't seem to get the fact (3+ / 0-)

        that endorsing a president who is Mr. Wall Street might be a problem and might create some conflict with OWS and their message.  So they just try to grab the 99% brand and try to speak for us.  

        If they worked from the outside instead of tying themselves to the Dem party, maybe they wouldn't be so frustrated about how they don't get the same kind of turnout and response from the general public that OWS does, wouldn't be losing rank and file support, and maybe they wouldn't need to coopt their brand.

        And I'm labor friendly in the extreme - come from a family that has generations of diehard union people.

        But they are screwing up badly by supporting a party that has abandoned them and everyone else except the 1% and what they are doing here is wrong, IMHO.

        I thought maybe they'd get it after seeing this movement rise up.  But clearly they don't.  For the first time in my life I might turn against big Labor.  They have to understand that they need to be a movement, not a party.

  •  I demand... (16+ / 0-)

    ..that first, the American traditional media uniformly release an apology to the American public for the horrific, harmful job they have done over the last 30 years.

    All media entities should designate one spokesperson to appear on national TV & apologize for the destructive lies & gratuitous fluff the given network has perpetrated on the American people since c. 1980.

    Then the American traditional media should uniformly offer an apology for allowing FOX News to flourish unhindered since its inception.

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:26:39 AM PST

    •  Yup, return control of the people's airwaves to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe shikspack, jaf49, koosah, Citizenpower

      The People.  

      Bush hijacked the US with lies about 9/11 and crashed it into Iraq, killing over 500,000 human beings. So far, he's avoided arrest and prosecution.

      by Zydekos on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:33:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That wouldn't make that much difference... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jaf49, mmacdDE, jds1978, Zydekos terms of television, since the 24-hour news channels that are causing so many of the problems aren't broadcasting over the people's airwaves.

        In radio, which is dominated by right-wing hate voices, I think it could make more difference—but the problem there is that right-wing radio is profitable, and in most markets left-wing radio simply isn't. I'd favor stronger limitations on station ownership and a more stringent public-service and public accountability requirement, but no business can take loss after loss and keep operating.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:49:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Restore the Fairness Doctrine (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, Zydekos

          that Reagan repealed.

          •  I'm not a fan of telling media companies... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            whipmeco, Zydekos

            ...what they can and can't do with the airwaves, beyond telling them that they have to serve the public.

            Rather, I'd have a policy that prioritizes spectrum diversity more than station diversity, and have that apply across the board to music and talk. The idea is that the public is served by having a diversity of voices—not by forcing the right-wing talk station to play some left-wing stuff at 2AM when nobody's listening.

            So instead of having eight stations playing the same shitty music or the same shitty right-wing talk, I'd be telling licensees "there's already a shitty top-40 station in this market, so you're not getting a license here; instead, it'll go to this other station that plays bluegrass."

            A licensee would have to show that their offering is substantially different from whatever's currently on the market—or that they would do a given genre/type better than the licensee currently doing that genre/type on the market—in order to get a new license.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:51:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who gets to decide? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              That's the critical question when one begins to use words such as "fairness." Someone has to be empowered to make that decision and I've never met anyone to whom I'm willing to give that power.

            •  The big problem there (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is not only who decides, it's that stations change their formats and their mix of shows based on their ratings.

              You're going to force a station that tried running bluegrass and found nobody listened to keep losing money?

              •  No, they can play something else. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Just not something that's already in that market.

                If they think they can do a given format better than the station that's currently in that market doing that format, I'd make sure there was a process in place for them to challenge that other station's license.

                But I think that much of the reason people don't listen to diverse formats on the radio is because they're not really available.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:45:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  it's a bit Maoist, no? n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:40:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Demand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JMoore, Little Lulu, Catte Nappe

    Return to being about the 99% vs the 1% and the criminal effect of the unholy marriage between DC and Wall Street.

    I'm finding myself increasingly alienated by some aspects of the #OWS movement, whereby some vocal supporters of revolution are starting to focus blame now not on the 1%, but of those who are part of the 99%.

    We have had posters here accuse those that are not entirely supportive of being straight up traitors or enablers, that if we don't agree with a particular tactic that we are part of the problem, not of the solution.

    We are seeing people propose actions that will be damaging to other members of the 99% and being told that this is acceptable because those that are proposing such actions "Know what's better for us".

    We are seeing elements that want to escalate #OWS into full scale revolution and tear down ALL systems, rather than fix the elements of our society that are not working.

    There is a loudly vocal subsection of the #OWS movement that is using it to promote ideologies that many who are part of the 99% disagree with, and some fringe ideologies that are probably supported by less than 5% of the 99%.

    If the #OWS movement continues to broaden it's aims &  targets  and at the same time starts to be used to promote anarchist ideologies then it should be honest with itself and others that they are hiding behind the 99% and using the movement to promote issues that the 99% may well not agree with.

    The current time is critical for #OWS, either find some direction that is compatible with the aim of speaking to the 99%, or stop presuming to speak for me and watch as the movement splinters and fragments into obscurity.

    •  I demand that the movement holds a convention (0+ / 0-)

      1. Call for bids to host a nationwide OWS convention.
      2. Convention nominates and elects leaders, spokesmen, spokeswomen, etc..
      3. Convention debates and votes on planks.
      4. Leaders make calls to action as they see appropriate.

      Unless the goal is another French style revolution, this leaderless shit is getting them nowhere.

      I'm a fucking retard.

      by Helpless on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:23:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I demand that we stop making additional demands (21+ / 0-)

    OWS was right from the start.  It's about TBTF and the role of money in politics, period. Win on those, win on everything else.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:29:55 AM PST

    •  Agree 110% (8+ / 0-)

      My "demand" has been, and continues to be "End economic and political policies that privilege the 1% over the rest of us."  Any detail beyond that simply invites fragmentation and argumentation; and provides opportunity for pols and pundits to parse the fine points of any specific recommendation.

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:24:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, AmericanAnt, whipmeco, mmacdDE

      I have had this rant bottled up for weeks. I've been silent because I have not been out on the street getting arrested. Who am I to lecture OWS? But...since you asked, here it is:

      "2. Support education. Put teachers back in classrooms and ease the crippling burden of student debt."

      Hello...this is OWS, not the NEA. Which political consultant slipped that one in there? How does this make those who didn't go to college, or who paid off their loans feel?

      "3. Keep working families in their homes. Pass a mortgage relief plan that puts the needs of homeowners above the greed of mortgage bankers."

      We have been down this road before and it's a political loser. Only half of Americans own homes -- the richer half. Of them, at most 5% are behind on their mortgages. Are we ready to piss off everyone who did not buy a house, or who is making payments on their house on time to please this 2.5%? If you want to help homeowners, give them jobs. We already have a group trying to pass a jobs bill, don't we?

      OWS NEEDS TO "DANCE WITH THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THEM": Big banks, the super-rich, and corporations have too much influence over policy. That's the issue. That's the only issue. The issue has massive support.

