From:   acpollack2@juno.com
Sent time:   Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:03:00 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] American Jobs Act
 

Glass-Steagall was one tiny effort by part of the capitalist ruling class to regulate another part, in the interests of heading off a full-scale workers' revolt during the Depression. Its repeal was a victory by that second part, in consensus with the first part, both agreeing that workers had long since stopped revolting.
But the labor movement then -- and hopefully now -- wasn't primarily interested in such disputes among its rulers.
Its concern, as ours should be now, is providing jobs and education and health and childcare for ALL -- and if we have to nationalize the banks, and put them under workers' control to do so, let's do it!
I might add that this obsession with Glass-Steagall and other banking "reforms," and with the Fed, is the hobby-horse of right-wing libertarians, whose leaders are FOR exploitation of workers by rich people.
They really should go back to the Tea Party where they belong -- unless they're willing to follow the lead of workers raising progressive (yes, that means left-wing) demands.
Andy
 
 


---------- Original Message ----------
From: David DeGraw <David@AmpedStatus.com>
To: september17@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [september17discuss] American Jobs Act
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:52:57 -0400

for what its worth, agree w/ Robert here.   But, when it comes to specific legislation, i do think glass-steagall could be endorsed "as a first step."  It is a demand that we can achieve and it shows we know our shit


On 10/6/2011 12:03 PM, Robert Christ wrote:

The moment we endorse any politician, or any piece of legislation, the media will latch on to that as our one demand.  At that point, they will have no need to cover us specifically, whatsoever, and can spend their time discrediting our movement by filming their talking heads "discussing" whatever or whomever we endorse.

No Demands.
No Endorsements.
Not Yet.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, David DeGraw <David@ampedstatus.com> wrote:
please, please do not endorse the Jobs Act.  Highly problematic legislation. plus we cannot be seen as supporting Obama or partisan in any way, we facture the whole 99% concept in my opinion.

the Press con Obama's is giving right now is the best one I seen in years.  Lots of OWS questions.  They asked why he never prosecuted WS execs.  Lots of talk about the American people having every right to be pissed off.

CONGRATS EVERYONE!!!  WINNING! ;-)



On 10/6/2011 11:56 AM, bf0189@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me as a heavy bastardization of German's unemployment system (and will be more bastardized once it reaches Obama to sign and finalize)

Putting a small band-aid over a wound won't fix anything. We need real reform.

On , 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

 

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >