Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: WHY the Hell are we a "501c3"...!?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 3:24 p.m. EST by KofAIII (234)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I was just informed TODAY, that OWS is officially a 501c3 non-profit organization in the eyes of the I.R.S.

Who made this decision?

How can we 'change' this, and what the "F" were they thinking???

501c3- http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

"...To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates..."

Being a 501c3 means OWS can't directly influence elections...

OMG, this is THE DUMBEST THING I have heard yet.

WTF are you people thinking???

Seriously, who is in charge and why are they STILL in charge???

214 Comments

214 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

If true, this registration makes Occupy Wall Street appear like just another tax evading anti American organization. Others, who evade paying their fair share of taxes, are denounced by Occupy Wall Street. And rightly so.

I can't see how the people who made this decision can be stupid enough to think that their registration won't be challenged just based on OWS actions in Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. There is an OWS contingent storming the Congress. what is that if not to push for change in legislation?

And they will be challenged on the fact that a basic contention of the organization is to end corruption in politics. This cannot be achieved without trying to change corrupt existing legislation. And to get new responsible legislation.

If you bring together thousands of angry Americans in the streets to express their anger at the existing political powers and then deny that you are trying to influence the political powers and their legislative underpinning you are nothing.

OWS has brought together the political power of angry crowds of Americans in the streets and then refused to raise them up to something more than an angry mob in the street. It denies them political identity.

Be Americans, pay the damn taxes with pride!

More important, stop taking options and alternatives for action away from OWS by sealing the organization into this IRS imposed box.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

+25...

VERY well said, sir.

I was utterly appalled to find out that OWS did indeed file as a 501c3. This decision among all the other bad ones, stands out, to me, as the worst example of irresponsible, short-sighted leadership, I have seen thus far.

I didn't even consider the repercussion of violating the 501c3 contract...

Please help me reverse this decision, by contacting the NYGA here: https://www.nycga.net/

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Frankly there is nothing to reverse. The organization states over and over, very disingenuously, that they are not political. I don't agree.

There is nothing here for me. I perceive this as a political activity and if the OWS hants to be no more than the Shriner's or a 4-H club that is their choice. But that choice makes OWS a waste of time for me since I am seeking political change in America. Political change that OWS cannot and will not achieve with its current perspective.

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well, I think the 501c3 status will be revoked because whether or not OWS likes it, it IS a political movement...just an impaired rudderless one, that is sans a goal, accountable leadership, or real influence to affect policy change.

In any case thank you for your statements. They are appreciated.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I don't see how Occupy being a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization is contradictory in any way.

OWS is not a political movement in that they are not attempting to get their representatives voted in government. They have stated time and time again that they are not interested in taking part in the current governmental structure and that their goal is to create a revolution and have general assemblies on each street corner.

They don't want to influence legislation, and are not interested in taking part in campaign activities for any party. That's one of the reasons it is against the rules of this forum to use this platform for campaigning.

There is no problem.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well, theres no problem, unless you seek or expect positive results from OWS...

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

It's only a problem if you have false expectations of what OWS is and isn't. If you understood what it was, you would most likely support a different movement that tried to fix problems from within; in a political way. If such a movement did not exist, you would create your own. OWS is not interested in politics and never will be. They only want to make a revolution. The important question to ask yourself is do you support this idea that a revolution is needed because of the claim the US republic is broken beyond repair?

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Martin Luther King said that he probably would have endorsed JFK for his second run, but we all know what happened to that notion...

Martin Luther King, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.For other uses, see Martin Luther King (disambiguation) and MLK (disambiguation). ... King has become a national icon in the history of modern American liberalism. .... Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for ... Assassination - I Have a Dream - African-American Civil Rights ... - James Earl Ray

What political party did martin Luther king jr support wiki.answers.com › ... › Civil Rights Movement › Civil Rights LeadersWhat political party did martin Luther king jr support? Improve ... with the Atlanta-based King Center, said that King never endorsed candidates from either party. ...

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You are comparing MLK to OWS...!?!?

Bwaaaaaa Haaaaaaa Haaaaaa!!!

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No. MLK for one thing is a man. OWS is a loose knit organization (I believe it has a core leadership that wants not to be in the spotlight). King was the most prominent of several leaders of the movement of African Americans to secure their legal civil rights. When he veered off into organizaing poor people as such, and opposing the Vietnam War, he met his tragic end. OWS in some respects is a continuation of his struggle. I think that up till now the OWS leaders and activists have done good work. Whether at any time one particular leader will publicly emerge and be as charismatic and inspiring as was King, I don't know. I wish OWS all success.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I don't think the civil rights movement has anything in common with OWS...

For starters, the civil rights movement had clearly defined goals and aspirations. It had 'accountable' leadership, and it knew as a movement where it was headed and why.

OWS does not. "We are the 99%.", "They got bailed out we got sold out", these are not 'fixes', policy solutions that will lead us all to better days...

What is inspiring about a group that refuses to be part of the solution, while dodging taxes, and occupying public land?

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Dodging taxes"? That is more the realm of the one percent. Occupy Wall Street is part of the solution. It has raised the broad issues, like the civil rights movement did. That movement didn't involve itself in Washington's policy debates, it simply demanded justice and freedom. It didn't run candidates. It simply created the climate that compelled the politicians to pass civil rights legislation. Its public leader was assassinated.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Yes, OWS filed as a 501c3- non-profit tax exempt status.

I think you have it backwards...

MLK was assassinated THEN the civil rights amendment was passed.

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I didn't say that MLK lived to see the legislation passed. I said the movement (not the man) created the climate for passing the legislation, and this took place without the movement endorsing a single candidate. It mattered not much whether they terminated him before or after the laws were passed. In talking against the Vietnam War, and speaking of organizing "poor people" he had apparently crossed a fatal line.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

It takes the blood of patriots to insure growth of the Tree of Liberty...

..or something liked that. If OWS had a leader, and that leader was killed, there would instantly be a ground swell of support for its endeavors and message.

Martyres make great spokespeople.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

You have to be interested in politics if you want to see change. You are idealizing yourself right out of an opportunity for change.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Agreed... I WRONGLY expected OWS to be able to function as an organization seeking political change.

I guess I do NOT support the not in of a revolution, because the system is just fine. It is our voters who suck.

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

There was no space to nest under this comment but i feel it deserves a response: "[-] KofAIII 1 points 1 day ago It takes the blood of patriots to insure growth of the Tree of Liberty... ..or something liked that. If OWS had a leader, and that leader was killed, there would instantly be a ground swell of support for its endeavors and message. Martyres make great spokespeople. ↥like ↧dislike permalink"

How might such a gruesome, macabre scenario play out? There would be "an accident" or "a lone nut". Anyone who even suggested a planned act of foul play would be branded a "conspiracy theorist" a "crackpot" an "anti Semite" or what have you. This would be loudly seconded by left luminaries like Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky who might add a "who cares?" for emphasis and it would be argued about for decades after.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I don't know...

In fact, I think my statement is completely without merit. OWS protester, Darwin Cox, age 23 died in Denton Texas. (http://www.wlfi.com/dpps/news/national/south/dead-occupy-denton-protester-identified_4005292) Although he wasn't killed, by authorities, or another resistance movement, but by illness and the cold damp...it would seem.

For the rest of the scenario OWS have to accept the notion of leadership and representation... So, I don't see martyrdom for anyone within OWS.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

How ever he died if he was participating in Occupation he is a martyr.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well, yes...I suppose.

Although I wouldn't say he was MLK-status worthy. I mean he was ill, and likely would have died whether or not he was protesting or not. 'What' he was protesting didn't lead directly to his death.

MLK 'knew' that he was being targeted for execution, and was therefore risking his life for what he believed in. OWS said it refuses to elect or appoint 'leaders' because it believes they will be targeted...

Why WOULDN'T any of us be willing to die for what we believe in??? It would only give our movement meaning, for any of us to die defending it...

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

agreed.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Most organizations maintain two arms in order to engage in political activity with the contributions to their nonprofit arm specifically isolated from any specific political activity

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

As OWS does not exist as a formal organization, it cannot be a legally constituted nonprofit. The monetary donations of OWS are protected under a 501c3. The reason for this is that the only alternative would have been to make the individuals whose names appear on the OWS bank account personally legally liable or alternatively not to collect any monetary contributions at all at least not in the form of checks or credit card contributions.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Registering as a 527 would have made more sense, politically.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Money and financial contributions are not being used for political purposes. They are typically used to buy tents, sleeping bags, cloths, food, transportation and similar material basically to sustain occupations. Politically OWS has always "lived off the land." It does not, for example, apply for parade permits for demonstrations, so it doesn't have to pay for such enterprizes. And it relies on pro bono legal representation.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If you can not support "specific policies or legislation", then you are politically silent, and not part of the solution.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

OWS is not a political movement. It is a social movement. Its primary strategy and tactics are nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience, not any intervention in the representative political process which it specifically rejects in favor of direct democracy.

The only political document that the NYC GA has passed, the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City makes no specific reference to any political body nor does it make any demands on any political body. It is addressed, instead, not to any political body, but rather "to the people of the world."

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Global movement about an American Marketplace problem, induced by corrupt politicians...

And OWS thinks 'the world' can change OUR democratically induced problems???

That doesn't make any damn sense.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The problems are global and therefore only a global movement can effectively address them. The economy is, after all a world economy. The so called recession is a world wide phenomenon. The collapse of the economies and possibly the states of southern Europe is not unrelated to the unemployment crisis or the disparities of wealth between the super rich and the rest of us in the US. Nor is the climate crisis unrelated to this and clearly that cannot be effectively addressed by a single state.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

There are no global governing bodies that can directly affect any nation's market actions. There's simply no authority to act.

The word of the day is "affluence". The world needs America to become the nation it was intended to be, and begin truly exporting good will and sound environmental principles.

There is no one else to step forward... It's us, or no one.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It seems to me that OWS envisions a post market society. While that is not explicitly stated anywhere, I've heard it explicitly stated by many OWS activists and it does seem implicit to me collectively in the body of grievances stated in the Declaration of the Occupation.

And what exactly was the nation that America was intended to be? The imperial power that grabbed land first from Native Americans, then from Mexico, then from Spain and finally from the remnants of the British Empire? So much for "good will?" Or was that Good Will Hunting? Sound environmental policies? The rape of the Earth constitutes a sound environmental policy?

Who is us? We, the 99% internationally or the 1%? The nation state has nothing to do with it.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

OWS tax status prohibits it from engaging in politics. Some of its engagements will come back and bite it on the butt thanks to this short sighted tax status issue.

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Agreed. +5.

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Why? OWS is not planning to engage in politics. It never has. They engage in disruption through direct action. They don't make political demands. Isn't that clear?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

OWS is organized to bring about positive social and economic change to a society damaged by corruption of the political process. It cannot bring about change without engaging the politics of the nation.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

OWS is involved in the politics of the nation, just not in electoral politics, for which it is yet far too weak to make a meaningful difference.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

That is so wrong as to be ludicrous. spoken like someone without any concept of how politics work.

OWS has already had some big impacts on the politics of this nation. And politicians of every stripe are holding their collective breath wondering how the movement is going to inform and incite average Americans going into the elections.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I never suggested that OWS had no impact on politics. Only that its own strategies and tactics were not involved with electoral politics in any direct way but rather rooted in nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience. This is a very strong tendency in OWS and is repeated over and over again at GAs.

My own feeling is that while OWS will probably need to engage in electoral activity at some point, right now at this stage in its development OWS is far to weak to have any meaningful impact by engaging directly in the electoral process and to do so would only reveal its weaess and worse, much worse, its likely co-optation by the Democratic Party, which is really the very worst fate that could befall OWS as the Democratic Party has been the grave yard of every mass movement since the days of the Populists. Once 10 or 20 million people are occupying will be time enough to think about a next step. Meanwhile the main job of OWS is to organize more occupations and more GAs, not to act as shills for the Democratic Party.

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS will not inform anyone or incite average Americans going into elections. OWS does not believe in the upcoming elections because it believes the system is broken beyond repair and that elections are useless for that reason. Seriously, OWS is not interested in participating in the political debate. It is interested in a revolution. They have been clear about this from the beginning. It's a mystery as to why people don't understand this.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I understand that some very loud people within the OWS sphere have asserted that. But I also see the political activity and interest in political activity by other participants. OWS is no single-minded monolith. That would be contrary to the individuality and anarchy underlying those who oppose participation in the body politic.

If anything I think that, going into the elections, OWS will serve as an informal meeting platform for like-minded politically interested people locally to focus their fervor in the election year.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Trust me, OWS will never take an official political stance one way or the other. If some protesters want to get involved into politics, they will have to form groups outside the official OWS group.

OWS is no single-minded monolith.

OWS is very unified in its goals, tactics, and rhetoric. It's not a whole bunch of random stuff. It's very defined. Only certain types of ideas would ever make it in a general assembly. For example, OWS will never have leaders nor make political demands.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

I disagree. The national general assembly in Philadelphia in July is all about a petition for redress of grievances. That is an inherently political concept being based on the Constitution of the United States which is America's political contract.

SEE: http://occupywallst.org/forum/99-declaration-working-group-calls-for-volunteers/

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Your monolithic and very compartmentalized way of thinking about OWS is silly and myopic.

I simply believe that OWS has been honest all along. They claim they don't want to work with politicians, and, in practice, they haven't done so. They claim they don't want to make demands to the government, and, in practice, they haven't done so. I have no reason not to take their statements at face value.

Why should I believe otherwise? What makes you think that OWS is lying when they state that they don't want to make demands nor work with politicians? Have you seen a hidden document that indicates this is one of their upcoming tactics?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

That does not surprise me. A little confusing and could be, if true, disappointing.

But as I said earlier I see OWS evolving into an informal platform for unilateral groupings of like-minded folks acting locally across the nation politically. Groupings that could grow or be absorbed into other entities.

I never liked the anti political stream of thought and figured that it would eventually cause implosion at some level of the OWS grouping.

OWS is serving what I think is its highest purpose, to inform like-minded people of the fact that there are others who feel the same way who also want to act. And bring some of them together.

Thanks for the organizational update. Let's hope it works itself out for the better.

[+] -4 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS will never support that.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Your monolithic and very compartmentalized way of thinking about OWS is silly and myopic.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Did you register your group with OWS ?

The application for an Operation Group (a group that actually does something) is available at http://www.nycga.net/groups/structure/docs/operations-group-registration-form .

