From:   shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 08, 2011 5:11:36 PM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Re: American Jobs Act
 

I agree JEM, we need to end the wars and military budget--that is

where our taxes go, killing the poorest people on earth.

 

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:29 PM, <jemcgloin@verizon.net> wrote:

>  I hope the jobs act gets passed, but don't fool yourself that it is a

> massive stimulus.  It is a puny stimulus.  We should be demanding a multi

> trillion dollar jobs program, not begging for tax cuts for small business.

>

>

> On 10/07/11, Charles<chcreinhardt@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry for creating this massive thread, and I do apologize to

> those who, like myself, work day jobs and have caregiving duties. I

> just want to add something to the context of this discussion of

> potential intersections of the occupation with policy:

>

> Within the next few weeks or months, Greece is likely going to default

> on its debts, setting off a chain reaction and causing another round

> of global financial turmoil. Many people, like myself, may lose their

> jobs and the stakes will instantly be higher for this movement and for

> the country at large. The economy will need a massive injection of

> stimulus from the government to try to mitigate the damage. For this

> completely practical reason, I suggest that the movement takes another

> look at the American Jobs Act, and if not that, then larger stimulus

> and/or job programs that may be able to slightly alleviate Depression-

> like conditions. On that topic, I like the idea that the movement sees

> itself in some way as a hub in a global support network or alternative

> economy, particularly in light of what looks to be around the corner.

> I hope I'm wrong!

>

> By the way, I will be hosting a little discussion of credit unions on

> October 15th at Zucotti Park at 6pm. It would be nice to meet some of

> you.

>

> Thanks everyone, and sorry again for the long-winded discussion.

>

> On Oct 7, 6:07 pm, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org> wrote:

>> There's a big action at Occupy Austin today aiming to do just that.

>>     David

>>

>> Sent from my Magic Brain

>>

>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:17 PM, jemcgl...@verizon.net wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> >  We should probably be advocating a movement of bank accounts from banks

>> > to credit unions, and maybe trying to come up with a strategy for helping

>> > peole move from payday loans to credit unions.

>>

>> > On 10/07/11, Jon Good<therealjong...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Charles says "By all means, let's not tie ourselves down too much. It's

>> > important to

>> > separate ourselves from the dominant narrative and build a counter-

>> > narrative. However, we need *some* leverage in the public debate if

>> > we're going to gain momentum."

>>

>> > I'm in agreement with this, but I don't think the jobs bill is worth

>> > going after.  The fruit may be low-hanging, but it's rotten to the core.

>>

>> > I'd really like to see something that drastically changes the face of

>> > what banks do.  It would be awesome if we built viable alternatives to

>> > banks, or demanded a glass-stegall type act that also severely limited the

>> > size, where they could invest, and the number of clients they could have.

>> > Right now, banks are the only game in town for participating in the American

>> > economy (I know, I know, credit unions are out there, but they're too small

>> > and have membership restrictions); bank accounts are needed to get an

>> > apartment, health insurance, e-commerce, making large purchases like a

>> > vehicle or college tuition, etc.  (Imagine how unlikely it is for someone to

>> > show up to a college administration building to pay their tuition with a

>> > briefcase full of cash).

>>

>> > Right now, banks do the opposite of their original intended function:

>> > instead of pooling everybody's money and reinvesting it in the community,

>> > banks now suck money and resources out of communities and channel them to

>> > the major fat cats.  That's the reason there's no jobs.  That the reason

>> > houses are being foreclosed.  There's no resources left in our communities

>> > to do anything. This is what needs to stop.  That's the sort of low-hanging

>> > fruit that is totally reachable and demandable to congress.

>>

>> > This has been my 3 AM rant.  I recognize the privilege inherent in my

>> > assumption that everybody can even have a bank account to begin with, and

>> > that shit's even more difficult for people whose circumstances prevent them

>> > from the privilege of being cordially and genially fucked by banks, rather

>> > than the way marginalized communities are written off entirely because the

>> > banks there's not enough value to justify the operating expenses of getting

>> > their hooks into folks.

>>

>> > Solidarity,

>>

>> > Jon

>>

>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:23 PM, shaista husain

>> > <shaistahus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > There was an article today in Nation Mag, by Allison Kilkenny ---who

>> > quoted Ayman El Sayed from the nurse's union stating that he would

>> > like to see a third party come out of this movement, outside the

>> > democratic and republican two party rule.

>> >http://www.thenation.com/blog/163823/unions-thousands-join-occupy-wal...

>> > (And there is so also much speculation that this movement might be a

>> > left wing split from democratic party, similar to how the Tea Party is

>> > a right wing split from Republicans--)

>> > Just curious what folks think of this in terms of building momentum

>> > ---towards 99 demands plus 1001 nights to forever change the nature of

>> > this political system---

>>

>> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:49 PM,  <jemcgl...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> > > +1

>>

>> > > On 10/06/11, Charles<chcreinha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > > Hey guys,

>>

>> > > Thanks for the responses. I understand that there are some serious

>> > > issues with the AJA, including its formal endorsement of quasi-

>> > > internship programs, when those should be illegal.

>>

>> > > I also understand the desire not to play or overplay our hand, and

>> > > hold off.

>>

>> > > The comparisons to the German unemployment or "short work" system does

>> > > not render it disreputable in my eyes. Germany is not perfect, but

>> > > there is an enviable level of worker control in German factories and

>> > > great labor protections there, and adapting or experimenting with

>> > > ideas from Northern Europe would probably be a good idea at this

>> > > point. I think greater collaboration between the state and business to

>> > > boost employment would be a wonderful thing, if the business class in

>> > > North America weren't so nihilistic.

>>

>> > > That said, I do understand that the business community in North

>> > > America *is* nihilistic, and has utterly abandoned the entire concept

>> > > of "home bias" that classical capitalists fantasized about .

>>

>> > > However, I would remind you all of Alain Badiou's famous thesis about

>> > > the three ways a revolution fails. The first is by being physically or

>> > > effectively destroyed or foiled. The second is by co-opting or being

>> > > co-opted by the agenda of the enemy, rendering itself pointless. I

>> > > understand that all of us are extremely concerned about these first

>> > > two possibilities. The third, however, is more pernicious: in an

>> > > effort to avoid the first two forms of failure, the revolution

>> > > retreats into "ultra-leftism" and becomes obsessed with purity. That

>> > > can lead to nihilism.

>>

>> > > By all means, let's not tie ourselves down too much. It's important to

>> > > separate ourselves from the dominant narrative and build a counter-

>> > > narrative. However, we need *some* leverage in the public debate if

>> > > we're going to gain momentum. Personally, I think it would be great to

>> > > say "We want this this and this, and we're not leaving. However, once

>> > > we get those things, we're STILL not leaving because there's still so

>> > > much to be done and we will continue forward."

>>

>> > > Thanks for listening.

>>

>> > > On Oct 6, 6:15 pm, jemcgl...@verizon.net wrote:

>> > >> I am not against baby steps, but the fact that Obama's big selling

>> > >> poit on

>> > >> the jobs act started with the fact that Republicans have supported

>> > >> most of

>> > >> the provisions was a good clue of how effective it would be in

>> > >> creating

>> > >> jobs.

>>

>> > >> On 10/06/11,Robert Christ<rj...@cornell.edu>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<Da...@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,bf0...@gmail.comwrote: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 <chcreinha...@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 >