Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, September 18, 2009

Always Right

Posted by on Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:12 AM

The real meaning of bipartisanship:

House votes to block ACORN funding

The House has just voted, 345-75, to cut off all federal funding to ACORN — using a procedural trick to force a vote on an amendment.

The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted with all Republicans to ram through the measure, which follows the Senate's passage of an amendment barring HUD from funding the community group, which specializes in social services, housing preservation and foreclosure mitigation.


Democrats and disappointment are one and the same thing.

 

Comments (35) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Reality Check 1
ACORN deserved to get their ass handed to them.

It was only a matter of time.
Posted by Reality Check http://www.nraila.org on September 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM
2
ACORN oh, so ghetto. And my tax money isn't going to finance employee's giving some straight talk to pimps and ho's how to get govenment financing and keep your crimes under the radar. Injustice!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by hmm on September 18, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Banna 3
So if I pose as a "pastor" and go around to churches asking for advice on using tax-exempt status to get myself a stadium church, Lear jet and hookers, can we get a vote on removing exempt status and federal funding for the denominations that have churches that help me out?
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on September 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Joe M 4
The problem wasn't social services, housing preservation or foreclosure mitigation, it was ACORN.
Posted by Joe M on September 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM
5
@3- You are trying WAY too hard. Churches also don't relceive federal funding. Take a deep breath.
Posted by hm on September 18, 2009 at 9:38 AM
6
You're surprised? ACORN was already controversial, and you expect Dems, who already fear big losses in the House, to stand up for an organization that was caught red handed advocating fraud and sex slavery for under age Salvadorian girls? Come on--that's just dumb.
Posted by Westside forever on September 18, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Urgutha Forka 7
Getting rid of ACORN was just another pet project by the republicans to get egg on Obama's face.

If misuse of taxpayer money and inappropriate behavior were really taken seriously by the republicans as reasons to halt funding, the entire U.S. military would have disappeared long, long ago.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 8
but we're still giving Blackwater (now Xe) money right? I just want to make sure we're giving money to "REAL" Americans.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on September 18, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 9
Cato, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, you're correct, those abuses need to stop also.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on September 18, 2009 at 9:54 AM
10
Acorn is too much baggage. Tough shit.

Start another community organizer group that doesn't hire criminals who falsely register nonexistent voters and doesn't pay people per signature duh! and doesn't get embezzled and doesn't let its own employees get on VIDEO repeatedly facilitating obviously criminal and racketeering enterprises and being blase about 12 sex slaves imported from El Salvador.

Is that too hard to do?

That just might be a better approach.

Posted by This is what the underside of a bus is FOR. on September 18, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Banna 11
@5: I'm sorry, I guess I just imagined federal faith-based funding. You're right, no church has ever seen any federal money, and would definitely be too pious to misuse such a program".
Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on September 18, 2009 at 10:05 AM
gttim 12
What Acorn has ever received in funding from the federal government is what it will spend in 52 seconds this year. The GOP are just trying to make another boogie man, like communists, Russians, reds, socialists, Muslims, terroroists, welfare queens and others. Churches have a much longer recorded of interfering in elections, while remaining tax exempt and in many cases receiving federal money. I don't see anybody trying to go after them.

ACORN will still exist and still register voters. Are there some bad apples and should improvements be made? Sure. But that can be said of any organization, especially the church and the GOP. If they end not not existing, I can't think of many Dems or liberals who would be real upset. They are really a very small organization.
Posted by gttim on September 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM
13
President Obama, throw them overboard, along with the rest of the idiotic, looney left. Thank you for the sensible Center!

Posted by Davy Jones on September 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
14
@8: Agreed. We all know that unproven allegations of isolated instances of attempted voter fraud and evidence of potential sanctioning and assistance with sex-industry earnings which obviously occurs organization-wide is a far more heinous offense than the proven, prosecuted murders of 17 or so people or murdering the guard of the Iraqi vice president. Clearly, that's just "a few bad apples" and has no bearing on the organization at large.
Posted by thename on September 18, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Arboreality 15
This is insane.. by this same logic, they should have voted to recall funding from those contractors in Afghanistan, and from South Carolina.. not only are they assigning guilt before the trial, but they're choosing a single event to remove funding from an entire nationwide foundation.
Posted by Arboreality on September 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Charles Mudede 16
thank you @15, the hypocrisy is so staggering. when you think about the contracts for the wars, the general corruption during the bush years, and the banks! fucking unbelievable.
Posted by Charles Mudede on September 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM
TVDinner 17
You know, I can't understand this insane animosity toward ACORN. Two years ago, the ACORN office down in Burien helped educate my husband and me about how to avoid mortgage scams, referred us to the bank for a mortgage well within our means, and made sure that the bank didn't screw us. They were there to help guide regular people through the real estate bubble without the regular people getting screwed.

What's wrong with that? We feel nothing but gratitude to them.
Posted by TVDinner http:// on September 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM
18
One little hooker....

(and honestly - how many Republicans have made use of that line?)

all tongue in cheek!
Posted by subwlf on September 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
19
" fucking unbelievable."

Is that what you said after you screwed one of the 14 yr old Salvadoran kids ACORN wanted to help?
Posted by Davy Jones on September 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Charles Mudede 20

yes, it was as good as fucking a 14 year old iraq girl and killing her whole family with the help of the bush administration.

Posted by Charles Mudede on September 18, 2009 at 11:03 AM
21
ACORN was a base pleasing club the GOP liked to use to bash the Democrats. The boys in blue were unusually clever to promptly ditch ACORN and take away the Republicans favorite noisy plaything.
Posted by GOP on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM
22
besides, the democrats may not have any idea how to wield a SuperMajority but they know how to spread them wide when the Republicans whisper sweet nothings in their ears...
Posted by gop on September 18, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Urgutha Forka 23
@17,
There is only one reason ACORN is drawing such hatred by republicans:

Obama hired them to "get out the vote" and they endorsed him as president.

For that heinious crime, the republicans demanded their pound of flesh. Whatever good ACORN may have done is meaningless. In the republican's eyes, they committed the unforgiveable sin of not being conservative.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Arsenic7 24
The goofy thing is why ACORN was originally maligned by republicans in the first place, for getting people to register who, sometimes, didn't put accurate information on their forms. Of course, this happens to EVERYONE who collects signatures, and it's not their job to check validity, but because they were helping POOR people register, they got attacked.

That's not to say this episode isn't valid, as I haven't seen the videos myself.
Posted by Arsenic7 on September 18, 2009 at 11:14 AM
lark 25
Charles,
I disagree. ACORN deserves to have their funding cut off. It wasn't just the video. It was also previous malfeasance on the part of voter registration canvassers last year (issuing false names etc.) That plus, ACORN pressured Congress (which passed the Community Lending Act in 77') to allow lenders to loan money to people unqualifed to own homes or unable to pay back those loans. However well intended, it contributed to the great housing loan (Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae etc.) collapse last autumn.

It is not surprising at all the Dems and Obama are parting with ACORN. I believe Pres. Obama actually worked with ACORN as a community organizer in the 80s in Chicago. But, I can't verify that. I remember ACORN soliciting heavily in the Chicago Reader (Chicago's alternative weekly) when I lived there. I wondered what they did exactly. Now, I know much more about them.

Posted by lark on September 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM
26
"it was as good as fucking a 14 year old iraq girl and killing her whole family with the help of the bush administration"

A truly righteous dude would be offended by BOTH types of behaviour. Of course, you're not that righteous.
Posted by Testicular on September 18, 2009 at 11:34 AM
TVDinner 27
@26: ACORN didn't "issue false names" during their voter registration campaign last year. Some people signed up under false names, and ACORN workers separated those forms from the legit ones to make it easier for state employees to sift through the good and the bad. ACORN was required by law to submit every single form they collected, even when it was Mickey Mouse supposedly registering to vote. They complied with the law, and for that they get eviscerated.

