Frist finances questioned

[RightIsWrong]

I wonder how the Fristians will take to their boy robbing Peter (in this case them) to pay Paul (himself)?

Link

Here's an exerpt:

Frist's first critical decision, made in June 2000, was to take $1 million of the contributed money out of the bank, where it was helping earn up to $170,000 a year in interest, and invest it in the stock market.

Frist put the money into a mutual fund managed by the Charles Schwab investment firm, his campaign said. And that fund, which Frist's aides refused to identify beyond saying it was an index fund, quickly began losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Frist's next crucial decisions came in November 2000. Having decided that this would be his last run for the Senate and knowing that by law he could not use his Senate cash in a race for president, Frist wanted to get back $1.2 million he had lent his campaign in 1994, when he first ran for office.

But Frist 2000 Inc., with just over $1 million available, didn't have enough money to pay Frist back and continue operating. Frist solved that problem by having his campaign take out a $1.44 million bank loan, at a cost of $10,000 a month in interest, and used that money to repay himself.

Assuming the new debt would have drained all the operating funds Frist 2000 had available, according to FEC documents. Yet that didn't happen. Even after taking out such a huge loan, Frist 2000 still looked rich on paper ? much richer than it actually was.

That's because Frist made a third key decision ? one that experts on campaign disclosure call highly questionable ? to not report the new debt on the FEC paperwork filed by Frist 2000, as required by law.

Instead, Frist told the FEC that the $1.44 million loan was held by another committee he controlled, the Bill Frist for Senate committee, which had been around since his first race in 1994. That fund was virtually dormant by 2000, with just $50,000 in the bank.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Oops.

Not to rationalize this, but I bet you'd be hard-pressed *not* to find a senator or other highly-paid government official that would survive an in-depth financial investigation, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I would agree. I'm sure that there are so many rules that you could trip up just about, if not, every senator or rep on something. That said, it is a completely different story when you have hypocritical shmucks like DeLay and Frist claiming the moral high ground on every issue and knowingly trying to circumvent the rules.

 

[Genx87]

I am trying to figure out what fvcking bank is paying a 17% interest rate on a checking or savings account!

And I agree if he had an interest rate like that and took it out he is an idiot

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am trying to figure out what fvcking bank is paying a 17% interest rate on a checking or savings account!

And I agree if he had an interest rate like that and took it out he is an idiot

How many mutual funds put out 17% a year?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am trying to figure out what fvcking bank is paying a 17% interest rate on a checking or savings account!

And I agree if he had an interest rate like that and took it out he is an idiot

Holy sh1t! Good point. Even in 2000, I don't think you could easily find a 17% rate at any US bank.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am trying to figure out what fvcking bank is paying a 17% interest rate on a checking or savings account!

And I agree if he had an interest rate like that and took it out he is an idiot

How many mutual funds put out 17% a year?

Not many which is why I think he is an idiot

btw it was more or less sarcasm on my part. The article states he took out 1 million dollars which was earning 170,000 in interest from a bank

That is 17% interest rate which has to be factually incorrect.

No bank gives you a 17% interest rate on a savings or checking account.

 

[Chodaboy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Frist's first critical decision, made in June 2000, was to take $1 million of the contributed money out of the bank, where it was helping earn up to $170,000 a year in interest, and invest it in the stock market.

----

The one million taken out was helping earn 170,000, part of a larger fund likely totaling 7-10 million, IMO.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Chodaboy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Frist's first critical decision, made in June 2000, was to take $1 million of the contributed money out of the bank, where it was helping earn up to $170,000 a year in interest, and invest it in the stock market.

The one million taken out was helping earn 170,000, part of a larger fund likely totaling 7-10 million, IMO.

Ah, that must be it. Good catch.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Oops.

Not to rationalize this, but I bet you'd be hard-pressed *not* to find a senator or other highly-paid government official that would survive an in-depth financial investigation, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

The Justice Dept. chose to investigate Hillary Clinton's campaign for a far smaller infraction. Senator Clinton's campaign was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Are you saying because everyone does it, Frist is allowed to make questionable financial dealings with his campaign money then LIE about it?

Isn't that what they got Martha for? Not the questionable stock sale, but LYING about it?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Oops.

Not to rationalize this, but I bet you'd be hard-pressed *not* to find a senator or other highly-paid government official that would survive an in-depth financial investigation, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

Are you saying because everyone does it, Frist is allowed to make questionable financial dealings with his campaign money then LIE about it?

Maybe we should trade signatures for a while if you're going to continue like this..

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Oops.

Not to rationalize this, but I bet you'd be hard-pressed *not* to find a senator or other highly-paid government official that would survive an in-depth financial investigation, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

Are you saying because everyone does it, Frist is allowed to make questionable financial dealings with his campaign money then LIE about it?

Maybe we should trade signatures for a while if you're going to continue like this..

Or you could just ignore valid questions and post ignorant remarks instead.

 

[BBond]

That's because Frist made a third key decision ? one that experts on campaign disclosure call highly questionable ? to not report the new debt on the FEC paperwork filed by Frist 2000, as required by law.

Instead, Frist told the FEC that the $1.44 million loan was held by another committee he controlled, the Bill Frist for Senate committee, which had been around since his first race in 1994. That fund was virtually dormant by 2000, with just $50,000 in the bank.

That's generally referred to as lying. I understand the Republican Party is challenged when it comes to recognizing that they're beind lied to. But this one is cut and dried, don't you think?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Oops.

Not to rationalize this, but I bet you'd be hard-pressed *not* to find a senator or other highly-paid government official that would survive an in-depth financial investigation, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

Are you saying because everyone does it, Frist is allowed to make questionable financial dealings with his campaign money then LIE about it?

Maybe we should trade signatures for a while if you're going to continue like this..

Or you could just ignore valid questions and post ignorant remarks instead.

"Uh-huh-huh.. it seems to work for you." </12-year-old>

(ok, I closed my grade-school tag - care to do the same?)


Will you at least acknowledge that my original post started out by saying THAT I DID NOT EXCUSE FRIST OF WRONG-DOING? After that, you can get back to those numbers in the Dean thread...