Can a movement run a foundation? A movement like OWS

[Tom Rinaldo]

My guess is the answer is a very complicated "Yes", after a lot of energy goes into designing a democratic representative way of choosing a board of directors etc.

I would love OWS to have a foundation that gave direct grants to people facing foreclosure who will be most seriously hurt by it, who could possible avoid it if they could come up one or two mortgage payments. Yes criteria would be a slippery slope - but it might involve the elderly or people with serious disabilities or families with a number of school age children etc. It could counter obvious cases of greedy bank over reach, where the bank refused to consider reasonable alternatives to foreclosure etc.

Yes there would quickly be a demand for millions of dolors in aid requests, but somehow I think once the word got out what OWS was trying to do, millions of dolors could be raised from the public to fund the foundation's work.

That would be the type of direct action that would help more in the public understand what the 99% movement is - and why they should identify with it. Just think of the stories that could and would be told about instances of OWS direct aid.

[Vincardog]

1. Funneling more money to the finance beast would not solve ANYTHING

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. I disagree with your characterization of it.

First off the type of cases I'm talking about often would be ones in which the banks wanted to foreclose, because it would let them seize property for pennies on the dollar. So thwarting that would not be helping the beast.

Second it could, in many individual cases, solve huge life problems for many worthy people - a good that I really think needs to be factored into the equation.

Third, in addition to being direct aid to those in need because of our greedy financial system, it would represent direct aid from fellow members of the 99% to each other - helping to solidify the image AND substance of the movement through mutual aid to counter the effects of 1% rule.

Fourth, partially to avoid what you are pointing to, and partially just to keep this doable and affordable to run - aid would be restricted to one or two months payments max, in cases where that could save the home or property. For the banking system, the money they would get from us is a spit in the ocean under those circumstances. We would not/ could not take on every foreclosure; just the most grievous ones.

Fifth, ultimately it is a tactic. One that would generate huge publicity, both from talking heads and word of mouth. People who are helped would be elevated to a media coverage worthy status as their stories are told of how they were about to be screwed royally, and why OWS stepped forward to help.

[Vincardog]

3. The heartless Bastids in the parasitic financial companies heave been demonstrated to NOT give a

rat's ass about the people. They would take all the help offered and then throw the crippled grandmother out into the snow.
If you think that this plan is good PR and a appropriate use of the time and money-
Get down to the GA and propose it.
I would not vote against it but believe it would prove to be ineffective.
JMO

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. A fair reply

Whether or not there are some foreclosures of people who are getting royally screwed that could actually be prevented with the arrival of one or two timely mortgage payments is a question of research I haven't done. Maybe, maybe not. If not, then this wouldn't be effective.

It was just a sudden notion that struck me turned into a trial balloon for DUers to shoot at or embrace. This is a great community to run ideas by. If it floated THEN I would think about taking it to a GA.