Sent time:   Sunday, October 09, 2011 11:26:35 AM
Subject:   Re: Re: [september17discuss] Re: American Jobs Act

As someone who has been for a unified message from the beginning I have to say that Rob is exactly right about this.  
On 10/09/11, rob hollander<> wrote:
Should a broad movement endorse specific bills??

If the movement is broad and popular, legislators will throng to cater to it.

So there's no need for the movement to cater to the legislators -- that's the recipe for selling out, maybe an endpoint of the movement's process, not a good beginning. And if the bill is imperfect, it will compromise, divide and infect the movement.

Raise the banner of jobs, and watch the politicians come to sell their measures to us. When they do, raise the defects of the bill. That's where the debate and the process should lead -- on our turf, not theirs. Not leading the sheep into their fold.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:28 AM, diane sare <> wrote:
It is not a stimulus at all, it is a slave labor plan, as I wrote earlier.  It calls for having people collecting unemployment compensation work for corporations who pay NOTHING for their labor. ie The government is paying for free labor for corporations.  This will not alleviate unemployment, but only encourage it.
  We need to pass Glass-Steagall in order to break up the banks, and have the legitimate savings and loan system be the means of distributing GOVERNMENT CREDIT for GREAT PROJECTS.  Couldn't our nation use some water management??  NAWAPA is really the way to go and would employ 7-8 million people. (North American Water and Power Alliance, designed by Parsons Group-- the guys who did the Hoover Dam, had Kennedy not been assassinated we'd have it by now.)

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:29 PM, <> 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<> 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

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

On Oct 7, 6:07 pm, David Graeber <> 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, 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<> 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 <> 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.
> >
> > (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,  <> wrote:
> > > +1
> > > On 10/06/11, Charles<> 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, 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<>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<>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.
> > >> 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 <> 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

Rob Hollander
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
622 E 11, #10
NYC, 10009