Front Office Football Central
Page 56 of 264 « First < 646474849505152535455 56 57585960616263646566106156 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

flere-imsaho 09-22-2009 02:39 PM
I'd recommend using another word, then. "Steal" implies he had no business winning certain states.

You used "stole" in reference to the claim that the GOP was sliding towards becoming a regional (South/SouthEast) party. For full context:

Quote:
Let's not go crazy here. The GOP still has plenty of presence in the Midwest. Obama stole a few key states, but there's still plenty of conservatives to go around. I'd vote 'No' in that poll as well because I'm not terribly happy with the GOP right now, but that doesn't mean that I'll be voting for Obama or a Democrat for senator anytime soon. I'm not too happy with either.

I read that as an assertion that the "key states" Obama won were aberrations, and he wouldn't win them again. Depending on which states these are, and how you define "Midwest", such an assertion seems to run counter to actual electoral and demographic trends.

JPhillips 09-22-2009 04:02 PM
Looks like the anti-ACORN bill could have massive unintended consequences. From HuffPost:

Quote:
Going after ACORN may be like shooting fish in a barrel lately -- but jumpy lawmakers used a bazooka to do it last week and may have blown up some of their longtime allies in the process.

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

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

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.

The language was written by the GOP and filed as a "motion to recommit" in the House, where it passed 345-75. It carried the Senate by an 83-7 margin.

POGO is reaching out to its members to identify other companies who have engaged in the type of misconduct that would make them ineligible for federal funds.

Grayson then intends to file that list in the legislative history that goes along with the bill so that judges can reference it when determining whether a company should be denied federal funds.

The Florida freshman is asking for direct assistance. He has set up a Google spreadsheet where people can suggest contractors who have been charged with violations and include a link to a media or government report documenting the alleged transgression.

The weapons manufacturers might have a better line of defense in court, however. Immediately after the bill passed, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a constitutional whiz, noted that the measure appeared to be a "bill of attainder" -- specifically targeting a company or organization or individual -- and is therefore specifically barred by the Constitution. If it's not targeted at one group, then Northrop Grumman is in trouble.

Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service on Tuesday asking it to clarify, among other things, if the Defund ACORN Act is constitutional.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2009 04:04 PM
that's pretty funny. accorn does need to be defunded but yeah umm...don't defund lockheed plzkthnx

sterlingice 09-22-2009 06:22 PM
Which begs the question- if they're defrauding the government, how do they keep getting contracts?

SI

Flasch186 09-22-2009 07:11 PM
Um, they did more than screw up Steve. They were unethical, immoral and criminal.

Greyroofoo 09-22-2009 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124649)
Blackwater is literally electrocuting soliders in Iraq due to faulty work and they continue to get contacts unfortunately. If you're part of the military-industrial complex, you can do literally anything and still get work.

But, on the other hand, if you're an organization that helps out the poor and working class and have two workers screw up, ya' lose your federal funding.

Well the US Government, you know that entity that relies on taxes, doesn't like funding organizations that advises people how to evade taxes. What a shocker.

Yeah that bill mentioned above is just that, a bill.

JPhillips 09-22-2009 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2124660)
Well the US Government, you know that entity that relies on taxes, doesn't like funding organizations that advises people how to evade taxes. What a shocker.

Yeah that bill mentioned above is just that, a bill.

I don't know what you mean by the last part. Yes, it's still a bill, but it's already been passed by both houses of Congress and is awaiting a Presidential signature. I find it very unlikely that Obama will veto it as Beck and his ilk would have a field day.

It's a very good thing that someone is showing the effects of this bill before people tarted using it to defund a huge number of government contractors. At the end of the day I'm not sure you can find the right language to pull ACORN's funding without catching other contractors. They might have to wait until the next omnibus budget.

SteveMax58 09-22-2009 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2124493)
Looks like the anti-ACORN bill could have massive unintended consequences. From HuffPost:

Funny...as bad as the acorn tapes are coupled with the various other serious accusations against them....there is still something, in my mind anyway, called due process. Yes it's as obvious as a spree-shooter...but we still send spree-shooters to trial before we sentence them to death/life in prison. As an aside...I've often found this to be the (unfortunate) case in sports as well.

But the same thing we do for spree shooters should be done with acorn before voting on defunding measures in my book. They probably should have been investigated much sooner, but that isn't the relevant point, to me.

I think this just further speaks to the ineffectiveness of these elected clowns. They haven't got an ounce of pragmatism in their bodies. They are perfectly happy to find a whipping boy like acorn where everybody can be bipartisanly against them. Acorn is probably guilty of many indefensible acts that may or may not be possible to prove. They also aren't the only one's. But their effectiveness to swindle people (i.e. taxpayers) is only possible due to there even "being" a governmental arm. They aren't (as) likely to do this to a private enterprise. Ugh...I'll just stop my rant there.

Is it a wonder why many don't want these same idiots to be responsible for more?

Grammaticus 09-22-2009 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2124870)
Funny...as bad as the acorn tapes are coupled with the various other serious accusations against them....there is still something, in my mind anyway, called due process. Yes it's as obvious as a spree-shooter...but we still send spree-shooters to trial before we sentence them to death/life in prison. As an aside...I've often found this to be the (unfortunate) case in sports as well.

But the same thing we do for spree shooters should be done with acorn before voting on defunding measures in my book. They probably should have been investigated much sooner, but that isn't the relevant point, to me.

I think this just further speaks to the ineffectiveness of these elected clowns. They haven't got an ounce of pragmatism in their bodies. They are perfectly happy to find a whipping boy like acorn where everybody can be bipartisanly against them. Acorn is probably guilty of many indefensible acts that may or may not be possible to prove. They also aren't the only one's. But their effectiveness to swindle people (i.e. taxpayers) is only possible due to there even "being" a governmental arm. They aren't (as) likely to do this to a private enterprise. Ugh...I'll just stop my rant there.

Is it a wonder why many don't want these same idiots to be responsible for more?

If anyone in the Obama administration actually has the balls to prosecute these ACORN criminals caught in the act, then they will get due process.

I'm sure Eric Holder will just pull up his panties and keep everyone in his branch away from it.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2009 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

for sure i think Catholic Charities should be stripped!

oh yeah, and if that's the "pimp" and the "prostitute" i'm LOL and guessing all the advice given to them was tongue-in-cheek (which isn't to say that the people shouldn't have had better sense than to give it, but they look hard to take seriously)

Flasch186 09-23-2009 06:22 AM
I havnt found the part yet where Steve said that those 4 employees were immoral, unethical and criminal. Can someone point me to it?

panerd 09-23-2009 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

More talking points from pandagon please. LOL.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 06:40 AM
The saddest part of the whole thing was the "goddamn frat boy" did more investigative journalism of ACORN than the national media.

edit: Granted, they couldn't use the same tactics per se, but the flagrance of the workers in those videos makes me think that there would be other ways to get this story.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-23-2009 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2124914)
I'm not getting into this, because it's obvious the storyline of ACORN as the worst organization in the history of the world has become solidified in people's minds, but a few small things.

1. There are 1,200 chapters of ACORN. There are four videos out there. . Four videos were being promoted as unimpeachable proof that all of ACORN is equally corrupt -- all 1,200 chapters and hundreds of ACORN employees. Including treating an obviously outlandish statement by an ACORN employee about killing their husband as if it was the gospel truth.

2. These conservative activists went to multiple ACORN offices and got basically kicked and thrown out of ACORN offices. Not shown on those videos.

3. This is what the "pimp" and "prostitute" looked like.



Yeah.

He looks like a goddamn frat boy. Seriously, he’s even got that stupid-ass Young Republican blue shirt/white collar thing going. All he did was add his “going to the bars” sunglasses, a 15$ target hat, and a borrowed or goodwilled fur coat. I've seen better 'pimp' outfits at party.

If he really wanted to sell it (and, incidentally, be an even bigger racist jackass), he would have at least gone to a tailor in a black neighborhood and bought a real “pimp suit” (i.e. a well-fitted suit, sometimes in bright colors, worn to any number of occasions*).

As for the girl, she is wearing her “going to the bars” clothes. Swing a dead cat at any college or quasi-trendy bar and you will hit someone dressed more or less like her.

To be blunt, I’m going for either “trying not to offend the crazy person” or “oh, look, white kids who think they’re funny, how can I best get them out of here” on the videos.

4. Finally, one of the fired ACORN employees, despite the way these guys looked - shock! - actually called the cops.

TCPalm : Treasure Coast, Palm Beach, News Business, Homes, Jobs, Cars, & Information



5. Finally, I can only hope that all of those slamming ACORN in this thread also think Catholic Charities should get the $100 million dollars in grants over the next five years they got in the last budget.

After all, there's a case in Albany, NY, where Catholic Charities funds were used as part of a settlement on a case of molestation by clergy. In Cleveland in 2002, at a child care center supported by Catholic Charities, five workers were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of children.

The number of cases of molestation by workers, of the cloth or not, at Catholic Charities-run or -owned facilities could go on and on and on, as the abuse did for years. Where's the story on the network news about this?

With that, I'm done. I have no doubt ACORN has done some stupid things. But, the idea they among all non-profits deserve to be attacked as the embodiment of evil that needs to be destroyed is kind of silly.

So you start the post by saying you're not going into this, but then post this diatribe that is borrowed from another website and posted as your own opinion.

You're a peach.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2125008)
The saddest part of the whole thing was the "goddamn frat boy" did more investigative journalism of ACORN than the national media.

edit: Granted, they couldn't use the same tactics per se, but the flagrance of the workers in those videos makes me think that there would be other ways to get this story.

I'm not going to defend the actions of those employees, but let's not make this kid into Edward R. Murrow. He used the same sort of tactics that people have rightly complained that Michael Moore uses. I don't want journalistic outlets setting out to bring down organizations and then not telling the entirety of the story because it better fits their original goal

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-23-2009 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2125049)
I'm not going to defend the actions of those employees, but let's not make this kid into Edward R. Murrow. He used the same sort of tactics that people have rightly complained that Michael Moore uses. I don't want journalistic outlets setting out to bring down organizations and then not telling the entirety of the story because it better fits their original goal

I'd agree with this. Much of this could have been done through traditional means to achieve the same purpose.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 08:10 AM
That's my whole point - why did it take a stunt like this for this kind of stuff to come out? Or do people really think that this behavior was abnormal for ACORN? In the videos, the workers certainly looked comfortable giving out that kind of advice.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2125057)
That's my whole point - why did it take a stunt like this for this kind of stuff to come out? Or do people really think that this behavior was abnormal for ACORN? In the videos, the workers certainly looked comfortable giving out that kind of advice.

It was abnormal by the kid's own admission. He apparently went to numerous ACORN offices before he got video he could use. Even out of the four videos that he's shown, two should be put into context and may be far less damning than they seem. He wanted to destroy ACORN and was willing to put in whatever time it took to get it done. Those ACORN employees fucked up and the organization is going to rightly take some lumps, but what the kid did shouldn't be mistaken for good journalism.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-23-2009 08:31 AM
Again, not saying it was good journalism. And I think we are using different scales of "abnormal"; I don't think behavior like that was standard or anything, but the ease with which that advice was given makes me suspect it wasn't the first time a conversation like that was held.

flere-imsaho 09-23-2009 10:04 AM
If an unintended consequence of the bill passing is the defunding of KBR, I'm all behind it now!!! :D

Flasch186 09-23-2009 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125015)
So you start the post by saying you're not going into this, but then post this diatribe that is borrowed from another website and posted as your own opinion.

You're a peach.

pot - kettle. Fuzzy and all.

albionmoonlight 09-23-2009 01:36 PM
Sounds like ACORN needs to go. As someone who believes generally in their cause--organizing unempowered individuals to make sure that they have a say in our democratic republic--I think that they are doing more harm than good.

[some pithy joke about the acorn being rotten and it is probably best just to cut down the oak instead of pruning branches]

RainMaker 09-23-2009 03:04 PM
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

Flasch186 09-23-2009 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125495)
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

Considering all of the monies coming back from tax hideouts and such I think relying on the philanthropic or well off already to prop up all/most charity or grassroots organizations is a bad bad idea.

