Should ACORN lose Government Funding? [Archive]

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 04:03 PM

The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

They can't be all bad. President Obama obviously thought highly of them prior to the controvery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416833436798004.html

"Government officials continue responding to the Acorn revelations. The New York Post reports that Andrew Cuomo, New York's state attorney general, "yesterday launched an investigation into pork-barrel grants given to ACORN by state lawmakers, as City Council Speaker Christine Quinn froze all city funding earmarked for the scandal-scared [sic] community-activism organization"--this in response to the third released set of videos, from Acorn's Brooklyn office.

The Wall Street Journal urges the U.S. Justice Department to undertake a criminal investigation of Acorn. This column echoes that call, although we wonder if the Obama administration is compromised here. The president, who as a candidate touted his background as a "community organizer," has extensive ties to Acorn. In February 2008, the Acorn Political Action Committee endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton, and Obama's campaign Web site, Organizing for America, boasted of the candidate's support for the group:

When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, "I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

And in August 2008, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Obama campaign paid more than $800,000 to an Acorn "offshoot" for "get out the vote" projects.

Obama worked for Acorn and Acorn worked for Obama. That doesn't mean the president is implicated in any wrongdoing, but it suggests at least that the worse things get for Acorn, the more embarrassing it is for him. If the Justice Department fails to prosecute, it invariably would raise suspicions of political favoritism. This column does not care for special prosecutors, but the case for appointing one would seem to be stronger here than usual."

seycyrus

Sep17-09, 04:11 PM

And where was the regular media?

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2009/09/17/jonstewart-rips-media-acornpot-tv-cannabisplanet/

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 05:14 PM

And where was the regular media?

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2009/09/17/jonstewart-rips-media-acornpot-tv-cannabisplanet/

There has been coverage. Barney Frank should be credited with giving the heads-up to Lou Dobbs and CNN that George Bush was to blame for funding ACORN. (Watch the entire video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/19/barney-frank-michele-bach_n_205529.html

seycyrus

Sep17-09, 05:25 PM

There was no coverage about the recent scandal until very recently(last couple of days). Nothing on CNN over the weekend (watched for at least two hours each day).

byronm

Sep17-09, 05:30 PM

The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

Why shouldn't it? :)

Greg Bernhardt

Sep17-09, 05:35 PM

It appears they have cut funding
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/house.acorn/index.html

byronm

Sep17-09, 05:50 PM

Get ready for the onslaught of other entrapment videos...

I don't support what people did on behalf of working for ACORN.. but i've seen much worse.. much much worse..

You know.. like Abu Ghraib.. the falsifying of evidence to attack iraq.. voter disenfranchisement of Ohio.. so on .. so forth.

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 06:28 PM

jambaugh

Sep17-09, 06:42 PM

Why shouldn't it? :)
Federal funding comes in part from coerced taxes. The burden of the argument is on the justification of spending said tax dollars on a particular group.

Once you answer the question "Why should they be funded?" then the answer to whether funding should be cut is clear. If no justification for funding exists then they should not be funded.

So here's the broader question. Should an individual be forced to participate in philanthropy and charity not of his own choosing? I say no, it is immoral.

The problem "We" have is that there are two forms of "We" when you casually say something like "We ought to...".

Yes "We ought to help the poor"... that's a private sector "We" so go out there open up your wallet and find some poor to help!

Yes "We ought to punish rapists"... that cannot be handled in the private sector. Necessary use of force and violence must be reserved for governments.

Does ACORN do good work? Yes. Do they do it selectively to promote a political agenda? Certainly in some of their endeavors such as voter registration drives and advocation of specific legislation.

There is nothing wrong with this per se but it certainly should not be funded with tax dollars.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 07:16 PM

I'm not clear on what funding ACORN has gotten and for what it was intended to accomplish. My problem with government funding for ACORN is that ACORN includes a legally separate political action arm. But legally separate or not, support for one part of ACORN will strengthen the other, thus essentially using government funds for political activism.

John Boehner made this estimate last Fall.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=104821
"Boehner Releases Analysis Showing ACORN Has Received at Least $31 Million in Federal Funding; Untold Millions More through State & Local Agencies
“Taxpayers Don’t Need ACORN Either,” Boehner Says in Response to Obama

Washington, Oct 16, 2008 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today released an analysis showing that the left-wing group ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI for a “coordinated national scam” of voter registration fraud according to the Associated Press, has received at least $31 million in federal funding from various federal agencies since 1998. This total does not count the untold millions more that ACORN has received indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. Boehner, who last week called for an end to federal funding of ACORN following widespread reports of voter fraud by the group, released the following statement:

“Senator Obama recently said that he doesn’t need ACORN. Well, American taxpayers don’t need ACORN either. They don’t need ACORN’s voter registration fraud, and they no longer need to support ACORN with federal funds.

“ACORN’s free ride on the backs of taxpayers must end immediately. An initial review of federal records shows ACORN affiliates have received at least $31 million in direct federal funding from American taxpayers over the past 10 years, and millions more indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. House Republicans worked together to stop the Majority from using taxpayer dollars to fill a slush fund created just for ACORN, but now we must go further to turn off the spigot of federal grants on which ACORN depends.

“Recent revelations of voter registration fraud on a massive scale in critical states are unacceptable. ACORN’s dishonest approach to voter registration, including fraudulently registering the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, shows a brazen disrespect for the law and our system of free and fair elections. In conjunction with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and its political allies in the Democratic Party, ACORN also played a key role in creating the financial crisis that ultimately put our entire economy in peril. It’s time for us to stop forcing American taxpayers to fund the ACORN machine.”

A review of the Federal Register shows that ACORN affiliates in 11 states received more than $31 million in federal funds from 1998 to 2008.

One of the grants to an ACORN affiliate, a Jan. 17, 2007 award to ACORN Associates Inc. of Albuquerque, NM, is notable because it appears to facilitate and encourage the use of risky subprime loans, now viewed by many as a contributing factor in the recent freezing up of international credit markets. The title for the grant? “Education and Outreach Initiative/Subprime Lending Component.”"

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 07:18 PM

A break down of the $31 million.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/101608acornchart.pdf

Wax

Sep17-09, 07:21 PM

There was no coverage about the recent scandal until very recently(last couple of days). Nothing on CNN over the weekend (watched for at least two hours each day).

Some news stations actually try to investigate and get both sides of the story before they actually publish it. Fox News for some reason doesn't believe in investigative journalism and refuses to show the other side of the story. Tape four shows a lady who says she murder her husband but did you know she was actually playing along because she thought it was all a joke?

Her husbands are actually alive but she lost her job because she thought it was all a joke. I have yet to see Fox News apologize to this lady for making her lose her job by not investigating the video before airing it. Lets also not forget that the videos are edit, it doesn't show her side of the story in which she claims she tried to turn them away but they were persistent.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 07:34 PM

Moonbear

Sep17-09, 07:45 PM

It appears they have cut funding
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/house.acorn/index.html

In a Democrat-controlled congress, such a large majority voting against their funding is pretty perjorative. That makes me think they really aren't just being targeted by the GOP, but have committed real transgressions. This is probably one of the more unified votes across parties so far!

I also agree with the other assertions in the thread that any group shouldn't just get government funding "just because" but because they have provided strong justification that their activities are of wide benefit to the US population, not just to one group of people. I have no problem with private support of the activities of such political groups, but also don't think they really ever should have qualified for Federal funding for the things they do, since they are very partisan.

BoomBoom

Sep17-09, 07:50 PM

I am not sure why they ever got federal funding to begin with?

Obviously it wasn't that big of a deal to the republicans and the Bush administration all those years while they were in power, becuase they were funded during that era as well.

But now, as with everything else, it must be Obamas fault. :rolleyes:

mheslep

Sep17-09, 07:58 PM

A break down of the $31 million.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/101608acornchart.pdf

Acorn also receives money from candidates / political campaigns, not counted in that government funding. The Obama campaign paid Acorn $800,000. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html)

Wax

Sep17-09, 07:59 PM

Well, maybe she should sue ACORN for firing her - since she was just kidding and they jumped to conclusions? Was she also joking about running an escort agency?

She probably has a much better chance to sue the film makers.

Tape 5 just came out today and Fox News seems to be refusing to air it. I think they actually learned their lesson because there are two sides to a story. Juan Carlos from tape 5 actually filed a police report after the two clowns came into his officer. You wouldn't know this if you watched Fox News though. It was aired on CNN 15 mins ago, Lou Dobbs.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 08:01 PM

drankin

Sep17-09, 08:06 PM

She probably has a much better chance to sue the film makers.

Tape 5 just came out today and Fox News seems to be refusing to air it. I think they actually learned their lesson because there are two sides to a story. Juan Carlos from tape 5 actually filed a police report after the two clowns came into his officer. You wouldn't know this if you watched Fox News though. It was aired on CNN 15 mins ago, Lou Dobbs.

Disregarding the videos, can you provide any good reasons why ACORN should continue to be funded by our tax dollars?

They are a proactively politically biased organization funded by the federal government. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. This should not be funded by the American people.

mheslep

Sep17-09, 08:08 PM

It appears they have cut funding
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/house.acorn/index.html

That was the federal government, also comes state cut offs (or calls for) from

Minnesota (http://www.startribune.com/politics/59566592.html)
New York (http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/18140/skelos-letter-no-state-bucks-for-acorn/)

Louisiana (http://www.wdsu.com/politics/20973080/detail.html)

Wax

Sep17-09, 08:15 PM

Disregarding the videos, can you provide any good reasons why ACORN should continue to be funded by our tax dollars?

They are a proactively politically biased organization funded by the federal government. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. This should not be funded by the American people.

There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? There's always a group of people who's bound to not agree where your tax dollars are going.

drankin

Sep17-09, 08:22 PM

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 08:26 PM

There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? There's always a group of people who's bound to not agree where your tax dollars are going.

Washington is starting to round off to the nearest $Trillion - look at all of the nonsense stuffed into the stimulus Bill.

An underlying problem may be that ACORN is involved in too many things - too big to manage.

NPR took a look last Fall.
"ACORN's Money Tree Has Many Branches"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/acorns_money_tree_has_many_bra.html

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 08:36 PM

It appears they have cut funding
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/house.acorn/index.html

Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

"The Senate and House initiatives to cut funding for ACORN won't take effect until the bills to which they are attached clear Congress and are signed by President Barack Obama. The Senate measure is attached to a fiscal 2010 spending bill.

"President Obama needs to indicate whether he'll sign this bill and join us in ending all taxpayer funds for this corrupt organization," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said after the vote."

mgb_phys

Sep17-09, 08:54 PM

Well seeing as how the FBI has been raiding ACORN offices since last year, and they're continuously breaking the law in the most disgusting ways possible... of course they should lose government funding.

Ok so they have a long history of targeting peaceful US groups while missing terrorists, they occasionally assassinate the wrong man and have been screwing up all their forensic tests for the last 40s but they do some good police work as well.

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 09:01 PM

There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? Absolutely: What I'd like to see is a top-to-bottom review of the funding that starts with the assumption that no private social programs should be funded, then have them re-apply for funding so that they can justify it.

And you didn't answer the question, which directly asked you if you could think of a reason why ACORN should be funded...

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 09:03 PM

Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn

"The Senate and House initiatives to cut funding for ACORN won't take effect until the bills to which they are attached clear Congress and are signed by President Barack Obama. The Senate measure is attached to a fiscal 2010 spending bill. I don't think that implies what you are saying. I don't think Presidents tend to sit on passed bills.

Supercritical

Sep17-09, 09:22 PM

It's more than just the mainstream media that dropped the ball on this, I've been actively watching PF for at least three days (since the story first made its rounds on the net) to see if anyone would post a thread about it. This thread is showing up more than a week after the first video release.

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 09:28 PM

Not a lot of activist conservatives here, Supercritical.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 09:32 PM

Ok so they have a long history of targeting peaceful US groups while missing terrorists, they occasionally assassinate the wrong man and have been screwing up all their forensic tests for the last 40s but they do some good police work as well.

If the FBI shouldn't investigate voter fraud allegations - in more than 1 state - who should?

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 09:33 PM

I don't think that implies what you are saying. I don't think Presidents tend to sit on passed bills.

I'm interested in how much they might receive in 2009 - from the stimulus and other sources.

Wax

Sep17-09, 10:05 PM

Not a bad idea!

With unemployment at 9 percent, why would you want to cut all spending? Does it make you happy to watch people begging for jobs? Federal spending isn't the one cutting jobs. It's the private sector.

Washington is starting to round off to the nearest $Trillion - look at all of the nonsense stuffed into the stimulus Bill.

An underlying problem may be that ACORN is involved in too many things - too big to manage.

NPR took a look last Fall.
"ACORN's Money Tree Has Many Branches"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/acorns_money_tree_has_many_bra.html

The stimulus isn't targeted spending. You can't stimulate the economy if you only spend in one sector of the market.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 10:26 PM

The stimulus isn't targeted spending. You can't stimulate the economy if you only spend in one sector of the market.

Well you got me there - it isn't targeted - that's the problem. It's really more of a 30 year wish list of pet projects.

Wax

Sep17-09, 10:30 PM

Well you got me there - it isn't targeted - that's the problem. It's really more of a 30 year wish list of pet projects.

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

byronm

Sep17-09, 10:40 PM

Federal funding comes in part from coerced taxes. The burden of the argument is on the justification of spending said tax dollars on a particular group.

Once you answer the question "Why should they be funded?" then the answer to whether funding should be cut is clear. If no justification for funding exists then they should not be funded.

So here's the broader question. Should an individual be forced to participate in philanthropy and charity not of his own choosing? I say no, it is immoral.

The problem "We" have is that there are two forms of "We" when you casually say something like "We ought to...".

Yes "We ought to help the poor"... that's a private sector "We" so go out there open up your wallet and find some poor to help!

Yes "We ought to punish rapists"... that cannot be handled in the private sector. Necessary use of force and violence must be reserved for governments.

Does ACORN do good work? Yes. Do they do it selectively to promote a political agenda? Certainly in some of their endeavors such as voter registration drives and advocation of specific legislation.

There is nothing wrong with this per se but it certainly should not be funded with tax dollars.

By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)

In all honesty, I consider myself independent.. I don't "believe" in anything but humanity and with that said i don't create a self prophesying hate for government but merely realize that a government for and by the people doesn't have to be artificially limited in any fashion. The only evils of government are the evils of man, take away the government and you still have evil people. Thus, i respect libertarian ideologies, republican ideology, democratic ideologies, green (so on and so forth) but i don't think of them as THE answer but merely a representative answer of our federalized government.

With that said, i believe the "Charity" works even if it is taxes.. in one case it brings more businesses to our country and our communities through tax breaks, incentives and local development offerings and in other cases it keeps people off the streets or in this case gets them registered to vote.

I'm not naive about government either.. my support of governance is not a support of draconian governance by any means.. i don't want to take logic out of the equation but i don't fundamentally associate government as illogical.. hard to explain but oh well ;)

So there.. i explained a little bit about my beliefs, explained that i felt your argument is mostly for the sake of argument itself rather then the sake of fixing the problem at hand and when it comes to fixing the problem at hand i feel the combined efforts of all people is better than pretending private interests have any concern other than themselves.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 10:42 PM

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

This is quite a bit off topic (sorry).

But have you noticed the unemployment numbers? The stimulus was specifically sold as the best method to limit unemployment to 8% - we're now over 9% and approaching 10%.

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops.

Wax

Sep17-09, 10:44 PM

This is quite a bit off topic (sorry).

But have you noticed the unemployment numbers? The stimulus was specifically sold as the best method to limit unemployment to 8% - we're now over 9% and approaching 10%.

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops.

How does federal spending create unemployment? If you're spending money for projects, doesn't that mean you have to hire people to work? Can you tell me how federal spending creates job losses? :rolleyes:

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 10:45 PM

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 10:54 PM

How does federal spending create unemployment? If you're spending money for projects, doesn't that mean you have to hire people to work? Can you tell me how federal spending creates job losses? :rolleyes:

This needs to move to another thread if it continues.

However, we need permanent jobs in the private sector.

Construction jobs are temporary and Government jobs don't create tax revenue - they are funded through taxes, borrowing, or printing more money - all bad.

The other misleading (and easy to manipulate) item is "saved jobs" - how do you count a saved job?

Again, the topic of this thread is Acorn - and it looks like they won't be recruiting anyone for those Census jobs now.

byronm

Sep17-09, 11:01 PM

:confused:???

Person A thinks private sector should pay for it
Person B thinks taxes should pay for it

Person A and Person B arugue indefinitely about who is right and who is moral meanwhile person A and Person B competely fail to fix "The Freakin problem" that they're fighting over. Catch my drift? :)

We could go tit for tat on labeling something
We could go tit for tat on redefining what something means
We could go tit for tat on conceptualizing our differences

However NONE of that fixes the problem.. we're a bunch of "my way or the highway" people getting more pissed off at each other when if we actually sat down and fixed the problems we would be known as a bunch of "can do'ers" instead.

But hell.. every time i go to a bookstore i see how a "Can do" attitude is bad for government but great for business! way to ignore the issue and brand the message!

Obviously how something is paid for is important and i don't mean to take that value away but if its a recognized problem the "how do we pay for it" is easier to do when the ultimate response is to fix the problem at hand and not debate endless about whose responsibility is or who gets to take blame or who gets to take credit for something going good or bad..

dunno if i'm explaining it right, just seems like lots of senseless arguing about money when if we focus on the problem at hand its less about how about money itself but more of the return on investment we get by fixing that problem.. Be it health care or getting people to participate in democracy.

Right now money is a divisive factor, instead of a solution for a united cause and i think its divisive for all the wrong reasons.

byronm

Sep17-09, 11:15 PM

This needs to move to another thread if it continues.

Construction jobs are temporary and Government jobs don't create tax revenue - they are funded through taxes, borrowing, or printing more money - all bad.

Bogus ;)

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs.

Those government workers buy food, buy houses, buy cars, buy gas, pay rents, pay taxes and spend money into the economies they live within just as much as any other person. Not only that but a lot of the government spending goes directly into private sector without having to pass through nary a government worker hand but directly to a bank or contracts management partner.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 11:23 PM

Bogus ;)

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs.

Those government workers buy food, buy houses, buy cars, buy gas, pay rents, pay taxes and spend money into the economies they live within just as much as any other person. Not only that but a lot of the government spending goes directly into private sector without having to pass through nary a government worker hand but directly to a bank or contracts management partner.

Government jobs guarantee 2 things - taxes and regulation (they have to actually DO something at those jobs) - both are a drain on the productive parts of the economy. All of those Government workers would be doing all of that same spending if they were employed in the private sector.

WhoWee

Sep17-09, 11:25 PM

Person A thinks private sector should pay for it
Person B thinks taxes should pay for it

Person A and Person B arugue indefinitely about who is right and who is moral meanwhile person A and Person B competely fail to fix "The Freakin problem" that they're fighting over. Catch my drift? :)

We could go tit for tat on labeling something
We could go tit for tat on redefining what something means
We could go tit for tat on conceptualizing our differences

However NONE of that fixes the problem.. we're a bunch of "my way or the highway" people getting more pissed off at each other when if we actually sat down and fixed the problems we would be known as a bunch of "can do'ers" instead.

But hell.. every time i go to a bookstore i see how a "Can do" attitude is bad for government but great for business! way to ignore the issue and brand the message!

Obviously how something is paid for is important and i don't mean to take that value away but if its a recognized problem the "how do we pay for it" is easier to do when the ultimate response is to fix the problem at hand and not debate endless about whose responsibility is or who gets to take blame or who gets to take credit for something going good or bad..

dunno if i'm explaining it right, just seems like lots of senseless arguing about money when if we focus on the problem at hand its less about how about money itself but more of the return on investment we get by fixing that problem.. Be it health care or getting people to participate in democracy.

Right now money is a divisive factor, instead of a solution for a united cause and i think its divisive for all the wrong reasons.

The growth of Acorn (and apparent transformation into an unmanageable mess) is a by-product of the need to throw money at problems - isn't it?

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 11:53 PM

How is that the problem? The stimulus is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Just so we're clear, by "designed to do", you mean designed to be a 30 year wish list of pet projects, right?

I have a problem with selling it as a stimulus when it isn't. And we are in a severe recession, so doing an actual stimulus would probably be a good idea, right? More to the point, I have a problem with the democrats' 30 year wish list of pet projects!

There's a reason Obama's approval rating is dropping: campaign speeches don't work once you're President. Once you get into office, people expect you to actually do stuff. Relevant stuff, too.

russ_watters

Sep17-09, 11:57 PM

On the other hand, those $3,000 (each) road signs have really given a boost to a few sign shops. Gawd, that one really annoys me. They're basically campaign signs.

russ_watters

Sep18-09, 12:02 AM

A job is a Job. - They're all temporary, they're all at will and they're all at the whims of the free market. The free market responds to government jobs just as much - if not more as it does to non government jobs. That's a misunderstanding of economics. Much (most?) of the targeted stimulus money to date has been spent on road projects. Most of them are paving projects because paving projects require little in the way of design and thus provide an easy way to spend money quickly. This provided a bunch of jobs for laborers that will evaporate in 6 months. But most people hold on to their non-stimulus jobs for more than 6 months. This is a clear flaw in the functionality of the stimulus.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep18-09, 01:29 AM

Some news stations actually try to investigate and get both sides of the story before they actually publish it. Fox News for some reason doesn't believe in investigative journalism and refuses to show the other side of the story. Tape four shows a lady who says she murder her husband but did you know she was actually playing along because she thought it was all a joke?

Her husbands are actually alive but she lost her job because she thought it was all a joke. I have yet to see Fox News apologize to this lady for making her lose her job by not investigating the video before airing it. Lets also not forget that the videos are edit, it doesn't show her side of the story in which she claims she tried to turn them away but they were persistent.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023
I listen to a Fox News affiliate (the reporters work for Fox). The day that they started reporting about the fourth video they were saying that she was reportedly only playing along and the next day even quoted her saying that she felt she needed to play along for fear of her safety. Also she is the only one who did not lose her job the last I heard.

If the FBI shouldn't investigate voter fraud allegations - in more than 1 state - who should?
ACORN prompted the investigation itself after finding irregularities in their voter registrations. Its not something that they tried to cover up though there may have been certain members of their organization that did try. They admitted that it may have a lot to do with the manner in which they pay their registration gatherers and that they are looking into means of preventing this in the future.

Yet more information I have gotten from a Fox News affiliate by the way.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 08:38 AM

ACORN prompted the investigation itself after finding irregularities in their voter registrations. Its not something that they tried to cover up though there may have been certain members of their organization that did try. They admitted that it may have a lot to do with the manner in which they pay their registration gatherers and that they are looking into means of preventing this in the future.

Yet more information I have gotten from a Fox News affiliate by the way.

Again, why wouldn't the FBI investigate a voter fraud allegation?

TheStatutoryApe

Sep18-09, 09:27 AM

Again, why wouldn't the FBI investigate a voter fraud allegation?

Sorry, my response was more directed at the idea that having been under investigation over voter fraud is a mark against them.

jambaugh

Sep18-09, 12:01 PM

By your very argument we could go tit for tat in what we believe is charity and what isn't but to me that totally ignores the real questions at hand of why the service is there, what the service is fulfilling and how we can better provide said services because obviously there is a need being filled and fighting about who pays for that is a backwards way of fixing the problem. I don't really see as simple as being a charity :)

I don't see that its that hard to define chairity. Did the person using a service pay the cost of that service either directly or indirectly or did they rely on the generosity of others? ACORN doesn't drive me to the polls. They didn't help me get a loan for my sister's house. I helped my sister buy her house... (that's charity).

Your list of "real questions" presuppose agreement on what services are needed and justified. I don't think proselytizing Christianity is a service that needs to be provided. I dare say the majority of people in my bible belt state disagree. If it weren't for the direct obvious unconstitutionality do you think my state legislators would hesitate to fund this "service"?

...With that said, i believe the "Charity" works even if it is taxes.. in one case it brings more businesses to our country and our communities through tax breaks, incentives and local development offerings and in other cases it keeps people off the streets or in this case gets them registered to vote.

"Works" in what sense? Has the welfare state worked? But say it works fine. I still ask the fundamental question... can you justify enforcing "charity" with violence? Because make no mistake. If I refuse to pay "my fair share" as decided by the majority then someone with a gun on his holster will come to cart me off to jail for tax evasion.

I'm not naive about government either.. my support of governance is not a support of draconian governance by any means.. i don't want to take logic out of the equation but i don't fundamentally associate government as illogical.. hard to explain but oh well ;)

Governance is one thing... "Thou shalt not burn down your neighbor's house because he plays his stereo too loud" is governance. But remember if people choose to obey a rule without government enforcement then there is no need for government involvement. If some fail to obey that rule then government ultimately must resort to threats of violence against someone. They could bribe me to follow some rule but they must extort money from you to pay that bribe. All governance is through FORCE.

This isn't evil it is just the nature of government. It is necessary to oppose violence with violence. In order to prevent lynch mobs and tit for tat vendetta murders and foreign invasion et al we form a governing body to adjudicate and punish individual acts of violence and defend individual civil liberties. Once that is decided we may argue as to its form. Once the government is in place we may also apply it to other issues, such as sharing risk and maintaining infrastructure.

But beware the slippery slope to tyranny. A democracy can be just as tyrannical as a dictatorship (though not as efficiently). If you don't believe that look at the treatment of blacks in the south after reconstruction. And the majority though they we being beneficently paternalistic toward an inferior race as they kept the black community disenfranchised.

So there.. i explained a little bit about my beliefs, explained that i felt your argument is mostly for the sake of argument itself rather then the sake of fixing the problem at hand and when it comes to fixing the problem at hand i feel the combined efforts of all people is better than pretending private interests have any concern other than themselves.

This confuses me. The private interests consists of the very same individuals as the voting public. How can the same people be both "concerned citizens acting through government" and "greedy private sector looking out for only themselves"?

Combining the efforts of many does not require government. Government is only needed if you want to force people to participate. You say combining the efforts of all people is better but that presupposes the endeavor is a good endeavor. Should those who do not so think be forced to participate? Is that right?
Or are you saying your ability to perceive the good is better than mine so you should force me to conform to your idea of public welfare?

But you have an opposite effect by involving government. The private individual can shrug off any conscience at participating in philanthropy... "I pay my taxes! Let the guvernment take care of 'em!" Cash channeled through government cannot have near the effect as one person helping another out by showing him how to get back on his feet. What's more you breed a whole subculture of individuals whose first reaction is to look to the government for assistance in bad times. When things get bad enough and government by its nature acts too slowly they have no instinct of self reliance. Take the case of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?

Look at the charitable giving of your "greedy" corporations. For that matter look at how much ACORN is funded by the private sector and volunteers. As far as "fixing the problem at hand" is concerned the private sector philanthropy can be freely innovative and is directly answerable to the individuals paying for it. The supporters support the effort because they believe and only so long as they believe it is worthy and effective.

But there is always going to be disagreement as to what really is a "problem" and what really is the right "solution" and which of many problems should have priority. When it comes to security and defense we haven't a choice. Our government cannot enforce its own laws unless it carries the biggest stick. (That cannot be handled through the private sector.) I just say it should use that stick to "break up fights" and not to whop people over the head because they haven't been "kind enough to their neighbors."

It is a fundamental moral question. It is wrong to throw a person in jail for not being generous. If I refuse to fund ACORN and I'm out voted then jail is my only other option. (Well there is the John Galt option.)

[EDIT: And by the way, I am not arguing for arguments sake. I think this specific issue is the biggest threat to individual civil liberties and the survival of our Nation than any other including terrorism. It is the literal "path to hell paved by good intentions". Look at the arguments to tax Soda...justified by the need to pay for socialized medicine and thus justified because of future cost to taxpayers. If that doesn't scare the beegeebies out of you then you are not paying attention to your government.]

russ_watters

Sep18-09, 12:48 PM

Sorry, my response was more directed at the idea that having been under investigation over voter fraud is a mark against them. Well it certainly isn't a positive mark. They are responsible for the conduct of their workers and even if they reported fraud amonst their ranks, it is still their failure.

byronm

Sep18-09, 01:08 PM

The growth of Acorn (and apparent transformation into an unmanageable mess) is a by-product of the need to throw money at problems - isn't it?

Not at all.. You're still debating the philosophy of money and not the utility of it.

The growth of ACORN is the by-product of ignoring the people that ACORN serves.

byronm

Sep18-09, 01:25 PM

I don't see that its that hard to define chairity. Did the person using a service pay the cost of that service either directly or indirectly or did they rely on the generosity of others? ACORN doesn't drive me to the polls. They didn't help me get a loan for my sister's house. I helped my sister buy her house... (that's charity).

You're still stuck on defining tit for tat what you believe or don't believe charity is while ignoring what the purpose of ACORN is or ANY government program for that matter. I think its essential to help the poor as a society, not out of an act of charity, therefor having programs that help the under served participate in our democracy is important to our government and the very ideology of democracy itself.

Your list of "real questions" presuppose agreement on what services are needed and justified. I don't think proselytizing Christianity is a service that needs to be provided. I dare say the majority of people in my bible belt state disagree. If it weren't for the direct obvious unconstitutionality do you think my state legislators would hesitate to fund this "service"?

I don't agree with supporting religious groups through tax dollars at all and i'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. That argument is entirely different than looking at social issues and solving them through tax payer dollars. I'd rather "throw money at a problem" then "throw god into it" :)

"Works" in what sense? Has the welfare state worked? But say it works fine. I still ask the fundamental question... can you justify enforcing "charity" with violence? Because make no mistake. If I refuse to pay "my fair share" as decided by the majority then someone with a gun on his holster will come to cart me off to jail for tax evasion.

I don't see government so black and white that welfare = charity and non welfare != charity. In fact for argument sake i say there is more risk in taxing the people for the military then there is risk in taxing people for the greater welfare of all. Why is it that people often equate welfare with an oppressive taxaction against will but the funding of military expenditures as a fair taxation at will? Which one is truly representative of the people and which one is representative of the state itself???

Governance is one thing... "Thou shalt not burn down your neighbor's house because he plays his stereo too loud" is governance. But remember if people choose to obey a rule without government enforcement then there is no need for government involvement. If some fail to obey that rule then government ultimately must resort to threats of violence against someone. They could bribe me to follow some rule but they must extort money from you to pay that bribe. All governance is through FORCE.

Governance isn't through force unless you make it that way. If you polarize yourself from the real issues at hand then that is something you are choosing to do.

This isn't evil it is just the nature of government. It is necessary to oppose violence with violence. In order to prevent lynch mobs and tit for tat vendetta murders and foreign invasion et al we form a governing body to adjudicate and punish individual acts of violence and defend individual civil liberties. Once that is decided we may argue as to its form. Once the government is in place we may also apply it to other issues, such as sharing risk and maintaining infrastructure.

To me, government is a civil service working issues that impact society. I think humanity is just as much a worthy cause as the "perceived violence" that you believe is a worthy cause. But once again.. we're fighting the philosophy of government and not the fact there are disenfranchised voters regardless of what we think the government should be.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 02:21 PM

The growth of ACORN is the by-product of ignoring the people that ACORN serves.

You really need to support this comment.

ACORN helps the disadvantaged - as do most Government welfare programs.

Are you claiming minorities and the poor don't receive Government aid in the areas of food, housing, medical care, education assistance, and even reverse discrimination by way of wage credits - tax incentives rewarding employers who hire minorities and welfare recipients?

Otherwise, you must mean that ACORN supports political candidates that are most likely to vote for Government spending programs? Please clarify and support your posts.

Wax

Sep18-09, 02:27 PM

I listen to a Fox News affiliate (the reporters work for Fox). The day that they started reporting about the fourth video they were saying that she was reportedly only playing along and the next day even quoted her saying that she felt she needed to play along for fear of her safety. Also she is the only one who did not lose her job the last I heard.

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.

mheslep

Sep18-09, 02:40 PM

That's a misunderstanding of economics. Much (most?) of the targeted stimulus money to date has been spent on road projects. ...Not sure what you wanted to exclude with 'targeted', but by far most of the spending so far has been in payments directly to state governments to keep them afloat, namely state Medicaid, unemployment assistance, health assistance for the unemployed. The the highway construction money spend appears to be only 2-5% of the total stimulus budget in 2009, and only 1/3 of the total $62B transportation money for all time will be spent by the close of 2010.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.gif

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 02:46 PM

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.

Has anyone found a link regarding this police report yet?

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 02:48 PM

Not sure what you wanted to exclude with 'targeted', but by far most of the spending so far has been in payments directly to state governments to keep them afloat, namely state Medicaid, unemployment assistance, health assistance for the unemployed. The the highway construction money spend appears to be only 2-5% of the total stimulus budget in 2009, and only 1/3 of the total $62B transportation money for all time will be spent by the close of 2010.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/02/01/GR2009020100154.gif

Looks like payback more than stimulus.

byronm

Sep18-09, 02:49 PM

You really need to support this comment.

ACORN helps the disadvantaged - as do most Government welfare programs.

Are you claiming minorities and the poor don't receive Government aid in the areas of food, housing, medical care, education assistance, and even reverse discrimination by way of wage credits - tax incentives rewarding employers who hire minorities and welfare recipients?

Otherwise, you must mean that ACORN supports political candidates that are most likely to vote for Government spending programs? Please clarify and support your posts.

When you frame the debate so its not about the issue that ACORN is trying to resolve there is no debate, it becomes a political fiasco and nothing I can say will change your mind or appease your views anyway. You still call it welfare and thats how you see the world.

If there was no demand for ACORN they wouldn't exist. I think a bigger issue you fail to recognize is that this would be a non issue if the republicans reached out to these disenfranchised people in a way that didn't belittle them. Instead of fixing the problem of voters who can't vote you're going around and calling them welfare families..

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 02:54 PM

When you frame the debate so its not about the issue that ACORN is trying to resolve there is no debate, it becomes a political fiasco and nothing I can say will change your mind or appease your views anyway. You still call it welfare and thats how you see the world.

If there was no demand for ACORN they wouldn't exist. I think a bigger issue you fail to recognize is that this would be a non issue if the republicans reached out to these disenfranchised people in a way that didn't belittle them. Instead of fixing the problem of voters who can't vote you're going around and calling them welfare families..

I'm not framing the debate. I'm asking you to support your comments as per the PF rules.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 03:04 PM

I'm still trying to find Small Business Administration funding on the chart - or ANYTHING that stimulates the investment of property, plant, and equipment in the private sector. I'm also surprised at the relative neglect of Homeland Security.

byronm

Sep18-09, 03:08 PM

I'm not framing the debate. I'm asking you to support your comments as per the PF rules.

Yes you are framing the debate. I'm making the case for ACORN keeping government funding and why i believe that way. You're making the case that acorn is welfare and how welfare is bad.

If republicans who are against ACORN for political reasons had a GOTV effort that targeted the disenfranchised lower class would we have this discussion right now? My statement above is a personal opinion but here you want me to quantify it as truth and truth be told that discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. Thats what i'm trying to get to.

byronm

Sep18-09, 03:10 PM

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 03:15 PM

Yes you are framing the debate. I'm making the case for ACORN keeping government funding and why i believe that way. You're making the case that acorn is welfare and how welfare is bad.

If republicans who are against ACORN for political reasons had a GOTV effort that targeted the disenfranchised lower class would we have this discussion right now? My statement above is a personal opinion but here you want me to quantify it as truth and truth be told that discussion is not relevant to the issue at hand. Thats what i'm trying to get to.

Please be clear when posting opinions. Again, check out the rule book.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 03:17 PM

Perhaps this belonged in the other thread we're debating in ;)

I was responding to the mheslep post of the large chart - didn't want to re-post the entire graphic.

byronm

Sep18-09, 03:20 PM

Please be clear when posting opinions. Again, check out the rule book.

Politics is all opinions, thats why i'm trying to get to the "matter of fact" of why acorn exists and the "matter of fact" that if there was a republican solution we probably wouldn't be debating our political opinions of the matter but the fact we have disenfranchised voters that need to be taken care of.

Education has failed these people
People have failed these people
many things have failed these people.. i don't want to define "disinfranchised" to make it fit my political views but to state a purpose that needs fulfilling whether or not ACORN is the one doing it and i don't see that as welfare as being inherently bad.. obviously by the definition anything supporting fellow humans is "welfare" so i guess there is no point in what i'm trying to say anyway. thats all.. done here. thx welfare=demonized :)

chemisttree

Sep18-09, 06:14 PM

Has anyone found a link regarding this police report yet?

O'Keefe is heard in the video saying, "I want to buy a house and this is my girlfriend, and she's a prostitute."

Vera said he was told the woman needed to escape her controlling pimp, who wouldn't let her start a new life.

Immediately, Vera said he offered to call the police but the filmmaker quickly stopped him.

"Don't call the police because I'm gonna be a lawyer," O'Keefe said in the video.

After the pair left the building, Vera said he called the National City Police Department.

National City police confirmed that Vera contacted them, but said there was not enough information about the couple to file a formal report. http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html

Anybody else have a weird feeling about this 'investigation'? The footage I see is obviously very heavily edited. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CMXMC7vba4

Supposedly, these 12 underage girls from El Salvador are due to arrive late Friday or early Saturday by boat! A bit unusual for immigrants from El Salvador, wouldn't you say? Juan sounds incredulous and asks, "These people came from El Salvador?" And then the tape is stopped. Keep in mind at this point they are being referred to as 12 girls. Then he is told that the intention is to have a house with 12 underage prostitutes and that they don't want any problems with the police or with neighbors. "Yeah, that's right", was the only thing Juan said and then the tape is cut again... just when a really incriminating (or exculpatory) bit might be expected. Why was it edited here? When Juan is asked what he needs regarding the 12 underage prostitutes, he says he needs the location that the girls will be taken. (5:35) Why? He says that he's working with the District Attorney's (Oh! That's not good!). And just then the tape is edited... Why? What did he say next? Why was this crucial part edited? Why did he mention the DA's office? Why did he mention that he was working with them? Then the pimp changes the story to say that the girls will be landing at a location in Mexico, perhaps Tijuana, and then cross the border. It goes on and on like this.

I've got a sick feeling about this sting. It sounds like this poor sap was duped into talking to these two and they heavily edited the conversation to make him look really bad.

I'd like to see the unedited footage in its entirety.

Wax

Sep18-09, 06:23 PM

That guy in the last footage reported the incident to the police after it was over. I'm not sure if he filed a report but according to CNN, he told a police officer.

chemisttree

Sep18-09, 06:31 PM

That guy in the last footage reported the incident to the police after it was over. I'm not sure if he filed a report but according to CNN, he told a police officer.

According to National City Police he called but there wasn't enough information to file a report. Just a cell phone number that was likely bogus.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 07:32 PM

According to National City Police he called but there wasn't enough information to file a report. Just a cell phone number that was likely bogus.

When was the call logged and was it recorded?

TheStatutoryApe

Sep18-09, 11:14 PM

Well it certainly isn't a positive mark. They are responsible for the conduct of their workers and even if they reported fraud amonst their ranks, it is still their failure.
Voter registration fraud is incredibly common. The fact that they found it themselves and reported it for investigation themselves is a mark in their favour in my opinion.

CNN gave her an interview yesterday and she was fired. Also the Carlos from tape 5 was fired even though he reported the incident to police.
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_13352704
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/16/ec.01.html
Indefinite suspension with pay actually. Not many fired employees show up for news interviews with the state chairperson for their ex employer there as support.

http://www.10news.com/news/20975217/detail.html

Anybody else have a weird feeling about this 'investigation'? The footage I see is obviously very heavily edited. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CMXMC7vba4

Supposedly, these 12 underage girls from El Salvador are due to arrive late Friday or early Saturday by boat! A bit unusual for immigrants from El Salvador, wouldn't you say? Juan sounds incredulous and asks, "These people came from El Salvador?" And then the tape is stopped. Keep in mind at this point they are being referred to as 12 girls. Then he is told that the intention is to have a house with 12 underage prostitutes and that they don't want any problems with the police or with neighbors. "Yeah, that's right", was the only thing Juan said and then the tape is cut again... just when a really incriminating (or exculpatory) bit might be expected. Why was it edited here? When Juan is asked what he needs regarding the 12 underage prostitutes, he says he needs the location that the girls will be taken. (5:35) Why? He says that he's working with the District Attorney's (Oh! That's not good!). And just then the tape is edited... Why? What did he say next? Why was this crucial part edited? Why did he mention the DA's office? Why did he mention that he was working with them? Then the pimp changes the story to say that the girls will be landing at a location in Mexico, perhaps Tijuana, and then cross the border. It goes on and on like this.

I've got a sick feeling about this sting. It sounds like this poor sap was duped into talking to these two and they heavily edited the conversation to make him look really bad.

I'd like to see the unedited footage in its entirety.
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-09-18/news/politics-city-county-government/acorn-employee-fired-for-controversial-video-clip
ACORN received a lengthier version of the video and apparently decided that his version of the story did not jive with what they saw on the tape.

WhoWee

Sep18-09, 11:54 PM

This is from the Pittsburgh Tribune last year.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.

An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. "

The story gives a fair amount of background info including:

"Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans. Citizens Services was established in December 2004 to "assist persons and organizations who advance the interests of low- and moderate-income people," according to paperwork filed in Louisiana. In a 2006 ACORN publication, Citizen Services Inc. is described as "ACORN's campaign services entity." "

and concludes with

"Money flows back and forth between ACORN, Citizens Services Inc., Project Vote and Communities Voting Together. ACORN posts job ads for Citizens Services and Project Vote. Communities Voting Together contributed $60,000 to Citizens Services Inc., for example, in November 2005, according to a posting on CampaignMoney.com. Project Vote has hired ACORN and CSI as its highest paid contractors, paying ACORN $4,649,037 in 2006 and CSI $779,016 in 2006, according to Terry of the Consumers Rights League."

I have to wonder how many ACORN affiliated companies exist and the extent of their involvement in other Government related activities.

Hans de Vries

Sep19-09, 08:35 AM

Ahhh, This all explains why the man who bills himself as "the Senate’s most outspoken critic of
ACORN," Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana. was found in brothels accross the nation.

He's was just looking for people to assist in the investigations into ACORN !

FOX NEWS quoting on Vitter's encounters with prostitutes:

"- he just wanted to have somebody listen to him, you know"
"- he was a "decent guy" who appeared to be in need of company"
"- guys coming over hanging out with the girls and having a few cocktails, and men being men."
"- He's just a decent, normal guy"
"- Republicans most likely would stand behind Vitter despite the new allegations.
"- They aren't going to throw him to the wolves," he said, citing support from religious
organizations, conservative commentators and the general public."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html

Oh well....:rolleyes:

Regards, Hans

WhoWee

Sep19-09, 12:17 PM

Vanadium 50

Sep19-09, 01:44 PM

Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?

I think that's a very good question. There are defenses of ACORN's behavior of the form "Fox News is a bounch of scoundrels" or "the Republicans are a bunch of scoundrels".

Shouldn't we on the left demand better behavior of our institutions?

ACORN has been undermining the very foundation of democracy by committing massive voter fraud. Now we discover there is at least one office that's willing to aid and abet setting up a sex slavery ring for teenage and pre-teenage girls.

Are our political views so important that we are willing to subvert democracy, attempt to steal elections, and to enslave underage girls to get them? Are we willing to look the other way as these crimes are committed, just because their political views match ours?

Where is our outrage?

I think we deserve better than ACORN.

Hans de Vries

Sep19-09, 02:04 PM

Do the problems in his personal life mean he's wrong about ACORN?

After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.

It's hard to believe that Acorn as a whole is some kind of criminal organization though.
It seems they do have employed a lot of people from the real bottom of society, maybe
from some naive progressive political viewpoint.

Regards, Hans

DavidSnider

Sep19-09, 02:19 PM

If ACORN was actually involved in prostitution they wouldn't have bought that those two were for real in the first place. (If they ever did at all.)

WhoWee

Sep19-09, 03:36 PM

After looking at some of these video's I've to admit that they are pretty bizarre.

It's hard to believe that Acorn as a whole is some kind of criminal organization though.
It seems they do have employed a lot of people from the real bottom of society, maybe
from some naive progressive political viewpoint.

Regards, Hans

I think the organization has grown too large and lost control - if not focus.

LewisEE

Sep19-09, 11:35 PM

ACORN used the same "temporary, rogue employee" excuse during the election to explain their people who were submitting false voter registrations. Now we have another controversy which centers around these supposed part time workers. WhoWee is right; the company may not intend to falsify registrations or give advice to prostitutes, but they are now consistently blundering to an extent which can't be dismissed anymore.

edward

Sep20-09, 12:26 AM

EVERYONE LOVES A SCANDAL

It looks like the Acorn employees are guilty. Yet at the same time we seem to have an odd way of assessing scandal and how it should be treated.

On the 2nd of September Pfizer admitted to marketing fraud and was ordered to pay a $2.3 Billion fine. No one at Pfizer will see jail time even though high level company officials made the illegal decisions.

The Pfizer settlement was the largest health care related fine in history, yet they walked away. The Pfizer story was out of the news in 2 days. Should the government stop buying from Pfizer?

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2009/db2009092_913433.htm

At Acorn on the other hand it was the unsophisticated bottom of the barrel employees in the inner cities who appeared to cooperate with the sting although there was no follow through with any of the requests.

IMHO it all boils down to greed. Pfizer makes mega bucks and will despite the record fine.

The Acorn employees from my point of view, and from several articles I have read, appeared to want a piece of the action. Or perhaps they simply were not shocked by the requests because they live around prostitution on a daily basis. And yes that does include underage prostitution.

http://neprimer.com/ePress/Child-Prostitution-Americas-Dirty-Secret.htm

Unlike Pfizer the Acorn scandal will be talked to death.

Vanadium 50

Sep20-09, 04:32 AM

Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?

WhoWee

Sep20-09, 10:07 AM

At Acorn on the other hand it was the unsophisticated bottom of the barrel employees in the inner cities who appeared to cooperate with the sting although there was no follow through with any of the requests.

IMHO it all boils down to greed. Pfizer makes mega bucks and will despite the record fine.

The Acorn employees from my point of view, and from several articles I have read, appeared to want a piece of the action. Or perhaps they simply were not shocked by the requests because they live around prostitution on a daily basis. And yes that does include underage prostitution.

http://neprimer.com/ePress/Child-Prostitution-Americas-Dirty-Secret.htm

Unlike Pfizer the Acorn scandal will be talked to death.

Middle America doesn't live around prostitution and is troubled by child exploitation. We work hard to earn a living and stay out of the filth. We expect our tax dollars to be used more wisely. Those ACORN people on the tape are (for all practical purposes) an extension of the Government - quasi-Government employees ala tax dollars and tax credits enable the organization. We the people expect better.

jambaugh

Sep20-09, 12:16 PM

You're still stuck on defining tit for tat what you believe or don't believe charity is while ignoring what the purpose of ACORN is or ANY government program for that matter.
And you keep ignoring my basic question. Use your own definitions and assign your own purpose. Can you justify using coercion to enforce funding of them.

I think its essential to help the poor as a society, not out of an act of charity,
therefor having programs that help the under served participate in our democracy is important to our government and the very ideology of democracy itself.

Again you confuse the two "We's" and again you miss the point. Yes I agree "We" ought to help the poor. And my motives are not altruistic either. But "We" should do it solely through the private sector. I assert that government is NOT necessary in this role. And again I harp on the point that Government=use of coercive force means the use of government in this role cannot be justified.

I don't agree with supporting religious groups through tax dollars at all and i'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. That argument is entirely different than looking at social issues and solving them through tax payer dollars. I'd rather "throw money at a problem" then "throw god into it" :)

Again you missed the point. You feel strongly about this, of course. But how would you feel about your tax dollars being so used? Suppose the "moral majority" amended the constitution to allow for tax funding of religiously based "helping the poor"? Wouldn't you agree that it is unfair for you to be forced to fund it?

I don't see government so black and white that welfare = charity and non welfare != charity.
What is welfare if not altruism? Oh yea it is also buying votes but that's even less justifiable.

In fact for argument sake i say there is more risk in taxing the people for the military then there is risk in taxing people for the greater welfare of all. Why is it that people often equate welfare with an oppressive taxaction against will but the funding of military expenditures as a fair taxation at will? Which one is truly representative of the people and which one is representative of the state itself???
I covered that. The purpose of the military is opposing force with force. The purpose of the police likewise is opposing force with force. The purpose of welfare? Opposing poverty with force.

Yes I know the issues are not cut and dried simple. But the basic premises are. Either we have a military or we don't. Once one decides that we must have one, that coercive taxation is necessary and thus justified to fund one then we get into the details of how to limit the authority we grant the military. That's an argument for another thread.

Governance isn't through force unless you make it that way. If you polarize yourself from the real issues at hand then that is something you are choosing to do.
Name one single act of government which is not enforced by the threat of imprisonment? I'm not talking about non-binding resolutions to make tuesday's "Happy Feel Good" day. I'm talking about actual laws or judicial/executive orders, including allocation of spending. Remember that the value of the US Dollar is fundamentally based in the requirement to pay taxes in dollars, plus the Federal law prohibiting private sector currency. I could insist on trading my services and selling my products for barter. But the Tax Man will still audit my "income" and put me in jail if I don't pay what I owe in the established Legal Tender.

I'm not saying that's a bad or evil way to do things. It is necessary. We must have a functional government. I am just pointing out that you cannot escape government's fundamental nature. They are the "users of force" when force is necessary.

To me, government is a civil service working issues that impact society.

There is no "To me" about it. Government is what government does. It's nature is definitional. They are those who we authorize to use force.

I think humanity is just as much a worthy cause as the "perceived violence" that you believe is a worthy cause. But once again.. we're fighting the philosophy of government and not the fact there are disenfranchised voters regardless of what we think the government should be.
I'm not arguing about what is worthy or not. You can't twist my position into "damn the poor". I dare say I've helped far more poor than you in far more ways. But ways of my choosing, and with effects I can see and judge, and to individuals I know are worthy and in true need. I'm arguing the fundamental question which you refuse to address. You don't like my word charity? Fine! Let me rephrase it:

Can the use of force be justified to enforce the majorities opinion of how altruistic an individual should be or by what means that altruism should be exercised?

WhoWee

Sep20-09, 12:32 PM

Here's an example of ACORNs community organizing in action.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/acorn-behind-protests-at-aig-ct-homes

" 3/20/09

Less than a year ago, the most repellent area bus tour we knew of was the one that induced Sex and the City–crazed tourists to put $40 on their Citi cards for a cupcake and a glimpse at Carrie Bradshaw’s brownstone. How times have changed! Now, everyone’s clamoring aboard the Populist Rage Bus.

The Connecticut Working Families Party this weekend has organized a bus store that will make stops at Wilton, Connecticut, AIG office as well as the security-patrolled homes of AIG execs who are fearing for their lives.

"We’re going to be peaceful and lawful in everything we do," said Jon Green, the director of Connecticut Working Families. "I know there’s a lot of anger and a lot of rage about what’s happened. We’re not looking to foment that unnecessarily, but what we want to do is give folks in Bridgeport and Hartford and other parts of Connecticut who are struggling and losing their homes and their jobs and their health insurance an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy."

Right, they’re not fomenting rage, they’re just encouraging it. So if you happen to record someone’s address so you can return in the dead of night, it’s not like Working Families told you to! We know we sound paranoid and we really can’t believe we’re actually on the same side as Rush, but this is getting way out of hand. Oh, to have fat ladies in high heels clogging up the West Village again.

And just who are Connecticut Working Families?

Why a couple of mouse clicks would tell any interested journalist that they were ‘founded’ by none other than ACORN.

From CWF’s website:

Working Families Party Making Inroads

by Scott Whipple (New Britain Herald) Oct. 28th, 2008

… Asked about the party’s joint founder, ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), Dinkin said “while it’s fair to say that ACORN has a role in Working Families, allegations of voter fraud against ACORN are trumped up. At worst, a couple of people who worked for ACORN tried to cheat ACORN and not do their jobs. These people were identified and fired. I’m impressed with what a good operation they run.” …"

Here's 2 more old sayings - what goes around, comes around. and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Count Iblis

Sep20-09, 06:20 PM

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is in the news again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315657.shtml

Should any more tax payer funds be given to ACORN or should they first be investigated?

The ACORN employee realized that this was a joke and she played along. No need to investigate anything.

skippy1729

Sep22-09, 03:10 AM

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

mheslep

Sep22-09, 01:38 PM

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [....] and provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States; ...Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.

ray b

Sep22-09, 02:10 PM

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ??????????

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?????
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ???

drankin

Sep22-09, 02:21 PM

There is that Art 1, Sec 8 bit:Whether the representatives should have availed themselves of that power in this case is another matter.

ACORN funding needs to be reviewed. What is the ROI? What has been discoverd undermines the people of the US (voter fraud, IRS fraud). Usually, when a few things have been discovered, there is more that has not.

I have not seen any good justification for maintaining ACORN.

mheslep

Sep22-09, 05:56 PM

The pair that did this story, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, deserve a good shot at the Pulitzer prize given how the rest of the media missed it.

edward

Sep22-09, 06:28 PM

The pair that did this story, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, deserve a good shot at the Pulitzer prize given how the rest of the media missed it.

His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3WUnFiEJ4

Odd how much of his previous stunts involves poor blacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlWKm01cauc

mheslep

Sep22-09, 06:32 PM

His college work was not exactly serious. Banning Lucky Charms cereal at Rutgers??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh3WUnFiEJ4Funny. Good for him.

edward

Sep22-09, 06:55 PM

Edward, that's exactly my point. Does Pfizer doing something wrong make what ACORN has done right?

That wasn't my point at all. Pfizer's record $2.3 billion fine for health care related fraud was in and out of the news in only one day.

What both Pfizer and Acorn did was wrong. Acorn was a set up. Pfizer set themselves up.

$2.3 billion is a whopper of a fine.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep22-09, 07:15 PM

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ??????????

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?????
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ???

A student 'documentary film maker' wearing what amounts to a halloween costume and carrying a hidden camera (I have on in my phone, how about you?) and you want to know who funded them? Are you serious?

Of course you automatically assume Fox must be funding what amounts to a bored college student prank and must have all of the video tape somewhere.

And Fox viewers are supposed to be the brainwashed ones.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 05:21 PM

1. They engage in political activities.

2. Their finances are not transparent.

3. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Any other questions? Skippy

Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision:

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the U.S." that is to say "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be be carried into effect." 15 Feb. 1791Papers 19:275--80

So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Skippy

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 05:31 PM

YES one BIG question
who funded the witch hunt ?
and paid for the fake pimp expenses ??????????

will fox ever show the tapes from acorn offices that rejected
the fake ho and pimp ?????
or the full unedited tapes of the people who are charged with misconduct ???

They borrowed the fur coat from one of their mothers. They financed the project with $1300 of their own money. If they make a million as a result of all this, it isn't enough.

Skippy

PS My source was one of their interviews on FOX last week.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep23-09, 06:20 PM

Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision:

:snip:

So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Skippy

Can you please explain why exactly you seem to think that government funding of ACORN would be precluded?

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 06:27 PM

Can you please explain why exactly you seem to think that government funding of ACORN would be precluded?

It is not covered by any of the enumerated powers.

Skippy

TheStatutoryApe

Sep23-09, 06:33 PM

It is not covered by any of the enumerated powers.

Skippy

So then for them to fund ACORN the constitution should say "Organizations named ACORN will be funded by federal monies"? I asked for further explanation of your rationale (that it is not covered by any of the enumerated powers), not a reiteration of your claim.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 06:40 PM

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 06:45 PM

Haven't been in this thread in a while, but.... Several people have mentioned Article 1, Section 8. Here is what Thomas Jefferson has to say about that provision....

So, I will repeat, There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing such funding.

Skippy The quote you posted provides the basis for how such programs are allowed to be funded. Furthermore, it is a reality and a historical fact that social funding is done using that as a Constitutional basis. In essence, it means exactly the opposite of what you think it means. You're arguing against reality here.

There is plenty of literature on this subject as it has been much debated throughout history: At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.

In his famous Report on Manufactures (1791), Alexander Hamilton argued that the clause enlarged Congress's power to tax and spend by allowing it to tax and spend for the general welfare as well as for purposes falling within its enumerated powers. Thus, he argued, the General Welfare clause granted a distinct power to Congress to use its taxing and spending powers in ways not falling within its other enumerated powers.

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause

Note the last line about the scope being limited to national matters. This could potentially be used as an argument against targeted local social welfare groups, but by now ACORN is large enough to be considered national. In any case, by the founders and the USSC, there really isn't any serious debate on the issue of the meaning of the clause among those who'se opinions matter.

Please note: I'm a person who thinks we've gone way too far with social programs, but you won't get much traction with that line of reasoning. It just won't fly with the people who actually make the decisions (congress and the USSC).

My reason for saying ARCORN shouldn't get funding has more to do with the dual-purpose nature of the organization. It was riding a very thin line with running afoul of campaign finance and charitable organization vs political organization laws.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 07:19 PM

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare.

At the time of this ruling the Supreme Court was under pressure from FDR to allow his social programs or have him pack the court with new justices until it did. This was more in the nature of a coup d'etat than a reasoned judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to dare to reverse that decision the Congress, robbed of their "cash cow" would surely move to pack the court.

Our founding fathers attempted to have three co-equal branches of government but the Congress is the most powerful of the three. For example, the 14th amendment was illegally ratified by a voice vote in the House of Representatives after failing to be ratified by the states.

Cheers, Skippy

TheStatutoryApe

Sep23-09, 07:47 PM

No. Cheers, Skippy

PS If you want to continue this conversation please re-read the opinion of Jefferson, read the enumerated powers and tell me which one of those powers covers such an expenditure.

I read the quote from Jefferson. I have read the enumerated powers. It would seem to fall under '...provide for the [...] general welfare...'. I see nothing in Jefferson's quote that would say otherwise.

So if you believe other than what is accepted as congress's power to provide such monies I think the burden is on you to demonstrate it.

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 07:50 PM

At the time of this ruling the Supreme Court was under pressure from FDR to allow his social programs or have him pack the court with new justices until it did. This was more in the nature of a coup d'etat than a reasoned judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to dare to reverse that decision the Congress, robbed of their "cash cow" would surely move to pack the court. The decision is more than 70 years old. If were ever going to be reversed it would have been by now!

Anyway, I'm not sure what you are talking about after that: Congress doesn't appoint USSC justices, the President does. It smells an awful lot like unfocused conspiracy theory. Certainly non sequitur, though. The bit about the 14th Amendment, also non sequitur, is factually wrong.

You're going to need to watch your step here, skippy: we have rules against conspiracy theory and misinformation in order to maintain the quality of the forums.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 07:51 PM

I read the quote from Jefferson. I have read the enumerated powers. It would seem to fall under '...provide for the [...] general welfare...'. I see nothing in Jefferson's quote that would say otherwise.

So if you believe other than what is accepted as congress's power to provide such monies I think the burden is on you to demonstrate it.

Duh!

Try reading it again. I could try re-writing it but I doubt if I can make it clearer than Mr. Jefferson.

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 07:55 PM

Duh!

Try reading it again. I could try re-writing it but I doubt if I can make it clearer than Mr. Jefferson.
Duh, indeed. It is clear and it clearly means the exact opposite of what you claim. This is a straightforward issue. You are arguing against reality. Also, parroting is seen here as being intentionally argumentative: ie, trolling. This is also not allowed.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 08:15 PM

Duh, indeed. It is clear and it clearly means the exact opposite of what you claim. This is a straightforward issue. You are arguing against reality. Also, parroting is seen here as being intentionally argumentative: ie, trolling. This is also not allowed.

"It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless."

If the "general welfare" phrase is interpreted to allow any expenditure which the Congress deems beneficial then the enumerated powers become meaningless.

The true power of this phrase was "to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare"; the actual provisions were intended to be limited to those enumerated.

Skippy

Evo

Sep23-09, 08:20 PM

At the time of this ruling the Supreme Court was under pressure from FDR to allow his social programs or have him pack the court with new justices until it did. This was more in the nature of a coup d'etat than a reasoned judicial interpretation of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court were ever to dare to reverse that decision the Congress, robbed of their "cash cow" would surely move to pack the court.

Our founding fathers attempted to have three co-equal branches of government but the Congress is the most powerful of the three. For example, the 14th amendment was illegally ratified by a voice vote in the House of Representatives after failing to be ratified by the states.

Cheers, SkippyHi Skippy, please post sources for all of your claims in this thread before you post again. We require any statement of fact to be backed up by proof. Or you can opt to retract if these are opinions and don't have documented sources.

Thanks.

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 08:56 PM

Hi Skippy, please post sources for all of your claims in this thread before you post again. We require any statement of fact to be backed up by proof. Or you can opt to retract if these are opinions and don't have documented sources.

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

Utah Supreme Court
439 Pacific Reporter 2nd Series 266
11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484
28 Tulane Law Review 22

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 09:00 PM

skippy1729

Sep23-09, 09:08 PM

According to the Wiki article, the "court packing" bill failed miserably and the allegations of a deal to avoid it by the sitting USSC fail due to the fact that the cause and effect don't overlap in time.

That article does not support your position on that issue.

To save some time, if you would like to post the Wiki article on the 14th amendment, please note that it also directly refutes your claim about it.

The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937. Several weeks later the Supreme Court upheld a Washington minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[4] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Because Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his apparent about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His dramatic move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine".

This is a direct quote from the wikipedia article. The court folded their tent and the legislation was allowed to die.

Skippy

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 09:12 PM

If the "general welfare" phrase is interpreted to allow any expenditure which the Congress deems beneficial then the enumerated powers become meaningless.

The true power of this phrase was "to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare"; the actual provisions were intended to be limited to those enumerated.

Skippy Agreed - no one is saying that the power is absolute. Unfortunately for your argument, though, neither the Constitution nor that Federalist paper define what it means for a law to "promote the general welfare", but nevertheless that's one of the enumerated powers. And that's where the court came in with the decision I brought up. It provided at least one constraint to what the "general welfare" must include (previously mentioned).

Again, again, again, again, again: it does not support your position.

russ_watters

Sep23-09, 09:14 PM

The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937. Several weeks later the Supreme Court upheld a Washington minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[4] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Because Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his apparent about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His dramatic move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine".

This is a direct quote from the wikipedia article. The court folded their tent and the legislation was allowed to die.

Skippy Please read THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE OF THE ARTICLE.

Wiki has an additional article that goes into it in more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

This is getting tiresome, Skippy.

mheslep

Sep23-09, 09:22 PM

Stating some Congressional spending action has authority 'nowhere in the constitution' is not helpful. When the indefinite and ambiguous words 'general welfare' went on the page, the ability to make simple declarative statements about Congressional authority not otherwise prohibited in the constitution was put at risk, and today we are left with interpretations.

I certainly am in Jefferson's and Madison's camp on their interpretation of the general welfare clause, and I think their predictions of the consequences of the wider interpretation have been realized: a federal government without clear limits. But note that Jefferson made his denouncement of the "do any act they please" interpretation in 1791 - four years too late. Madison made probably the most quoted statement (http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/constitution.html) on the subject with his “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” That was 1794 while he was serving in Congress, and also too late. (The spending went through despite Madison). The point being that their views did not explicitly make it into the 1787 constitution. Hamilton then was within reason to hold the wider view, as Russ's source showed, and his view triumphed in the 1930's (unfortunately).

If the founders had wanted strict scrutiny the words 'general welfare' should never have been placed on the page.

Detailed history of the phrase:
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm

Evo

Sep23-09, 09:32 PM

Skippy can't post anymore in P&WA unless it is to provide a suitable source.

WhoWee

Sep24-09, 10:08 PM

ACORN has decided to fight back.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/23/acorn-files-lawsuit-in-hidden-camera-sting/

The discovery process should be interesting.

Jasongreat

Sep25-09, 06:38 PM

So then for them to fund ACORN the constitution should say "Organizations named ACORN will be funded by federal monies"? I asked for further explanation of your rationale (that it is not covered by any of the enumerated powers), not a reiteration of your claim.

I believe we would have to convert our present constitution into a napoleonic constitution for it to have to be worded that precisely, but according to our present constitution it has to be enumerated or it is left to the states or to the people(individuals not a collective).
I would assume that skippy was trying to say that it is possible that an organization that by thier own admission only speaks for 400,000 members, in 1,200 neighborhoods, in 75 cities across 40 or so states, could hardly be considered as general(applying to all or most of a group) welfare(benefit: something that aids or promotes well being). Since I believe the general welfare clause is the most prostituted clause and would be the enumerated power stated to empower the federal or more accurately the national government to fund Acorn or any other private enity non-profit or for-profit. How can it be justified as general welfare when it encompasses so few? In those 40 or so states it is a lot closer match, in the 75 cities still closer, in the 1,200 neighborhoods its closer and when we reach the 400,000 members it is a perfect match as to general. I also think it fits pretty good for welfare, the members get the satisfaction and joy of giving, the recipients get the benifit of the help, and this is 100% voluntary, 100% charity as opposed to .5% voluntary, 10% charity and 89.5% coercion(all percentages are guestimites).
IMHO Acorn should lose the national governments funding, as there is not anywhere it is enumerated, although that could change if a large enough group of states agree and ammend the constitution. Acorn may have a case with getting state, city or other local government funding, but thats as high up the chain they should go.
Acorns' mission statement pretty much says they want to organize a low to moderate income majority, because those are the best advocates for thier communities. That doesnt sound like general welfare to me, more like general misery.

http://www.acorn.org
U.S. Constitution (http://www.constitutionus.com)

mheslep

Sep26-09, 05:32 PM

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U
6-8 minutes in. Underage, illegal aliens broached by reporter several times with ongoing cooperation by Acorn employee.

kyleb

Sep26-09, 09:36 PM

The video starts out with the narrator claiming the employ was being asked a question, and then playing back her answer. Lacking an unedited video of the incident, I can't rightly say if the voice on the narrator properly represented the question the employ was asked. Again, have you seen unedited video to substantiate the claims made by the narrator, or are you just taking him at his word? At this point I can't take what you presented any more seriously than one of the Daily Show's obviously spliced interviews.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep26-09, 11:41 PM

I believe we would have to convert our present constitution into a napoleonic constitution for it to have to be worded that precisely, but according to our present constitution it has to be enumerated or it is left to the states or to the people(individuals not a collective).
I would assume that skippy was trying to say that it is possible that an organization that by thier own admission only speaks for 400,000 members, in 1,200 neighborhoods, in 75 cities across 40 or so states, could hardly be considered as general(applying to all or most of a group) welfare(benefit: something that aids or promotes well being). Since I believe the general welfare clause is the most prostituted clause and would be the enumerated power stated to empower the federal or more accurately the national government to fund Acorn or any other private enity non-profit or for-profit. How can it be justified as general welfare when it encompasses so few? In those 40 or so states it is a lot closer match, in the 75 cities still closer, in the 1,200 neighborhoods its closer and when we reach the 400,000 members it is a perfect match as to general. I also think it fits pretty good for welfare, the members get the satisfaction and joy of giving, the recipients get the benifit of the help, and this is 100% voluntary, 100% charity as opposed to .5% voluntary, 10% charity and 89.5% coercion(all percentages are guestimites).
IMHO Acorn should lose the national governments funding, as there is not anywhere it is enumerated, although that could change if a large enough group of states agree and ammend the constitution. Acorn may have a case with getting state, city or other local government funding, but thats as high up the chain they should go.
Acorns' mission statement pretty much says they want to organize a low to moderate income majority, because those are the best advocates for thier communities. That doesnt sound like general welfare to me, more like general misery.

http://www.acorn.org
U.S. Constitution (http://www.constitutionus.com)

You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.

But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do. When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of. In some areas, especially if there are high unemployment rates, the state may lack the funds to properly take care of such a situation. The unemployed will drag down the rest of their community and the cheapest most likely solution will be to take authoritative action and try to get rid of these 'hindrances' (note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]). Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.

Jasongreat

Sep27-09, 01:46 AM

You're numbers are speaking of members? ACORN supposedly helps anyone who is 'disadvantaged' to get welfare, homes, and become registered voters so as to be productive and active members of our society. The money that goes to them I am sure flows out to and helps more than only 400,000 people in our country.

I understand that I was speaking of members, apparantly only 400,000 people care enough about what acorn stands for to become members, yet they force millions with the backing of government to support them through taxes. I think we already have government programs to help the disadvantaged get welfare, loans on homes, and to get people registered to vote(although they probably wouldnt help a pimp setup his buisiness). In my opinion people without homes and that arent registered to vote can still be productive and active members of society, but I dont know if I would add welfare recipients to that list. I am sure that Acorn "helps" more than 400,000 people, but do they help enough people to be considered general welfare? I dont understand why they cant find private funding if they really are offering an important contribution, there is nothing stopping you or any one else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?

But do they address issues of national importance? I am fairly certain to say that they do.

If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldnt doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they dont have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.

When people are poor, do not have jobs, or do not have homes they become a burden on the society that they are part of.

I know plenty of people without homes that contribute to the society they live in, I also know alot of "poor" people that are also big contributors to society, and just being without a job does not make someone a burden on society. Now if they are poor and sticking a hand out, or without a job and sticking a handout, or having the taxpayers pay for thier home, then yes they would be a burden to society, but I would argue that if the government programs they are tapping into didnt exist then they would no longer be a burden, they would also have more incentive to progress than to regress or to stay the same.

(note that even being in a relatively prosperous area while I was living in my car [not for lack of a job] I was hassled by the police and told that I was unable to sleep in my car on public land [which I was paying taxes towards even]).

That sounds about right, not just, but right as far as the gov. goes. It also bugs me, when after paying federal taxes, I have to pay an entrance fee into a national park.

Eventually the level of unemployed and homeless will drag their community down to the point that it is no longer advantageous for these people to be there and they will move along to another location. If that location is similarly unable to deal with the situation the cycle will continue as these people leave damage and misery in their wake moving from one place to the next hoping that someone somewhere will be able to help them realize a stable lifestyle(have you seen/read Grapes of Wrath?). For this reason the issue of the poor and disadvantaged becomes one of national import.

This scenario you have described would never happen if they couldnt get thier hands into the community purse in the first place. They would have to take responsibility for themselves, i've heard that in all creatures the prime mover is the instinct to survive, is that true or not? If survival means all you have to do is put your hand out, thats all they will do. No I havent seen or read grapes of wrath, I do agree with you that the poor are a national problem, but I still believe the best source of help would come from the communities they live in, not from a politician or government 3,000 miles away. The states should be able to keep thier resources so they can help thier own, instead of sending thier resources to washington then standing in line to get it back, after it has been reduced by paying the people that get to send it back to them.
Since Acorns mission is to organize a low to moderate income majority, and not to help the low and moderate income people become better perpared so they can move out of the low to moderate level. I will still have to say that I still believe the national government should quit giving my money to them.

TheStatutoryApe

Sep27-09, 02:41 AM

there is nothing stopping you or any one else from supporting them, why do I have to be forced into it?
Tax (or certain taxes) as theft (forcibly payed) is an entirely different argument all together. I have had those discussions and they are rather round about in nature. I am only hoping to give you an idea of why your taxes going to these people may be beneficial to you even if the idea of being forced to pay for it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly don't like to be forced into anything. I would have preferred that we did not go to Iraq or possibly even Afghanistan though that does not change the fact that my taxes have helped pay for it. If there are in fact people in those countries that are greatful than at least I feel a bit better about it.

If it is of national importance, why are they only in 40 states(I wouldnt doubt to find that these states follow party lines)? And out of those 40 states they are only in 75 cities, why only 75 cities, why not all cities? And why just cities, there are poor in every community not just cities. If it is just because they dont have the funding, have you contributed to acorn? If what they do is so important, why not create a government institution? Instead of funding them through the back door.
I am assuming that they have placed themselves in the locations that could most greatly benefit from their help and where they will be most effective (and where they are most welcome).
As for setting up a government agency would that not infringe even more so on your feeling that the government is overstepping its bounds? So long as it is an organization of the people and by the people the government is only assisting them rather than controlling where and how such funding is used. A private organization is more dynamic and can more easily channel funds where they are needed than a government organization that does everything by committee and may be sending much needed funds to the wrong areas due to bureaucracy. I would think that that would appeal to your conservative sensibilities more than an organization that is run by the government.

This scenario you have described would never happen if they couldnt get thier hands into the community purse in the first place. They would have to take responsibility for themselves, i've heard that in all creatures the prime mover is the instinct to survive, is that true or not? If survival means all you have to do is put your hand out, thats all they will do. No I havent seen or read grapes of wrath, I do agree with you that the poor are a national problem, but I still believe the best source of help would come from the communities they live in, not from a politician or government 3,000 miles away. The states should be able to keep thier resources so they can help thier own, instead of sending thier resources to washington then standing in line to get it back, after it has been reduced by paying the people that get to send it back to them.
You are right that a prime motivator is to survive. That also means to survive by any means necessary and often at the least expense in work and difficulty. Many people unfortunately have a rather limited scope of the future and prefer immediate gratification. This often leads to crime. Even if it is only a relative few who indulge in criminal activity to get by they will have a rather detrimental effect on society as a whole and its ability to recognize and respect the law (or common social contract). I am sure that you can respect this since you were rather strong in support of rehabilitation and education as a means of preventing crime in our other thread. Unfortunately education and rehab in and of itself is not enough. We need also to prevent people from reaching the point where they have nothing left to loose. A society burdened by the unemployed will also be burdened by crime and that crime will adversely effect the ability of the society to prosper creating a vicious cycle. A society burdened by unemployment and crime most often will not be capable of sustaining itself and hence incapable of dealing with such issues as unemployment and homelessness which contribute to crime, instability, and lack of prosperity which exacerbate the problem. A regular snow ball effect. The easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem (tbhe only option left to a poor and downtrodden community) is to attempt to remove it, which generally pushes it off onto someone else. This is why it may become a national epidemic.

The general story of The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.

WhoWee

Sep27-09, 12:46 PM

The general story of The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.

US workers no longer want the agricultural jobs - hence illegal aliens. If the private sector jobs continue to shrink, and illegals are offered immunity, the welfare system could eventually collapse under it's own weight.

The US Government has hiring standards that ACORN obviously doesn't require. Taxpayer money should be doled out by Government workers - not by people unqualified for the Government positions.

Jasongreat

Sep27-09, 05:55 PM

Tax (or certain taxes) as theft (forcibly payed) is an entirely different argument all together. I have had those discussions and they are rather round about in nature. I am only hoping to give you an idea of why your taxes going to these people may be beneficial to you even if the idea of being forced to pay for it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. I certainly don't like to be forced into anything. I would have preferred that we did not go to Iraq or possibly even Afghanistan though that does not change the fact that my taxes have helped pay for it. If there are in fact people in those countries that are greatful than at least I feel a bit better about it.

You are right about the tax and force statement being entirely a different argument and as such I shouldnt have included that question. However, I am not interested in things that may be beneficial, only in things that are beneficial. Also I am in complete agreement about the wars, but I think we need to find a higher standard than people being grateful. If you were to give a drug dependent person a thousand dollars, they would be grateful, but I doubt it would be beneficial.

I am assuming that they have placed themselves in the locations that could most greatly benefit from their help and where they will be most effective (and where they are most welcome).

I agree that they have probably set up where they are most welcome, and thats my point, if they are welcome there let the welcoming parties pay for thier services.

As for setting up a government agency would that not infringe even more so on your feeling that the government is overstepping its bounds? So long as it is an organization of the people and by the people the government is only assisting them rather than controlling where and how such funding is used. A private organization is more dynamic and can more easily channel funds where they are needed than a government organization that does everything by committee and may be sending much needed funds to the wrong areas due to bureaucracy. I would think that that would appeal to your conservative sensibilities more than an organization that is run by the government.

I probably would vote against anyone that supported creating the acorn division of the government, but atleast the politicians would be following the rules they are bound by and not just making a justification that acorn fits into the general welfare clause. It would also happen in full view of the country since it would take a constitutional ammendment in my opinion to get it done. Anyways the problem right now as I see it is acorns funding, so I will fight against that at this juncture, and if it ever came to the government wanting to add acorn to the constitution I would argue against that the same as I have been arguing against acorns funding.
I agree with everything you said about private companies, and thats what scares me. Private enities are far more efficient than a governmental counterpart, and when thier revenues are tied to how much governmental money they can give out, I am sure they will give tons of it away, right or wrong be damned.

You are right that a prime motivator is to survive. That also means to survive by any means necessary and often at the least expense in work and difficulty. Many people unfortunately have a rather limited scope of the future and prefer immediate gratification. This often leads to crime. Even if it is only a relative few who indulge in criminal activity to get by they will have a rather detrimental effect on society as a whole and its ability to recognize and respect the law (or common social contract). I am sure that you can respect this since you were rather strong in support of rehabilitation and education as a means of preventing crime in our other thread. Unfortunately education and rehab in and of itself is not enough. We need also to prevent people from reaching the point where they have nothing left to loose. A society burdened by the unemployed will also be burdened by crime and that crime will adversely effect the ability of the society to prosper creating a vicious cycle. A society burdened by unemployment and crime most often will not be capable of sustaining itself and hence incapable of dealing with such issues as unemployment and homelessness which contribute to crime, instability, and lack of prosperity which exacerbate the problem. A regular snow ball effect. The easiest and cheapest way to deal with this problem (tbhe only option left to a poor and downtrodden community) is to attempt to remove it, which generally pushes it off onto someone else. This is why it may become a national epidemic.

So the reason to support acorn is that if we dont the people they would of helped are going to rob us instead? That sounds like extortion to me. How about a reason like, if we support acorn, unemployment will go away. I dont see anything they do that has any effect on unemployment, except to maybe extend the problem, oh wait I guess they did help 15(imaginary) underage el salvadorian minors get work as prostitutes.
I wholeheartedly disagree that education is not the solution, education is the only thing that seperates the well off from the not so well off. When I say education I am speaking of what John Locke called "breeding", the knowledge you receive from your parents and others during your upbringing. If we could give "underpriveliged" people the same monetary and life skills education that the "overpriveliged" have been receiving the lower classes would disappear. Instead of us giving them a useful education such as the harder you work the more satisfaction you will receive, or that anyone can pull themselves up out of poverty, we have been giving them the educaton that its not thier fault, that just getting a bigger paycheck is the way to happiness and its the mean employer holding them back, since its because they make so little that they cant excape poverty.

The general story of The Grapes of Wrath is that during the great depression when there were few jobs available and an incredibly high unemployment rate there was an economic boom in California's agricultural industry. This meant jobs for relatively uneducated and minimally skilled workers. There was a mass exodus to California by people who needed to start over. Due to the sheer numbers of people arriving looking for jobs the market dried up and left several people who had just spent their life's savings to get there SOL, and even depressed the value of the work for those that were already there. I mention it only as a rather poignant example of the consequences, on a national scope, of what can happen when unemployment and homelessness is left unchecked.

It seems to me that it also would show the folly of not paying attention to or not knowing how the free markets work, since it was by their own accord that they increased the number of workers and therefore decreased the value of thier labor. Kind of like farmers do today. They hear of a high corn price this year, so they plant thier whole farm in corn, and then when its time to sell they find that the corn prices have dropped since the market got alot more corn than it needed, and that they didnt make the money they thought they were going to. Hopefully though the subjects in the story learnt thier lesson and didnt go running to the next spot that promised work, so the cycle could continue.