Congress has now voted to defund ACORN a community organizing organization that has received approximately $43 million dollars in federal funds since the mid '90s'. That is around $3 million dollars per year.

This was done based on low level ACORN employees who suffered from "stupid attacks". Some might say but what about the alleged voter fraud committed by ACORN employees in the 2008 election. Factually the only indictments and convictions concerning voter fraud in the 2008 election were committed by right wing republican party affiliated groups.

Just as a comparison here is a list of the bailed out banks that are responsible for the current financial condition of our country and continue to strip this country and its citizens of hard earned dollars.

Just as a note as it was recently discussed here, look at what Wells Fargo received and continues to receive.

The Bailout List (http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/)

While clearly a casualty of politics more than its own failings, you can see the legal reasoning behind it in that the government really shouldn't be funding political organizations. I realize that's a very naive worldview in light of the political activity of most organizations with any amount of money in them, but, it's not a argument you can win on principles.

I am, of course, pleased that my bank did not need or accept any bailout money.

Even knowing that they were under heightened scrutiny by Republicans, they were unable to keep their people from giving advice on how to set up underage prostitution rings, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Meh.

I agree that you cannot win on principles and I don't believe that what was done has any type of cheering session even in the most liberal circles.

Until the bailout happened my accounts were with RBS, they are now with a small 5 branch local bank, when I walk into the main branch the President says hi and I can sit and talk with him.

My main point is not to feel sorry for ACORN but to feel sorry for our country as a whole.

That is a very long list and frankly I too have considered moving my money elsewhere not b/c my bank is on the list but b/c one of the banks on that list bought my bank out.

However, I think the bailout was better than letting them fail. I do wish the gov't would force them to reveal their good business vs. their bad/illiquid business b/c no one really knows if they're doing well. Instead it seems like they're all hoarding their $$$ and not giving credit which is adverse to economy.

So you start this thread with the ACORN issue (stupid fucks) and it end in a bail out rant.. I see.

That list shows $70+ billion already repaid. Certainly a different picture than what is usually painted by people ranting and raving about the banks.

Isn't $70 billion only 1% of the total?

It's 34% of what's on that list.

What is shown as repaid is not due to it actually being repaid, it is due to a major change in accounting rules that was pushed through congress.

Did they defund acorn that quickly or was it already in the works?

What is shown as repaid is not due to it actually being repaid, it is due to a major change in accounting rules that was pushed through congress.

So you're claiming that this is not true? http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/transactions-report-09-11-09%20(3).pdf

Isn't $70 billion only 1% of the total?

I was under the impression the "total" had not been even close to being spent yet, or am I thinking of a different boondoggle.

34% is better than I expected. That last 66% will be slow going I bet though.
But I think that is irrelevant do the discussion. For all intents and purposes ACORN today is a PAC, and we shouldn't ever fund any PAC or lobbying group with taxpayer money. The money would be far better spent by local governments on low income housing or job placement or education or condoms or many other things the "poor" populations of our country need.

So you're claiming that this is not true? http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/transactions-report-09-11-09%20(3).pdf (http://www.financialstability.gov/docs/transaction-reports/transactions-report-09-11-09%20%283%29.pdf)


Yes

Yes

Cite?

The money would be far better spent by local governments on low income housing or job placement or education or condoms or many other things the "poor" populations of our country need.

There have been several interesting studies done on that, all of which basically came to the conclusion that every administrative dollar is wasted and the best way to help poor people is to just cut them a check.

I'm sure that is true to an extent, but what about already existing underfunded organizations? Like, public schools (or private school vouchers), funding community colleges, free health clinics, DARE, etc. They already have the administration infrastructure and proven track records of helping the poor, etc.
Even something that is all administrative costs is better than funding lobbiests with our money.

Cite?

When you change accounting rules to create profits where there were none it would mean that the money is not really there. Basic business sense. A loss is a loss no matter how you paint it.

Just one of many examples one can read:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/fasb-a03.shtml

Smoke and mirrors. By hiding these losses the money is not really there to payback the loans, which is why a huge majority of economists are saying we are currently in more danger of financial meltdown than we were a year ago.

So, what you're saying is that the Democratic Congress and Obama administration (hi2u Geithner) has shepherded us into "more danger of financial meltdown than we were a year ago"? It is ludicrous to solely blame the banks while nuzzling up to Obama's teet.

It seems like a lot of the hand wringing is by people who are just now coming to grips with the fact our monetary system is smoke and mirrors, but they don't seem to understand that it has been for their entire lifetimes.

So, what you're saying is that the Democratic Congress and Obama administration (hi2u Geithner) has shepherded us into "more danger of financial meltdown than we were a year ago"? It is ludicrous to solely blame the banks while nuzzling up to Obama's teet.

It seems like a lot of the hand wringing is by people who are just now coming to grips with the fact our monetary system is smoke and mirrors, but they don't seem to understand that it has been for their entire lifetimes.


No, I'm saying that they continued the policies set by the Bush administration. I've never agreed with Geithner or Paulson or Bernanke concerning the Bank Bailout, I've been very vocal in here and elsewhere in my opposition of too big to fail. I think if you look back you'll see I own 0 stocks. I don't use credit cards, I have no car loans and I regret having a mortgage. I invest in my own company, Gold, Silver and as you've probably noticed hard to get military firearms (they go up in value very consistently).

So all in all...I'm not a fan of the fed or of corporatism. I do however believe that government has an obligation to take care of its citizens because why? We pay them too.

The time for blaming new policies on Bush is over. If you won't hold the Democrats responsible for continuing these policies, when will they ever stop?

The time for blaming new policies on Bush is over. If you won't hold the Democrats responsible for continuing these policies, when will they ever stop?

What new policies? Perhaps that is the problem, no new policies. It is the inaction so far. The lame speech to Wall St.

Help me here, I'm confused. The "accounting" change, that you cite as why the banks didn't really pay back $70b, happened this April, but it was Bush's fault? That's one powerful mofo!

Help me here, I'm confused. The "accounting" change, that you cite as why the banks didn't really pay back $70b, happened this April, but it was Bush's fault? That's one powerful mofo!

This should clear up your confusion. The Financial Accounting Standards Board change of rules is neither Bush nor Obamas fault, they are a private organization.

What is the fault of Bush is ramming the bailout through congress. Now one can arguably say that the congress was controlled by the democrats, which it was. However the first attempt to pass the wall st bailout was not passed until the concessions the republicans wanted were added into the bill.

So, not only are we still blaming Bush for whatever is inconvenient, but we're also blaming the minority party in Congress for Congress' actions?

Do you honestly need it explained? You can't possibly be as dumb as you're acting, are you?

Sure, I'd love to hear the rationalization you're using to completely excuse away any responsibility for the people in power.

Wut?

Well, I didn't expect much, but that's even less than I expected.

It looks like Obama is going to tackle financial regulation after health care...

So we will see if San is right and he does nothing but keep the status quo, or if he makes strong changes that would prevent new collapses.

Well, I didn't expect much, but that's even less than I expected.


Really? I would have thought you had a basic understanding on how congress works. But I understand that with your youth and inexperience you take literally the majority rules.

You can probably get some good info by watching schoolhouse rock, they have an easy to follow episode that explains how a bill goes through congress to be signed by the president. You shouldn't have any issues with understanding it, the music makes it fun plus you can sing along and clap.

strangely enough.. from today.

hq8XowRpQRI&hl

Really? I would have thought you had a basic understanding on how congress works. But I understand that with your youth and inexperience you take literally the majority rules.

You can probably get some good info by watching schoolhouse rock, they have an easy to follow episode that explains how a bill goes through congress to be signed by the president. You shouldn't have any issues with understanding it, the music makes it fun plus you can sing along and clap.

All that cognitive dissonance making you grumpy?

So the banks pay $70b back to Treasury (and they did do that), the Obama administration's Treasury allowed those early repayments, you now think it's a bad thing that they repaid it, and you somehow blame that on Bush by means of the Legislative Process. I officially give that a "..."

As long as you true believers are so blinded to reality, both parties are going to continue walking all over us (smiling the whole time).

As long as you true believers are so blinded to reality, both parties are going to continue walking all over us (smiling the whole time).


San.. that sounds downright Marxist of you!

Even a broken ideology is right twice a day?

Then explain Neo Conservatism....

Being fiscally conservative would be nice, if they actually did it.

It sure does make a great talking point.

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

Or could conceivably be used by one political party, against the other....

Do you have a source?

Or could conceivably be used by one political party, against the other....

Do you have a source?


http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text


(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term ‘covered organization’ means any of the following:

(1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration.