Forum Post: Did OWS sell out?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 12:36 p.m. EST by NachoCheese
(268)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why were OWS protesters chanting along with a mega-rich guy that owns a predatory pre-paid debit card company?
I thought one of the central points was to get money out of the political process (especially the big moneyed), right?
Russell Simmons successfully lobbied Congress for an exemption for prepaid cards from financial reform regulations.
But yet he is NOT called out for this, and instead is enthusiastically supported?
http://news.change.org/stories/russell-simmonss-prepaid-debit-cards-empowering-or-predatory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-mack/a-letter-to-russell-simmo_b_157537.html
Hypocrisy much?
I just saw this post and look forward to answers. I don't know anything more about this subject outside of this post. Thank you.
No problem. I too look forward to some sort of explanation for this. I was searching youtube the other day and came across a video of Mr. Simmons addressing an enthusiastic crowd, and could not understand why no one would address his (what I consider predatory lending) pre-paid debit card company.
Just because he comes out and says a few things about equitable taxation, should not give him a pass on his established business practices.
He doesn't lend money.
No, instead he charges (mostly poor minorities) exorbitant fees to access their own.
Is that somehow better than lending money?
You said "predatory lending" bro, I'm correcting you.
Fair point, I stand corrected.
Do you consider the service he provides predatory?
Ok first, let's look at it as a "checking account replacement" because that is what it actually is. It allows the accountholder to receive direct deposits from their employer (or to load the card through some other means) and then access the money with the Visa debit card.
The Rushcard accounts carry some fees. If I have good credit and no negative reports on chexsystems and enough money to start a bank account, I can find much better deals out there. But if I already screwed up my credit and my banking history, and I need to get my paycheck directly deposited, what other options do I have?
I don't think the rates are "predatory" exactly - you pay $20 initially to get the card. If you use it every month there's no monthly fee you just pay 1 or 1.50 every time you swipe. If the cardholder is smart, they will just swipe once to take their WHOLE deposit out. But if they don't do that, the swipe fees cap at five dollars or so. So you never pay more than five dollars per month for swiping the debit card.
It's really for people who already have bad credit and cannot get a bank account. I suppose there's some risk involved for him and the bank, dealing with people who already have a negative history of using checking accounts, so charging those fees might be justified.
Now - the actual money is kept in an account at JP Morgan Chase. The little bit of hypocrisy I see is right there. If he really wants to back OWS with more than just words of support, he could move his Rush business to a small bank or credit union and take it out of Chase.
I don't think the Rush card is really a predatory product though.
Check out "FIrst Premier Visa" - now that's more like predatory.
Thanks for the information and good point on the use of JP Morgan Chase.
Any thoughts on the Congressional lobbying for an exemption from the recent financial reform legislation and how that reconciles with what appears to be a common theme within OWS of getting the money (especially the 1%) out of politics?
If he is lobbying, I have to point out that unions lobby too and OWS is accepting support from them as well.
I guess it is like the Iphone argument - if we have Iphones, it is because we are simply using the tools made available to us by the current system.
So, same goes for Simmons, labor unions and even the bankers, oil companies, etc etc. What "we" are trying to do is change that system of lobbying, so if Simmons wants to support the demise of a system that is benefiting him disproportionately (or that he has learned to be successful in) good on him! lol I think it is legitimate to ask these questions, and to call him on it and see where he stands.
If you're near Wall St, go down there next time he shows up and talk about it.
I heard Charlie Rangel got shouted down, I personally think he should have been allowed to speak, but majority rules? I guess? Or is it the loudest voice that rules in these things, I'm not sure yet.
"but majority rules"
This is not a good idea in my opinion. The "majority rules" angle only leads to "mob rule" (poor wording, but I can not at the moment think of better). I think (as you point out) that it will digress to those who shout loudest (or have the most "muscle") will ultimately take over, and crowd out different points of view.
I'm not in NY, but rather DC, and have been downtown, more to observe and individually interact, as I like to from my impressions from the source, rather than be manipulated by the "media". I have seen some dishearting things in so far as the loudest voices dominating (and the unease I have with the "peoples mic" -- be honest, it can appear creepy as hell, amirite?)
Yea, Ive been to New York's Liberty Plaza a couple of times, spent a few hours, talked to a couple of people. It seems vibrant and exciting but I'm also worried about a "lord of the flies' dynamic that could develop now that word has spread and more and more people are showing up there.
The "people's mic" as practiced in New York, both when I was there and when I watched the LiveStream, seemed perfectly sensible and practical. Those in the front of the crowd were shouting back the words spoken by the speaker and clearly making sure that we could hear and doing a great job of it.
Having said that, the video from Atlanta, that Breitbart is using to make the movement appear "creepy" - well, it does indeed look a little creepy.
If the purpose of people's mic is to make sure everyone can hear, then it is great. If they start doing it as a kind of "prayerful recitation" thing AND if it is going to slow down process, then it is creepy, unnecessary and counter-productive.
Have you ever visited a 12 step (AA, NA) type meeting? They use a sort of leaderless group process that works very, very well. There are "leaders" but they are considered "trusted servants". It shows that there DOES need to be some sort of structure to get things done, but that structure can be extremely democratic and capable of listening to all viewpoints while narrowing them down to make decisions. AND they work within a time constraint, which is becoming a problem for some of the GA meetings from what I heard.
Anyway, I think OWS should attend a few 12 step meetings and adapt some of their principles and structure to this movement.
Yeah, I understood the purpose of the "peoples mic", but have also seen the "prayerful recitation" aspect here in DC. The Atlanta video was odd in that the guy "leading" (whether acknowledged or not, he controlled and therefore lead that group) the discussion had a mega-phone and yet still they repeated him. I understand for people without amplification, but srsly...repeating a guy with a mega-phone is just retarded and creepy.
I also agree regarding the lack of "leadership", or at least publicly acknowledged leadership. I see a lot of informal leadership taking shape (i.e. the mega-phone man in ATL). My concern with that ties into the concern about those who shout the loudest and how that can be used to silence (or frustrate to the point of giving up) dissent.
Just my observations at this point...hopefully many of my concerns will "self-correct" or are simply my misinterpreting certain things.
All of us are equal, but some of us are more equal than others. Some of us are guilty, but our kind is never guilty.
I'm jealous of Russell Simmons. So many of us strive to be music moguls but only 1% achieves it. It's not "fair" that he has that talent and the 99% majority doesn't. Let's get him!
I would assume it has to do with the fact that no one has actually looked into his past. They just see a famous name lending support.
Honestly, I don't think the movement can background check everyone involved.
This isn't about "background checking". His involvement with the Rushcard is well known, and it's lobbying history is public record.
Don't you think he should be called on to reconcile his private business practices with his public statements?
I think he should. If just to be fair and equal - showing a non-biased approach.
I think this would be a very strong move by the protestors.
I wouldn't be part of the rush card, but I don't think it's outright evil.
This is a divisive argument that will lead nowhere, the rush card is not a mega-bank, it's just a bank. They probably couldn't stay in business if they couldn't charge those fees because guess what, they have to pay fees to the mega-banks to make the rush card work for each transaction.
I would like to hear Mr. Simmons defend himself against this accusation, but like I said, it would be ultimately distracting from better uses of our time.
So let me understand this...
A central theme I see emerging from OWS is the desire to get money (especially big moneyed interests) out of politics, but in order to do that, we need to overlook "certain" big moneyed interests lobbying Congress for exemption from financial reform legislation?
As for his defense, I would like to hear that to. So far the only response I have come across is him quipping "I don't control that", but he certainly doesn't mind profiting from it.
It is this sort of "double-think" that has the potential to corrode any message that comes out of this. Does there have to be absolute purity? No, of course not, but I think the glaring hypocrisies, such as this, can not go unaddressed.
Er....we aren't overlooking it, we are discussing it! And addressing it!
Right now! As we speak! Literally!
I think Mr. Simmons has earned the benefit of the doubt as of this time. That is all I have left to say about it. I recommend the same for you as it is divisive. Priorities, like what else could we be talking about instead of going on witch hunts in our own movement?
"going on witch hunts in our own movement"
This is not about witch hunts (especially in so far as that implies denying someone a voice), but rather addressing what are glaring hypocrisies.
Are we willing to overlook the lobbying by "certain" big-moneyed interests? If so, what are the criteria? Is it only the most glaring (as in the case of well known celebrities), or are others going to be granted this "benefit of the doubt" as well?
If you would like to audit the movement for potential similar situations, you are welcome to try, but I do not think it is an effective use of time and I will not help you do it.
It's the mortal terror liberals have at being labeled 'anti-capitalist' or 'socialist'. Discuss it here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-do-not-cave-in-to-red-baiting-and-bullying/
That is a distraction from the point I am raising.
How is Russell Simmons not part of the 1%?
Does paying lip service to equitable taxation negate his predatory business practices and government lobbying for special exemption from financial reform?
He is part of the 1%. But American liberals are clueless about questions of class- they think that if he is a 'good person' and says nice things that somehow exempts him from the economic system he participates in.
He's black and a liberal so he wears the cloak of immunity. ; )
Come to think of it, for a guy who's so concerned with income equality Van Jones sure wears some REAL nice suits. He sees fit to publish the net worth of others, what's his own? I don't seem to find that among the reports for any of the ~20 different non-profit organizations and coalitions that he runs or is involved with. lol Nothing against the guy, but if you're going to talk it, then you'd better walk it too.