The San Diego Democracy for America Meetup Group Message Board › Achieving a Democratic agenda in a republican controlled congress and execut

Achieving a Democratic agenda in a republican controlled congress and executive branch.

A former member
Post #: 5
This is a lot to take in at one time, and I only have a limited amount of words to do it in, so ask questions if you need to.

Given that nearly all the democratic agenda is financial in nature and given that a discovery has been made by the people that would provide that funding or additional revenue above and beyond the current 3.5 trillion dollars the government receives.

What would be the logical approach to see to it that the additional money was spent on social security, health care, education, the homeless, food programs and all our social programs?

If we just give it to the congress it will be wasted on special interests at best, finance an even greater war effort at worse.

OR

Because this discovery is intellectual property and owned by the people we have an opportunity (a bargaining tool) to give it to our government under the condition that it be used for those purposes and none other. Literally insuring our agenda was funded by funding it ourselves through our ownership of a discovery that can do it.

The entire message here is just that. A discovery has been made and confirmed as factual and accurate 6 times that will provide to our government enough revenue to fix social security even raise it, provide health care not to just the uninsured but all 300 million of our people, fund education and all social programs and on top of that remove the payment of taxes federal, state and local, as well as remove the national debt and the budget deficit. Add to that miracle that congress would not be required to do anything to achieve it. No cost, no change, at least nothing that could be recognized as a change, no legislation. No controls , we would just be giving money to the government and determining how it will be spent.

There is a level of disbelief that comes along with that statement. Removing the only source of revenue to the government and fund the government even better then it is. And of course if you don't change anything, how can you achieve anything. But you must understand that in order to make this discovery understandable by you I would have to give you enough information so you could see how that is possible. If I do that I give it to the congress and we lose all benefit we may have achieved by no longer owning it. A dilemma for sure.

To achieve those goals all we have to do is the simplest of endeavors. Search for the truth, request form the media to investigate this and report back to you. The medias confirmation will draw the people we need from the colleges and universities across the country. We need to add to the current 6 confirmations of this discovery with credible irrefutable confirmations from a recognized specialist in the field and best of all a college or university. With that done the only possible option the government will have is to comply with the will of our people and accept a contract between the people and the government to achieve those goals. With the public knowing there is an answer to our social issues the people will not tolerate any more abuses of social security, health care and education as well as the social programs that the less fortunate of us must have to survive.

I am a systems analyst for some 30 years, this information is undeniable from any view point. But my status in the community is not high enough to give it enough weight to be acted on. Your support in this matter is only to do the obvious. Ask the media and your elected officials this question. If there is a potential to achieve these results for the people, Why not investigate it to find the truth. When they find the answer to that question, the answer will carry it to its only conclusion.

Given that everything I have said here is true. This gives the democratic party an opportunity to pass a democratic agenda in a republican controlled executive branch and republican controlled congress. If the Democratic Party supports the peoples contract and the republicans don't, it will collapse the republican party. This contract will serve all our people from the supper rich to the homeless. If the republican party were to stop this, in two years a republican would not be elected to office anywhere in the country.

There is a non profit organization starting up in Washington to bring this message out. Our goal at the moment is simply to notify all the people of the country of this proposal and what it means to all of us. The book I wrote on the subject is called The loading of a Silver Bullet. It will be in print in one month. The book explains what I had to deal with from the beginning of finding this information. It presents the plan to take our government back for our people. And because this is so hard to believe I have presented one of the nine elements that make up the discovery in understandable language, so you will appreciate that there are no gimmicks smoke and mirrors or games. Its a reality, information that has been missed for over 3000 years. There is a Silver Bullet, in fact the whole damn gun.

I am an analyst not an activist. This ground is very strange for me. I am not a socialite either so this is all very difficult for me. Kelly Phong is the founder of the non profit organization that will gather the people that will make all the decisions on the contract and distribution of the funds to the government. Through your interest we can get this in the media. That much is a given. From there we will need a broad range of people to add their expertise in the construction of the agreement with the government.

Because we can do this, we can do it.............. The republicans can control the executive branch and the congress, but they cannot control the will of the people..........

We could give this information to our congress and hope or control it for the people and make it happen.................

Open for questions, open for thoughts, open for help.

The only goal here is to make this information available to the public. You can do that by talking to people, copying this message and posting it in blogs, at work, in the super market. Call the media and your representatives. When all is said and done its truth is the only issue. If you are a republican they have all been contacted, they don't care. If you are a Democrat they have all been contacted they don't care. And if you don't care, then my job is complete. Sorry I bothered you.

If you wish to help please contact me.

Thank You,

Frank Houck
396 Park Way
Chula Vista Ca. 91910
619 691 1692
fkhouck@mailaka.net
A former member
Post #: 24
OK, but what does one say to the people who already believe more than enough tax money is already raised(e.g. it is where it is being spent that is the problem) or those who believe that such a scheme is but another example of 'big government' which they are opposed to?
My point(s) are that such an appeal needs to be for ALL citizens percieved self interest in order for it to be actually implemented.
A former member
Post #: 6
Very good point Mr. Sims.

And thank you for shaking me up a little bit earlier, it forced me to look at how I was presenting this proposal.

I have been at this now 22 years, not full time like I am now. But after my last director position and a scare with my heart, I pretty much had enough of business and wanted to see this done for our people. So I have heard far more outrageous things then big government and the government having enough tax money.

I have found that most of the time all you have to do is take apart their statement to understand what they are really saying. When a person says big government they group a number of thoughts together. They don't literally mean the size of the government. They mean for one, number of people hired, that has to do with money that has to be paid to support them (more taxes). They also mean big bureaucracy and laws, having nothing to do with money or my proposal. And when people say the government gets enough taxes already they are really saying. I pay enough taxes already. Realistically the terms taxes has no meaning if no one has to pay them. By its own definition it is money paid to the government.

I have also heard from the a green party member that said: even if what I say is true they wouldn't want it, because people would have more money to spend and would purchase more ruining our environment. I have had a person tell me they like to pay taxes. Give me a break, no one likes to pay taxes. What I believe this person was saying was they want to support the social programs that money is used for. Not realizing those same programs would be funded better in this proposal then they are right now.

Those people exist and its about 2% of the population based on my exchanges with people. Not enough to matter that much. Lets not forget Bushes 5% tax cut flew through the congress. The only objections were the loss of money to the government. Government debt which the proposal removes and loss of money for programs that this proposal supplies.

But based on the growth in government under republican control, I am not really sure if anyone is saying that anymore. Only kidding. Another observation.

Public discussion on this issue will bring out the real arguments as opposed to those that are hidden in terms like big government. And if the people really don't want this. We shouldn't do it................

At this point my belief is the people have a right to know so they can make their choice.

I believe there is really only one issue. The congress will want control over the money.
And thats not going to happen.

Frank Houck
A former member
Post #: 28
Very good point Mr. Sims.

And thank you for shaking me up a little bit earlier, it forced me to look at how I was presenting this proposal.
I'm good at tossing pebbles into the ocean......let me suggest that the 'presentation' still be a process.

I have been at this now 22 years, not full time like I am now. But after my last director position and a scare with my heart, I pretty much had enough of business and wanted to see this done for our people. So I have heard far more outrageous things then big government and the government having enough tax money.

Are you familiar with Alfred North Whitehead?

I have found that most of the time all you have to do is take apart their statement to understand what they are really saying. When a person says big government they group a number of thoughts together. They don't literally mean the size of the government. They mean for one, number of people hired, that has to do with money that has to be paid to support them (more taxes). They also mean big bureaucracy and laws, having nothing to do with money or my proposal. And when people say the government gets enough taxes already they are really saying. I pay enough taxes already. Realistically the terms taxes has no meaning if no one has to pay them. By its own definition it is money paid to the government.

My experience is that helping people get to their 'gut feel' about 'slogans' is that each is unique.

I have also heard from the a green party member that said: even if what I say is true they wouldn't want it, because people would have more money to spend and would purchase more roughing our environment. I have had a person tell me they like to pay taxes. Give me a break, no one likes to pay taxes. What I believe this person was saying was they want to support the social programs that money is used for. Not realizing those same programs would be funded better in this proposal then they are right now.

"What I believe"....Maybe, maybe not;in any event, a few of any group is just that. Did you attend the Green Party Plenum this past spring and present your idea to the Party?

Those people exist and its about 2% of the population based on my exchanges with people. Not enough to matter that much.

Gotta disagree with you about % of population and the idea that they 'don't matter'. And this ties back into my statement about helping someone to express their full perspective on what a 'slogan' represents to them.

Lets not forget Bushes 5% tax cut flew through the congress. The only objections were the loss of money to the government.

Uh, are you re-writing history? There were many objections to the tax cuts, not the least of which was how they were structured.

Government debt which the proposal removes and loss of money for programs that this proposal supplies.

NOt sure what you are relating here; but please understand that I am quite aware that this country is essential bankrupt fiscally and that our 'sovereignty' has been sacrificed thru government bonds.

But based on the growth in government under republican control, I am not really sure if anyone is saying that anymore. Only kidding. Another observation.

Like I've said elsewhere....there currently is only one major party and that is the Corporate Party with a Democratic League and a Republican League. Get rid of the ridiculous idea that corporations have the same Constitutional rights as 'natural citizen's' and a lot gets better overnight.

Public discussion on this issue will bring out the real arguments as opposed to those that are hidden in terms like big government. And if the people really don't want this. We shouldn't do it................

YES and that is what I was trying to understand about your insistence about 'intellectual property'; give it away, publicize,educate, bring so much pressure thru shame,etc.(remember the 'right to petition the government for redress'?Not the initiative process but none the less a process that could be used for positive change.)

At this point my belief is the people have a right to know so they can make their choice.

YES again; make it easy for them.

I believe there is really only one issue. The congress will want control over the money.
And thats not going to happen.

Well, that is a part of the process that would have to be worked on;maybe it would be more effective to start at a city level?

Frank Houck
A former member
Post #: 8
Hi Bruce,

I have suffered a great deal from writers who have quoted this or that sentence of mine either out of its context or in juxtaposition to some incongruous matter which quite distorted my meaning , or destroyed it altogether.

Alfred North Whitehead


I have to wonder if you are really aware of the simplicity of what I am saying in regards to this proposal.

Disregarding the intellectual property, and reasons for avoiding congressional input and all that would be necessary to get beyond the application to actually seeing it working for our people.

The total concept is: Money given to the government for a particular purpose.

You have referred to the constitution a beautiful document and if by being written in blood would make it work as it was written I would offer my own with out hesitation. To trust our congress is the wisdom of a fool. What I offer is what they say they want to do. There should be no problem with the proposal unless they have no intention of doing it.

As far as shaming the congress. I have only one thing to say. Do you know what the definition of "is" "is"...............

If the people would prefer to be taxed or have the social programs cut and removed. They should ignore this.

Once I know that the people are made aware that it is as simple as this and that it can be achieved. It will be over for me. I am not about trying to convince anyone of anything.


Frank Houck
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy