News Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

  • Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date

mheslep

Gold Member
254
728
Last edited by a moderator:

Wax

82
0
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!
 
107
0
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
 
107
0
Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

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

"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."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mgb_phys

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,744
11
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

Mentor
18,849
5,039
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

Mentor
18,849
5,039
Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

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

"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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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

Mentor
18,849
5,039
Not a lot of activist conservatives here, Supercritical.
 
107
0
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?
 
107
0
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

82
0
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.
 
Last edited:
107
0
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

82
0
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.
 
107
0
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

82
0
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:
 
107
0
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 :)
:confused:???
 
107
0
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


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
 
107
0
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.
 
107
0
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

Mentor
18,849
5,039
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.
 

Related Threads for: Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
59
Views
10K
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
117
Views
9K
Replies
39
Views
7K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top