RainMaker 09-23-2009 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125516)
Considering all of the monies coming back from tax hideouts and such I think relying on the philanthropic or well off already to prop up all/most charity or grassroots organizations is a bad bad idea.
If it can't survive on it's own, it's a charity that doesn't have enough support. The country is in major debt and should not be throwing money around at these organizations. They also shouldn't be the ones making judgements on what is worthwhile and what isn't.

SteveMax58 09-23-2009 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125495)
I don't wish any ill will on ACORN or anything, and I hope the organization succeeds in whatever goals it has set out. But I am against funding them. Not necessarily for this video, but I'm just not a fan of funding these groups at all through the government. It should be done privately by people who are passionate about the cause. Just as any other organizations looking to push a cause of their own.

As it's been mentioned, a lot of questionable groups receive money. I also believe that if you went in with a hidden camera enough times, you'd find almost any large organization with some less than stellar employees. Those against ACORN have made no push to remove tax shelters for many churches who have aided and abetted pedophiles for years. What ACORN did is wrong, but I don't put it on the same level as helping priests fuck kids.

I'm with you here. The less of these types of things being funded by our elected geniuses the less opportunity/cover for fraud that is available to organizations that do need to be funded (or paid for services, etc.).

Grammaticus 09-23-2009 06:36 PM
Looks like Acorn is suing the pimp and prostitute film duo. This is going to be awesome.

ACORN Vows 'Serious' Internal Probe, Sues Filmmakers - Political News - FOXNews.com


Quote:
ACORN Vows 'Serious' Internal Probe, Sues Filmmakers
A Boston attorney hired by ACORN to conduct an independent, internal review of its practices vowed a "no hold's barred" investigation on Wednesday into the grassroots organization.


ACORN, in response to an undercover expose of potential wrongdoing by some employees, pledged Wednesday to follow through on plans to conduct a thorough internal review of its practices -- on the same day that the organization filed a lawsuit against the filmmakers whose hidden-camera sting brought the community organization to its knees.

The lawsuit, filed in a Baltimore court, stems from an undercover video showing ACORN employees Shera Williams and Tonja Thompson providing advice to two filmmakers posing as a pimp and prostitute on how to skirt tax laws.

The filmmakers, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, are named as defendants in the lawsuit, along with Breitbart.com, a Web site managed by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, which posted the videos. Breitbart released five similar videos that O'Keefe and Giles recorded in ACORN offices in Washington, D.C.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; San Bernadino, Calif., and San Diego, as well as the Baltimore office.

The videos prompted the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office to launch a criminal investigation, the U.S. Census Bureau to several ties with ACORN and ACORN to fire four of the employees shown in the videos. And on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service announced it also was severing ties with the organization.

The IRS said it would no longer include ACORN in its volunteer tax assistance program. The program offered free tax advice to about 3 million low- and moderate-income tax filers this spring. ACORN provided help on about 25,000 returns, the IRS said.

But ACORN says no tax returns were actually prepared at the Baltimore office, and that the audio portion of the video recorded there was obtained illegally, since Maryland requires two-party consent for sound recordings. The multimillion-dollar lawsuit cites "extreme emotional distress" on behalf of two workers who were fired after the video was posted online.

The videos were "clear violations of Maryland law that were intended to inflict maximum damage to the reputation of ACORN, the nation's largest grassroots organizer of low-income and minority Americans," said ACORN attorney Arthur Schwartz. "Unfortunately they succeeded."

At the same time, ACORN is moving forward with its pledge to review its operations. The Boston attorney hired by ACORN to conduct an independent probe of the group vowed a "no holds barred" investigation on Wednesday.

"My name is on the line and so is the name of my firm, so we will call this as we see them," Scott Harshbarger told reporters on a conference call.

Harshbarger, the former attorney general of Massachusetts now serving as senior counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP, was hired Tuesday to lead an "independent and comprehensive" internal investigation into ACORN's activities -- a decision that was met with skepticism from some members of Congress, including one lawmaker who has repeatedly called for hearings into the use of taxpayer funds.

Harshbarger said the probe had not yet begun as of Wednesday and said there was no "specific timetable" for its completion.

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis, who joined Harshbarger on the conference call, said the organization was "very, very serious" about the review and vowed to "set things straight" following the release of five hidden-camera videos.

"We were just as shocked and horrified as the American public was," Lewis told reporters of the conduct seen on the videotapes. "I will not tolerate such behavior. It is incumbent upon me and my board to set things straight."

Lewis said ACORN officials are cooperating with law enforcement agencies, adding that no subpoenas had been received by the organization as of Wednesday.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and House Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether ACORN misused federal funds.

In a letter sent to GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro on Wednesday, Smith and Issa expressed concern that millions of taxpayer dollars may have been used to support criminal efforts by the organization.

"Congress cannot ignore allegations that federal funds are being used by an organization involved in criminal conduct," the letter read. "American taxpayers are rightly outraged and Congress has a responsibility to act. We need a full investigation into ACORN's use of federal funds and we need the Democratic-led Congress to put a bill on the President's desk to ensure that no future funds are received by ACORN."

The letter continued, "ACORN has a long history of ignoring federal laws. No organization with that kind of a record should benefit from American taxpayer dollars."

ACORN said on Sept. 16 it would stop any "new intakes" -- essentially closing its doors to new clients -- until it completed an internal investigation prompted by the release of five hidden-camera videos that depicted workers advising a fake pimp and prostitute to lie to get loans for a brothel.

The scandal drew criticism from the Obama administration last week as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called the conduct depicted on the four videos "completely unacceptable."

"The administration takes the accountability very seriously," Gibbs told reporters.

In addition to a Justice Department watchdog's probe into whether ACORN has applied for or received DOJ grant money, ACORN announced on Monday that it has suspended all 2009 tax preparation services.

FOXNews.com's Joshua Rhett Miller and Steven Clark and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

JPhillips 09-23-2009 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2125522)
If it can't survive on it's own, it's a charity that doesn't have enough support. The country is in major debt and should not be throwing money around at these organizations. They also shouldn't be the ones making judgements on what is worthwhile and what isn't.

It's not entirely a charity. I believe most of the money it gets from the government is for services rendered. To some degree it's just another government contractor hired to privatize government services.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 07:10 AM
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

ISiddiqui 09-24-2009 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2122593)
Will the Democrats lose seats in 2010? Sure. They've probably hit the high-water mark they can in the current political and demographic climate. But, they're not going to lose the House barring some massive disaster - like failing to pass a health care reform bill.

