From:   Gabriel Johnson <gabjoh2@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:55:02 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] American Jobs Act
 

RIIIIIGHT remember reading about this part in an article, thinking "holy smokes that is a really really terrible idea", and then sorta forgetting about it until now. Didn't know that was an element of it; however, reading this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act#Elements_of_the_proposed_bill] it seems that element two (what you're talking about, right?) is the only bad one there (keeping in mind that number one, payroll taxes, are the bad kind because they only apply to the first 106K (not sure if that's the right number, but something like that) of income.

Other than that, though, I think it's pretty good, and would introduce my previous thing while adding something condemning number two. (Opposition to that is something that I think can also bring us together with our libertarian elements, because it is just basically a massive subsidy for businesses).

--glj

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:44 AM, diane sare <dwsare@gmail.com> wrote:
The American Jobs act is an insane piece of fascist slave-labor garbage -- and that's putting it nicely.  Giving corporations the right to FREE labor by giving them skilled employees who are collecting unemployment compensation.  It only encourages more unemployment.  We should NOT endorse this!


On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Charles <chcreinhardt@gmail.com> 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
country.

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
approach.

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.

Sincerely,

Charles Reinhardt



--
Diane Sare
cell: 201-220-7731

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >