Acorn, please explain this to me because I don't get it

[kiryan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/ ... 5074.shtml

An internal investigation of the community-organizing group ACORN found no pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staffers on undercover videos shot by conservative critics of the group.
...
"We did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff involved; in fact, no action, illegal or otherwise, was ever taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers," Harshbarger said in a statement. "Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN's longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures and a lack of on-site supervision."

--

So are they saying, despite giving advice on how to commit fraud against the government, they didn't actually do anything illegal so there is nothing to see here? This from the investigator ACORN hired? and CBS is carrying this rubbish as news? They've got multiple videos in multiple states showing a pattern of conduct, that although may not be strictly illegal, is reprehensible and shows an outright desire to help people game the system for their benefit.

I mean this is basically people coming in off the street and getting steered into a sub prime mortgage because it makes the banker money. ACORN has a profit motive, it gets private and federal $$ for helping people do these kinds of things... So they don't care that you're doing something illegal, they just gonna give you advice on how to file the paperwork?

I also got a kick out of a line from an article it quotes.. ACORN is a "Democratic-leaning" organization. leaning lol, it done fell over.

[Ragorn]

Translation of his statement: "They're retarded, not malicious."

Didn't watch the video, didn't read the article. This isn't debate team, after all.

[teflor the ranger]

Their base is retarded, their leadership is malicious. This is not a good combination for any organization supposedly barred from receiving Federal (your) money. You know, except Eric Holder will do anything to make sure that people on their side keep getting to drink from the public trough.

[avak]

I blatantly stole this from Metafilter, but it does a better job than I ever would. Tef, feel free to defend your claims of maliciousness.

Let me see if I understand how this ACORN thing has worked.

They register voters. They tend to register poor people, who tend to vote Democrat, so that had to be stopped. The Republican narrative is that ACORN was deliberately registering non-existent people to defraud the election, which contributed to Obama's win. The reality is that several employees were defrauding ACORN by turning in false registrations, which ACORN caught; they then fired the employees and alerted the appropriate authorities.

Additionally, ACORN helps poor people get houses. When the housing bubble burst, the narrative was that it happened because organizations like ACORN was putting people into houses who were likely to default on their loans. The reality was that ACORN investigates predatory lending and their programs of affordable housing is almost completely unrelated to the housing crisis.

Finally, two young people decided to grab a camera and spend two months trying to get ACORN employees to do something embarrassing. They seemingly managed to catch a small handful of employees giving questionable tax advice. Now it comes out that the videos themselves were potentially subject to considerable manipulation and the organization has been cleared, with the caveat that their lax management and poor employee training needs to be addressed.

So what we wind up with is an organization that is working for something that we unambiguously consider a social good -- participation in democracy and social mobility -- that has been targeted primarily because they are simply easy targets for scapegoating, and because targeting them in this way makes it easy it easy to encourage paranoid conspiracy theories in which the poor and Obama are in cahoots to steal elections and ruin housing costs, and the worst that can actually be said about ACORN is that they could do a better job of management and employee training, which can be said about 90 percent of the business in this country.

I have not wanted to say it before, but this horseshit has convinced me that a large number of Republicans may actually hate America. At least, they hate the best parts of America -- the parts that work to better the lives of other Americans and give them the opportunity to participate in America's democratic system.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:10 AM on December 8 [56 favorites +] [!]

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

The guy who wrote that forgot to mention that they use tax dollars to help fund it. Well, used to use.

[Sarvis]

The guy who wrote that forgot to mention that they use tax dollars to help fund it. Well, used to use.

And?

[avak]

Forgot to mention or didn't find relevant? I don't find it to be relevant to the conversation.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Forgot to mention or didn't find relevant? I don't find it to be relevant to the conversation.

And?

This wouldn't have been a conversation in the first place if they wouldn't have been receiving federal funding. But that's cool, it's not relevant. Okie dokie!

[Sarvis]

Yes, you could write a sarcastic, meaningless reply... so much more effective than explaining how you think it's relevant.

By the way, can we assume you took out student loans to get your degree? Should we then recolor everything you've ever done since college in light of your federal funding?

[avak]

the fox news meaningless factoid cribsheet must not be updated yet.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Yes, you could write a sarcastic, meaningless reply... so much more effective than explaining how you think it's relevant.

This wouldn't have been a conversation in the first place if they wouldn't have been receiving federal funding.

Okie dokie, let me elaborate on what I said before: If they wouldn't have been receiving federal funding in the first place, we wouldn't have been having this conversation...because they would have been a private business carrying out their own privately funded agenda. People would have been ticked off that they were a left-leaning organization and doing illegal things, but that's it. The problem here was where the squirrels got their acorns from.

By the way, can we assume you took out student loans to get your degree? Should we then recolor everything you've ever done since college in light of your federal funding?

No, I never took out student loans to pay for college. I worked and paid my way through college. Graduate school was especially difficult to pay for, but it was done. So no, wrong assumption and premise.

But let's say that I had. I also would have had to pay it back correct? Did ACORN have to pay back the money they were given? No, right?

[Sarvis]

Yes, you could write a sarcastic, meaningless reply... so much more effective than explaining how you think it's relevant.

This wouldn't have been a conversation in the first place if they wouldn't have been receiving federal funding.

Okie dokie, let me elaborate on what I said before: If they wouldn't have been receiving federal funding in the first place, we wouldn't have been having this conversation...because they would have been a private business carrying out their own privately funded agenda. People would have been ticked off that they were a left-leaning organization and doing illegal things, but that's it. The problem here was where the squirrels got their acorns from.

This tells me you didn't pay any real attention to the article avak just posted. It sounds very much as if they are not left leaning. They encourage people to vote, it just happens that a lot of those people turn out to be liberal. They are not following some liberal agenda, they are following a very patriotic one in that they are trying to get more people to vote. That's not partisan.

By the way, can we assume you took out student loans to get your degree? Should we then recolor everything you've ever done since college in light of your federal funding?

No, I never took out student loans to pay for college. I worked and paid my way through college. Graduate school was especially difficult to pay for, but it was done. So no, wrong assumption and premise.

But let's say that I had. I also would have had to pay it back correct? Did ACORN have to pay back the money they were given? No, right?

Actually the student loans are subsidized by the federal government, and come from private lenders. When you get a subsidized loan the government pays a portion of your interest for you. You do not pay the government back that money.

[avak]

Nor do you pay back any of the government funding that supports all public education. You are truly federally subsidized on many levels. But whatever, Sarvis hit the nail on the head...this is all just typical distraction from the real issues.

[avak]

By the way, there are estimates by the CBO that the fed has spent over 1.5 billion on abstinence-only sex education. I don't know...agendas?

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

This tells me you didn't pay any real attention to the article avak just posted. It sounds very much as if they are not left leaning. They encourage people to vote, it just happens that a lot of those people turn out to be liberal. They are not following some liberal agenda, they are following a very patriotic one in that they are trying to get more people to vote. That's not partisan.

I read the article Sarvis, which was obviously totally biased to the left (thus the non-mention of federal funding). But I agree with you btw, encouraging people to vote (if they are educated on issues) and helping the poor find some suitable living environment are good things. Charitable, privately funded organizations can exist to help people on those particular issues. The same goes for Avak's comment about abstinence programs. That's an awesome goal for private organizations to pursue, with their own privately donated money. Do you truly believe ACORN didn't have a biased, political agenda?

Actually the student loans are subsidized by the federal government, and come from private lenders. When you get a subsidized loan the government pays a portion of your interest for you. You do not pay the government back that money.

But I still have to pay them back right? I don't get to keep the money regardless right? :)

Nor do you pay back any of the government funding that supports all public education.

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what you mean here chief. My children do not attend public school, nor did I, if that's what you mean. But I'm not sure if that's what you were driving at.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

By the way, there are estimates by the CBO that the fed has spent over 1.5 billion on abstinence-only sex education. I don't know...agendas?

An awesome goal for private organizations to pursue, definitely. Btw, did those programs also get caught encouraging and teaching illegal things?

[kiryan]

By the way, there are estimates by the CBO that the fed has spent over 1.5 billion on abstinence-only sex education. I don't know...agendas?

Scientifically speaking, when used correctly, its the absolute most reliable method to not get an std or pregnant! Scientifically speaking that is.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Scientifically speaking, when used correctly, its the absolute most reliable method to not get an std or pregnant! Scientifically speaking that is.

*hat tip* Kiryan

[Sarvis]

But I still have to pay them back right? I don't get to keep the money regardless right? :)

No. You pay back money to a private lender. The government ALSO pays money to the private lender on your behalf. You do not pay anything back to the government on those subsidies.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

No. You pay back money to a private lender. The government ALSO pays money to the private lender on your behalf. You do not pay anything back to the government on those subsidies.

Did ACORN have to pay back the money they received to anyone Sarvis? :)

[avak]

Well, what an epic derailment. Ok, so acorn receive(d) federal funding. That is completely commonplace for 501c3 non-profits. They appear to have a tendency towards liberal constituents. My guess is that if non-profit X started targeting GOTV efforts with $250k+ white suburbanites, they might attract conservative voters. Just a guess.

The smear campaign worked. ACORN has been hamstrung by these allegations. Awesome. Not sure what else there is to talk about.

[Sarvis]

No. You pay back money to a private lender. The government ALSO pays money to the private lender on your behalf. You do not pay anything back to the government on those subsidies.

Did ACORN have to pay back the money they received to anyone Sarvis? :)

Wow. You really still don't get it? I do not pay money back to the federal government. I pay it back to a private lender. The government ALSO pays money to the private lender on my behalf. I am indirectly receiving government money, and NOT paying any money back to the government.

So no, ACORN does not have to pay back the money they receive from the federal government.

Neither do I.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

So no, ACORN does not have to pay back the money they receive from the federal government.

Neither do I.

Sarvis, I think you're trying to defend your original comparison statement and avoiding/not reading the question I've been asking since you tried making the comparison. :)

I don't care who I pay my money back to, I have to pay it back. And so do you. ACORN does not.

[Sarvis]

So no, ACORN does not have to pay back the money they receive from the federal government.

Neither do I.

Sarvis, I think you're trying to defend your original comparison statement and avoiding/not reading the question I've been asking since you tried making the comparison. :)

I don't care who I pay my money back to, I have to pay it back. And so do you. ACORN does not.

I see. So if you get a loan from M&T, and your mom pays half the loan installment each month and you never hand her a dime... you are actually paying your mom back somehow?

Because that's exactly what you keep insisting.

[Kifle]

By the way, there are estimates by the CBO that the fed has spent over 1.5 billion on abstinence-only sex education. I don't know...agendas?

Scientifically speaking, when used correctly, its the absolute most reliable method to not get an std or pregnant! Scientifically speaking that is.

Actually, cutting off your genitals is the most reliable method -- scientifically speaking, that is; however, it doesn't make it a viable, reliable, or realistic method of STD or pregnancy control. In fact, I've heard rumors around the campfire that abstinence-only is one of the least reliable methods -- you know, because of the whole "reality" of being a teenager and all that.

Also, Adriorn, I think Sarvis understands the whole money payback issue. What he's pointing at is that student loans (subsidized) and federal funding of NPOs are entirely the same situation. The government is giving money that is never payed back (the entire grant to the NPO on one hand, and the interest subsidy on the student loans). This doesn't even account for poor people that get the Pell Grant or HE grant -- or state grants. Maybe you are not versed in how subsidized college loans work, though, since you never took one. See, you borrow 1k, but over the course of your education lets say it gains 10 dollars through interest. Your effective loan is now 1010 dollars which you have to pay back. So, the government, if the loan is subsidized, pays the 10 until you graduate. That's 10 dollars you never have to pay back. We can objectively call that 10 dollars a grant -- free money from the government.

So, if we look at Sarvis' original analogy, should we scrutinize your mistakes in life during and after receiving a grant (which you supposedly didn't take, but lets assume for the sake of argument that you had) and then make an argument against the grant in the first place based upon non related, subjective, and dreamt-up allegations against you?

[teflor the ranger]

I blatantly stole this from Metafilter, but it does a better job than I ever would. Tef, feel free to defend your claims of maliciousness.

The permissiveness and the clear direction of ACORN, in addition to the symptoms of malicious organization tell the story. It's a special-interest organization with criminal members and leadership that permits them to run it until they get caught.

[avak]

Jeez, you respond to a request to be specific with more ambiguity and the classic 'it is self-evident' line. Color me shocked.

[kiryan]

yea the statistical reality is abstinence is not a practical form of birth control. I was not being serious.

On the other hand, I really have a problem with the government giving away free birth control products, telling kids they can have safe sex as teenagers ect... It should be none of their business. it should be a private family matter, not a topic for the public school system.

and I still don't accept the whole but its cheaper to give away condoms than it is to take care of welfare moms. We shouldn't be taking care of them in the first place. They should be taking care of themselves or their family / social group should.

[Sarvis]

yea the statistical reality is abstinence is not a practical form of birth control. I was not being serious.

Not only is it ineffective, it's been shown that teens raised in strongly religious households are more likely to have sex and SOONER than teens raised in more liberal households. (If you need me to cite that you'll have to wait until I get home.)

On the other hand, I really have a problem with the government giving away free birth control products, telling kids they can have safe sex as teenagers ect... It should be none of their business. it should be a private family matter, not a topic for the public school system.

Why? Should we allow families to be the only source of information on something that can be so problematic for everyone as a whole?

and I still don't accept the whole but its cheaper to give away condoms than it is to take care of welfare moms. We shouldn't be taking care of them in the first place. They should be taking care of themselves or their family / social group should.

I'm sure tossing teenage mothers out on the streets with no way to find help wouldn't cause any problems at all in society. :roll:

[kiryan]

If anything should be private and off limits to the government, it should be your religious beliefs and your sexual practices. They have no business teaching either in schools.

This is the whole chicken or the egg thing. It wouldn't be your problem if you didn't get involved. When the government gets involved in paying for shit, it now needs to regulate it. If government was not paying for welfare moms and welfare healthcare, it wouldn't have any need to teach sex education and distribute free condoms and birth control.

They've made it their business and use that fact to justify why they have to get more and more involved. My kids religious beliefs and sexual education is none of your business.

[Sarvis]

It's my business when your daughter's start popping out kids and she ends up homeless on the street, training her kids to pick pockets so they can eat.

[kiryan]

Yes I know you believe that government needs to control everything so everyone will be happy. You want to be managed like a dariy cow so it can give the government its share of milk and keep its production costs low by forcing all the cows to conform to the same life style.

[Sarvis]

Yes I know you believe that government needs to control everything so everyone will be happy. You want to be managed like a dariy cow so it can give the government its share of milk and keep its production costs low by forcing all the cows to conform to the same life style.

Funny how you get "I want to be managed like a dairy cow" from "I don't want your grandchildren to be so desperate to eat that they pickpocket me."

Teaching people is not controlling them.

[kiryan]

You want the government to teach my kids about sex to meet the noble goal of reducing crime and teenagers with babies that end up being dysfunctinoal households and families. However you're stepping into the parents role. Its none of your business, its a private family matter. What business does the government have in something as personal and private as sex?

Our government has moved well past considering us as individuals with unalienable rights to a herd of cattle that it has to manage like a rancher. Get us healthy, get us productive, get us into houses, teach us how to live life so we are more cheaply managed (not a burden). All noble goals, but the control and indoctrination you want and need to affect this goes against everything in the constitution. Its communist, its socialist its not freedom, its a dairy farm.

[Sarvis]

Its none of your business, its a private family matter.

Why?

Our government has moved well past considering us as individuals with unalienable rights to a herd of cattle that it has to manage like a rancher. Get us healthy, get us productive, get us into houses, teach us how to live life so we are more cheaply managed (not a burden). All noble goals, but the control and indoctrination you want and need to affect this goes against everything in the constitution. Its communist, its socialist its not freedom, its a dairy farm.

Bullshit. We are talking about the presentation of facts here, nothing more. This is no more an attempt to control us than teaching addition is.