Nate Silver, obviously a conservative, thinks its a bit closer than you think:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Generic House Polling Suggests the Republicans Could Regain the House in 2010

Quote:
Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien's analysis doesn't go back before 300 days before the election, but if we take the liberty of extrapolating . . . The current state of the generic polls gives the Democrats .412/(.412+.377) = 52% of the two-party vote. Going to the graph, we see, first, that 52% for the Democrats is near historic lows (comparable to 1946, 1994, and 1998) and that the expected Democratic vote--given that their party holds the White House--is around -3%, or a 53-47 popular vote win for the Republicans.

Would 53% of the popular vote be enough for the Republicans to win a House majority? A quick look, based on my analysis with John Kastellec and Jamie Chandler of seats and votes in Congress, suggests yes.

It's still early--and there's a lot of scatter in those scatterplots--but if the generic polls remain this close, the Republican Party looks to be in good shape in the 2010.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-24-2009 08:55 AM
It doesn't affect any point made, but that article isn't by Nate Silver. It's by one of the other guys.

Swaggs 09-24-2009 10:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125803)
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

Only disappointing if you actually, at any point, believed that the government would would recoup all the money. The fact that they have not gone over the original $700B is a minor miracle to me.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125803)
Disappointing to see this information. Government watchdog says it's "highly unlikely" that government will recoup all money loaned out on TARP bailout deals.

Government Watchdog: 'Extremely Unlikely' Taxpayers Will Recoup TARP Money - ABC News

I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125929)
I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Yea! Partial wins!

Give me a break. If the government hands out $XXX and gets back less than that amount when we were promised a break-even or profitable scenario, that's not good. Worse yet, we've now found out that many of these banks used the money for profit-making activities rather than the purpose they were specified. That makes the pill even harder to swallow.

miked 09-24-2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125944)
Yea! Partial wins!

Give me a break. If the government hands out $XXX and gets back less than that amount when we were promised a break-even or profitable scenario, that's not good. Worse yet, we've now found out that many of these banks used the money for profit-making activities rather than the purpose they were specified. That makes the pill even harder to swallow.

What does this have to do with Obama?

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by miked (Post 2125948)
What does this have to do with Obama?

We can't be critical of policies that were created by the Bush adminstration and the Democratic Congress (including Obama who supported TARP) in this thread?

JPhillips 09-24-2009 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2125966)
We can't be critical of policies that were created by the Bush adminstration and the Democratic Congress (including Obama who supported TARP) in this thread?

According to you, several times in this thread, no, we can't talk about past presidents.

Mizzou B-ball fan 09-24-2009 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2125971)
According to you, several times in this thread, no, we can't talk about past presidents.

I didn't say we couldn't talk about it. If it's an issue relevant to both Obama and another president, then it's certainly relevant.

I've been critical of Obama and Bush for pushing through this TARP crap before. I'm not sure why now should be any different.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 11:33 AM
its all about the MBBF Convenience rule of topic discussion and fact dropping.

Well the TARP supporters cant prove a negative so when we say that it SAVED A DEPRESSION, you will always be able to say, no it didnt, the depression never would've occurred anyways. Ahhhh, to look at things with such a spin and to be so fiscally responsible at exactly the wrong time.

yes, we should be happy that we're getting money back and the money we are getting back is coming back with profit attached AND the warrants very likely will be worth more than we got them for in 10 years (or sooner) so yes, Id say yes, MBBF, I know its not convenient to ignore the funds flowing back with % attached but yes.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125929)
I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.

Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

Flasch186 09-24-2009 12:18 PM
net loss = cost to save our country...

so you weigh that. IMO the cost, or what will be the eventual cost (which could be a net gain in the long run) was well worth it thus far.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 12:24 PM
no way of knowing if it's a net loss yet - the warrants haven't been exercised, or even been given time to play out in a bull market.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126047)
Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

perhaps because the net loss is relatively minor compared to what would have/could have (depending on how you want to view it. i'd say would as would some others, but i know people that use could) been.

JPhillips 09-24-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126047)
Why would anyone in their right mind celebrate a net loss?

I assumed that we wouldn't see any of the 700 billion, so it's a pleasant surprise to get anything back, IMO.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126061)
net loss = cost to save our country...

Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

gstelmack 09-24-2009 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126071)
Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

Agreed on this. Nothing fundamental has changed. We bailed out the banks, who now know they can do whatever and if it doesn't work out the government will bail them out again. The guys that nearly drove this economy off a cliff took home their millions / billions laughing all the way to the bank. What's to stop them from doing it again?

Maybe one good is that Ford seems to be in a decent position, having come through without needing federal assistance.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126071)
Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.

I assure you that no one is getting a 0 DP loan EXCEPT through the USDA, whose ratios make it so that even with the slightest bit of other debt, makes it a DNQ or possibly a V.A. loan, and these are available in very limited regions. The advertisements are just to get people through the door so that they can than gameplan with them on how to actually, really, buy a home. That, my friend, is a fact.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126089)
I assure you that no one is getting a 0 DP loan EXCEPT through the USDA, whose ratios make it so that even with the slightest bit of other debt, makes it a DNQ or possibly a V.A. loan, and these are available in very limited regions. The advertisements are just to get people through the door so that they can than gameplan with them on how to actually, really, buy a home. That, my friend, is a fact.

And they shouldn't exist period. That is also a fact.

Surely you can't honestly believe anyone involved with this in DC is actually smart enough to prevent the same mistakes that were made? Or even better, combine them with new ones. After all, it's only taxpayer money, when this is botched they'll just come back & get more.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126095)
And they shouldn't exist period. That is also a fact.

Surely you can't honestly believe anyone involved with this in DC is actually smart enough to prevent the same mistakes that were made? Or even better, combine them with new ones. After all, it's only taxpayer money, when this is botched they'll just come back & get more.

All I know is you brought up 0 DP loans and theyre almost completely nonexistent eventhough that's your cornerstone of that particular post that lessons werent learned. The USDA ratios are so tight that I'd feel more confident giving them a 0 DP loan than I would a FHA 3.5% DP loan or even some people's 10%DP loans but you dont care about that because what you really wanted was to say that no one should get a 0 dp loan eventhough the USDA default rate is unbelievably low in comparison.

I believe the people in DC saved us from the 2nd Great Depression so where do you want to go from here?

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126102)
I believe the people in DC saved us from the 2nd Great Depression so where do you want to go from here?

If you're saying that with a straight face then there's really not much common ground to travel that I can see. You see saviors, I see utter idiots that are far closer to deserving to be rounded up and shot than to garner even faint praise.
Kind of difficult to traverse that sort of gap.

RainMaker 09-24-2009 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126107)
If you're saying that with a straight face then there's really not much common ground to travel that I can see. You see saviors, I see utter idiots that are far closer to deserving to be rounded up and shot than to garner even faint praise.
Kind of difficult to traverse that sort of gap.
Just about every single major economist believes that without government intervention into the crisis, our economy and country would be in shambles.

Flasch186 09-24-2009 01:20 PM
agreed Jon

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2126116)
Just about every single major economist believes that without government intervention into the crisis, our economy and country would be in shambles.

Well color me impressed. Oh, wait ... scratch that.

RainMaker 09-24-2009 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126071)
Briefly, at best, by propping up failure that we're already seeing repeated (or am I the only person who drives past dozens of "own a home, no money down" signs every day?)

Was an expensive mistake that will ultimately prove futile, an opinion that I'm at least equally certain of as you are the "well worth it" part.
I think it's two seperate issues here. One is what it took to save the economy and our country from collapsing. The other is the moral dilemnia of fixing the issue. They weighed both and decided that not destroying the lives of most of our country was worth the moral implications of helping a failing company survive.

I will state that those companies that did go insolvent and required our assistance should have been saved, and then disbanded when the trouble was over. It would have to be done in a way that didn't dramatically alter our economy and wouldn't instill panic. I feel for the smart banks who played by the rules and don't get to take over the marketshare that they should have by being smarter than their competitors.

flere-imsaho 09-24-2009 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2126116)
Just about every single major economist believes that without government intervention into the crisis, our economy and country would be in shambles.

Yeah, but do they mean TARP or ARRA?

I originally thought TARP was mostly a psychological thing (if the populace see that something's being done, they'll be less likely to panic) but the greatest influence was due to two actions by the Fed:

1. Arranging bank takeovers by the strongest banks (i.e. JPM, BofA, Citi).

2. Loosening lending as much as possible to unfreeze the credit markets (this was actually lots of little actions).

Actually, if anything stopped the Second Great Depression, it was probably the actions taken by the Fed and the European Central Bank just after the failure of Lehman to stop a massive and electronically-triggered run on banking institutions as a whole. Left unchecked, this would clearly have rendered most institutions completely illiquid (if that's a word).

To me, neither did ARRA stop (nor will it stop) the Second Great Depression. What it'll do, in the best case scenario, is cushion the blow of what's going to be a multi-year "non-technical" recession.

ISiddiqui 09-24-2009 01:39 PM
I think you are right to ask flere, and I think they'd say it was TARP which was main thing that preventing crisis.

flere-imsaho 09-24-2009 01:41 PM
That's not to say I disagree with Jon on the point that most of the people in DC who drove this stuff through the legislative process should be taken out and shot.

I'm not a big fan of TARP because of the lack of oversight and accountability built into the bill ("Hey, let's give Hank Paulson $700 billion to give his friends on Wall Street!").

I'm not a fan of the Waxman energy/climate bill due to its single-minded attention to coal (even to the exclusion of, say, natural gas, to say nothing of "clean" energy sources).

I'm not a fan of cash-for-clunkers because it effectively let people trade in their older SUV for a newer and slightly more efficient SUV.

And while I like the idea behind ARRA, plenty of it leaves a lot to be desired, as will any appropriations bill that's essentially a free-for-all for Reps to get projects for their constituents.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2126116)
Just about every single major economist believes that without government intervention into the crisis, our economy and country would be in shambles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126119)
Well color me impressed. Oh, wait ... scratch that.

I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but sometimes I wonder if you value the expertise of anybody else, or if you just think that you're always right, even about subjects where you don't have the specialized education and training?

I mean, are you the sort of person who thinks they can diagnose what's wrong and how to fix it better than a doctor? Do you go to a lawyer for legal advice (wills etc) or just draw that stuff up yourself?

Why is this any different?

KWhit 09-24-2009 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2126151)
I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but sometimes I wonder if you value the expertise of anybody else, or if you just think that you're always right, even about subjects where you don't have the specialized education and training?

I mean, are you the sort of person who thinks they can diagnose what's wrong and how to fix it better than a doctor? Do you go to a lawyer for legal advice (wills etc) or just draw that stuff up yourself?

Why is this any different?

Yes. He is that kind of person. And if you don't agree with him, then you are committing treason and should be shot.

cartman 09-24-2009 02:11 PM
C'mon DT, you're smart...

:D

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 02:13 PM
I'm not advocating believing someone just because they have a degree, let me make that clear. But I think if you have a panel of 100 economists and 80 of them agree that TARP saved us from what would have been a much worse situation then it's incumbent on you as an intelligent person to think "hmm, maybe those 80 people know more about this than me."

Greyroofoo 09-24-2009 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2126199)
I'm not advocating believing someone just because they have a degree, let me make that clear. But I think if you have a panel of 100 economists and 80 of them agree that TARP saved us from what would have been a much worse situation then it's incumbent on you as an intelligent person to think "hmm, maybe those 80 people know more about this than me."

The majority isn't always right.

RainMaker 09-24-2009 04:04 PM
Of course not, but more often than not if you take the side of the majority of highly educated people on a subject, you'll be right. I've never studied DNA and don't have a clue about the science behind it, but I'm going to go with the majority of scientists who believe this or that on the topic.

It's also worth noting that those who said TARP was unnecessary (guys like Laffer) were the ones who said that the market was fine and would continue to go up a year ago when we were at 14,000 on the DOW.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 05:01 PM
Then again I've also seen quite a few of these allegedly reputable economists acknowledging that they're pretty much just guessing themselves. I suspect at least those who've been that honest wouldn't be offended by my disagreement.

All in all, I figure them to be about as reliable as TV weather forecasters & take them with about the same grain of salt. As I recall one memorable instance, someone called to ask when the talking head was "coming over to shovel this four inches of partly cloudy off his doorstep".

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-24-2009 05:12 PM
The Best and the Brightest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JPhillips 09-24-2009 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126381)
Then again I've also seen quite a few of these allegedly reputable economists acknowledging that they're pretty much just guessing themselves. I suspect at least those who've been that honest wouldn't be offended by my disagreement.

All in all, I figure them to be about as reliable as TV weather forecasters & take them with about the same grain of salt. As I recall one memorable instance, someone called to ask when the talking head was "coming over to shovel this four inches of partly cloudy off his doorstep".

A weatherman isn't a bad example. While they have a large error rate, they still have a much higher rate of success than a guy who looks at the sky and tells me next week's forecast.

panerd 09-24-2009 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2126330)
Of course not, but more often than not if you take the side of the majority of highly educated people on a subject, you'll be right. I've never studied DNA and don't have a clue about the science behind it, but I'm going to go with the majority of scientists who believe this or that on the topic.

It's also worth noting that those who said TARP was unnecessary (guys like Laffer) were the ones who said that the market was fine and would continue to go up a year ago when we were at 14,000 on the DOW.

I think you linked to show how wrong Laffer was but what you actually did was show how spot on Peter Schiff has been for a long time. This is a guy who has been preaching what big government does to the economy well before the AIG/housing mess ever started. (both Bush and Obama) I believe he is running for Senate in Connetticut against Linda McMahon and Chris Dodd. Of course one of those morons will end up winning instead of somebody who actually thinks about what they are saying. A lot of people look at him as a huge bear on the market but it sure would be nice to have some of those in Congress when it comes to spending OUR money.

SteveMax58 09-24-2009 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2126426)
I think you linked to show how wrong Laffer was but what you actually did was show how spot on Peter Schiff has been for a long time. This is a guy who has been preaching what big government does to the economy well before the AIG/housing mess ever started. (both Bush and Obama) I believe he is running for Senate in Connetticut against Linda McMahon and Chris Dodd. Of course one of those morons will end up winning instead of somebody who actually thinks about what they are saying. A lot of people look at him as a huge bear on the market but it sure would be nice to have some of those in Congress when it comes to spending OUR money.

Yes, I've been a fan of his for a while. I wasn't always sure whether he was right , but he was able to articulate his argument time and time again in the face of "brilliant economists" who could do nothing but laugh. I suspect the laughter you saw from a lot of those people was not really due to thoughts of absurdity...I suspect they realized his argument was more technically correct and they were laughing it off as a "holy crap we cannot be THAT screwed...CAN WE?"

That's why I'm with JiMGa on "economists". Take them with a grain of salt until they collectively prove otherwise.

miked 09-24-2009 07:51 PM
I can get a good look at a T-bone steak if I stick my head up a cow's ass, but I'll take the butcher's word for it.

JonInMiddleGA 09-24-2009 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2126426)
I believe he is running for Senate in Connetticut against Linda McMahon and Chris Dodd. Of course one of those morons will end up winning instead of somebody who actually thinks about what they are saying.

Although I think it's way to early to consider Linda Mac the presumptive GOP nominee (the RINO claims could be fairly made) you could probably do worse than a successful business person in Congress. Granted, considering who she'd be replacing the bar would be set pretty low but still. Supposedly some of the better business decisions made by the WWE in recent years have come from her rather than VKM.

gstelmack 09-24-2009 08:17 PM
My problem isn't whether or not TARP saved us from a depression, my problem is that they did not also fix the underlying issues, nor punish the folks that got us into the problem in the first place. I'm fine with propping up AIG, but remember the bonus fiasco? The people who drove AIG to the brink and nearly killed our economy made a KILLING, with or without those bonuses. Who went to jail over this? Who paid fines? What regulations were changed and oversight added to stop them from doing it all again tomorrow?

gstelmack 09-24-2009 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2126089)
I assure you that no one is getting a 0 DP loan EXCEPT through the USDA, whose ratios make it so that even with the slightest bit of other debt, makes it a DNQ or possibly a V.A. loan, and these are available in very limited regions. The advertisements are just to get people through the door so that they can than gameplan with them on how to actually, really, buy a home. That, my friend, is a fact.

Also a fact: my parents just moved here and bought a house. The mortgage company pre-approved them for about twice what they thought they could afford and what they were planning to spend. They were smart, but that's exactly the type of credit giving that got us in here. Yes, some things were tightened up in regards to WHO could get credit, but not much was tightened up on HOW MUCH they could get if approved.

DaddyTorgo 09-24-2009 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2126485)
My problem isn't whether or not TARP saved us from a depression, my problem is that they did not also fix the underlying issues, nor punish the folks that got us into the problem in the first place. I'm fine with propping up AIG, but remember the bonus fiasco? The people who drove AIG to the brink and nearly killed our economy made a KILLING, with or without those bonuses. Who went to jail over this? Who paid fines? What regulations were changed and oversight added to stop them from doing it all again tomorrow?

i agree

Flasch186 09-24-2009 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2126486)
Also a fact: my parents just moved here and bought a house. The mortgage company pre-approved them for about twice what they thought they could afford and what they were planning to spend. They were smart, but that's exactly the type of credit giving that got us in here. Yes, some things were tightened up in regards to WHO could get credit, but not much was tightened up on HOW MUCH they could get if approved.

Well thats been going on forever so I dont know what to tell you about the equation. Some people that Ive met have such fear of a the mortgage payment that they'll only take on a mortgage that is far far far below what they can actually afford....so Ive seen it go the other way too {shrug}

Point being Jon's insinuation was wrong.

JPhillips 09-24-2009 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2126485)
My problem isn't whether or not TARP saved us from a depression, my problem is that they did not also fix the underlying issues, nor punish the folks that got us into the problem in the first place. I'm fine with propping up AIG, but remember the bonus fiasco? The people who drove AIG to the brink and nearly killed our economy made a KILLING, with or without those bonuses. Who went to jail over this? Who paid fines? What regulations were changed and oversight added to stop them from doing it all again tomorrow?

+eleventy zillion

Arles 09-26-2009 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2125929)
I havnt seen you applauding when some of the money has come back however, hrrmmmm, that is convenient.
A friend of mine at work setup a lottery pool with 30 other co-workers. They each put in $10 and played powerball. Then next day they "won" $50 and I applauded their winnings.

JonInMiddleGA 09-26-2009 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2127313)
A friend of mine at work setup a lottery pool with 30 other co-workers. They each put in $10 and played powerball. Then next day they "won" $50 and I applauded their winnings.

Made me LOL.

Flasch186 09-26-2009 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2127313)
A friend of mine at work setup a lottery pool with 30 other co-workers. They each put in $10 and played powerball. Then next day they "won" $50 and I applauded their winnings.

had they not played the lotto would they all have been bankrupt? me guess not

Dutch 09-26-2009 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2127349)
had they not played the lotto would they all have been bankrupt? me guess not

Wasn't us all becoming bankrupt just a campaign scare-tactic though to help win the election?

JPhillips 09-26-2009 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2127366)
Wasn't us all becoming bankrupt just a campaign scare-tactic though to help win the election?

The fundamentals of the economy were strong.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-26-2009 08:20 AM
Wait, Bush wanted Obama to win?

Dutch 09-26-2009 08:22 AM
Speaking of campaign promises...

AP sources: Gitmo closing goal of Jan. may slip
AP sources: Gitmo closing goal of Jan. may slip - Yahoo! News

And why might Obama's campaign promise to close Gitmo in 12 months not happen...

Quote:
A major complaint surfaced immediately — that the Bush administration had not established a consolidated repository of intelligence and evidence on each prisoner. It took longer than expected to build such a database, the officials said, because information was scattered throughout agencies and inconsistent.

It's Bush's fault. Works everytime, but c'mon...that's lame.

JonInMiddleGA 09-26-2009 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2127372)
Wait, Bush wanted Obama to win?

I really don't think Bush cared much one way or the other, he was just ready to get the hell out of DC and let whichever fuck up won have it.

JPhillips 09-26-2009 08:42 AM
Yeah, everybody knows it's Clinton's fault.



Seriously, it doesn't look like closing Gitmo will mean much because too many other facilities with the same rules still are open. Shameful.

Flasch186 09-26-2009 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2127366)
Wasn't us all becoming bankrupt just a campaign scare-tactic though to help win the election?

no, according to people smarter than you and I in regards to these things, no.

That Gitmo crap sucks! Michigan will take those people in a heartbeat and build a Supermax to boot.

Dutch 09-26-2009 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2127390)
Yeah, everybody knows it's Clinton's fault.



Seriously, it doesn't look like closing Gitmo will mean much because too many other facilities with the same rules still are open. Shameful.

Of course closing Gitmo in 12-months was always just a campaign stunt. Obviously as the terrorists are handled differently now, Gitmo was going to close sooner or later anyway. In any event, many other facilities? Which ones?

RainMaker 09-26-2009 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 2127366)
Wasn't us all becoming bankrupt just a campaign scare-tactic though to help win the election?
I don't know. I don't think it takes an economist to know that having every major bank and financial institution go insolvent would have probably been real bad for the country.

gstelmack 09-26-2009 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2127429)
I don't know. I don't think it takes an economist to know that having every major bank and financial institution go insolvent would have probably been real bad for the country.

I'd love to see the evidence for this. Sure AIG was headed down the tubes, and Countrywide was in trouble, but Bank of America had no problem buying Countrywide, and Wells Fargo had no problem buying Wachovia. There were certainly institutions in trouble, but that just created opportunity for other institutions to step in and use their excess cash to pick them up and make themselves stronger. Buy low sell high, remember?

And all the American automotive makers were in deep trouble and ready to go bankrupt, except Ford figured out how to make it on its own when they didn't like the strings attached to government money, didn't they?

As was discussed at the time, investment in infrastructure to create jobs to help offset the troubles in other areas was a pretty good idea, but handing cash over to the people driving us off a cliff was a big, giant, costly band-aid that still left the cliff there, we just yanked the car back up the hill a bit.

Part of capitalism is letting companies fail, which just creates opportunities for stronger / newer / leaner / whatever companies to fill the void left behind, if any.

DaddyTorgo 09-26-2009 01:23 PM
wells fargo was the exception to the rule, and their digestion of wachovia hasn't been completely without pain.

BoA overreached with all of its acquisitions (which were driven in part by conversations with the fed where they were assured that the fed wouldn't let them fail) and they're having major digestive problems with those acquisitions now.

Flasch186 09-26-2009 01:40 PM
Well they had a gun to their head to buy Merrill.

flere-imsaho 09-26-2009 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2126381)
Then again I've also seen quite a few of these allegedly reputable economists acknowledging that they're pretty much just guessing themselves.

You would agree with Paul Krugman from the New York Times who recently argued (in the link) that most economists had gotten so divorced from reality that it's really no surprise that they had little inkling about the extent of the financial crisis that was going to befall the U.S. and the world when it did. To me, that makes many of their pronouncements on TARP just as suspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2126485)
My problem isn't whether or not TARP saved us from a depression, my problem is that they did not also fix the underlying issues

:+1:

No one ever got to the bottom of the bad assets. No changes to regulation have been made (or are going to be made). Many financial institutions are back already to trading significant amounts of their money in very risky vehicles. The SEC (which, based on the evidence coming out after the Madoff trial, should just close up shop) has no more balls than before the crisis.

But, if you really want to make your blood boil, read/listen to this report from NPR's acclaimed Planet Money team (excerpts below):

Quote:
Now, Democrats and Republicans are set to spend much of the fall battling over that regulatory reform. Getting Republicans and Democrats to agree may be the easy part.

For starters, lawmakers generally agree that the financial system has too many regulators. AIG was watched over by 400 different agencies around the world, including dozens in the U.S., and none of them noticed that the company was on the verge of taking down the entire global economy.

Economists say this kind of problem stems from regulatory arbitrage. When more than one regulator oversees the same kind of activity, financial firms find ways to play one off against the other. It's like what every 4-year-old has figured out — if Mommy won't let you, maybe Daddy will. Or worse, if Mommy thinks Daddy is watching you, and Daddy thinks Mommy is watching you, then you can get away with anything.

The other thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that solving the problem by simply merging some of the regulators will never happen.

Consider one of the most glaring examples — the bizarre division of labor between the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. If you buy and sell stocks, your overseer is the SEC. If you trade stock futures or their kin, you get the CFTC.

Much of the current financial crisis is linked to the strange financial products that fell between the cracks of the SEC and CFTC.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is steering the reform process as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He says the consensus is clear — and so is the outcome. "Obviously, we all know it would be better not to have two separate entities," he says. "It would be better to have just one. It is now and will be politically impossible to put the two together."

Frank's foregone conclusion rings true for Republican Mike Oxley of Ohio, a former House member and chairman of the Financial Services Committee. During his time in office, Oxley tried to merge the SEC and CFTC after a series of high-profile scandals like the one at Enron. "Barney doesn't want to fight that," Oxley says. "He saw what I went through, and he figures it just isn't worth it. And I think he's probably right."

...

Whatever kind of congressperson you are, you want to hold on to your jurisdiction. Given the way Congress works, that means it's almost impossible to end regulatory arbitrage.

The bolded bit is just wrong, wrong, wrong: everybody knows what the problem is, everyone knows what the fix for the problem should be, and everyone knows it won't happen because members of the House will not give up the power of their committee chairmanships.

At this point I formally do not need any more proof that the U.S. House is not only a completely dysfunctional organization, but is actually a detriment to success in this country.

stevew 09-26-2009 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2126485)
My problem isn't whether or not TARP saved us from a depression, my problem is that they did not also fix the underlying issues, nor punish the folks that got us into the problem in the first place. I'm fine with propping up AIG, but remember the bonus fiasco? The people who drove AIG to the brink and nearly killed our economy made a KILLING, with or without those bonuses. Who went to jail over this? Who paid fines? What regulations were changed and oversight added to stop them from doing it all again tomorrow?

Yeah, the lack of jail time, asset seizure, and just general smackdown is horrific. I knew this would be a joke when they basically let Madoff's direct family keep too much. Those fucks should all be in jail, along with the heads of numerous companies, as well as their underlings.

I mean, you'd prosecute someone for stealing Lunchables, but these guys commit fraud in the millions to billions range and it's a collective meh.

stevew 09-26-2009 03:51 PM
Gitmo makes me mad, mainly cause most of those guys in there should have been executed in 2002ish. Its unacceptable for them to still be in a state of flux 8 years later.

JonInMiddleGA 09-26-2009 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2127519)
You would agree with Paul Krugman from the New York Times who recently argued (in the link) that most economists had gotten so divorced from reality that it's really no surprise that they had little inkling about the extent of the financial crisis that was going to befall the U.S. and the world when it did. To me, that makes many of their pronouncements on TARP just as suspect.

On not nearly enough sleep I won't begin to pretend to go along with every conclusion he draws, I'd do well to be able to follow the storyline of a nursery rhyme atm much less an eight pager on economics. But there sure seemed to be a number of good points in there & it was definitely good linkage.

I think it really comes back to what I was saying earlier about the weatherman thing, that it seems pretty clear that economists give us educated guesses at best but what Krugman points out several times is that even the education behind those guesses is legitimately suspect when viewed in the cold wind of reality versus the rarified air of academia.

flere-imsaho 09-26-2009 04:57 PM
You've got the gist of the article. I think you'll appreciate the detail when you have more rest and more time.

Ronnie Dobbs2 09-26-2009 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2127532)
I mean, you'd prosecute someone for stealing Lunchables, but these guys commit fraud in the millions to billions range and it's a collective meh.

I was wondering where The Afoci has been.

RainMaker 09-26-2009 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2127532)
Yeah, the lack of jail time, asset seizure, and just general smackdown is horrific. I knew this would be a joke when they basically let Madoff's direct family keep too much. Those fucks should all be in jail, along with the heads of numerous companies, as well as their underlings.

I mean, you'd prosecute someone for stealing Lunchables, but these guys commit fraud in the millions to billions range and it's a collective meh.
It is really sad. There should be daily arrests being made and a lot of people in jail. Asset seizure and such should be extremely aggressive.

If you were running a gambling operation in your home, the cops would bust down the doors, seize everything in your home, cuff you and drag you away to jail. Bilk tons of people out of billions and you get to camp out in your Penthouse apartment, cut juicy deals to help your family, and allow them to maintain their comfy lifestyle.

I just don't get it. If I got caught with stolen property, I nor anyone in my family would get to keep it. But when it comes to money and these guys, it seems to be a finders keepers policy.

DaddyTorgo 09-26-2009 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2127532)
Yeah, the lack of jail time, asset seizure, and just general smackdown is horrific. I knew this would be a joke when they basically let Madoff's direct family keep too much. Those fucks should all be in jail, along with the heads of numerous companies, as well as their underlings.

I mean, you'd prosecute someone for stealing Lunchables, but these guys commit fraud in the millions to billions range and it's a collective meh.

absolutely...ridiculous

SteveMax58 09-26-2009 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2127572)
It is really sad. There should be daily arrests being made and a lot of people in jail. Asset seizure and such should be extremely aggressive.

If you were running a gambling operation in your home, the cops would bust down the doors, seize everything in your home, cuff you and drag you away to jail. Bilk tons of people out of billions and you get to camp out in your Penthouse apartment, cut juicy deals to help your family, and allow them to maintain their comfy lifestyle.

I just don't get it. If I got caught with stolen property, I nor anyone in my family would get to keep it. But when it comes to money and these guys, it seems to be a finders keepers policy.

Other than the obvious carnage created by con artists like this...the fundamental difference in how they, and their families, are handled is the type of stuff we really need to be worried about, IMO. It's the type of stuff that launches complete anarchy, revolts, overthrows, etc.

Imagine the type mob rule you'd see if actual townhalls turned into militia seizures and the like. I really think this country is on its way to seeing this happen on a small scale if we have a double dip recession and continue to see these types of things unfold.

Flasch186 09-26-2009 07:48 PM
couldnt help but laugh at the commentary of the Gator's game when they mentioned that Tebow was "actually born in the Phillipines." I immediately thought how upset the birthers should be :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.
Page 56 of 264 « First < 646474849505152535455 56 57585960616263646566106156 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.