      Extraneous resolutions in favor of rainbows, puppies, and schoolteachers only weaken the message.  But then sucking at messaging is what we are best at, right? We're Liberals, after all.

      Just think of how punked we'll feel when we look back and see that we had thousands in the streets, massive public approval, and pissed it all away for nothing. Please, please, stay on message, stay focused!

      /flame off

      •  "rainbows, puppies, and schoolteachers" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I know everyone will hate that line, but I think it's great.

        But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

        by Rich in PA on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:24:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That doesn't mean they won't elect forclosure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManhattanMan, Helpless
        Only half of Americans own homes -- the richer half. Of them, at most 5% are behind on their mortgages.

        There's a difference between being "behind" in a mortgage, and being so upside-down in a mortgage that you simply walk away from it.  As an anecdotal example:  My friend's brother is a Neurosurgeon with excellent credit.  During the housing bubble, he purchased a 2 million dollar home.  In the past four years, his house has lost 50% of its value.  Effectively, half of his mortgage payment each month goes into a "black hole".    The bank won't refinance because he's so underwater.  He has no problem making his payments, but why should he?  It's far better to just walk away from it and take the seven year credit hit, than to continue paying twice the value of the property.

        I imagine this situation is playing out more than it gets press.

        •  Yes, and it is not our job... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 bail out the bank that loaned money to the Neurosurgeon.

          "Aid to homeowners" is really not aid to homeowners. It is aid to the banks that loaned to the homeowners.

          When your friend walks away from his mortgage (more power to him) the bank will have to eat the loss. That's their job.  

          Why should we ask a guy who doesn't even own a home to subsidize the bank that (probably) refused him a loan in favor of the Neurosurgeon?

        •  To me, that's just stupid (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's your HOME, not just an investment. And yes, maybe he's 'throwing half his mortgage payment into a black hole' - and maybe the value will increase again when the economy improves.

          RENTERS are always throwing their money into a 'black hole' - they aren't gaining any equity. But you still need a place to live.

          So he would rather take the credit hit, RENT for the 7 years, and throw ALL that money down a 'black hole'? Because if he walks away from that house, NOBODY will give him a mortgage for another one.

          Of course, given that he's a neurosurgeon, maybe he's got enough money saved that he can just buy a new house outright. Lucky him.

          Most people who are underwater on their mortgages aren't that lucky.

      •  We do price supports for farmers,... (0+ / 0-)

        bailed out the auto industry.  Why not price supports for houses?

        Put some of our Social Security trust fund into buying houses where the homeowner is underwater.

        Let the GOP try to raid Social Security when it's fully invested in tangible property.

        I'm a fucking retard.

        by Helpless on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:28:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I demand that Corporations not be allowed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JMoore, blue aardvark, mmacdDE

    to own other corporations either in whole or in part. The reasoning is as follows:

    Suppose a corporation invents a process or product which it thinks likely to cause harm. It sets up a wholly owned subsidiary corporation, produces the product or conducts the dubious process, and pays all proceeds not needed internally as dividends back to the parent corporation.

    Then it gets sued and goes bankrupt but being a corporation the parent corporation, due to the limited liability which is the primary benefit of incorporating, is not on the hook for the actual damages. That's just wrong.

    If two corporations want to work together on a project they should only be allowed to set up a partnership business where both are separately liable should one of the parent corporations go bankrupt.

    •  if the parent used the sub (0+ / 0-)

      solely for the purpose of shielding liability, it's not entitled to the benefits of the corporate form, already.  If judges are being too reticent to pierce the veil, well, the need for new judges (and therefore to elect some democrats) is already on the table as a way to implement many of these ideas.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:42:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't really matter whether the original or (0+ / 0-)

        primary purpose was to shield liability. The liability should pass upwards. This takes it out of the hands of judges.

        •  then the same logic would apply (0+ / 0-)

          to corporations with a single majority shareholder.  Indeed, it argues there should only ever be partnerships.  For wall st. firms, I might agree, not other aspects of the economy.  

          If the sub is adequately capitalized and treated as a separate entity, it should be able to pay out claims.  Where this doesn't happen seems like (a) an individual failing and (b) wouldn't crack a top 9.  The laws designed to prevent the harm described are already in place.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:59:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I demand that OWS (7+ / 0-)

    occupies the voting booths in every district and every election from dog catcher to the presidency.  
    In fact, I Insist on it!

  •  Here was my #9 demand: (8+ / 0-)

    Eliminate the artificial cap on the size of the House of Representatives. One of the reasons the Representatives don't represent the people is that the size of legislative districts makes it virtually impossible for a grassroots campaign to threaten their jobs. A 150,000:1 citizen to representative ratio would require Representatives to be more responsive to the people they represent.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:46:01 AM PST

    •  I like this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ManhattanMan, JamesGG, angelajean

      We can go down to districts of 30,000 people (not voters - residents) per the Constitution. That might be too small - > 10,000 in the House - but there is no way for one person to represent the interests of 700,000 equitably.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:18:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly... and the large size of districts... (3+ / 0-)

        ...means that in order to challenge a sitting Representative, a candidate has to have a shitload of money behind them—which makes it unlikely for seats to switch parties (even this year, we're only going to see maybe 100 of 435 seats in play) and even more unlikely for primary challenges to take place without national-party money behind them.

        Smaller districts would allow for more primary challenges and more seats being at risk of changing party hands (either between the two major parties or even to a third party). From where I'm sitting, that looks a hell of a lot more like democracy.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:44:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Kind of a stretch don't ya think? (0+ / 0-)

      Haven't we had 435 Reps for 100 years?

      I still believe in grassroots campaigns, as long as they stick to a strong message and articulate it correctly. I think the best movements in this country have been grassroot.

    •  Alaska's pop. is ~725,000; so they would have 5 (0+ / 0-)

      reps? California's pop is 38,000,000; so they would have 253 reps??

      This goes back to the Connecticut Compromise: Virginia Plan (Big State) Vs. New Jersey Plan (Small state). Does more rep's correlate with more or less influence when you compare big to small states? How many senators should we have, etc?

      I don't think the problem is the amount of reps, it's about electing the right ones.

      •  Yep. They'd have 253 reps. (0+ / 0-)

        Which would mean that each of those representatives would have to be a lot more responsive to what their communities were demanding—because it would be a lot easier for the community to organize a grassroots candidacy and put them out of a job.

        And while we can change the number of Senators per state, the Constitution expressly forbids even an Amendment that would allow for an uneven number of Senators per state.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:41:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Making California more influential than Alaska (0+ / 0-)

          and thus making them even less represented in the legislature.

          •  They'd be represented... (0+ / 0-)

            ...according to the number of people they had.

            In the house purporting to represent the people, why shouldn't representation be proportional to the actual population of the people?

            If California's population is that much greater than Alaska's, then shouldn't California have that much more representation than Alaska?

            If Alaska is disproportionately overrepresented in the House, doesn't that mean that the people of California are being shortchanged?

            The Senate is where states are all equal.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:16:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How is Alaska over represented in the House? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              They have one rep, would you give them none?

              All the states are given representatives based on population, the minimum you can have is one.

              If anything, the big states are over represented.
              California has a population of 37,253,956. They have 53 Representatives, one for every 700,000 people. Alaska has a population of 710,231 and one Representative.

              So Alaska has slightly more people per rep.

              The number of Representatives is driven more by the space in the Capitol than anything else. If you have 3 times the number of reps in the House there is no way in HELL they can meet in the Capitol - or much of anywhere other than a stadium. You'd be talking 1200 reps, with close to that many staff. Add in security personnel and various other staffers and you'll need a conference area that can hold 3000 - and visitors/spectators/press.

              •  So if Alaska isn't overrepresented now... (0+ / 0-)

                ...then how would it have any less power under a 150,000/rep scheme? If the proportion is the same, then why would Alaska have a problem with it?

                Also, it seems to me that if it's really the size of a building that's standing between us and a more representative government, then the building—not the government—is the thing that should change.

                Here's a thought as to venue: RFK stadium is sitting on prime DC real estate, and the only events that actually go on there anymore are DC United soccer games. Not only would the newly-built House of Representatives and House offices have all the technological bells and whistles they could possibly want and built-in access to mass transit (with a Metro station right there), they'd also provide a lovely view of the Anacostia (and maybe bump the cleaning of that river up on Congress's priority list).

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 12:38:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That would be fine with me (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not against increasing the size of the House. But it would be a massive undertaking, and you would have to build the new facilities first.

                  Given today's climate, I just don't see it happening.

          •  It balances out in the Senate (0+ / 0-)

            California and Alaska both have two senators.

          •  It's not about representing States. (0+ / 0-)

            It's about representing people.

    •  Do you know if this proposal has been written up (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      elsewhere. I remember a diary here on DailyKos but never hotlisted it.

      I think this is something I want to look into further.

      I like the idea partly because it brings representation back to the people but also because it would force Congress to look at a new way of doing business. Obviously, they couldn't all go to DC to do business. They would have to take advantage of modern technology and conduct business via the internet. That would mean representatives could work from their home of record - they could work among the very people they represent. That means they could have town halls before big votes and find out what their constituents really think.

      It would also make it harder for lobbyists to lobby everyone - both because of the huge numbers and because of the distances involved in visiting everyone.

      •  I'm not sure how remote access... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...would work with the quorum requirement in Article I, Section 5, or the inability of Congress to adjourn to another location—but I think that would be a fascinating discussion.

        As for whether this idea has been written about before, I'm sure it has but I don't remember any specific instance... I think I may have written a comment or three about it a few years back when the Electoral College was a matter of discussion, because this would make that much more equitable as well, but nothing specific comes to mind.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:51:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Federal reserve, private central banking. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And I just don't get the taxing of the gambling, I mean financial transactions, at least not before that system is gutted.  Most of those gambling options should be abolished first.  

    •  the line is very hard to draw (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MKinTN, Sparhawk, BigAlinWashSt

      how do distinguish between holding options or derivatives as hedges or for speculation?  or even stock transactions?

      I understood the proposal to be for a tax on high frequency trading, and there are versions to tax gains on hedges differently depending on when the investor held the underlying asset or not.  A ban on naked CDS's would make sense, a ban on CDS's generally would not -- though they should be regulated as insurance.  

      Which reminds me, nothing on the list about closing the carried interest loophole.  I knew there was a list in a Kristof column that was missing but couldn't recall which.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:08:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd ditch the bit about student loan relief (10+ / 0-)

    That's become a bit of a hobby horse among the opponents of OWS, characterizing the movement as a bunch of upper-middle-class college kids who took out mathematically illiterate loans and now want the government to do something about them.

    Also, as written this demand is very vague, and not really a demand that anyone can follow.   How is the government supposed to ease the burden of student debt, beyond what has already been done?  

    Perhaps if you can name some specific act, even better a bill, that would have a beneficial effect.  This would also shut up critics, because then you make it clear that you don't want the government to pay your loan, but rather to enact some other reform to limit borrowing and abuse.

    Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

    by Caj on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:59:20 AM PST

    •  Yes (7+ / 0-)

      Plus, what do the rest of us who slaved to pay our loans down get, a cookie?

      Making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy would end a lot of student loan related issues up front. Make the lender actually think twice about making the loan.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:15:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is a perfect example of a specific solution (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, ManhattanMan

        Making loans dischargeable like any other loan would cause lenders to loan with the usual amount of care.  This would both reduce the enomity of debt and also slow down the rising cost of education made possible by too much money.

        Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

        by Caj on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:41:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It could only be done for new loans, people who took loans under the current system would still be obligated, or it would be ex post facto because lenders agreed to make loans under the previous regime, not this one.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:54:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that's true of a lot of reform (0+ / 0-)

            When banks obliterate the nation's wealth, we enact reform to prevent it from happening again.  This only protects the next generation of earners, though, and does not pull all our previous money out of the toilet.

            Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

            by Caj on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 02:06:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The rest of us didn't have to pay as much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to attend public universities. Today's students don't have that option. With people finally out in the streets now is not the time to weaken demands anyway. You ask for MORE than you think you can get not less.

    •  i've said it before (6+ / 0-)

      and I'll say it again.  Federal student loan guarantees are a bad plan to begin with.  It causes inflation of education costs AND helps funnel money to private colleges.  If we're going to make grandiose demands, go bigger.

      Really what we need is a huge injection of investment in public higher education.  The cost of a public university should be kept low through taxpayer support.  It should be cheap enough that it is attainable for a person without means.

      Private universities should charge whatever they can.

      The federal government making loan guarantees is a bad way to make education accessible and just screws up the costs - it's actually making education less attainable as time goes on.

      •  Yup (4+ / 0-)

        The dynamic goes like this: you can afford to pay $5k cash for college by flipping pizzas or whatever. College costs $5k, you scrape by, graduate, you're done.

        The government sees this and 'helps' you with a guaranteed loan for $5k. The college then promptly raises its tuition to $10k! Now it sucks just as much to pay the $5k, and you have the loan on top of it!

        A great system for colleges and loan companies, but it serves students very poorly, and yes, non-profit colleges do this too.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:32:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yep. demand pull inflation. nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
        •  But this is true for other financial aid too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          If it was a grant instead of a loan, colleges could still raise their tuition to compensate for the availability of money.

          To some extent you will never escape this:  if you have any system that allows more people to go to college, there will be an increase in tuition rates simply due to an increase in demand.

          Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

          by Caj on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:56:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

            But loans are a particularly insidious thing, because it causes students who are extremely ill equipped to do so to make major life decisions involving tens of thousands of dollars when to someone who is 17 $100 is a lot of money.

            Plus, at least grants are often made on some kind of merit basis, so it'll tend to inflate costs for academically poorer students, which sucks but as you point out, it is the nature of limited resources.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:03:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have to disagree here (0+ / 0-)
              But loans are a particularly insidious thing, because it causes students who are extremely ill equipped to do so to make major life decisions involving tens of thousands of dollars when to someone who is 17 $100 is a lot of money.

              If that kid did not go to college, we would expect that kid to enter society and manage utility bills, car payments and credit cards.  

              18 is more than old enough to make life decisions involving personal finances and debt and amounts of money large enough to buy a car.  Previous generations could do this, and nothing happened to our genes between then and now to make young adults incapable of thinking about dollar amounts.

              Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

              by Caj on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:31:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Student loan relief is vital to preventing young (0+ / 0-)

      people from becoming slaves to this incredible burden.
      It affects their entire lives.There have to be create ways to limit this debt in order to allow students to participate economically in our society.Anything else is indentured slavery.

    •  right demand parents save for thier kids education (0+ / 0-)
  •  #8 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Positronicus, angelajean

    Should be #1

  •  99-9 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, icemilkcoffee, bobinson

    Cain was onto something. Ha.

  •  I demand we RETHINK about promoting 9-9-9!?! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Giles Goat Boy


    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:03:54 AM PST

  •  I demand OWS stop lumping Democrats with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, BenderRodriguez

    the 1%/RETHUGLICANS.

    Stop throwing the baby out with the filthy bathwater.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:05:11 AM PST

  •  999 demands are not even enough (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rizzo, icemilkcoffee

    but #9 should be to repurpose and rescale our MIC from international wars to actual national defense including support of infrastructure and universal medical care ( make the VA part of Medicare for everyone

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:06:20 AM PST

  •  Congress first - 4 points (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the dogs sockpuppet, sargoth

    1) Ban members of Congress and high level government officials from ever becoming lobbyists.
    2) A constitutional amendment to finally address campaign finance rules.
    3) A more progressive tax code w/o loopholes and eliminating most deductions. that includes rewarding people for having more children.
    4) Filibuster reform in the Senate and longer terms for House members between elections.

    Don't give up... hold our party leaders accountable.

    by owl06 on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:06:22 AM PST

    •  Why are there not tons of rcs on this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Corporations are driven by the bottom line, not by concerns for health, safety or the environment. This is why we need government regulations.

      by the dogs sockpuppet on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:21:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed on all but #3. (0+ / 0-)

      Granted, I'm biased as a parent. :)

      A couple with children will have far less disposable income than a couple without (assuming both have the same household income).

      •  no offense meant... (0+ / 0-)

        but maybe people could have fewer children or wait until they can afford to care for another properly? I have an uncle who complained about always being broke, yet kept having more kids. I also know a young lady and her husband who couldn't afford to live on their own let alone have a child who are having one soon. It adds to overpopulation, and takes money out of government coffers for the kids that are already born!

        Don't give up... hold our party leaders accountable.

        by owl06 on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 12:20:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ban political television ads. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, Leo in NJ, angelajean, mmacdDE

    The airwaves are publicly owned and leased to the public. The vast majority of the money politicians spend on campaigns is on television ads, and that is why they need money from lobbyists. All we need to do is ban such ads from TV and make all campaigns distribute their ads on the web.

    Just like we ban cigarette ads. Same thing.

    •  what about ads on cable? (0+ / 0-)

      or as more people get tv from intertubes, there?

      for that to work, you'd have to overturn buckley v. valeo, which would have all sorts of ancillary benefits, including addressing anything cfr related with citizens united without trying to completely rewrite centuries of corporations law as a side effect.  

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:11:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ads aren't the problem (0+ / 0-)

      Sharing information is a good thing. If someone twists the truth, an informed public will decide whom to blame, and whom to stop trusting.

      The problem is getting all that money to buy ads. Either media companies should donate X air-hours to all candidates, or every candidate should have a limit on expenditures.

      Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
      I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

      by Leo in NJ on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:33:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One elusive thing...not really a demand...A prayer (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mithra, Leo in NJ, ManhattanMan, sargoth

    If you lie to the law you get in trouble...local... state...federal...doesn't matter...

    We have truth in advertising laws....personal truth laws like slander...

    So why in the hell is it ok to LIE to the American people ??? people...they are all getting away with it on a regular basis while the few fact and truth-finders we have... have to put up with harassment and ridicule...and sometimes worst...

    How much of the crap that we are having to deal with now is because of dishonesty ??

        Tell us the truth or face the consequences !!!

    I know I'm a naive dreamer...there never are any consequences but felt good saying it anyway :)

    “And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

    by JMoore on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:07:32 AM PST

  •  A Rothschild weighs in (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugwb, Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN, sargoth

    And OWS trembles:

    Nathalie Rothschild.
    Freelance writer; Correspondent, spiked

    This Preoccupation With Playing the Victims of Wall Street Is Pathetic

    Posted: 11/18/11 09:58 AM ET

    This week marked the two-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. With the Zuccotti Park encampment in lower Manhattan cleared and hundreds being arrested in demonstrations in the financial district, it appears protesters have adopted an unflattering victim mentality.

    There's a whole lot of talk and tweeting going on about 'police brutality', 'Nazi' NYPD officers, 'Cossacks in riot gear' sent in to 'cleanse' Zuccotti Park, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg behaving like a repressive Arab leader. It all shows that today's radical left-wing activists are happy, not only to display great historical ignorance, but also to revel in an image of themselves as put-upon underdogs.

    Why else would the new poster-girls for the amorphous OWS movement be an 84-year-old lady, a pregnant teen and a disabled woman -- three people who all got caught up in the tumult in the past few days? These are all figures many will recognize as fragile and innocent and so they are pushed to the forefront to demonstrate how vulnerable the protesters are.

    See, all these beatings and protests are so...inconvenient, and yucky. Why can't they just roll their eyes and make catty remarks from the Harvard Club, like any decent trust fund baby elitist who's never had a real job citizen?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:08:14 AM PST

  •  Make Illegal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Dead Peasant Insurance

    Naked Credit Default Swaps

    Naked Short Selling

  •  I dont get it Laura??? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, Rizzo, jds1978, ManhattanMan

    IF no one can speak for the 99percent then HOW is DK and Working America coming up with a list of 9 demands for OWS?

    would these be the demands of DK and WorkingAmerica???

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:08:35 AM PST

  •  amazing 99% protest song (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this guy managed to get to play it to a bunch of heads of states...before those heads of states realized what was happening.

    "You enforce your monopolies with guns/ While sacrificing our daughters and sons/ But certain things belong to everyone/ Your thievery has left the people none”.
  •  wow (5+ / 0-)

    they really have missed some key issues in those 8 request.

    to fix this nation we need
    1) to remove ALL private money political elections. All elections should be equally and publicly financed.

    2) Banks needs to be capitalized. and a ratio of 1 to 1 leveraging needs to be established.

    3) The US must begin medicare for all.

    These are the big three, until you discuss and tackle them, not much can nor will change for 1) cuts the puppets strings 2) takes risk out of banking 3) takes the price and burden of health care off of businesses and families.

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:11:25 AM PST

  •  Mandated public financing in ALL Federal... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, singe, bobinson

    ...elections, with NO contributions beyond that cap.

    Cain? A meme: "Nine-nine-nine!" Me? "Maniac!"

    by Obama Amabo on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:12:45 AM PST

  •  I'll play... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dark daze, singe, mzinformed

    All corporations shall be employee owned, and there shall be a ratio of no more than 100 to 1 between the highest and lowest salaries.

    "What is being noticed is only an indication of what is being done." Albert Einstein 1954

    by tundraman on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:12:53 AM PST

    •  re (0+ / 0-)

      So, I start a business and I have to give shares to the janitor? Watch outsourcing and contracting soar under that deal.

      Also, when the organization has to lay people off, how does that work when everyone is an owner?

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:19:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup, the janitor gets a share... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming

        Everyone who works for a corporation does.  As for the layoffs, everyone isn't an owner, but a shareholder.

        I realize it's an extreme shuffling of the current system, but the current system NEEDS it.

        "What is being noticed is only an indication of what is being done." Albert Einstein 1954

        by tundraman on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:30:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  In 15 years (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think I've ever worked for a company that employed its own janitors.  They've all contracted that out to 3rd parties.

        • (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Hires all of the housekeeping staff, groundskeepers, most of the cafeteria staff, the educators who run the on-site day-care, exercise, and health-care centers, etc. Virtually no out-sourcing of anything.

          And all owned by somebody comfortably in the upper reaches of the 1%.

        •  Why do they do that? (0+ / 0-)

          I really can't imagine that it's cheaper. You're paying the employee AND a middle man. And the middle man is going to be making a tidy sum, or why even go through the hassle?

          They could all be part time, no benefits. Pay minimum wage.

          •  There are tons of benefits (0+ / 0-)

            When you're a business you want to do things that are your core competency and avoid things that aren't.

            For example, these minimum wage janitors. Someone has to supervise them, right? That person is going to make more than minimum wage, maybe a lot more.

            What kind of mops should you buy? What solvents are compatible with your floor? Oops, forgot to buy soap again!

            As a business owner, you. do not want to be in the business of dealing with this. You want to be inventing computer chips or whatever, not spending an hour on the phone every week worrying about the details of how your goddamn building is cleaned, nor do you want to hire a physical plant person to do it when the outsource agency has just such a person who supervises 10 buildings like yours.

            Every piece of attention you waste as a business owner is a precious resource gone. Successful people don't spend time or effort on irrelevant bullshit or reinventing the wheel to save a small amount of money, they just write a check and get on with the business of whatever it is that their company actually does.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 03:42:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Delete/rephrase (5+ / 0-)

    This has always been a really, really bad idea and I doubt very many progressive lawyers would agree with this entire demand:

    End corporate control of our democracy. Abolish "corporate personhood" and restore full voting rights to real people.

    The first sentence is fine.  But if we abolish corporate personhood, it would be impossible to sue or regulate a corporation, because it wouldn't be a person before the law.

    What we should be objecting to is treating a corporation like a "natural person," or giving a corporate person more rights than were set out in the 1938 Supreme Court case, Carolene Products.

    But abolishing corporate personhood would be a corporate libertarian's dream because it would place corporations beyond the reach of regulation, taxation or being sued for wrong doing.

    •  Amen - what I want instead (0+ / 0-)

      Is for corporate personhood to be like MY personhood.

      I want it to be just as big a deal to a multinational mega-corporation if I report them as past due as it would be if they were to do it me.

      If want there to be a "corporate death sentence" where in the stocks are frozen, the assets are liquidated, and the officers are banned from participating in publicly traded companies.

      If I sue a corporation and win, I want the sheriff to go to their corporate headquarters and kick them all out if they don't pay the judgement.

      If contracts are only enforceable from one side then we don't have capitalism, we have organized thievery on a global scale.

  •  Now we're getting somewhere. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a concert pianist with a double doctorate... AND YOU CAN BE TOO!

    by kenlac on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:13:24 AM PST

  •  Count me in! (0+ / 0-)

    Totally in agreement with the 8 demands listed. An excellent start!

  •  Limit the maximum size of any corporation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKinTN, mmacdDE

    engaging in commerce in the United States. Too big to fail is too big to exist; companies with annual revenues greater than most states have too much power.

    A corporation can take away your rights, too, not just a government. They may have to use different methods, but they can do it.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:16:00 AM PST

  •  Link is blocked, BTW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Can't see what the first 8 are.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:16:39 AM PST

  •  make for-profit corporations illegal (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to coordinate the work and capital of multiple people to reduce your individual liability and consolidate your profits and taxes, then the only legal structure that will be allowed is a non-profit one.

    Don't worry, CEO's, you can still get obscene salaries, but this might limit the amount of abuse we see today.

    Alternatively, create a new corporate entity structure (which will be the only type allowed), wherein if a business incorporates, in exchange for the obvious benefits they receive for doing so, they must then contribute to the public good.  The way this will be achieved is that any public corporation must create common stock that will be issued to every legal resident.

    Their right to incorporate is being given by the people; The benefit they receive is being authorized by the people.  Therefore, some of the rewards need to be issued to the people.

    You can still have an equity market in this scenario, as no one would be prevented from acquiring more influence as a shareholder, but it would mean that every person in the country would have some minimum amount of guaranteed influence, and they could band together to wield this in proxy battles, etc.

    •  There would be no jobs without profit. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Corporations are in business to make profits. When they do not make profits they go bankrupt nad lay off workers.

      What needs to change is the pay inequity between CEOS and workers. Yes CEOS and managers deserve to make more than the average worker, or new hire but the disparity has increased significantly since the 1980s.

      •  plenty of non-profits have employees (0+ / 0-)

        it would just mean that proceeds would need to go to employees instead of shareholders.

      •  There is no need or reason for profits. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming


        All businesses could function without them.

        Profits are what you have left after you've paid your workforce, paid for production and reinvested in your company.

        We really should be taxing profits at 99%, to push companies to reinvest. At the same time, tax all income above a certain amount at the rates in place in the 40s through the early 70s.

        That would also spur reinvestment in production.

        Low taxes on capital gains and low taxes on high incomes does the opposite. It makes casino capitalism very attractive. It encourages paying execs outrageous amounts in stock options and so on, and then makes it incredibly attractive for businesses to invest in financial transactions instead of people.

  •  Stop The Annoying Web Page Flipping Chase Ads (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YoungArizonaLiberal, montressor

    You try to check out a story on OWS arrests and the page flips to see a Chase ad with dollar bills hailing down. I think it is a "fuck you, we aren't going away" message from the financial industry.

  •  Hell, I'd be happy just demanding #4. (0+ / 0-)

    I'd demand that one nine times and work on the rest later.

    I'm a concert pianist with a double doctorate... AND YOU CAN BE TOO!

    by kenlac on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:17:41 AM PST

  •  Demands (0+ / 0-)

    With no proposed solutions other than 'give us this stuff.'

    How do you propose we do these things? As it is now you might as well add "free ponies" to it.

    •  Read #5 (0+ / 0-)

      This will be paid for by taxing the rich.

      •  Oh well, then. (0+ / 0-)

        haha, no seriously, do you really think that is a plan?

        It isn't like these problems did not exist when the rich were getting taxed more.

        The entire western hemisphere is being swallowed by debt and unemployment, including our pals in Europe who already have outrageous taxation, as well as many of the social programs that OWS wants. They are being forced to dial back all of those wonderful things because they are unaffordable with stagnant or negative growth.

        Should taxes be raised on the rich? Probably! Is that a "plan" of any sort? No. It is like the arguments for the state lottery that was going to fund schools! Oh boy! Didn't work out like that, but it no longer matters, because it is never going away now that those sweet sweet funds are available.

  •  Something about the free trade agreements would be (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Now I am 100% for free trade. I am for free trade between countries which have comparable environmental laws, human rights, worker protection, worker safety, product safety, rule of law, and financial transparency. For example- there should be free trade among the US, Japan, UK, Sweden, etc, etc. China should have free trade too- with India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. When they are ready to play in the big leagues they can step up and adopt first world standards.

  •  Universal health care. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Seems rather elitist of you all to come up with (6+ / 0-)

    eight demands and give the people a voice in a single one.

  •  Obviously I love Daily Kos... (3+ / 0-)

    ...and I am already a member of Working America, but I can't support this list of demands. It's a little unconvincing that you start out by saying "No one has the right to issue a set of demands in the name of Occupy Wall Street", then issue a list of demands in the name of the 99% as if there is a significant distinction.

    Looking at the sponsorship page, it looks like unions co-opting the Occupy movement. It may not be, but that's how it appears. Sorry. I don't question motives, just appearances. Also not fond of having 8 of the 9 demands pre-selected by a few as if they represent the opinions of the entire Daily Kos community.

    I prefer Ministry of Truth's phrasing about "It's time to talk about..." rather than a list of demands.

    My two cents. Again, it's not that I question motives, I just can't support this. It doesn't feel genuine to me.  


    "Every day is a good day to point out hypocrisy"...PvtJarHead

    by Giles Goat Boy on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:23:58 AM PST

  •  Turn the narrative 90 degrees- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water

    Insist that the media stop with the tired narrative of "left vs. right'.  Change it to "top vs. bottom"- that's the real story they should be following.

    •  Fox News has made it a left/right issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizen dan

      CNN has followed suit (of course), MSNBC is pretty good about making it top/bottom.

      Last night on Hannity, Sarah Palin was calling on Pres. Obama to tell "his" protesters to stop the violence, rape, hollering loud enough to make tea baggers hearing aids ring, etc.

      I agree with you 100%! Although I'm not expecting those two to change their rhetoric.

  •  Big money out of politics (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKinTN, claude, mzinformed

    There are too many ways of skirting contribution limits: "Here's the max from me, the max from my spouse, my brother, my brother-in-law, my sisters-in-law, my cousin Ralph, my other cousin Ralph, my corporation, my PAC, my Foundation, my employees (the max each), my Aunt Agatha, her bridge club, her book club, her garden club,..."

    Not enough of a lawyer to draft a bill that would stick, but billions of dollars for TV ads is obscene. And harmful.

    Don't let millionaires steal Social Security.
    I said, "Don't let millionaires steal Social Security!"

    by Leo in NJ on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:25:15 AM PST

  •  Universal voter registration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Restore democracy by making it easier to vote.  The government should maintain a national voter roll.  There should be a database of all citizens.

    •  Voting should be mandatory. (0+ / 0-)

      Every eligible citizen gets the day off with pay to go vote.  No exceptions.

      If you can't be bothered to vote, you really don't deserve the benefits of living in this democracy.

      don't always believe what you think

      by claude on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:47:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  2 items on ther list already done (0+ / 0-)

    I think maybe young people don't read, or they should have been active in 2009 when this legislaitn was being argued in Congress.

    The Dodd Frank financial reform, consumer protection Act & new SEC rules have already dealt with most of the banking and investment problems of the past. Those who run around with singns reading: 'Banks Give Us Back Our money" look pretty foolish a, as the banks have already paid back their government loans.

    Banks cannot give mortgages to people who do not qualify or are not capable of maintaining a mortgage.
    The banks that gave out these bad sub prime loans to people who were not qualified to have a mortgage are all out of business. BofA and Chase bought those bad loans from the failing banks. The people who qualify have been refinanced, but many people who were given those sub prime loans with NO down payment & interest only loans were not qualified to get a mortgage in the first place and still are not qualified.

    The banks should sell the houses to people who do qualify. Anyone who did not put a down payment and only paid interest on their loan, lost nothing as they had NO investment. It was just like paying rent.

  •  Support Net Neutrality (0+ / 0-)

    The first wish you offer the Geenie is Nine More Wishes.

    OWS, 99%, DKos et al won't get a Hearing if Net Neutrality isn't Protected and Guaranteed.

    Notice: This Comment © 2011 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:33:23 AM PST

  •  "Occupy Wall Street is a leaderless movement... (0+ / 0-)

    without defined demands."

    Yet the other night on "The Daily Show," I saw Samantha Bee interviewing the leaders of this "leaderless" movement, who, unlike the folks at Zuccotti Park, were holding a meeting in the comfortable atrium of Deutsche Bank on Wall Street.

    So, is it leaderless or not?

    And, frankly, if it is truly leaderless, it reminds me of George Constanza's insistence that his and Jerry's sitcom pilot plot be about "absolutely nothing."

    Don't get me wrong, folks. I'm a yellow-dog, liberal Democrat and I'm for the people 100% of the time, but this OWS stuff gets more funny and increasingly pointless to me with each passing second.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:34:04 AM PST

  •  Reform Wall Street system of economic injustice (0+ / 0-)

    The bankers swindled people with "liars loans" and have undermined not only our nations financial security but the worlds.The securities industry must be separated from the banking industry. I say nationalize the major banks and bring local ones under public ownership and control.
    Its called "accountability".

  •  My "demand" is really a wish or hope (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheFaithfulStone, stolen water

    that we are able to create the type of society that OWS was creating in Zuccotti....even though I wish the protest hadn't turned into a fight over the tents.  

    But the premise of Libraries on every corner, free healthcare right next door, workers who no longer have to slave 10 hours per day to make it because we contribute to help each other with basic needs....was awesome.  That should be our world everywhere in America, and really that is what every wants.

    Basically everyone has a "tent", everyone gets food, band-aides, books so everyone can learn and grow, everyone gets the tools of life....we all share and contribute.

    If you want an IPAD 2 or an XBox,  then work for that.

  •  clearly, for the DKos demographic, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leo in NJ, stolen water

    Social Security retirement benefits are small potatoes, an abstraction that the little people have to worry about, but the high earners aren't dependent upon.

    But out here in America there are a lot of people who are or will be retired into poverty even with the average SS payout, not to mention those of us who don't even rate the average of around $1100/ month.

    Any reduction of those benefits are a life-and-death concern, and I will not vote for any politician who is party to cutting my meager benefits so Paris Hilton can get a new ball gown.

    The Democratic Party needs to earn my vote by protecting my SS benefits.  I am one of nearly 40 million Americans who need this protection.  Ignore us at your own risk, because we vote...and we remember.

    don't always believe what you think

    by claude on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:39:18 AM PST

  •  to paraphrase tim pool, (0+ / 0-)

    one of the media guys running theother99 livestream covering ows:


    this isn't a leaderless movement.
    we are all leaders.

    our one demand? return what was stolen.

    by stolen water on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:43:44 AM PST

  •  Doesn't go nearly far enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Renee M

    For the long term health and welfare of the country we need:

    1. Single payer health care.

    2. "Free" public education K- collage.

    3. An end to the "war on drugs," private prisons, and the multitude of laws that have turned the country into a prison state.

    4. The overturning of the multitude of laws that have turned the country into a surveillance state, and a reaffirmation of the 4th amendment.

    5. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.

    6. Reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine.

    7. Enactment of a firewall between regulators, and regulated entities.

    8. The end of private monies, and favors (bribes) to political campaigns.

    9. The reaffirmation of union rights, and the return of the Department of Labor to labor.

    You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

    by zerone on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:45:18 AM PST

  •  Prosecution and removal from law enforcement (0+ / 0-)

    including loss of pensions for any law officer who uses indiscriminate weaponry on unarmed protesters or causes broken bones (including teeth) or any organ damage to any unarmed protester.

    If somebody is being violent or setting fires or whatever, you arrest that person, not attack the entire crowd he happens to be in among.  And you don't crack heads or rupture spleens with nightsticks.

  •  My demand -- take profit out of health care (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    enact single payer now.

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:53:03 AM PST

  •  i prefer not having a set of demands. (0+ / 0-)

    first, the reforms needed are painfully obvious. you have to be paid to be stupid and blind not to see it. though they might feign otherwise, the ruling elites know what reforms are needed. anything we offer at this point will be ignored anyways.

    second, instead of offering prescriptives, our job should be to be such a pain in the a** in blocking business as usual that we make the one percent throw up their hands and beg for us to stop.

    our job should be to force the one percent to come to the table.

    our one demand? return what was stolen.

    by stolen water on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:54:06 AM PST

  •  not the 999 plan. (0+ / 0-)


    our one demand? return what was stolen.

    by stolen water on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:59:06 AM PST

  •  my list (0+ / 0-)

    1. Reform campaign financing:
    a.  candidates can only receive donations of 2300 in primary & general from individuals donations.

    b. ban PACS

    c. ban corporate sonations.

    d. no paid TV ADs. Media must provide each candidates equal time.

    2. Shorten election cycle. Candidates can only campaign Jan to March in the election year. All primaries held April-June. Candidates campaign Sept,Oct-Nov.  Only ONE Primary debate & ONE general election debate.

    3. Reform Lobbying rules. NO legislator can become  a lobbyist until 5 years after they have left the job. No lobbyist can run for Congress until they have not been a lobbyist for 5 years.

    4. Return passage of legislation to 2/3 not 60votes

  •  seems that fair elections should be high on (0+ / 0-)

    the list, as all other demands (or the longevity of their implementation) depend on that.

  •  Here's my demand: (0+ / 0-)

    Do your goddam job!

    No, that's not "Get a job, hippie!"  It's "Do your job."

    The job of bankers used to be banking, not gambling.  If bankers had done their jobs, we would not be in this mess.

    The job of regulators used to be enforcement of regulation, not auditioning for their next job at Goldman Sachs.  If regulators had done their jobs, we would not be in this mess.

    The job of our elected representatives is to represent the interests of the electorate.  If our elected representatives had done their jobs, we would not be in this mess.

    The job of our journalists used to be journalism, not propaganda.  If journalists had done their jobs, we would not be in this mess.

    The job of our police officers is to protect the citizenry, not attack it.  If the police were doing their jobs, we might be in a position to fix this mess.

    And finally, the job of voters is to make an informed decision about the candidates on the ballot.  If voters had done their jobs, we would not be in this mess.

    I'm sure we can all add to this list.  But you get the idea.


    When you punch enough holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:05:02 AM PST

  •  Did those porteesting in OWS vote in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder if you asked those who are protesting if they voted in 2010, how many would say YES.

  •  Campaign finance reform! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    All campaigns publically funded...

    Corporations are driven by the bottom line, not by concerns for health, safety or the environment. This is why we need government regulations.

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:12:33 AM PST

  •  I demand that the do-nothing Congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    enact a law to raise the Social Security cap from 106,000 dollars to include all wages, no exceptions.

    Character is who you are when no one is watching.

    by incognita on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:16:00 AM PST

  •  demands (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessical, Giles Goat Boy

        I suppose it is because I am an old guy who has vivid memories of the 60s, but I just don't understand why OWS keeps getting criticized for not having demands.  The Civil Rights Movement  wanted to end racial inequality. The feminist movement wanted to end gender inequality. Neither had any obligation to enumerate all the millions of possible situations in which people could be treated unjustly. The idea was simple: if you treat women (of any color) or people of color unjustly, we are your enemies and we demand you stop.
         Now OWS demands an end to the domination of our society and politics by the 1%. So anything which benefits the rich and injures everyone else like tax breaks for millionaires coupled with Medicare benefit cuts is wrong, and OWS demands that it be stopped. Is that really so difficult?
         When the revolutionaries of 1789 made their "demands" they wanted liberty, equality, and fraternity. Were they supposed to produce a 14,000 page list of specific violations of these fundamental ideals? Really?
         I suggest that Dunning's Resolution, offered by a British supporter of America in Parliament in 1780 would make (tweaked slightly) a good platform:  "The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." Substitute 'the rich'  for 'the Crown' and there you are.

  •  Number 5 does not go far enough (0+ / 0-)

    My demand is that the 1% (and the top 20% for that matter) have a huge increase in their tax contributions and that we fully fund an excellent and FREE pre-K - college public education system.

  •  Not that it matters what I think... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Giles Goat Boy, stolen water

    ...but this bugs me.  

    Its really powerful to say -- look, the conditions of America today are not in keeping with human dignity.  5 percent of the world has 25 percent of its prisoners (and that in the end is quickly tied to the depth of class divisions and the way class and race overlap).  There is no social floor -- the big game is every hungry soul for themselves.  And we are always, always at war -- our first best treasure goes to empire.

    The "we all have worth" meme of OWS is really powerful.  It doesn't have helpful policy prescriptions attached because at this point a smart labrador could see that we are becoming ever more cruel and brutal to those with less, and we need to change this or become something very different that the place we grew up in.

    The measures listed are all kind of positive policy prescriptions, but they don't speak to something that drives people to put themselves at risk, whether from cops or the next employer background check.  I do realize that the job of political folks (who bleed hard to make change possible) is to reduce big inchoate movements to concrete policy proposals.  But...

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:30:39 AM PST

  •  Only one thing needs to be on the list. (3+ / 0-)

    This is getting very frustrating, this discussion about what the 99 want. All these items we want will come, will flow from just one change if it can be made. Representatives don't currently vote for citizens interests, but corporate interests. if you get the money out, only publicly funded campaigns, with not one cent of outside money allowed, the Representatives will no longer be devoted to corporate America. If this is accomplished then you will see votes on single payer, taxes on income over 1 million dollars etc. Just go for this constitutional amendment and you get it all. Stop farting around with a list, just call it "get the money out"

  •  campaign financing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the dogs sockpuppet

    Public financing of election campaigns...might end who is bought and beholden by the oligarchs hopefully end who are the proud corporate sponsors of our gov't leaders.

    End the revolving door and incestuous relationship of washington <--> private sector as a lobbying for an industry and or being appointed to positions.

    48forEastAfrica-Donate to Oxfam The Plutocratic States of America, the best government the top 1% and corporations can buy. We are the 99%-OWS.

    by emal on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:36:12 AM PST

  •  ONE DEMAND SUFFICES. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As a number of individuals have stated (or alluded to) upthread, all of the goals of the first eight demands, and of the hundreds of others rightly jockeying for inclusion, can be achieved by succeeding in ONE PRIMARY DEMAND:


    This demand is the simplest, the most fundamental and the most difficult to achieve, because it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

    I envision that the Amendment would look something like this:

    After meeting certain defined benchmarks of support, no candidate would be permitted to accept any private campaign donations. All qualifying candidates would receive equal financial support by the federal government, paid for by our tax dollars.

    Acknowledging that nearly all so-called "issues advertising" is nothing more than thinly veiled back door support for the candidates that can be bought to implement those issues, ALL ISSUES ADVERTISING WOULD BE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT THOSE FINANCED BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS. You want to make the case that GMO's (for example) are the bestest thing since, uh, processed cheese, you find x number of living, breathing saps to individually contribute the maximum allowable donation, however the Amendment defines that, to finance the promotion of that issue.

    Such an amendment as described above will likely never be passed by a Congress that already owes its very existence to the largesse of the 1%. That's why, in my view, our efforts should be focused toward convening a Constitutional Convention.

    A Constitutional Convention is fraught with danger. Something very scarey could come out of that process. The challenge for OWS (again, in my humble view) is to lay the ground work. Educate the citizenry as to the breadth and depth of the corruption of our government, so that the odds of a Constitutional Convention approving an Amendment that represents real reform will increase.

    And that real, fundamental, essential reform is to get ALL special interest money out of politics. Do that, and every other desired reform of our government and society has a shot at success.

    Surgery is too dangerous! This sucking chest wound just needs a band-aid!

    by WisePiper on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:10:37 AM PST

  •  End the two-party duopoly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water, Nada Lemming

    Abolish the unfair plurality voting system. Replace it with various good systems - Proportional Representation (such as PAL representation) for legislatures, and a good single-winner system like SODA voting, Majority Judgment, or Approval Voting for executive positions.

    This isn't about replacing the two major parties with a third party. It's about keeping them honest by having the third party nipping at their heels. The current system promotes corruption.

    Senate rules which prevent any reform of the filibuster are unconstitutional. Therefore, we can rein in the filibuster tomorrow with 51 votes.

    by homunq on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:12:58 AM PST

  •  Too many things need changing to limit it to ten. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water

    But I'll throw out ten demands, to go along with the rest:

    These changes presuppose a continuation of our present capitalist (and political) system, which I think we need to dump (for full participatory democracy, including the economy). But it lieu of dumping it, we should do the following:

    1. One of the best ways to end inequality is to cap the ratio of CEO and executive pay to rank and file.

    I'd go with Orwell's 10 to 1 max, and that would include all forms of compensation, including stock options and deferred payments.

    All money taken by CEOs and Execs above that 10-1 ratio would be taxed at 99%.

    2. We should also make it illegal for any lending institution, of any kind, to resell a loan -- in whole or in part. Flat out illegal. You make the loan, you own it. This alone would have prevented the majority of the systemic snowball that nearly collapsed the economy.

    3. Term limit the Supreme Court. No one can serve more than eight years. They are now above the law with their life time sinecures.

    4. End the Electoral College

    5. Universal, 100% public, non-profit health care, administrated by the public, not any private institution.

    6. Completely reconfigure the Fed, from top to bottom, after doing a complete and 100% transparent audit. It becomes 100% publicly owned and operated after that. A true "people's bank." Non-profit, subject to democratic rules, regs and vote.

    7. End the way we fund education in America. We change it to central funding, not according to the tax base of a particular place. That obviously just guarantees a worsening of inequality if based upon the relative wealth of an area. We start with proactive measures to get poor schools up to par. Once we have a school system that is as uniformly high quality as possible, we then fund all schools equally from one, central source.

    8. End all "holds" in Congress. They get zero, nada none.

    9. Change the filibuster rules. From now on, there can be no more than 10 total, for any party, per Congressional session. This makes it sorta like a "challenge flag" in the NFL. Coaches have to use this flag with caution. They only get two per half.

    10. Set up a truly Green Tech Complex to rival our Military Industrial Complex. Fund it with cuts to Defense and a financial transactions tax. This complex would develop the greenest technologies for energy, transportation, agro, cleanup. The public would retain ownership of these advances. It would not be socialized costs and privatized gains. The gains would be socialized.

  •  Health care for all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water

    easy one for me

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 12:16:58 PM PST

  •  Get the MONEY out of POLITICS. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That should have been the first three demands of OWS.

    If we can accomplish this, we can get the other 8 taken care of by a congress which belongs to us.

    Once the money is out of politics, we can clean out that whorehouse which is called Congress and fill it with people who are responsible to the US Citizenry, not US corporations.

    NO money should be permitted in politics which hasn't been provided by tax dollars.  No private money at all - no corporate money, no union money, no political party money, no PAC money, no personal money - no private money at all ! ! !

    Celtic Merlin

    Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

    by Celtic Merlin on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 12:43:13 PM PST

  •  Occupy the voitng booth in 2012 (0+ / 0-)
  •  For real change... (0+ / 0-)

    remove ALL money, aside from a percentage of tax revenues, from the election process. The only sure way of returning to a fair system of electing our representatives.

    I like it when a flower or a little tuft of grass grows through a crack in the sidewalk. It's so fuckin' heroic. - Saint George Carlin

    by mzinformed on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 04:26:36 PM PST

  •  How about free airtime for candidates? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stolen water

    The FCC could make that happen. The uK and Israel does it.

    Don't give up... hold our party leaders accountable.

    by owl06 on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:39:13 PM PST

  •  Easing Union Organization (0+ / 0-)

    That should have been on the original list from OWS, my strident support for OWS notwithstanding.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara

    by Remember Ludlow 1914 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:13:27 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site