Furthermore, your claim that ACORN encouraged lenders to lend to people unqualified to pay them back is utterly specious and frankly the absolute opposite of what they do. To qualify for an ACORN-endorsed loan, you have to go through their housing counseling program, lay bare your finances, and learn about the dangers of ARMs and bullshit refinancing schemes. You cannot get through ACORN without getting a healthy dose of what it takes to be a responsible borrower. In turn, ACORN-endorsed loans have no hidden clauses that will screw you in the end: they offer straight ahead 30-year fixed mortgages, and I think they have a 40-year fixed mortgage. That's it. No ARMs. No weird shit that will rear its head in five years and render you homeless and bankrupt.

Oh, and the amount of the mortgage my husband and I qualified for through them? It was the outrageous sum of $123,000. We could have gotten a $300,000 mortgage through a bank, which we wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of repaying, but ACORN actually looked over our finances and determined that $123,000 was what we could reasonably afford.

I can't tell you how reassuring it was to have that voice of reason guiding us through the process of qualifying for a mortgage during the very height of the housing bubble, when everyone and anyone wanted to give us insane amounts of money we had no chance of repaying.
More...
Posted by TVDinner http:// on September 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM
DavidG 28
@26 - I believe you just decided to ignore his meaning: yes, we're appalled by both behaviors, but one - murdering the entire family - is so much more heinous and receives so much less outrage in national media. Why would that be?
Posted by DavidG http://portableshrines.com on September 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
29
TVDInner, I bet I can find people who worked for Black Wtaer or Haliburton who are good people, loved the Iraqi people, wanted to help and even voted for OBama. Doesn't mean sh#t when something like this comes out

But keeping beating this dead horse, it only helps push the loony left out of the picture.

" is so much more heinous and receives so much less outrage in national media"

Really? i read about it on the front page of the New York Times. And sorry, pointing at other children in the playground and arguing that their behaviour is worse is how...well, it's how children argue. Stand up, be a man and toss ACORN overboard.
Posted by Davy Jones on September 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM
gttim 30
@25 "ACORN pressured Congress (which passed the Community Lending Act in 77') to allow lenders to loan money to people unqualifed to own homes or unable to pay back those loans."

#1 ACORN didn't pressure congress to do anything.

#2 The Community Lending Act did not allow lenders to lend to unqualified applicants. Banks have shown the ability to do that all by themselves. The Community Lending Act disallowed red-lining, or refusing to lend to qualified applicants because they lived in minority/low income neighborhoods.

Rush and O'Reilly not telling you the truth!
Posted by gttim on September 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM
31
@30

#1 I knew that
#2 I knew that

....still, this is reprehensible. Toss ACORN an the loony left overboard before they sink Obama.
Posted by Davy Jones on September 18, 2009 at 12:56 PM
32
thank you jim mcdermont for voting against this. baghdad jim always keeps it real for the left. too bad, rags, like the stranger use to trash him in the past.

and fuck u jay insley for caving in to a stupid Fox hidden camera report.

and stop calling mercenaries contractors!
Posted by SeMe on September 18, 2009 at 2:11 PM
33
"thank you jim mcdermont for voting against this."

Must feel good to go down with your flag waving and one of those little Salvadoran girls blowing you.
Posted by Roger That on September 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Irena 34
Joe Conason has a great piece on ACORN in Salon right now. Helps to put it in some (obviously much-needed) context:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/200…
Posted by Irena on September 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM
35
TV Dinner, why are you confused that Republicans hate a group that prevents regular people from getting screwed? Who led the campaign to defund legal aid in the early 80's? Who has resented having to give lawyers to criminal defendants since Gideon v. Wainright, 1962?

Predators vote, too.
Posted by CP on September 19, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy