News Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[drankin]

They should be dissolved. Send tax monies directly to the prostitution industry and cut out the middle man (ACORN).

 

[jambaugh]

The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

 

[Wax]

The video tapes everyone is seeing is an edited version. According to Acorn, if you show the whole tape then you'd see that the employees turned them away before the conversation started but they were persistent, stayed, and became nagging.

 

[seycyrus]

The video tapes everyone is seeing is an edited version. According to Acorn, if you show the whole tape then you'd see that the employees turned them away before the conversation started but they were persistent, stayed, and became nagging.

Yeah, that's why they fired those employees. because they allowed themselves to be nagged.

 

[tchitt]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

And where was the regular media?

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

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

Why shouldn't it? :)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

 

[byronm]

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]

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.

 

[jambaugh]

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]

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]

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

 

[Wax]

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. Let's 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]

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. Let's 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

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?

 

[Moonbear]

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]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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 http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html"

 

[Wax]

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]

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.

Actually, it might be argued that it's Obama's fault to the extent the spot light has landed on them.

 

[drankin]

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]

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

http://www.startribune.com/politics/59566592.html"
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/18140/skelos-letter-no-state-bucks-for-acorn/"
"[URL
Louisiana[/URL]

 

[Wax]

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]

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.

Not a bad idea!

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Not a lot of activist conservatives here, Supercritical.

 

[WhoWee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[WhoWee]

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 :)

?

 

[WhoWee]

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?

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]

?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.