Illinois politicians show the nation what's important to them
Posted by aogMonday, 14 September 2009 at 21:26 TrackBack Ping URL

The Senate voted 83-7 to cut off all federal funding for ACORN in response to the videos of ACORN employees appearing to be willing to help out with underage prostitution. I can’t say I was the least bit surprised to find that of the seven Senators voting to keep ACORN federal funded are my two Senators, Durbin and Burris.

P.S. Don’t forget that Durbin is in line for Senate Majority Leader if Senator Reid is recalled by Nevadan voters.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Monday, 14 September 2009 at 22:45

Let’s see if Obama vetoes it.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 14 September 2009 at 22:59

You just can’t resist piling on Illinois, can you?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Monday, 14 September 2009 at 23:44

The Senate voted 83-7 to cut off all federal funding for ACORN…

SCORE!!!

I have to say that I’m pleasantly shocked to see such swift and decisive action.

Investor’s Business Daily will surely be happy, since in their view ACORN was one of the principal actors and causes of the housing bubble and its collapse - lol.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 07:30

I am certainly happy, as ACORN has been a den of criminality for years, one with which President Obama has been strongly associated. Perhaps some people will now realize just how unsavory that association is.

erp Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 07:57

Rough, didn’t you know that ACORN is enforcement arm of the CRA.

ACORN voter fraud and intimidation were also largely responsible for electing Obama and that isn’t a laughing matter.

cjm Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 09:07

this is a most welcome turn of events. i bet the acorn people can’t believe how they were taken down. another blow to the msm as well, who did their typical suicidal bad job.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 04:15

Rough, didn’t you know that ACORN is enforcement arm of the CRA.

In the sense that you appear to mean it, yes.

However, the CRA isn’t an agency or organization, and has no “enforcement arm”. It’s a package of law and regulations. Any person or group, such as ACORN, could file a complaint against any other person or group whose behavior is within the scope of the CRA - just as one might with regard to the ADA. Here is a piece that will help explain ACORN’s relationship to the CRA: IBDeditorials: Why The Mortgage Crisis Happened, By M. JAY WELLS.

Further, I infer that you are asserting that ACORN was one of the principal actors and causes of the housing bubble and its collapse, through its interaction with CRA implementation. However, although the CRA enabled the housing bubble, neither it nor ACORN can be held responsible for the current crisis by any reasonable person, since the CRA merely influenced the climate in which the fateful and interlocking decisions were made that brought us here, by people such as (but certainly not limited to) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission Christopher Cox, Treasury Secretaries John Snow and Henry Paulson, (especially the latter), Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and ultimately, POTUS George W. Bush.

It would be as loopy as blaming WW II on the Treaty of Versailles - like the CRA, it set the stage, but was it directly responsible for the crisis that followed? Absolutely not.

ACORN voter fraud and intimidation were also largely responsible for electing Obama and that isn’t a laughing matter.

Wow, ACORN sure was God-like a short year ago. How the mighty fall.

Obama defeated McCain by over 8.5MM votes, or about 15% of McCain’s total vote tally. It wasn’t even close. Also, Obama had approval poll ratings of almost 70% when inaugurated, and a month later was still at 60%. If Obama had pulled a 2000-style Bush squeaker, (or ‘60 JFK), if public opinion was evenly split in approval, then there might be some merit in speculating that “voter fraud and intimidation” were responsible for his win. However, given the spread between the candidates’ vote tallies and the massive public support for Obama, it’s just not credulous. McCain is a fine man who was the wrong candidate for the times, and he just plain lost.

erp Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 10:01

I guess I wasn’t clear, Obama couldn’t have won the election if he wasn’t the candidate. ACORN clearly had a hand in the primaries (remember he “won” the caucus state) and a hand in key districts during the general.

We can agree that McCain was a terrible candidate, but his numbers were going up after the convention until the run on the banks forced Bush to react and the media beat the drums for the financial collapse. McCain riding into to town to “solve” the problem was the worst thing he could have done.

Obama would not have been elected without the financial crisis. The situation in the banking and financial markets were ticking time bomb ready to be set off at the proper moment.

