U.S. Court of Appeals restores Congressionally mandated ban on funding ACORN

[PJABBER]

As I have mentioned in several previous threads, an issue of Constitutional powers was raised when the U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban federal funding of ACORN and liberal activist District Court Judge Nina Gershon subsequently moved to reinstate ACORN's eligibility to receive taxpayer funding.

The overwhelming majority in Congress, in a fully bipartisan effort by both Democrats and Republicans, voted to defund ACORN. With only 75 progressive/liberals voting to continue ACORN's use of taxpayer monies versus 345 others voting to defund, the vote was not even close. All of the nays came from Democrats, of course, including, notably, Charles Rangel, now ex-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the progressives here jumped for joy and declared the case was won when Gershon rendered her opinion reversing the Defund ACORN Act (actually an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009,) the fact was that the legal battle was only beginning.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has now moved expeditiously to stay, pending appeal, Gershon's district court order declaring Congress's move to defund ACORN unconstitutional under the Bill of Attainder Clause and along with permanently enjoining the Government from enforcing those acts.

Taxpayer funding of ACORN is now, again, not allowed pending the resolution of the applicable Constitutional issues related to Congressional powers. Both sides need to submit their arguments to the United States Court of Appeals by the end of May and oral arguments will commence shortly thereafter.

It's likely not over until the fat lady (U.S. Supreme Court) sings, but, for the moment, America can breathe a little sigh of relief that taxpayer monies are not going to enrich the coffers of a corrupt ACORN.

Oh, in case anyone, somehow, beyond all previous evidence to the contrary, still thinks ACORN is some kind of mainstream organization, check out ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis addressing the Winter Conference of the Young Democratic Socialists on March 25, 2010.

U.S. Congress - House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Issa Applauds Appeals Court Decision to Temporarily Reinstate ACORN Funding Ban

Wednesday, 21 April 2010

U.S. Court of Appeals Suspends Ruling that Congressional Funding Ban on ACORN was Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Committee Member released the following statement on the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit decision to stay the December 2009 injunction by Clinton-appointed Judge Nina Gershon that the Congressional funding ban on the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) was unconstitutional. As a result, as the U.S. Court of Appeals further reviews the case, the Congressional funding ban will go back into effect, and ACORN will not receive taxpayer dollars.

“I applaud the Court of Appeals for immediately addressing the effects of Judge Gershon’s attempt to legislate from the bench. Today’s action immediately restores the congressionally mandated ban on funding ACORN and its affiliates as a result of their criminal conduct and wasting of taxpayer dollars. Congress has the constitutional right to deny an organization the benefit of taxpayer dollars.

“With today’s action by the Appeals Court, the Obama Administration must take immediate steps to re-implement the funding ban for ACORN Congress put in to law. In recent months, ACORN has undergone a rebranding campaign to disguise itself and its affiliates. As a result, the White House and all federal agencies must be extremely vigilant to ensure that rebranded organizations who have continued to make deals and maintain connections to ACORN don’t receive taxpayer dollars.”

Click here for a copy of the Appeals Court Decision to Stay Judge Gershon’s injunction on implementing the Federal funding ban on ACORN.

Click here to read the April 2010 report entitled “ACORN Political Machine Tries to Reinvent Itself.”

Click here to read the February 2010 report entitled “Follow the Money: ACORN, SEIU and their Political Allies.”

Click here to read the July 2009 report entitled “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?”

 

[werepossum]

As I have mentioned in several previous threads, an issue of Constitutional powers was raised when the U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban federal funding of ACORN and liberal activist District Court Judge Nina Gershon subsequently moved to reinstate ACORN's eligibility to receive taxpayer funding.

The overwhelming majority in Congress, in a fully bipartisan effort by both Democrats and Republicans, voted to defund ACORN. With only 75 progressive/liberals voting to continue ACORN's use of taxpayer monies versus 345 others voting to defund, the vote was not even close. All of the nays came from Democrats, of course, including, notably, Charles Rangel, now ex-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the progressives here jumped for joy and declared the case was won when Gershon rendered her opinion reversing the Defund ACORN Act (actually an amendment to the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009,) the fact was that the legal battle was only beginning.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit has now moved expeditiously to stay, pending appeal, Gershon's district court order declaring Congress's move to defund ACORN unconstitutional under the Bill of Attainder Clause and along with permanently enjoining the Government from enforcing those acts.

Taxpayer funding of ACORN is now, again, not allowed pending the resolution of the applicable Constitutional issues related to Congressional powers. Both sides need to submit their arguments to the United States Court of Appeals by the end of May and oral arguments will commence shortly thereafter.

It's likely not over until the fat lady (U.S. Supreme Court) sings, but, for the moment, America can breathe a little sigh of relief that taxpayer monies are not going to enrich the coffers of a corrupt ACORN.

Good news, but probably irrelevant. On one hand, Obama has already resumed funding ACORN through the executive branch agencies. On the other, their bad press seems to have reached critical mass. Once you are revealed to the world as scum it becomes nigh impossible to blackmail companies into funding your operations, and government funding even under Obama cannot support ACORN in the manner in which it has become accustomed. The people running it will simply disband ACORN and reform under another (likely several) other acronyms to once again suck the public teat, but it will take time for these "new" agencies to gain enough power to restore their previously impressive powers of threatening.

 

[PJABBER]

Good news, but probably irrelevant. On one hand, Obama has already resumed funding ACORN through the executive branch agencies. On the other, their bad press seems to have reached critical mass. Once you are revealed to the world as scum it becomes nigh impossible to blackmail companies into funding your operations, and government funding even under Obama cannot support ACORN in the manner in which it has become accustomed. The people running it will simply disband ACORN and reform under another (likely several) other acronyms to once again suck the public teat, but it will take time for these "new" agencies to gain enough power to restore their previously impressive powers of threatening.

While Peter R. Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama Administration, has authorized the funding of ACORN based on Judge Gershon's opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit order supersedes the District Court and reinstates the ban pending review. The Obama Administration is now under legal order to suspend all funding.

As I mention in the OP, this is not a done deal, but the issue in question is one of Congressional power and thus will likely have to be ultimately resolved by the USSC, whether in an argued case or by their accepting the eventual decision of the Court of Appeals.

 

[PJABBER]

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Appellate Court decision to ban federal funding for ACORN pending the hearing of the case at the end of May.

Supreme Court won't intervene in ACORN lawsuit request

From Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
April 23, 2010 -- Updated 2232 GMT (0632 HKT)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused an emergency request from ACORN in a dispute over its loss of federal funding.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Ginsburg decided high court would not get involved now in a pending lawsuit
• Federal appeals court in New York has blocked ruling that funds were improperly withheld
• Ginsburg has jurisdiction over emergency appeals filed from New York, Connecticut, Vermont

Washington (CNN) -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has refused an emergency request from housing advocacy group ACORN, which had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over its loss of federal funding.

Ginsburg, in an unsigned order Friday, decided the high court would not get involved now in a pending lawsuit over whether Congress acted improperly in shutting off federal funds to support the private group after the release of controversial internet videos.

A federal appeals court in New York has temporarily blocked a judge's determination that the funds were being improperly withheld.

Ginsburg has jurisdiction over emergency appeals filed from the 3rd Circuit, which includes New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. She had the option of asking the other members of the Supreme Court to help decide the time-sensitive matter, but chose to act on her own.

 

[boomerang]

Well I wish Bertha Lewis luck in finding a position commensurate with what she had. She's been running her mouth off like a crazy wingnut and has pretty much tainted herself for anything but another wingnut job. (Although I'm sure she'll find something in this political climate.)

Amazing the power that a "bowel movement" has.

 

[CPA]

Well I wish Bertha Lewis luck in finding a position commensurate with what she had. She's been running her mouth off like a crazy wingnut and has pretty much tainted herself for anything but another wingnut job. (Although I'm sure she'll find something in this political climate.)

Amazing the power that a "bowel movement" has.

Honestly, I don't think she will ever have any issues. Just look at McKinnie - she's even loonier and still pulls in the $s

 

[WHAMPOM]

"EEEHHH!" OP"s same old shit, gotta take your meds, man!

 

[Bowfinger]

"EEEHHH!" OP"s same old shit, gotta take your meds, man!

In the last thread PJ said ACORN stories were boring. Of course that story was exposing the lies and liars behind their anti-ACORN smear campaign. I can see how having his nose rubbed in his dishonesty might become boring after a few months.

 

[PJABBER]

In the last thread PJ said ACORN stories were boring. Of course that story was exposing the lies and liars behind their anti-ACORN smear campaign. I can see how having his nose rubbed in his dishonesty might become boring after a few months.

I keep reading about the "dishonesty" of the various messengers, including myself, that present case after case of malfeasance. Really, the partisan spin that comes from the Left and the height of the rickety pedestal they place themselves on is simply astonishing.

What is dishonest about pointing out the foibles of "progressives," fascists and communists? It is not like they are not laden with the burden of an extraordinary corruption of ideals.

When you have an organization like ACORN that runs as an extortion racket it is particularly delicious when they are caught out and shut down. Many lives are better for it.

Of course we can boo hoo hoo for the managers and the directors of the scam, they will be poorer for the exposure. But as previous posters note, these scam artists and charlatans do seem to resurface over and over again. So don't cry those crocodile tears for their sake.

Rather, consider the truly interesting part of this phase of the scandal and the point of interest of the OP - the powers of Congress are being tested. Will they or will they not have the power to decide how government funds will be spent and what will be the extent of that power?

 

[Throckmorton]

Good news, but probably irrelevant. On one hand, Obama has already resumed funding ACORN through the executive branch agencies. On the other, their bad press seems to have reached critical mass. Once you are revealed to the world as scum it becomes nigh impossible to blackmail companies into funding your operations, and government funding even under Obama cannot support ACORN in the manner in which it has become accustomed. The people running it will simply disband ACORN and reform under another (likely several) other acronyms to once again suck the public teat, but it will take time for these "new" agencies to gain enough power to restore their previously impressive powers of threatening.

You mean you didn't change your position on ACORN when it came out that the "expose" was a fraud?

 

[OrByte]

I see the OP is still up to posting threads...

with no "Agenda" of course

right OP?

 

[PJABBER]

You mean you didn't change your position on ACORN when it came out that the "expose" was a fraud?

I am curious as to your use of the term "fraud."

Are you referring to the recordings that the two kids made where ACORN managers and employees supported child prostitution, tax evasion and mortgage fraud?

Is your contention, false to be sure, that these ACORNers caught on video did not say those things?

ACORN senior management first denied everything and then fired these staffers in the half dozen locations where the recordings were made. ACORN senior management certainly believe the recordings are accurate despite their public protestations to the contrary.

The egregious aspect is that this support of criminality was found everywhere the two kids went. Then it became apparent that this was not just about an exceptional miscreant or two but an institutional archetype.

Any area that had or continues to have an ACORN organization knows them to be an extortion focused group. They do demonstrations for hire to shut down construction sites until they are paid off in cash. They extort banks to offer sub-prime loans to unqualified borrowers or risk losing CRA points. Hell, in the 1990's they were the poster child for the entire CRA program that eventually drove the mortgage industry into default.

The prime beneficiaries of ACORN efforts were not the poor, they were the means for senior management to enrich themselves. The Rathke family made millions through the dues, grants and extortion structure and they saw the membership as ignorant dupes to be used to provide huge payoffs to that privileged few.

ACORN and its hundreds of cutout subsidiaries are under investigation in every single one of the states they were established. They are being investigated and prosecuted for everything from voter registration fraud to criminal misuse of funds to tax evasion to violations of labor laws.

They are like the bugs that run around when a rock is lifted and the sun hits them, they scurry around looking for other places to hide. It is best to keep looking under rocks for ACORN types, only thus can further misdeeds be caught before they escalate to serious damage.

 

[Modelworks]

It doesn't matter really if they are defunded. They have already splintered into numerous other organizations . Might have cut off the head of the snake, but it grew back with 10 more heads.

 

[Craig234]

The OP completely misses the real issue here.

It's the agenda of the few to overpower democracy by preventing the people from protecrting thweir own interests - the reasn democracy exists - against concentrated power.

This is a vil illustration of the few powerful using the tools of lying to create the propaganda against ACORN that led the Congress who is supposed to represent the people to not do so -in part by fooling the peope themselves - and making it politically expedient for Congress to side with the concentrated wealth agenda and support not backing the registration of poor and minioroty voters primarily who are highly underrepresented.

The important issue isn't the legal one, its the public policy one, the one of justice and democracy of which the OP is a committed enemy.

You wojn't see a word of condemnation of the lies - not hte amateur ones told by a dishonest, misguided infamy-seeking kid nor o the many billion-dollar industry of liears and propagandists who use te lis such a kid triggers to push the agenda of the wealthy few - because that serves his own crrupt ideology. He cares nothing for the truth when it doesn't serve his ideology, it appears.

