Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: We Are The UFAA; We Need The OWS Base

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 18, 2012, 2:33 a.m. EST by UFAAisTheWay (11)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The UFAA is the United Front Against Austerity. We are a coalition movement advocating a Post-modern New Deal that does not compromise on its own values. We advocate the creation of a set list of goals and objectives; these are DEMANDS.

The OWS philosophy as I understand it was no concrete demands. We at the UFAA believe this to be great for mobilization but politically a dead end. We appreciate the protests and work done by OWS but now is time for the political end. You have opened up the world's ears now we have to give them the ability to do something about it!

Our webiste: http://againstausterity.org/ Our program: http://againstausterity.org/program

What A Coalition Means: -We have set goals but are not one entity -We Consist of Many Political Entities--We are modeled on Syriza -We take on anti-austerity measures and social justice -We view fixing the American Economy, raising wages, protecting unions and maintaining the social safety net as an emergency that must take precedent.

What We Are Not: -We are not anarcho-capitalist nor Marxist in nature, though our coalition consists of some Marxists -We are not exclusive -We are not yet a reformist movement as emergency programs take precedent -We are not funded or controlled by outside sources we are self-sustained -We do not allow attempts to split and "factionalize"

Please, take the time to read our program. We need you to partake in the UFAA and support us even if you do not fully agree. We NEED solidarity and it will come from Occupy.

Thank you friends, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,

UFAA Member



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Also after visiting your website I have a question for you... have you ever read HR 2990 the National Emergency Employment Defense Act?


To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States; and for other public purposes.

A bill by Dennis Kucinich

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 5 years ago

Any economic defense act seems to only cripple the economy and evaporate jobs. We need a new monetary system.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

That's what HR 2990 is. A new monetary system. You should read the bill and check out Dennis talking about it on his youtube channel.

Here's just one simple video on it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVMM5kJGpPs

His website has even more info on it.


[-] 1 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

No I have heard of it. There is too much dead-lock in congress for that kind of thing to get passed. I'm sure that it is very flawed though; I would like to see what "regulate money" and "modernize money" mean. This could be a wolf in sheep's clothing or maybe just flawed good intention.

I say this because Kucinich was one of Ron Paul's parallels and he may be willing to compromise as all professional politicians are.

Anyway, I'll do some reading here. Thank you twinkle.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Dennis Kucinich is an honorable man. You should read about him.

You should also read more about the bill instead of just judging on the short outline.

I brought it up because of your sites Nationalize the Federal Reserve post.

The wolves in sheep's clothing are the politicians that aren't questioning the current monetary policy that is giving unlimited resources to wall street.

how do you suggest nationalizing the fed outside of the political process?

You might as well just create a different currency if you want to go outside the system.

[-] 1 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

I know he's a good guy just politicians are often tied to the ideology of their day and their peers. This is why we have to gain enough mass to force a partisan solution through the New Deal dems. The bill may be a wolf in sheep's clothing only because of faulty ideology rather than any menacing agenda. and I am reading the bill, haha just thinking that some of these terms seem to mimic other subversive proposals I have read.

And I will repeat again, there is no way to operate outside the system but you need a big enough base to make it rewarding enough for men like Bernie Sanders or Kucinich to really commit because the other half of the party is intent on Wall Street appeasement.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 5 years ago

Thanks. There is no greater compliment in my mind Than "New Deal Dem." In less than 12 years Roosevelt took this nation from a failing state to the greatest nation in the history of man. That the Repubs. have somehow slanted his legacy into something negative and suspect is one of the greatest masterstrokes of evil propoganda ever perpetrated.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Dennis is a new deal dem. That's what HR 2990 is. It's providing funding for public works.

And OWS has made a bigger impact on the USA than the UFAA has. So to try and push OWS aside and act like OWS can't accomplish anything is bogus.

Like I said I'm sure you mean well, but it doesn't seem like that with the way you've been dismissive.

Your website seems pretty legit though. I'm checking it out a bit.

[-] 2 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

I know that is why I clumped him with Sanders. Okay the bill is good. I'll have to research some of these provisions still. This bill would certainly be a start but like I said we need a strong backing and we need to put in more New Deal dems before this could ever be passed.

The interest rate cap seems a little high at 8% though.

Good discussion gentlemen.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

For sure!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

"The OWS philosophy as I understand it was no concrete demands. "

If you feel that way, you have never spent more than 2 minutes reading about OWS. Or you're not reading credible news.

  1. Living wage.

  2. Improved education and public college

  3. Real universal public health care

  4. Green energy plan to help steer away from the dangers of climate change

  5. Job creation through the dire need of infrastructure

  6. Equal rights for all

and those are just a few demands from Occupy. If you'd like I can go into more specific details.

I'm sure you mean well, but we have been harassed by people suggesting Occupy does not have concrete demands and Fox News and CBC billionaires have been putting out that propaganda despite having people on their shows explaining the demands to them.

Please read more about OWS before you ask OWS to read about you.

I'm not trying to come off as a jerk, I'm just really getting tired of people trying to say OWS does not have demands. The entire reason I admire Occupy so much is due to the demands they made when they started.


[-] 1 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

Okay, you have a philosophy this is good. This is not a movement constitution though which you desperately need. I have always seen Occupy as too heterogeneous to create real change. In my defense I have yet to see a solid OWS constitution that represents every portion of the OWS movement. Sadly, I have also seen some obvious red flags such as the "negative income tax" proposal. That is how I see it, I could be wrong.

Please show me a constitution though. I understand there are demands and I understand MSM just calls you a bunch of anarchists. I hope I don't come off as a jerk either but we need your support regardless. Thanks

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I believe living wage was the proposal.

[-] 1 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

Living wage is fine, but on one of the list of demands there was a negative income tax. It may have been since thrown out for good reasons. I understand OWS as any movement has possibility of getting charlatans who will support Friedman economics.