McCain wouldn’t have been much better as a president, except that I don’t think he would have insulted our allies and made kissy face with our enemies, nor would he have taken over the auto companies, the banks, etc. and started trade wars, raised up union officials, by-passed congressional oversight by naming dozens of czars …

Lots more, but it’s futile to enumerate them. The problem now is to stop Obama doing further damage and make sure he and his friends are out of office ASAP.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 12:38

The problem now is to stop Obama doing further damage and make sure he and his friends are out of office ASAP.

If current public opinion trends persist, PLENTY of Obama’s friends (or at least allies) will be out office come Jan. of ‘11.

I guess I wasn’t clear, Obama couldn’t have won the election if he wasn’t the candidate.

Would you have been happier in Nov. ‘08 if Hillary had been elected, or would you be happier now if Hillary were President?

Or do you believe that McCain would have fared better against Hillary?

erp Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 13:13

I guess we will need to agree to disagree about Bush. I’m grateful he was where he was on 9/11 and kept us safe and prosperous during his watch.

Hillary is dumb, but she isn’t stupid and although she has following, it’s not the same kind of mindless Obama adoration, neither is she a narcissist. She’s what in my day was called a pushy dame, not a compliment.

None of the candidates were to my liking including Palin. They rarely are, but I don’t think any of the others would have been such a danger to us and the rest of the world.

From your lips to God’s ears about a sea change next year, but I’m not that sanguine. Plenty more crises can happen between then and now.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 16 September 2009 at 23:42

I’m grateful [Bush] was where he was on 9/11 and kept us safe and prosperous during his watch.

As was I. Gore as POTUS on 9/11… [shudder]

But it’s what Bush did, or more importantly, failed to do during his second term that enraged me. And it is rage. The repercussions of what is beginning to happen will take a generation to play out, and will trammel the Boomers’ hopes of a long and Golden retirement,1 as well as circumscribe the opportunities of those who are now school-aged. IMO you have to go back to LBJ to find a President with such long-lasting impact for BOTH good and ill.

Plenty more crises can happen between then and now.

It is my thesis that that is EXACTLY what will happen - continued crises through the mid-term elections, and well beyond. In fact I am so convinced that such will happen that I’ve made some irrevocable financial and lifestyle decisions, in an attempt to better-position my family to withstand the shocks of what I believe to be coming - although I literally pray that I’m wrong, and that things will be hunky-dory.

1 Not that they’ve laid the proper groundwork for such retirement fantasies as they’ve had, but that’s another story.

erp Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 09:31

Rough, given no 9/11 would Gore have been more aggressive policing an out-of-control CRA/ACORN/congress? Hardly. Reality would have been hidden behind the feel good fantasy of caring for the less fortunate until the plug would need to be pulled to create a crisis like the one last September.

I believe that if McCain hadn’t overtaken Obama in polls after the convention, there would be no financial crisis today. Obama was such an obvious empty suit that without a crisis, even the mass media wouldn’t been able to hide it.

Here are two more articles describing how we got where are finance-wise. Canada Free Press and IBD Editorial.

I believe the incessant current drum beat about swine flu is another “crisis” designed to scare us into accepting socialized medicine. The next “crisis” will concern national security which will give them the excuse to take control the internet, talk radio and Fox News and I foresee moonbat-made crises looming until lefties take control over every aspect of our lives.

My three kids are boomers who’ve also seen their net worth decline precipitously. Since they with all the rest of you are in charge of the most precious of all things in the world to me, my six grandchildren, I fervently hope your generation grows up and assumes the responsibilities for your past inattention and childishness. Present company on this blog excepted.

I’m sorry to hear you’ve made irrevocable changes in your life. It’s always a good idea to hedge your bets, but I hope whatever decisions you’ve made, you and your family will be able to enjoy the wonderful potential that is our country.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 18 September 2009 at 00:35

I believe that if McCain hadn’t overtaken Obama in polls after the convention, there would be no financial crisis today. Obama was such an obvious empty suit that without a crisis, even the mass media wouldn’t been able to hide it.

Perhaps you misunderstand the scope of the crisis.

To begin with, although electoral politics had something to do with why it wasn’t prevented, the bubble & bust was not a political tool of any political party, faction or power group.1

Further, the bust absolutely could have been prevented if we’d acted in 2005, and there was a chance that the impact could have been lessened if we’d acted in 2006, but because we didn’t act the bust was INEVITABLE by 2007, before Obama even announced his candidacy for President. It didn’t matter who was elected to the Oval Office - Hillary, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney or even Ron Paul - the damage had been done. (Although Paul or Romney might have done a better job than Obama with handling the damage control.)

Finally, the bust resulted in a global recession, soon to be a depression, and every, repeat EVERY major American bank is technically and functionally INSOLVENT. (And most European banks too.) They’re being kept on life support because The Powers That Be feel that we’re better-off with zombie banks rather than a bankrupt financial sector, which is true in the short run but hemlock in the long run.

This isn’t a political trap, cunningly crafted and precisely activated. It’s the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Here are two more articles describing how we got where are finance-wise. Canada Free Press and IBD Editorial.

Did you possibly mispost that Canada FP link? Because although the linked article is all about ACORN, there’s nothing in it about economics.

As for the IBD editorial… Really, all I can say is that I sincerely hope that their publication’s investment advice is orders of magnitude more insightful than their editorial economic analysis.2 The CRA and ACORN were NOT responsible in any meaningful way for either the boom or the bust. (Which is another thing: Was IBD warning of impending doom in 2006, and excoriating the CRA and ACORN for causing the economy to boom in such an unsustainable way? I’ll bet that instead they were cheerleading the rise in the equity and housing markets, which, if the CRA was responsible for the entire American finance sector’s loose lending, means that IBD used to be a de facto ACORN cheerleader. Whence cometh this late-life conversion?) Also, there were parallel loose lending standards and housing booms in Britain, Eastern Europe, Ireland, France and Spain, among other places. Is it IBD’s contention that the CRA and ACORN had a GLOBAL REACH ?!? That’s both absurd and hilarious. And if that’s not their position, then how do they explain the global nature of the RE bubble, if it was caused by the CRA and ACORN?

Further, IBD pegs the ACORN-related lending as being in the “billions”. Even if we were to say that the amount was $100 billion, as of 2006, Federal Reserve statistics show that total household real estate assets were $19.8 trillion (Statistical release Z.1 (Flow of Funds), table B.100 (Household Balance sheet), line 4). Even if ACORN somehow touched or affected $500 billion worth of loans, that would still be only 2.5% of the entire U.S. housing market at the peak of the bubble. How is it again that ACORN caused everything?

I’m sorry to hear you’ve made irrevocable changes in your life. It’s always a good idea to hedge your bets…

That’s often true, but hedging is not how fortunes are made. (Although that’s often how they’re kept.) They’re typically made by being both all-in and correct. I’m all-in. As to correct… Time will tell.

Besides, my ultimate hedge is the American economy in toto. If I’m correct, then the risks of doing nothing are EXTREME. But if I’m entirely wrong, and we recover quickly and the party resumes, then I’ll be able to reposition in three years or so, and enjoy the boom. I find that risk and result, mainly the loss of potential opportunity, to be far more bearable than the risk and hideous cost of doing nothing in the face of what I perceive to be a looming Götterdämmerung.

1 (Although one could make a very cogent argument that it was and is a class-based event, with the elite, the wealthy, the powerful and the connected, regardless of political affiliation, fleecing the lumpenproletariat during the boom, and robbing their kids and grandkids during the bust - with the help and sanction of both major political parties. [However, Middle America can take some grim and bleak satisfaction from the darkly humorous fact that the mania lasted so long that most of the original hucksters and flim-flam artists BEGAN TO BELIEVE THEIR OWN CON, and started to participate in the speculation, thinking that with their genius and inside knowledge, they could surely call the end and dump their trash in time to get out. But largely, they didn’t.])

2 As opposed to the fundamental CAN-SLIM investment advice of IBD founder William O’Neil, which is quite valuable.

erp Friday, 18 September 2009 at 08:38

This is an issue about which we will never agree. Q. How does one reposition from an irrevocable position?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Friday, 18 September 2009 at 09:14

I wrote “irrevocable financial and lifestyle decisions.”

For instance, selling a house is typically irrevocable: You give up all rights to the place, you move out, somebody else moves in. But you can potentially buy another house.

Post a comment