From:   Gabriel Johnson <>
Sent time:   Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:48:33 AM
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] American Jobs Act

I was thinking about it, and I would say that most people in the square would think of it as a step in the right direction (if only a baby step), and there are certainly a lot more things to be done. I am somewhat wary of endorsing a specific piece of legislation so specifically, though, so as not to become too tied (at least in the public consciousness) to Obama or the Democrats (even though that's utterly laughable if you're familiar with the groups who helped spark OWS like the NYCGA, Adbusters, etc.)

If I could propose something to the General Assembly it might be a commendation to the President for taking this small step in the right direction by proposing it, but saying much more needs to be done (the phrase "woefully inadequate" might be handy here). In fact… I think I might. Provided I can figure out a way to do so…


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Charles <> wrote:
Hey guys,

A thought just occurred to me. I haven't heard much about this yet,
but do you think that OWS might do itself a service by endorsing, at
least as one of many goals, the passage of the American Jobs Act in
its entirety, or even an expansion of its policies (and perhaps a
reduction in the ratio of tax cuts composing it)? It has been accepted
as a foregone conclusion by the entire American mainstream
commentariat that Obama's jobs bill will be absolutely eviscerated or
at least highly attenuated by the corrupt legislatures in this

What if we tried to draw more attention to the legislative battle of
the AJA as a pillar of our emerging program (in addition to legal and
anti-trust action against the banks and tax reform, etc)? That way the
movement can shed light on the very obstacles to the bill's passage or
enhancement, which will serve to illuminate the architecture of
corruption in our legislative process. That way, the bought off
Democrats and Republicans can be named and shamed with the enhanced
lens of this movement. Furthermore, the limited scope of the bill
itself can serve as grounds for further criticism of the White House

I'm sure this has been suggested before, and I understand that there
are caveats to our involvement in the political process but I want to
know what the status of the current dialogue is about this course of
action or line of thinking.


Charles Reinhardt