 

[blackangst1]

The OP completely misses the real issue here.

It's the agenda of the few to overpower democracy by preventing the people from protecrting thweir own interests - the reasn democracy exists - against concentrated power.

This is a vil illustration of the few powerful using the tools of lying to create the propaganda against ACORN that led the Congress who is supposed to represent the people to not do so -in part by fooling the peope themselves - and making it politically expedient for Congress to side with the concentrated wealth agenda and support not backing the registration of poor and minioroty voters primarily who are highly underrepresented.

The important issue isn't the legal one, its the public policy one, the one of justice and democracy of which the OP is a committed enemy.

You wojn't see a word of condemnation of the lies - not hte amateur ones told by a dishonest, misguided infamy-seeking kid nor o the many billion-dollar industry of liears and propagandists who use te lis such a kid triggers to push the agenda of the wealthy few - because that serves his own crrupt ideology. He cares nothing for the truth when it doesn't serve his ideology, it appears.

WTF? I swear man you could take a thread about the problems with artificial snow and begin it with "The OP misses the real issue...of concentrated power..." I guess the US court of Appeals missed the real issue too, huh?

/boggle

 

[PJABBER]

The OP completely misses the real issue here.

It's the agenda of the few to overpower democracy by preventing the people from protecrting thweir own interests - the reasn democracy exists - against concentrated power.

This is a vil illustration of the few powerful using the tools of lying to create the propaganda against ACORN that led the Congress who is supposed to represent the people to not do so -in part by fooling the peope themselves - and making it politically expedient for Congress to side with the concentrated wealth agenda and support not backing the registration of poor and minioroty voters primarily who are highly underrepresented.

The important issue isn't the legal one, its the public policy one, the one of justice and democracy of which the OP is a committed enemy.

You wojn't see a word of condemnation of the lies - not hte amateur ones told by a dishonest, misguided infamy-seeking kid nor o the many billion-dollar industry of liears and propagandists who use te lis such a kid triggers to push the agenda of the wealthy few - because that serves his own crrupt ideology. He cares nothing for the truth when it doesn't serve his ideology, it appears.

Quite to the contrary, my dear would-be revolutionary friend. I am very much in favor of the broadest of representative government and much of my professional and personal interest is in economic development at all levels.

Where I draw the line and you don't is that I am intolerant of corruption and the manipulation of the poor and ignorant for the self serving aims of those who claim to represent their interests.

ACORN and the Rathkes, millionaires all off the backs of ACORN minions, are an example of this and you are their stooge.

Pick some other group to defend, one truly seeking to sustainably uplift those who live with poverty and political under-representation and you will find me with the highest of praise. Continue to excuse corruption so long as it furthers your "progressive" agenda and you will continue to see unrelenting criticism.

 

[Craig234]

Quite to the contrary, my dear would-be revolutionary friend. I am very much in favor of the broadest of representative government and much of my professional and personal interest is in economic development at all levels.

You know, someone who was a slave doctor helped the slaves, but was still a part of the industry making it work better. It wasn't enough.

You either really represent the interests of the people, or you don't. You didn't get into specifics, but some things good for the people support a harmful system against them too.

Revolutionary - pretty meaningless, an ad hominem attempt it seems.

Where I draw the line and you don't is that I am intolerant of corruption and the manipulation of the poor and ignorant for the self serving aims of those who claim to represent their interests.

*Registering the poor to vote* is a crime to the anti-democrats like yourself - not corruption and manipulation. That's pure, disingenuous falsehoods by you.

[/quote]ACORN and the Rathkes, millionaires all off the backs of ACORN minions, are an example of this and you are their stooge.[/quote]

No, they helped the poor. You are the stooge to your ideology that helps the few.

Helping the poor get registered to vote for their share of political power, helping them with things like getting housing, helps them and is what you oppose.

You are not fit to say the word stooge, the irony really deserves the irony of the month not awarded in perhaps a year.

Pick some other group to defend, one truly seeking to sustainably uplift those who live with poverty and political under-representation and you will find me with the highest of praise. Continue to excuse corruption so long as it furthers your "progressive" agenda and you will continue to see unrelenting criticism.

A few people who tried to help a claimed prostitute - in contrast to the ones who refused or called the police - does not a corrupt organization make.

But that's the lie the lovers of concentrated wealth have to try to sell, to fool the people into opposing help for the people.

You will hardly support groups who really help the interests of the people - that's a nice cover line to try to hide the ideology's goals which you support.

Hence why we see not a word from you of any concern about the lies told against ACORN. The truth is your enemy, and you do not associate with it much.

 

[PJABBER]

You will hardly support groups who really help the interests of the people - that's a nice cover line to try to hide the ideology's goals which you support.

As I like to offer personal examples, let me do that in reply. I have some time before dinner so I won't make it all that brief, but bear with me, if you will.

I am semi-retired right now, though I am definitely considering offers to get back into the fray full time again as I am wistful and missing the action, so to speak.

I started working when I was around 11 or 12, worked a minimum of 20 hours while in school and full time + whatever OT I could wrangle when on any kind of school break. I was paid a bit here and there as a fighter, but that got me into trouble more than it paid my school bills.

When I was working for slave wages I was not a very charitable sort, and definitely not toward organized charity. Once in a while I would give a hundred bucks or so to an individual that had come upon hard luck. I never gave any money to anyone who did not want to work or was an addict of any kind. I felt my money would be wasted.

I more often than not held two jobs through much of my adult life. I usually had management level employment that would take 50+ hours a week and then I had an Army Reserve commitment that was a minimum of 20 hours a week. When I was on active deployment, which was quite often, I had a minimum work week of 60 hours.

It is very, very hard for me to identify with anyone who does not work as hard as I did and still continue to. But I do recognize that someone who gains success owes something to the society that offered the chance for success to begin with. I feel more strongly about this than you might because I have also lived and worked in societies where no amount of hard work would lift anyone from the class they were born into.

A long time ago I came to a personal epiphany about what works in society and what doesn't. ANYTHING that keeps a person dependent on the largess of others is unconscionable to me. Thus, I believe that charity and political activism that propagates and induces dependency on government or on continued charity is absolutely worthless.

I made a lot of money over the years. Do you know the term "free cash flow?" Not profit, cash flow. I take ten percent of my wages and/or FCF and make anonymous donations to literacy organizations in the US and, selectively, overseas. I make this my special priority because I believe that being illiterate dooms a person to dependency. Learn to read and you can educate yourself to whatever natural level of accomplishment you are capable of.

I take another ten to twenty percent of my personal wages/FCF and make mostly anonymous "angel" investments in economic development projects. I invest professionally for others in a wide variety of projects but what I do professionally mostly limits me to larger projects.

As an individual investor, or in concert with a couple of other like minded "capitalists," I can choose to support smaller projects that are highly likely to bring very effective localized effects. Worthwhile investments for me are those which provide sustainable growth in employment at above average wage levels. I make no special distinction as to where the growth will occur and in practice it does range from extremely rural to the most densely populated urban environments.

The last review that I did showed that 50 percent of these investments went to racial minority enterprises, though this was not at all part of the screening process, and close to 70 percent went to companies that had a majority of employees that were first and second generation legal immigrants, and this was very much a part of the screening conducted though not a part of the go/no go criteria.

Why?

Because as someone that benefited from the immigration of my own parents, I recognize that it takes a lot for someone to pick up and move their lives for greater freedom and economic opportunity. And that group works harder, with longer hours and with very specific goals of achievement always in the back and front of their minds and hearts.

I do this because I believe that worthwhile employment generates pride in self which in turn allows a person to build a good family life and will in turn build a strong society.

Any return from the investment is re-invested in the initial company or, when it is fully self-sustaining, invested in another entity. I have never taken the returns for my personal use and neither have any of the other "angels" that I may collaborate with. Please note the difference here with what the Rathkes' do - they take the money for themselves and they live profligate lifestyles while professing some kind of "progressiveness" for you to drool over.

Taxes are a sore spot with us capitalists. I personally am in a very high bracket but do not take any deductions when I pay my personal and corporate taxes. Not mortgage, not dependents, not anything. The IRS can never get me and that helps me sleep at night, though I do think I can put that money to much better use than the government, hehehe.

A few of us capitalists would kind of like to see a flat tax as we believe that highly progressive taxation removes any incentive for the non-taxpayer to feel he is part of a responsible and contributing citizenry and it unduly penalizes and may even disincentivise the most productive citizens. As we have close to 50% of the population, rich and poor, that do not pay taxes at this point, you can see that there will be resentment on one side and a lack of buy-in on the other. Again, those who do not pay taxes are more often than not in some kind of dependency on government and that is a very bad circumstance on many levels.

As an employer I structure businesses to pay anywhere between 20 to 50% above prevailing wages and benefits. From my perspective, the best benefit is the one where each company will pay 50% of the college tuition for the child of any employee so long as the child has a B+ average or better with no C grades or below in high school or while in college. The companies are structured with ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) so that everyone can own a piece of the Rock. Unlike an ACORN which rips off the people it "employs" by paying sub-standard wages while crying out that others should pay more, I believe that hard workers should be paid for the effort they put in. Hard workers take pride in what they do no matter what their job description or the role that they play in an organization. I LOVE to surround myself with people like that. You should try it sometime.

Why am I against all the various types of wealth re-distribution, the Obama "spreading the wealth around" to those who choose not to be the most productive members of society that they can be?

Because it is utterly demeaning and psychologically damaging to those who receive such largess. If money is not earned it becomes enslaving, it fosters dependence rather than independence, it fosters weakness and a cycle of destruction of both individual and societal worth.

What is that old saying, give the man a fish and he will eat for one day, give a man a fishing rod and he will eat all year? That should be the principle of both government and charitable assistance programs and it is usually the exact opposite.

Government and specifically organizations such as ACORN actively foster and encourage dependency. "Free" money extorted from those who are productive and contributing members of society means slavery for all. That ACORN additionally skims off these funds, stealing from the largess meant to flow to the dependent makes them the worst sort of criminal enterprise.

Franky, I am sick of the nonsense of "progressivism," socialism, communism and fascism. These are just various forms of subjugation and a guarantee of the elimination of any chance for the individual happiness of mankind. In application these political philosophies always have and will continue to result in the subjugation of populations for the benefit of some kind of entrenched "elite," the limiting of both creativity and of possible achievement. That is history and reality all in one.

Do you want positive change and opportunity for this society?

Stop marginalizing all minorities by your low expectations. Stop putting people into classes just so you can play one off against another. Work to build something that will employ and empower people, and not some false utopia that is based on taking from those who work hard and "redistributing" to those who choose not to.

 

[classy]

I am not going to defend Acorn, but I don't think it would be any different for any organization dealing with voter registration. Politics throughout is sleazy, has, and will continue to have corruption. And while the misdeeds have been highlighted, when you consider the massive clean work the organization has done, I don't think you can eternally condemn them. Its a slippery slope, but my gut says they will be able to recieve taxpayer money again in the end. Now with that said, I can see moving to another organization, but I don't see it being any different, no matter who the organization is.

 

[PJABBER]

I am not going to defend Acorn, but I don't think it would be any different for any organization dealing with voter registration. Politics throughout is sleazy, has, and will continue to have corruption. And while the misdeeds have been highlighted, when you consider the massive clean work the organization has done, I don't think you can eternally condemn them. Its a slippery slope, but my gut says they will be able to recieve taxpayer money again in the end. Now with that said, I can see moving to another organization, but I don't see it being any different, no matter who the organization is.

I think you are right, but the fact is that ACORN was formed by hard core lefties specifically to carry out a radical agenda. The taint was institutional from inception and it permeated the organization by design. If you buy into the founders' aims the malfeasance is all good.

I don't buy into the "revolution by co-option" thing at all. I want to see organizations deliver solid benefits and not at the expense of those they purport to benefit.

Though this would not be a comprehensive list by any measure, I would start by looking at the rating any public benefit organization gets from Charity Navigator. At least to this extent you can find out how efficiently an organization is run and how much of what they do actually winds up benefiting those they purport to assist.

Here is a link to the Charity Navigator's rated Public Benefit Organizations, including Advocacy and Civil Rights -

Charity Navigator

 

[Craig234]

As I like to offer personal examples, let me do that in reply. I have some time before dinner so I won't make it all that brief, but bear with me, if you will.

I am semi-retired right now, though I am definitely considering offers to get back into the fray full time again as I am wistful and missing the action, so to speak.

I started working when I was around 11 or 12, worked a minimum of 20 hours while in school and full time + whatever OT I could wrangle when on any kind of school break. I was paid a bit here and there as a fighter, but that got me into trouble more than it paid my school bills.

When I was working for slave wages I was not a very charitable sort, and definitely not toward organized charity. Once in a while I would give a hundred bucks or so to an individual that had come upon hard luck. I never gave any money to anyone who did not want to work or was an addict of any kind. I felt my money would be wasted.

I more often than not held two jobs through much of my adult life. I usually had management level employment that would take 50+ hours a week and then I had an Army Reserve commitment that was a minimum of 20 hours a week. When I was on active deployment, which was quite often, I had a minimum work week of 60 hours.

It is very, very hard for me to identify with anyone who does not work as hard as I did and still continue to. But I do recognize that someone who gains success owes something to the society that offered the chance for success to begin with. I feel more strongly about this than you might because I have also lived and worked in societies where no amount of hard work would lift anyone from the class they were born into.

A long time ago I came to a personal epiphany about what works in society and what doesn't. ANYTHING that keeps a person dependent on the largess of others is unconscionable to me. Thus, I believe that charity and political activism that propagates and induces dependency on government or on continued charity is absolutely worthless.

I made a lot of money over the years. Do you know the term "free cash flow?" Not profit, cash flow. I take ten percent of my wages and/or FCF and make anonymous donations to literacy organizations in the US and, selectively, overseas. I make this my special priority because I believe that being illiterate dooms a person to dependency. Learn to read and you can educate yourself to whatever natural level of accomplishment you are capable of.

I take another ten to twenty percent of my personal wages/FCF and make mostly anonymous "angel" investments in economic development projects. I invest professionally for others in a wide variety of projects but what I do professionally mostly limits me to larger projects.

As an individual investor, or in concert with a couple of other like minded "capitalists," I can choose to support smaller projects that are highly likely to bring very effective localized effects. Worthwhile investments for me are those which provide sustainable growth in employment at above average wage levels. I make no special distinction as to where the growth will occur and in practice it does range from extremely rural to the most densely populated urban environments.

The last review that I did showed that 50 percent of these investments went to racial minority enterprises, though this was not at all part of the screening process, and close to 70 percent went to companies that had a majority of employees that were first and second generation legal immigrants, and this was very much a part of the screening conducted though not a part of the go/no go criteria.

Why?

Because as someone that benefited from the immigration of my own parents, I recognize that it takes a lot for someone to pick up and move their lives for greater freedom and economic opportunity. And that group works harder, with longer hours and with very specific goals of achievement always in the back and front of their minds and hearts.

I do this because I believe that worthwhile employment generates pride in self which in turn allows a person to build a good family life and will in turn build a strong society.

Any return from the investment is re-invested in the initial company or, when it is fully self-sustaining, invested in another entity. I have never taken the returns for my personal use and neither have any of the other "angels" that I may collaborate with. Please note the difference here with what the Rathkes' do - they take the money for themselves and they live profligate lifestyles while professing some kind of "progressiveness" for you to drool over.

Taxes are a sore spot with us capitalists. I personally am in a very high bracket but do not take any deductions when I pay my personal and corporate taxes. Not mortgage, not dependents, not anything. The IRS can never get me and that helps me sleep at night, though I do think I can put that money to much better use than the government, hehehe.

A few of us capitalists would kind of like to see a flat tax as we believe that highly progressive taxation removes any incentive for the non-taxpayer to feel he is part of a responsible and contributing citizenry and it unduly penalizes and may even disincentivise the most productive citizens. As we have close to 50% of the population, rich and poor, that do not pay taxes at this point, you can see that there will be resentment on one side and a lack of buy-in on the other. Again, those who do not pay taxes are more often than not in some kind of dependency on government and that is a very bad circumstance on many levels.

As an employer I structure businesses to pay anywhere between 20 to 50% above prevailing wages and benefits. From my perspective, the best benefit is the one where each company will pay 50% of the college tuition for the child of any employee so long as the child has a B+ average or better with no C grades or below in high school or while in college. The companies are structured with ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) so that everyone can own a piece of the Rock. Unlike an ACORN which rips off the people it "employs" by paying sub-standard wages while crying out that others should pay more, I believe that hard workers should be paid for the effort they put in. Hard workers take pride in what they do no matter what their job description or the role that they play in an organization. I LOVE to surround myself with people like that. You should try it sometime.

Why am I against all the various types of wealth re-distribution, the Obama "spreading the wealth around" to those who choose not to be the most productive members of society that they can be?

Because it is utterly demeaning and psychologically damaging to those who receive such largess. If money is not earned it becomes enslaving, it fosters dependence rather than independence, it fosters weakness and a cycle of destruction of both individual and societal worth.

What is that old saying, give the man a fish and he will eat for one day, give a man a fishing rod and he will eat all year? That should be the principle of both government and charitable assistance programs and it is usually the exact opposite.

Government and specifically organizations such as ACORN actively foster and encourage dependency. "Free" money extorted from those who are productive and contributing members of society means slavery for all. That ACORN additionally skims off these funds, stealing from the largess meant to flow to the dependent makes them the worst sort of criminal enterprise.

Franky, I am sick of the nonsense of "progressivism," socialism, communism and fascism. These are just various forms of subjugation and a guarantee of the elimination of any chance for the individual happiness of mankind. In application these political philosophies always have and will continue to result in the subjugation of populations for the benefit of some kind of entrenched "elite," the limiting of both creativity and of possible achievement. That is history and reality all in one.

Do you want positive change and opportunity for this society?

Stop marginalizing all minorities by your low expectations. Stop putting people into classes just so you can play one off against another. Work to build something that will employ and empower people, and not some false utopia that is based on taking from those who work hard and "redistributing" to those who choose not to.

Well,I just wrote probably my longest post of the year answering this in detail on many topics, and apparently took long enough to do it it logged me off in the meantime.

I felt I cannot rewrite it, and so sadly, that's that.

How frustrating with the technology of this forum to lsoe yet another hour+ writing.

 

[nick1985]

Well,I just wrote probably my longest post of the year answering this in detail on many topics, and apparently took long enough to do it it logged me off in the meantime.

I felt I cannot rewrite it, and so sadly, that's that.

How frustrating with the technology of this forum to lsoe yet another hour+ writing.

I'm sure it was a pile of shit anyway

 

[PJABBER]

Well,I just wrote probably my longest post of the year answering this in detail on many topics, and apparently took long enough to do it it logged me off in the meantime.

I felt I cannot rewrite it, and so sadly, that's that.

How frustrating with the technology of this forum to lsoe yet another hour+ writing.

Don't worry about it. I've had my long posts lost in the ether as well and some of them weren't going to gain in the re-writing. The writing, in and of itself, is cathartic, it focuses thought and it offers you a chance to argue with yourself, if not always effectively with others.

There is really no need to take apart in detail what I do for a living these days or how I approach the human condition. What I do is an individual choice based on a set of experiences that you do not have. It is not necessarily representative of what others do and the world is a large enough place, I hope, that there can be many good approaches.

My long example was simply a personal response to your blanket statement that I, as an individual taking a significantly different direction than what you theorize to be correct, would not possibly affect anyone else's life to the better.

What I have found is that what I do is actually quite good in empowering people, particularly if I can convince management to provide a structure and style that binds workers as little as possible. As I work with individuals from other cultures, that is not an easy task. They have learned, in some cases, to be petty dictators or they value their own interests much more highly than those of their employees or the company's goals. It is in the process and the dynamic of resolving this myriad of interests that I get my personal challenge.

An entrepreneurial culture, as best as I am able to instill one, encourages people to contribute at both individual and at team and at company (society) levels. Some prefer to stay as employees and that is perfectly fine. Others take that model or devise one of their own and become entrepreneurs in turn. Though I would love to continue to have them associated with our small ventures, I am thrilled that they have the courage and the fortitude to strike out on their own.

What I have found fascinating is the acceptance this approach has around the world. My occasional partners and I have participated in incubator projects in a number of countries and in virtually all places where they were allowed to run unfettered by onerous government dictates they generated significant employment and spin off businesses that in turn generated employment.

The bottom line difference between the communist (for lack of a better word at the moment) approach that you support and the one that I take is in the value being placed on the individual. I highly value the individual and by extension the family and then the society that too values the individual. As a utopian, you value the society that you imagine might exist if only, but utterly fail to comprehend the needs of the individual and what might actually make for a happy life as opposed to an inadequate, but equally inadequate, life for all.

To achieve your utopian goal you will accept the criminal behaviors and worker abuses of an ACORN, but to me they represent not the means to some better end but the end itself.

 

[nonlnear]

Why do ANY lobbyists get government funds? I have yet to hear a sensible justification for this vile practice.