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You still provide no evidence, you simply restate the same, with the addition of accusing me of saying something I have not in hopes I would defend a position I didn't take rather than continue to say you're full of shit. Too bad, you're full of shit

Richard, you bear the burden of proof, not I. It seems you don't understand how science works and what the burden of proof means.

I'm simply saying that I believe OWS is being honest. I take their word at face value because I have no reason to believe they are lying. They say they don't want to make demands and they don't make demands. They say they don't want to work with politicians and they don't work with politicians. They've been honest and have so far stuck to their word.

If something smells like a duck, behaves like a duck, has sex like a duck, then I have no reason to believe it is not a duck. If you want to say that it's not a duck, then you need to show some evidence for you claim, not I. I'm only repeating what OWS has been saying and doing all along.


Now that you understand the scientific method and who has the burden of proof, I'll ask again.

What makes you think OWS is lying when they say they do not want to work with politicians and get involved in the political process by making demands? Did you see them make demands? Perhaps you saw some hidden documents hinting to the fact that they will get involved in the 2012 elections in some way? What is your evidence to support your claim that OWS is not what it says it is, and is not what it seems to be?

[-] -1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Consensus is apparently no longer required, and a hierarchal structure is emerging. See my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/has-anyone-seen-an-organization-chart-for-ows/#comment-575812 .

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You're basing your argument on the impossibility of proving a negative or absence of. It doesn't advance your argument because you have no corroborating evidence. Does this bullshit tactic of yours actually work on anyone?

My argument is based on what OWS itself has been saying and continues to say. I have no reason to believe that they are lying. It says on the front page of this website that they are not interested in making demands to the government, and that they do not need politicians. It also says they want a general assembly on each street corner and that they want a revolution.

Since the beginning, they have stuck with these ideas. If you read the minutes from the NYCGA, you'll see that many people proposed that OWS make demands, but it has always refused.

Until OWS becomes directly involved in politics in one way or another, I have no reason to believe they ever will, especially since they say they never will. This is the most logical position to hold. I believe their word at face value because I have no reason to believe that they are lying.

May I ask, why do you assume OWS is lying and that it plans to make demands to governments and otherwise get involved in the political process?

[-] -2 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You might call your project a "OWS project", but it's not an official OWS project. You didn't present it to a general assembly. It's not because some people decide to label their projects "OWS projects" that they really are OWS projects.

On the contrary, it's very organized. That's why we know what to expect. We know OWS won't make demands tomorrow, but that they will most likely use direct action like block corporations, a street, a port, etc... We know what type of poster to expect. We know what type of rhetoric to expect. OWS is one of the most unified protests I have seen in a long time.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

true, but 501c3 limits how much money goes to the government, who is the real enemy. look at my discussion on gift tax punishment. This closes the ability for rich people to really help the poor because they cant get a 501c receipt from a poor person and after the first 13k of donations, they are taxed a huge amount!

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Read the 527 provision...

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

Gee, this must be because this is the only way to keep accepting donations. What a copout. Even OWS can be bought it seems and it would appear that OWS is no better than the politician they rail against. OWS will never get anywhere unless they do challenge our politicians which has to be done politically. And general assemblies are political in nature and revolution can be achieved by infiltrating the government currently in place. And no, I am not a ron paul supporter.

[-] 1 points by andwee (13) 2 years ago

Whoa. I never knew that OWS had the specific goal of revolution...the way I've always described it (in Chicago)is that it's a gathering of a lot of different people, with a lot of different issues, all united under the same umbrella of contempt which stems from being exploited...pretty much those exact words... So, when people have asked me: "what are you demanding?" I just say what I personally am demanding and how that relates to the occupy movement. I mean...this is called "Occupy Wall Street". If this is pushing for complete revolution, shouldn't it be called "Occupy Your Place, Start A Revolution?" or OYPSAR for short?

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I knew there were anarchists and revolutionists within OWS, but I never knew that they alone had their hands on the rudder...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

They don't. Its just that there are plenty of people who are not protesting, but are doing other things like participate in the 99percentdeclaration.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

well if you're not going to try to influence legislation what the hell good are you, OWS?? i am out. and thank you to KofAll for bringing this to my attention.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I am thinking the same thing...oh and you're welcome.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the conclusion may be somewhat questionable since the other 501c sections (1)-(8) do not permit donors to deduct their contributions; so, perhaps, it was the best way to get money in the door... balance that with the fact the 99% Declaration was not embraced--and I am forced to think the conclusion is correct. no agenda so it seems apparent.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I find the decision to be short sighted and self-limiting...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Agree. So I guess I'm officially asking that donations go to support the 99percentdeclaration instead of OWS from now on. They have a solid plan for change, the dates are already set, and they actually NEED the $ right now to secure the venue for what they have planned.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Who is saying this? All I see that MIGHT be the case is this:

"The Alliance for Global Justice, a nonprofit with 501(c)(3) status, declared Occupy Wall Street as a fiscal project. AfGJ has been accepting funds for OWS.

Alliance for Global Justice 1247 E St., SE Washington, DC 20003 202-544-9355 afgj@afgj.org "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2088148

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

EVERY source I have encountered thus far, has said that OWS is indeed a 501c3.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Ok, show me one, seriously.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Taken from here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

"...According to The Wall Street Journal, "A few weeks ago, the Alliance for Global Justice, a Washington-based nonprofit, agreed to sponsor Occupy Wall Street and lend it its tax-exempt status, so donors could write off contributions. That means the Alliance for Global Justice's board has final say on spending, though it says it's not involved in decisions and will only step in if the protesters want to spend money on something that might violate their tax-exempt status."..."


http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1690222/pg1


http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152866/inside_the_new_occupy_wall_street_economy?page=2


http://www.lawforchange.org/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=4855


If you could confirm all these "mights" from someone within OWS, I'd appreciate the finding.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

This confirms what I said, OWS is under another organizations's 501c3, not their own?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

The 'difference' here is only legal. Money = Speech, or haven't you heard?

OWS is nothing without its funding. The group can actual deny OWS its own money, if the expenditures would endanger their 501c3 status.

For all practical purposes, OWS must act within the boundaries of a non-profit. It is literally not allowed to influence policy, elections, or campaigns.

So, it's a movement that isn't going anywhere, and can't accomplish political gals...

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

"For all practical purposes, OWS must act within the boundaries of a non-profit. It is literally not allowed to influence policy, elections, or campaigns." Maybe they should go 501c3 for themselves, I don't know.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Why would a movement want to adopt a tax exempt status, that would hinder it political effectiveness while making it look hypocritical?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

OMG I though you said Occupy must legally become 501c3. Now I have absolutely no idea WHAT you want.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I want OWS to be a 'politically capable' movement... As a 501c3, they are not allowed to influence policy, elections, or campaigns...

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Ok, I don't know how it works. But I have yet to see that they are 501c3 other than those articles that suggest they somehow work under another charity's status, not their own.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

OWS can't act/spend money, in any way that would endanger their 501c3 status. The 'holder' (who gets a percentage) exists to insure the integrity of the non-profit status.

OWS had no idea what to do with a big pile of checks that needed to be cashed, and I 'guess' they thought it was a good thing to apply for tax exemption...?

The result is that now OWS is legally bond to stay out of policy issues and away from elections, campaigns, and candidates...

By pursuing 501c3 status OWS chose "political irrelevance".

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Bad.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Does anyone own the term "Occupy Wall Street"? If someone made a 501.c.3, how come they automatically represent you?

Why don't YOU take charge and form a OWS SuperPAC so you can influence elections?

Or, why don't you just be yourself and represent yourself and not allow anyone to act in your name. No OWS, no 99%, just you.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 2 years ago

Actually, someone from inside the GA said that the Occupy Wall Street name was being trademarked by 3 of the top members. It was said over on themultitudes.org ... don't have time to find the post at this moment, will try later.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jaktober (286) from Sonoma, CA 2 years ago

Sounds like forming a 501c(3) was a necessary step then.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

It was necessary if they wanted to legally bind themselves to political silence.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 2 years ago

I find this ironic. The 1% (according to OWS) is now trying to make money off of it. Hilarious.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

"....who's in charge.....?" The law? Oh.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

What?

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

The freedom to assemble, (Zuccotti), create government, (GA), lead to bureaucracy. The accepting, soliciting, accounting of, and especially the ownership of donations is a "...who's in charge".... The law, situation. I particularly love the "under penalty of perjury" notices given at signature lines on the forms. You asked. I'm against the law frequently.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Why is it a good thing to be a 501c3?

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

I don't advocate that. I'd have to call a 501c3 legal service, to be able to answer that, since I don't know what's the good thing for OWS to be. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You "don't know" if making OWS politically irrelevant is a bad thing, or not?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS has been politically irrelevant from the start. That was the plan. They do not want to work with politicians. It is stated on this very website. They want to create a political revolution.

If some OWS supporters don't like this, they should start their own political movement.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

That was THE DUMBEST thing they could have done, IMHO.

They want to create a political revolution, by remaining apolitical???

That just doesn't make any damn sense.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

It makes perfect sense. They don't want any part of the current political system. First they have to destroy it with an apolitical venture, then they will become political once they are ready to build a new system from scratch. Revolutions are not about a political process, they are about forcing a change through physical strength or other means of power. It's not about discussion.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

As it stands, I don't see OWS accomplishing their goal...

America is a democratic republic, wherein people are free to support whatever candidate they like, start political parties, or even run themselves. NO ONE will keep you from acting in whatever political fashion you'd choose.

I can't help but wonder, what would they 'replace' our current system with, that would be 'better' than what we already have?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

"I can't help but wonder, what would they 'replace' our current system with, that would be 'better' than what we already have?"

They've been clear about this from the very beginning. It's written on this very website. They want to use direct democracy. They want to have a general assembly on each street corner.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

We HAVE direct democracy...they are called ballot initiatives.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

What does that even mean?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You mean lobbying to candidates?

I think the goal is to raise awareness and then eliminate campaign donations.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I get the raise awareness thing, but who and how do you think the 'eliminating donations', thing is gonna work?

Someone, somewhere is gonna have to sponsor a bill that alters the current set of election campaign standards.

As a 501c3, OWS would NOT be allowed to support or in any way influence the process...

THAT is crazy.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

OWS would have had to indeed 'pay' a portion of donated funds in taxes, had they not filed for this status. Why is this a bad thing, if it means OWS gets to remain politically relevant?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Tricked...?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Oh, I understand fully what a 501c3 does, and how it must operate.

What I DON'T understand is how or who 'tricked' OWS into becoming one...

As I see it, this was the single biggest mistake OWS could have made.

The decision must be reversed, ASAP.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Why cannot an organization remain politically relevant as a 501c3?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Well maybe. The Catholic church is a massive political machine. Yet they do not get a tax bill.

I was a mass down in FLA years ago, about 13 years, in Spring Hill, FLA. The Priest was clearing using the homily to tell his parishioners which politicians to vote for and not to vote for. The issue was abortion. He was naming the local politicians who were pro-choice, and anti-choice the middle of the mass.

[-] 1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Because as a 501c3-a "substantial" amount of your time CANNOT be spent influencing legislation OR campaigns-both fairly large parts of the "political" process.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Because as an organization you DO NOT have even ONE vote. That is about as irrevelant as you can get.

[-] 0 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Well we're against using money to influence elections. Duh.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I know...

I also posted: "Why the Hell are we a 501c3?"

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

OWS acts more like 527.

[-] 0 points by gsw (2737) 2 years ago

I saw all this discussion, and it was kind of startling:

I made a post that may have some other creative ideas to deal with it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/patriot-party-ows-adapt-learn-grow-or-stagnate/

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

How do we 'stop' being a 501c3?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2737) 2 years ago

no idea: turbotax won't help. stay a 501c3.

It is going to be hard to change politicians, in my opinion, if you can't work with them or have political activity, support candidates, etc: that's the part I don't have the answer to. OWS need to form a seperate political organization, embassadors or political party, who can work in the political arena. I just don't see politicians giving up there careers, or big business agreeing to keep their money out of the political system voluntarily. It is hard because with big money's unequal control of politics the way our system is, you face filibusters and those who will just say no, to common sense, and still look after their own selfish interests. It may be a small of human nature, to be blind, selfish, and to create injustice.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Well, duhh... there are only two choices - 501c or criminal enterprise. What's cool about the 501c is that it requires a "board." Meaning... the coppers already have the names of the "official" leaders of OWS. And yes, contrary to popular belief, there ARE leaders.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Oh, I KNOW there are 'leaders', they are just unaccountable.

Why would the choice be between 501c3 or criminal enterprise? http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

This is an organization that receives donations... since it is not a "for-profit" organization, meaning it does not exist for business purposes, or for the sole purpose of generating a profit, then it is a "non-profit" organization. As such it must comply with tax law concerning non-profit organizations.

There is no other option. The IRS simply does not allow any of us to subsist on the "gifts gone wild" of others. This is what I've been saying from the beginning - OWS has incorporated; they too are a corporation - and as such there are definite responsible individuals (board members, i.e., "leaders") as required by the IRS. What I suspect specifically is that this is an organization based in Canada, and that it is presently circumventing US tax law.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

program not big enough, nobody ain't budging me

[-] 0 points by RussellFeingold (55) 2 years ago

"OWS has always been and always will be about creating a revolution. It wants to topple the current governmental structure and replace it with general assemblies on each street corner."

General assemblies on each street corner!!! It's hard to read that without laughing hysterically. Too bad the OWS Leaders were not around in 1776. Ha Ha Ha!

It's hard to imagine how anyone over the age of 14 could write something so puerile. I don't think the Leaders of this Leaderless movement are dumb. They're just high school freshmen who have never ventured outside the USA.

The problem is not government. The problem is corrupt government. Corruption in government was caused by people like the Anarchist OWS Leaders who sat on their asses and dropped out of society, rather than taking meaningful action. After all, these numb nuts have modeled themselves after failures and frauds like ML King and M. Gandhi, even though they would get mugged in any poor black neighborhood, and probably get kidnapped and forced into white sex slavery in India.

You only have to visit your neighbors in Canada and Australia to see government working efficiently. Canada & Australia have low unemployment, booming economies, high incomes, good affordable public health care systems, high standards of living, excellent affordable universities, 90% voter turnouts, good pension plans, & good social security for retirees.

The income of Australians has doubled in the last 10 years. Has yours? Oh, that's right. Ten years ago the OWS Anarchist Leaders were in pre-school.

As a final insult to the OWS philosophy, Canada & Australia DODGED the 2009 Banking Crisis, because their GOVERNMENTS tightly regulate their banking industries.

You don't need to invent anything new. Just imitate Canada & Australia, you know, the colonies that never broke away from the UK.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

+25...

[-] 0 points by RussellFeingold (55) 2 years ago

What does +25 mean?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

That means I REALLY agree with the statement made.

[-] 0 points by fishb8 (62) 2 years ago

Its HOW you launder money you Dumbass !!1 THink SOROS . . . .Accorn . . . NAACP. . . . Open Society ETC

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Why would OWS want to be ANYTHING like that???

I thought we wanted everyone to pay their fair share?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

OWS is not, only the donations accounts are. It was mostly for IRS purposes to avoid problems especially with the possibility that a few large donors (as in - anything over a 20) may cause them to get snoopy.

[-] 3 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

What are you a politician?

Our organization is not 501c3 only our bank accounts are.

ROFL Bwahahahahah

That is the most rediculous thing I have heard in 2011.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

Because we're not one single organization.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

LOL

Does the organization collecting the money give any of it to the other organizations or use it to support them? If so they are breaking the law. It is illegal to collect money as a 501c3 and use it to support outside organizations.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Sadly, no...satellite occupy groups get ZERO aid from NY, or at least that's what I've been told.

[-] 1 points by FivePercentForNothing (190) 2 years ago

However the NYGC is supported with the money.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Indeed. OWS-NYGA is the operator.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Didn't you hear "money = political speech", so OWS is willingly politically silent...

BIG MISTAKE folks.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

this is an interesting question - especially if it is based on accurate information.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

So far, I have only found confirmation of the 501c3 status...

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I wonder how Credo and Moveon deal with such issues.

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Why is this so dumb?

OWS has been staying out of the election process, and I agree with it. This decision was made by the GA in October, if my memory is correct.

[-] 3 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You 'agree' with staying out of the election process???

How exactly are you going to accomplish policy change, if you can't or won't influence political races...?

You understand that 'elected' officials make public policy, right?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

KoFall, you wrote, "You understand that 'elected' officials make public policy, right?"

Absolutely, one of my degrees is in Political Science and I have worked, and gone to University, in Washington DC for a Congressman, and at the National Archives. I know all to well how the system works.

But consider this: the system has a veil of legitimacy by citizens voting, who they vote for does not matter. Voting gives the system creditability. If only 10 million people vote in the Presidential Election in 2012 than system does not have legitimacy. It will still exists, but it will give legitimacy to arguments for Revolution against the corporate capitalists order. I am not suggesting it will lead to whole sale change over night, or maybe it will, but it will be a continuation of the Working Class Rebellion that began on September 17.

So if the corporate capitalist state continues to make public policy with only 3% to 4% of the people even voting, and 2% or less actually voting for the sitting politicians, it will give legitimacy to the call for Revolution.

OWS is not in a position to influence the political process. We are not strong enough nor are we big enough.

The current political structure is set to benefit the large corporate interests and the 1%. If a Working Class person participates in the system, by voting, all you do is give legitimacy to the process.

My personal goal for OWS is to fundamentally revolutionize our society.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

You seem to be convoluting two very different issues:

1.) Workers rights and pay

&

2.) Democratic elections

First, workers SHOULD be striking, all of them in mass. If they did, they could get better pay for the work done. I am however talking about a global worker strike... Sadly, there is always someone somewhere who'd rather eat rice, rather than nothing. So if someone wants to pay then 13 cents an hour to manufacture shoes, they'll do it.

What I don't understand is your hostility toward democratic institutions, and our election system. We can GET better representation, simply by creating better voters.

Fundamentally revolutionize our society??? How so? By creating what kind of replacement system? What's better than free elections, open party creation, and allowing voters to decide elections?

[-] 2 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

KoAll, We do NOT have a democratic election system. The game is rigged. The money that flows into the system creates a condition which guarantees the money interests are in control. The vast amounts of money buy propaganda spots, called commercials. The commercials are designed to manipulate people.

Furthermore, we have a Representative Republic. The very nature of a Republic is the elite in power, Plato.

As to what I would like to see evolve, go to a GA. The long term construction of a GA like system is the hope I have for our political culture. I am fully aware that this is a long way off. But as for now, I am no longer going to waste my time.

If someone such as Randy Credico runs for Senate, yes, I will support him. Charles Baron has announced his intentions to run for the House. I will support him.

But I will not support any type of Party Structure. Both of the above will be running against the party structure, and will have serious problems if elected dealing with the Party Leadership, in terms of getting things done, which may be a good thing.

An example of my disdain comes from my House Representative in District 13 in New Jersey, Alberio Sires. He sells himself as a liberal Democrat, he has a 92% liberal rating on vote smart. He signed Grover Norquist, anti-tax pledge. Try and find out why an alleged liberal Democrat in one of the bluest districts in the country would support this.

I am tired of the lies, I have had enough.

If you are running for office with the intent to overthrow the system by using your elected office to reveal as much as you can about the lies, like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are doing, you will have my support. But if you want reform, forget it. There will not be reform, only co-option.

Thanks to Obama my eyes are wide open, no more lies. We have to take the power back, this currently constitutional system will not allow that process to evolve, this is why the police state is being implemented to attack OWS.

By chance a friend, and a business owner who has also had enough, just sent me this:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_dennis_kucinich_on_the_democrats_bailout_betrayal/

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

First..."How much does YOUR vote cost? Or, better question, can you point me to a kind of political ad that would win your vote?"

That said, I AGREE with you that our system isn't entirely democratic, in that most people are most certainly NOT taking part in our system.

Congress has an approval rating in the teens (*last week it dropped into the 10's), but they get re-elected 2/3's of the time... Why do we KEEP re-electing these people??? We have the opportunity to ignore all the advertising, yard placards, and radio soundbites and instead form our opinion based a candidate's "record", the votes they've taken and the actual issues they've supported in the past. Once someone has done something you disagree with, as your representative, you should 'work' to vote them out in the next election, vigorously. RUN YOURSELF, if need be.

The GA consensus model...? Well, I am a results guy. A 'good' system, in my opinion would produce positive results quickly and efficiently, with an ease and grace, that let people's true talents shine through... Can you honestly say GA's have done this? I personally, can not. Then again, I was born of a paralimentary procedure, wherein Motions require a Second, to open Discussion and Amendment, before entering a timed Debate, followed by a Vote for passage.

Is Congressman Sires up for re-election?

Like it or not we exist within an electoral system, Elected Officials make policy. If you want to 'change' anything, you are going to have to get ELECTED. Parties like the Green Party already have a structure by which quality spokespeople are brought forward to represent the platform tailored to OWS's needs and wants. You can't change the system from without.

OWS biggest problem RIGHT NOW is that they are NOT allowed to even take part in Politics, period, as a 501c3. OMG!?!?

Suggesting OWS is not a "Political Movement" is intellectually dishonest and in a political WORLD self-limiting.

If these are the results GA's have produced, I say do away with them...

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Kofall, Congress has an approval rating of 9%. 90% of the current Congress will be reelected in the 2012 election. Down from the normal 96%, but people are pissed off.

As to your question: ""How much does YOUR vote cost? Or, better question, can you point me to a kind of political ad that would win your vote?"

I do not have a price on my vote, as to part two of the question: none, I do not watch TV.

As for the run yourself thing, I have been asked to do just that: It will cost five million. The reason for the high cost is the need to go door to door in the Spanish speaking community and explain in detail what he is doing, and not doing.

As far as OWS as a political movement, it is a movement with political people. But OWS is in no position to consider itself a full fledged political movement. At this point, OWS is a social and cultural movement. By working to empower people, the movement has potential to change the political system. But not now, it is a long, far off, consideration.

GA's are an exercise in creating a new social culture of inclusion and empowerment. As I have said again and again, if this movement moves to fast into the political arena, it will be adsorbed by the power structure. People in this society need to be educated on the need for a public sphere and spaces where political discourse can discussed and debated, publicly.

An example is what happened to Solidarity in Poland. 10 years after its foundation, it still was not politically mature enough to take over the reigns of power. When it did, Jeff Sachs and George Soros went into Poland and co-oped the leadership and destroyed the movement.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Okay...it took me a while, but it is beginning to sink in, as to what OWS is, and what it isn't. I am greatly saddened by the fact that 'right now' it is politically irrelevant, completely unwilling to take part in campaigns, and as such remains disconnected from the solutions table. A far as inspiring a political revolution, I can't say that I want one, especially one that looks like OWS... I can't help but judge an organization but by its results.

Now, why would it cost you 5 million to run? Don't play 'their' game... You CAN'T win that game... But, you CAN create a new and different way of running. I am developing a method of 'direct action campaigning', wherein I raise money within a district or community to DO SOMETHING therein, something they need or want, and no one has delivered. Or it could be something like a brick on a library sidewalk. The whole point being to 'direct action to affect positive change', and put "Mr. X for Congress" on it. Spend ZERO dollars on advertising, as the media will cover the dedication ceremonies...hopefully.

These kinds of campaigns wouldn't be successful on an initial run, and would require large amounts of time and dedication. No easy task...at all.

Lastly, you said YOUR vote couldn't be bought...so help me make more voters like you...?

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

KofAll you should look into the 99percentdeclaration. That movement is going to produce some political action, hopefully some change. That is what I am participating in.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Personally, I am trying to raise money to make a Congressional run myself...

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I'd vote for you if you ran against the incumbents in NC. Every representative and senator in my state voted party-line Republican on everything, including indefinite detention/NDAA. I wish my representatives had brains instead of just voting the way that their "party" votes.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Run yourself...stop making excuses for ballot shortcomings and CHANGE things.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've personally run for office three times on the Green Party ticket, but I wouldn't especially advocate such a course for OWS activists at this particular historical juncture. Right now OWS is having a greater impact than the Green Party ever has, but it is still a very tiny movement and all of our resources should be devoted to building the movement, not distracted by electoral activity.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

With OWS support, the Green Party could have seats in the next congress...

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

With OWS support, the Green Party could have seats in the next congress...

I have one response to that: that is pure fantasy. If anything OWS is smaller and weaker than the pathetically tiny and weak Green Party (and I say this as an enthusiastic activist in both movements--but I also don't dwell in fantasies and I'm well aware of exactly how weak those movements are). What power and strength OWS has is as a result of its commitment to nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience. If it were to turn to electoral politics at this point in its development all it would do is reveal exactly how weak it is. Once 10 or 20 million people are occupying will be time enough to think about a next step and perhaps engagement in the electoral arena. Meanwhile we need to keep on keeping on an build more GAs and more occupations.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

You mean the money that flows into the dem party from the unions? Look up Gerard, Stern, Trumpka. all have a hand in runing the 0bama administration. 0bama had recently said that he doesn't have to follow the Constitution. He took an oath to"preserve , protect and defend the Constitution of the USA". The EPA makes laws and calls them "regulations" They do not have the power to do that but yet no one stops them.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Capella, no I was not specifically referencing the money from the unions. Union money is part of the money, but only about 3%. Most of the money comes from large corporations and individual big money contributors through packs.

Unions are outspent by these type of contributors 26 to 1. Unions are becoming irrelevant in the current system.

Also, with the wages paid to labor continuing to decline, this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

I think this is why Obama has turned to Wall Street for most of big money donations.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

unions provide the votes.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

Yes they do, but that is different than providing the type of money corporation do.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

unions back democrats with millions of dollars of union dues.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (194) from Jersey City, NJ 2 years ago

The most important thing is the votes.

The money is really only effective on the local level where it is concentrated. Unions are in no position to take on Super Packs, big donors, and corporate money on a national scale. Unlike the corporate capitalists, who do not work at all, the Workers actually have to go to work 10 hours a day, and then are expected to get off work and do what the lazy good for nothing capitalist have been doing all day, politics. It is a heavy lift for the Working Class. Especially people with children.

An example of what the Unions can do is in Wisconsin's recall elections. So when it comes to getting the ground game going, yes they can influence the process. But there are not enough of them across the country, Union Workers.

My point being is the deck is stacked against the Working Class, which is why, with no sense of irony, I call the US a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. When the Unions make a big deal in one district or state, the capitalist press uses this as an example of "Big Labor" money. But when you add up all the middle of nowhere places, the capitalists run the show. Even with Democrats. 35% of the Democrats are conservatives. There are no, none, among the Republicans in the Congress that are even remotely left of center. This is a corporate, Soviet style, state-capitalistic system, and the Conservative/Liberal Corporate Ruling Class is our communist party.

I will concede that the Dems in this country have more power as compared to the joke minor parties in China, but they know if they do not follow the dictates of the Ruling Class Capitalists, they will eventually be undone. Granted, some like Senator Sanders in Vermont get though, but he, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich are three of 535. The press even puts these guys on TV to make it look like we are a democracy, but they have no avenue for power.

Even with minor victories, like the audit of the Fed. What came of it? We know the bailouts continue, amount to at least 16 trillion, but what is done about this crime? Nothing. We know through the Wiki-leaks documents the criminal behavior of the ruling class, but what is done? Nothing.

I am done. I am getting off the marry-go-round.

Time for Revolution, the real kind, where the Ruling Class is completely and totally dis-empowered. They lose everything, the money and the power, and then have to get jobs like the rest of us. At least those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Who said OWS is 501c3?

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

55%* of 99% support, aid and abet, the 1% to the tune of 9 trillion + dollars.

Wall Street and the Bankers own this forum.

*degenerate greedy compulsive wealth extracting gamblers who hopefully will be financially wiped out by their blatantly corrupt casino bosses

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Who owns this forum?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Wall Street and the Bankers own this forum.

55%* of 99% support, aid and abet, the 1% to the tune of 9 trillion + dollars.

*degenerate greedy compulsive wealth extracting gamblers who hopefully will be financially wiped out by their blatantly corrupt casino bosses

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Can you provide a citation for that?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

The number is up from April

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx

"April 20, 2011 In U.S., 54% Have Stock Market Investments, Lowest Since 1999 Americans point to real estate as the best long-term investment by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist

PRINCETON, NJ -- Even as stocks have returned to lofty heights from their March 2009 lows, the percentage of Americans saying they hold individual stocks, stock mutual funds, or stocks in their 401(k) or IRA fell to 54% in April -- the lowest level since Gallup began monitoring stock ownership annually in 1999. Self-reported stock ownership has trended downward since 2007 -- before the recession and financial crisis began -- when 65% of Americans owned stocks."

and when the greedy bastards figure out how to grab that 9 trillion with impunity, and they will, there will be only 1-5% with anything left to entrust them with their wealth growing extraction methods

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well done, sir. +15 for efficiency and accuracy. Although... I don't think mere ownership of stock equivocates to "support, aid and abet" the actions of the "1%"...

Owning stock isn't what it used to be. It USED TO BE, you'd research a company see what it was doing, and and invest in a project or expansion happening within the company, or maybe it was an IPO of a company truly on the rise, that you wanted to help see succeed and see the fruits of endeavor. Those days are gone with online trading, where stocks can be bought and sold several times over a single day...

It's all short selling for minimal profit.

But your original point of who owns this board is still left unanswered.

Wall Street, and Bankers are separate entities. I mean I am sure there is some over bleed, but simply owning some stock doesn't make you "Wall Street", and it certainly wouldn't make you one of the recent banking scandal engineers.

The most important thing, I think, is to identify the truly 'bad actors'.

I DON'T think owning stock in a solar panel company since its inception makes you bad...

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well, we disagree at a foundational level. I think all of the 99% should remove all their wealth from wall street and banks.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Why would it be "good" to remove funding from successful, productive efficient corporations that doing good works?

I'd encourage you to punish only those deserving.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 2 years ago

And, you would assume Occupy would want to pay taxes needed to run the liberal government. What a bunch of crap not wanting to pay taxes to support the poor. YOU HATE POOR?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

This was indeed one point of hypocrisy that becoming a 501c3 means for OWS...

[-] -3 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I really don't see what the problem is. OWS has stated from the start that it is not interested in "working with politicians". It does not want to "influence legislation and/or participate in any campaign activity for any party". This forum has the following rule for a reason:

"We do not support an election campaign for 2012. At all. We have removed election material for Obama, Paul, Warren, Paul, Cain, Paul, Perry, Paul, the green party, Paul, Nader, Paul, and did I mention Paul? The spamming by the Ron Lawl 2012 fan club was getting out of hand. We will continue to remove such material and any call for the Paul 2012 campaign will, at this point, be considered spamming. End of. We're tired of hearing about it. Main street debates are also largely off topic."

OWS has always been and always will be about creating a revolution. It wants to topple the current governmental structure and replace it with general assemblies on each street corner. They have always been very honest about this. They do not want to work from within the government. The founding members are anarchists.

There is no mistake on OWS's part. The problem is you don't understand what OWS is and isn't.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

48 hours ago, I had 2229 points. Now, its down to 1900. From now on, I will create another page daily and repost ALL of my essays in honor of those who use multiple IDs and/or bots to vote down my comments. CLICK ON ALL + SIGNS TO VIEW COMMENTS.

How do you like that you die-hard partisan puppet critics? Was this the result you were hoping for when you started using multiple IDs to aggressively track and 'vote down' my comments? Were you hoping to intimidate me? If so, I have some bad news for you.

IT DIDN'T WORK.

Say that reminds me.

The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.

Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.

So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?

Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.

Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.

But that 66.1 percent spread is nothing. It is multiplied by hundreds just within that top centile. The richest 1%.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

Now, watch my die-hard partisan puppet critics deny the actual shrinkage of the middle class, the actual expansion of the lower class, and the actual transfer of wealth from poor to rich. In particular, the richest 1% who as of 2007, owned 43% of all financial wealth in America. Thats more than twice the share they held in 1976.

I see that my die-hard conservative partisan puppet critics and possibly another (Thrasymaque) who has admitted despising me more than any other user and using 'bots' of his own design to 'vote down' my comments are at it again. Be sure to click the '+' sign to view all comments.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/48-hours-ago-i-had-2229-points-on-this-ows-site-no/

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Yes, I'm sure. That's the official stance of OWS. The 99 declaration is not officially supported by OWS. Read the home page of this website.

Personally, I favor a republic over general assemblies on each corner.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I do not support anarchy, nor toppling a government that millions have fought and died to protect.

If OWS wants a revolution while at the same time ignoring the democratic republic's choice of leadership and all the processes therein, then I say OWS has its head up it's ass.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS has been clear about its aims from the beginning. I'm surprise you doubt their own words. It's written on the home page of this website. They do not want to engage in discussions with politicians and they want a revolution. They have also been very clear that they do not want leaders and that they will not make demands.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I UNDERSTAND what OWS is, and what it does and doesn't want to do.

I was merely saying that whomever made these decisions has their head up their ass.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Sure, but we could say this about any political party or protest if we don't agree with their tactics.

[-] 2 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I would call these tactics... "Self-limiting Hypocrisy", sure.

In America you can vote for anyone you want, support 3rd party candidates, or start a new party and run yourself. Everyone (*except felons) is allowed to vote and running is just about gathering support and signatures.

OWS wants revolution??? We have a great system, we are just plagued with apathetic voters.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

This is true, we do have a good system, it's just that the people in this system currently are useless and need to be replaced. This is where OWS should be filling the vacuum. OWS has the public's attention, why not run with this and put up a primary candidate running in every state for god's sake. Why else would suporters keep sending donations for? What are you gonna do with the money?

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I agree. I think a republic is a wonderful system, and I think US could be saved if careful laws were put in place to remove money from politics. You have apathetic voters because people feel like they can't make a difference by voting. This needs to be fixed. Nonsensical elections like that of Bush in Florida shouldn't be possible.

The point is, if you don't want a revolution why are you on this site? Don't waste your time with OWS if you don't agree with their goals and tactics. Find a political idea or system you agree with and support it instead. Why put your effort in supporting a protest that is diametrically opposed to your views?

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Not too confident much longer here.. perhaps I should get my visa escape to Canada or Indonesia.. Need any help in your programming dept? Cost of living lower there, right?

What is native (popular) language? I am starting to want out....

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

That language is called Indonesian which is very similar to Malaysian. It's one of the easiest languages to learn. It's a franca lingua.

[-] 1 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

03.08.2011

Contact: info@realite-eu.org

US Confirms Iran-Al-Qaeda Connection

Weighing in on the debate over the extent of links between Iran’s Shiite regime and Sunni al-Qaeda, the US Treasury Department last week accused Tehran of permitting al-Qaeda operatives to funnel money and people through its territory to the terrorist group's leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iran’s "secret deal" with al-Qaeda

On July 28, the Treasury imposed sanctions on Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, who it called "al-Qaeda’s representative in Iran," and five other members of his network. [1]

According to the Treasury, the network was "operating under an agreement between al-Qaeda and the Iranian government."

"Today’s action… demonstrates that Iran is a critical transit point for funding to support al-Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This network serves as the core pipeline through which al-Qaeda moves money, facilitators and operatives from across the Middle East to South Asia, including to Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, a key al-Qaeda leader based in Pakistan," the Treasury said in a statement.

"By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al-Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen.

Iran and al-Qaeda cooperate despite the Sunni-Shiite divide

Iranian connections to al-Qaeda have long been debated, as many analysts have insisted that the rift between Sunnis and Shiites would prevent them from working together. [2]

However, Tehran has demonstrated for many years its ability to cooperate with radical Sunni groups. In fact, this is not the first time Washington has drawn a link between the Islamic Republic and the terrorist group.

The 9/11 Commission Report revealed that during the 1990s, while in Sudan, "senior managers in al-Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah… al-Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures after bin Laden's return to Afghanistan." [3]

According to the report, "discussions in Sudan between al-Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support - even if only training - for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives."

The report also disclosed that some of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks traveled through Iran: "…there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."

After US forces entered Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime in 2001, some of the most prominent elements in al-Qaeda's leadership and members of Osama bin Laden's family found refuge in Iran. [4]

In 2003, the US intercepted communications suggesting that these Iran-based al-Qaeda leaders had directed attacks in Saudi Arabia. Washington then asked Lakhdar Brahimi, a senior United Nations official, to convey to Iranian officials "our deep, deep concern that individuals associated with al-Qaeda have planned and directed the attack in Saudi Arabia from inside Iran." [5]

In November 2005, the State Department's third ranking official said the US believed "that some al-Qaeda members and those from like-minded extremist groups continue to use Iran as a safe haven and as a hub to facilitate their operations." [6]

General David Petraeus, the new CIA director, told Congress last year that al-Qaeda was using Iran as a "key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al-Qaeda’s senior leadership to regional affiliates". [7]

For its part, Iran has denied any links to al-Qaeda. "Iran itself has been a victim of acts of terrorism in the past which have resulted in the loss of hundreds of innocent Iranian lives," a spokesman for Iran’s mission to the United Nations said last week. "Iran has always opposed supporting and financing terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda." [8]

References:

[1] "Treasury Targets Key Al-Qa’ida Funding and Support Network Using Iran as a Critical Transit Point," July 28, 2011, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1261.aspx

[2] "Treasury Accuses Iran of Aiding Al Qaeda," The New York times, July 28, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/world/29terror.html

[3] "The 9/11 Commission Report," http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

[4] "U.S. Sees Iranian, al Qaeda Alliance," The Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904888304576474160157070954.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[5] "U.S. Suggests a Qaeda Cell in Iran Directed Saudi Bombings," The New York Times, May 20, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/international/middleeast/21IRAN.html?pagewanted=all

[6] "Some U.S. Officials Fear Iran Is Helping Al Qaeda," Los Angeles Times, March 21, 2006, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/world/fg-iranterror21

[7] "U.S. accuses Iran of aiding al-Qaeda," The Washington Post, July 29, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-accuses-iran-of-aiding-al-qaeda/2011/07/28/gIQARUPxfI_story.html

[8] Ibid.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

What a joke. Here we go again, trying to build a case to wage war. Even the pentagon last week said they did not believe Iran has nuclear capability, so now what, are we on to plan B?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

What?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Duh, US Government is now accusing Iran (Spelled with an "n" and not with a "q") of being culpable for the false flag attack that led to the demolition of three New York City skyscrapers, part of the US military world headquarters known as The Pentagon, and an empty field in Pennsylvania. It is said that around 3,000 people perished in the attack. This pointing the finger at Iran, ten years out, is a pretty transparent case of crapola, and is meant to stir up war fever among the US population, half of whom do not know in what century the Second Waorld War was fought.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

But what does that have anything to do with OWS being a 501c3?

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

A 501c3 is a not for profit organization that does not endorse or campaign for candidates for public office.It doesn't have to pay taxes on the contributions it receives. I haven't read that OWS has actually filed for this status, but I read that it was being considered. Not being expert in the law or accounting, I can't advise as to whether or not that is the best course of action. I hope and trust that there are people involved who will make the best informed decision. As far as I see OWS is not a profit generating business, it's a people's movement.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I am neither a lawyer nor a CPA, but I am quite the exert in political activism. RIGHT NOW, the OWS movement's cash is control or authorized for use ONLY as a 501c3.

They have not yet filed 'themselves', but operate fully now, as a non-profit.

'I' personally think this is and will continue to be a mistake. First, because it keeps this organization from paying its fair share of taxes, given we are using public streets for our marches, and public parks for our GA's.

Second, it politically silences us... As a non-profit we are not allowed to support or get involved in political races, or policy creation.

Being involved with or becoming a 501c3 is a BAD idea for any aspiring 'political movement'...

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

At some point in the future, couldn't there be some split off or outgrowth organized in a different legal fashion? Also, since you do know about these things, how do groups like Workers World, Revolutionary Communist Party, International Socialists etc, these left sectarian groups, organize themselves in terms of the IRS?

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Off hand, I don't know...

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

They are called P.A.C.'s, or 527's in I.R.S.-speak.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

The 'problem' with that stance, is that with a "democratic republic" right at your fingertips, you demean the very democratic principle, for which so many have fought and died for.

GA's on every corner...? AS IF that would 'accomplish' anything. The GA's have 'produce' very little in the way of organized action, by way of passed Motions, and weekly Reports on their successes.

We HAVE a democratic republic, wherein we GET the government we deserve.

We even have "direct democracy", they are called ballot initiatives.

OWS being a 501c3 is an outright hypocrisy of the highest degree, and will surely be judged a stance taken by the truly ignorant. They complain about the election process, then file so they CAN'T take part. They complain the rich aren't paying their fair share, then file, so they don't have to have to pay theirs.

That's crazy.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm referring to the problem brought about in the original post, i.e. that OWS is registered as a 501c3. I'm not talking about the worthiness of OWS goals and tactics. That's a whole different discussion.

There is no problem in OWS being registered as a 501c3 because OWS does not contravene the requirements of a 501c3. OWS is not financing nor participating in a particular political campaign. OWS is not supporting any particular political representatives. OWS is not making any demands for the government to change legislation. OWS is only a protest, and there's nothing in 501c3 that stipulates that you can't protest.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

THAT'S my problem... OWS's money is legally "apolitical".

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS is apolitical. There's no problem.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

If you have no desire to affect positive political change, then I guess you are right.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

OWS wants to create a tabula rasa and start anew. I don't particularly agree that this is needed. I favor working with the government. I'm not a OWS protester, I'm just explaining why OWS being a 501c3 is not a problem in regards to their stated goals and tactics. That doesn't mean I agree with those goals and tactics.

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

'I' have a problem with ALL of what OWS is... From their stated goal, to their IRS designation, and their general tactics.

I was hoping for the Liberal Tea Party, progressive doers, ready and able to affect political change.

I am saddened by what I've learned.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Why not start your own protest? It won't do much good to waste your time complaining about OWS on this site. Do you also go on conservative websites and complain that you don't agree with their goals and tactics? If so, why bother? Shouldn't you spend time supporting or creating something you believe in instead of trying to change something you don't believe in?

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I am a politician and democratic activist. I'd HOPED to 'join' a growing political movement of like-minded thinkers and doers, to get more done than I could do by myself.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You just found out OWS is not a political protest?

[-] 0 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

I found out the day I made this OP.

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Surprisingly late, but fair enough.

[-] 1 points by KofAIII (234) 2 years ago

Well, I may have 'heard' about these realities, but only recently found information that confirmed it.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

What information? Seriously, I'm curious.

[-] 0 points by fishb8 (62) 2 years ago

So . . . . .O W S . . . . is only about revolution, not compromise, not working at all, in any shape or manner, with the existing system and/or structure, AND in ORDER to Accomplish this new O W S invented government that will set policy for . . . and control, all industry, family, education, personal and social finance, individual behavior, and any other area they chose, O W S must FIRST de-stabalize and destroy the EXISTING structure . . . . . In other words, O W S has declared WAR on the United States of America so all bets are off.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

They haven't officially declared war, but they have been clear that they want a political revolution and don't want to work with the current government, and, yes, this obviously means the need to destroy the existing structure.