If an opposition of the a status quo demands nothing,
does the status quo have nothing give?
If the goal of a non-violent occupy movement with no demands
is to initiate positive change
... and the only way to initiate positive change
is to peacefully testify in mass without demands,
could occupation without demands increase the likleyhood
of creating positive change?
Can not demanding anything allow an unnamed movement
to evolve and re-evolve?
How can you win
if you don't have demands?
How can you lose?
Is the only way for a status quo to "win" against a demandless subculture
to eliminate the occupation by outlasting it,
or by force?
Could the only way for a demandless subculture to lose
be stopping started?
Is an offer of negotiation by a status quo
a win for a demandless occupation?
Is an uncalled for concession a win?
Could renegotiated undemanded concessions
indicate positive change?
How should Americans respond
if the economic and political leadership of both major political parties
in the greatest nation in the history of the world
overtly lowered and covertly hiked taxes simultaneously?
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
What could happen if a generation
of underemployed, underpaid, educated and indebted young adults
became disillusioned by their elders’ financial mismanagement
and sought to identify and punish those responsible?
Is dissent the highest form of patriotism?
Have the educated underemployed
instigated most rebellions?
In times of economic volatility
do the wealthy fight to preserve the status quo as some rich become poor
giving some underprivileged a chance to prosper?
How many advanced degrees are awarded annually worldwide
compared to American graduates
are there job openings for new workers to fill
and how much pay will who accept where for what, when and why?
What could happen if high school graduates
can’t afford or finance higher education
while indebted graduates can’t find jobs paying enough to cover bills?
What could happen
if a new generation of middle class college graduates can’t find jobs?
Have the powerful created symbols for the powerless to destroy
to turn tyranny into nationalism?
Have the powerless created symbols for the powerful to destroy
to create dissent by turning apathy into perceived oppression?
Can a nonviolent movement
survive against an information censoring violent opponent?
Is it worth giving unlimited power to a few
to create perceived safety for many?
Is stability a legitimate reason to repress justified dissent?
Should economic plans designed to fix large, complex predicaments
rely on those who created and profited from the initial problems
who may not have wanted to identify and confront them
when they were small, relatively unknown and lucrative?
If eighty-three of the nation's 100 largest corporations
had subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2007
and some of the companies received federal bailout funding…?
"Capitalism without financial failure is not capitalism at all
but a kind of socialism for the rich"
If the government habitually bails out overextended businesses
is it good business to overextend?
If the government manipulates financial markets
to stimulate demand by lowering housing supplies and foreclosures
after too many borrowers acquired too much unsustainable debt
would intervention reward some borrowers,
homebuilders, appraisers, lenders and securitizers
who caused the problems in the first place?
Should shareholder and debt investors reap profits
from money borrowed from a nation’s children
to save companies responsible for creating the need to be bailed out?
If the natural cycle of laissez faire capitalism
revolves between risk and aversion
what should happen if government intervention perverts the process
to forestall short term economic pain?
At what point do bailouts do more harm than good?
Is the government penalizing well run businesses
by rewarding poorly managed firms with taxpayer money?
Can bailouts perpetuate problems instead of solve them?
Did some economic and political leaders bail themselves out of mistakes
with trillions of debt and newly created money
handed down to the unaware of following generations?
Did some stabilize financial markets in the short term
to defend political legacies and financial interests
regardless of long term consequences?
What is a capitalist democracy that subsidizes to eliminate failure?
Is the federal government stabilizing the economy
by borrowing from relatively younger voters and their children
who may not reap the prosperity of their parents?
If power can corrupt a few
can apathy devastate many?
If democracy is government by the people, plutocracy by the wealthy
oligarchy by a few, aristocracy by nobility, theocracy by clergy
corptocracy by business and autocracy by one
who has what where, and who’s on who’s side and why?
Should the majority protect the weak from the powerful?
If the National Football League’s revenue
comes from television contracts, licensed paraphernalia, and ticket sales
and divided up between the teams in two conferences
and special interest and corporate contributions
are relatively divided up between two political parties
depending on who currently holds more power
do most fans and constituents tend to cheer for their team
even though the financial foundations of both systems
enrich both sides of the same businesses
who exclude all and/or most of the nonaffiliated from participation?
Why are there only two powerful American political parties?
What should the electorate expect
from leadership dependent on the status quo?
Has the two party system
reached an unsustainable level of incompetence?
Can the wants of a few who know
outweigh the needs of many that don’t until a majority figures it out?
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe
if the people tolerate the growth of private power
to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself
That, in essence, is fascism
ownership of government by an individual
by a group or by any other controlling power"
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Who writes most of the legislation regulating corporate America?
If candidates raise money for TV and print advertising
are political campaigns indirectly paying the salaries
of those relied on for unbiased analysis?
Why would those controlling information dissemination
want to promote political candidates proposing more regulation
military industry accountability, high income and corporate taxation
campaign finance reform and pharmaceutical advertising restrictions?
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation
the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators"
P J O'Rourke
Do some politicians pacify the electorate with platitudes
while promising the status quo to those enjoying legislated benefits?
If a few contribute
the majority of large campaign donations that many can’t afford
who works for whom
and what do the few expect in return that most probably won’t receive?
Can special interest groups manipulate consumer behavior
by influencing government with campaign contributions?
Has corruption of the political, capitalist and information systems
negatively influenced economic performance and consumer behavior
through legislation, budget appropriation, regulation and taxation
to benefit a few at the expense of many?
Why do most who argue the relatively wealthy pay more taxes
than most as a percentage of income
exclude Social Security, Medicare and other federal, state and local income,
sales, property, toll road, license, permit, communications
entertainment, fuel, transportation and utility ect…taxes?
What % of income does who really pay?
Was it justifiable for the baby boom
to promise themselves trillions worth of unfunded benefits
like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid
for future generations to pay for?
Why would some of one generation
want to covertly confiscate another’s wealth?
If you found the present negatively affecting the future
should you try to fix it?