dteowner
Shoegazer
I wasn't even going to touch the (lack of) wisdom of the CRA. Arguing that tangent would just detract from spotlighting what our shyster friends at ACORN are (allegedly, for now) doing.
Lefty corruption....again
- Thread starter dteowner
- Start date
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Giving out loans to people who can't afford them is what got us into this financial mess to begin with. It's a practice that should be stopped immediately!
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
I agree. Let's hope Congress repeals the CRA. I don't think it's the root/entire cause like many Righties claim, but it did play a role and is something that can easily be changed.
Maybe the complaint goes away because once the business is placed, albeit through ACORN, the banks are then meeting their obligations thus nullifying the complaint?
dteowner
Shoegazer
Perhaps. The article didn't give sufficient detail, but there was an implication there that the complaint only went away when ACORN got the work. So, if WeHereIsStupidMortgagesYo (WHIMSY, for short) served as the middle man, the complaint was not retracted and had to be defended by the bank. That's reading between the lines of the report, though, so it might be completely logical and completely false.
dteowner
Shoegazer
http://www.indystar.com/article/200...1/OPINION08/Fire+around+Visclosky+gets+hotter
Run-of-the-mill corruption, it seems. After about 6 years of destroying everything republican, it is somewhat encouraging that the press is doing a tiny bit of skeleton hunting with the lefties now.
Run-of-the-mill corruption, it seems. After about 6 years of destroying everything republican, it is somewhat encouraging that the press is doing a tiny bit of skeleton hunting with the lefties now.
magerette
Hedgewitch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
There's been some really bad stuff about Charlie Rangel, too.
I was really surprised to hear this kind of thing about Evan Bayh, though you probably have heard about it before since he's in your state. I won't quote any disgruntled lefty sources who are upset at him for joining Leiberman in being willing to filibuster the HC bill, but this older article from Bloomberg states the reasons he may not be in an impartial position to judge the bill:
They're all crooks I tell ya—the ones that seem honest just haven't been exposed yet.
I was really surprised to hear this kind of thing about Evan Bayh, though you probably have heard about it before since he's in your state. I won't quote any disgruntled lefty sources who are upset at him for joining Leiberman in being willing to filibuster the HC bill, but this older article from Bloomberg states the reasons he may not be in an impartial position to judge the bill:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=auTmNXiBqkjE
They're all crooks I tell ya—the ones that seem honest just haven't been exposed yet.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,834
dteowner
Shoegazer
Yep, crooks from top to bottom. I do have a little sympathy for these folks, though. To get elected, you have to be a well-connected person moving in certain circles. Once you get elected, it's not like that network magically goes away, even if there's nothing shady going on.
Hoosiers support Bayh pretty soundly on this one, even if he's guilty (which, honestly, I kinda doubt). Although his voting record doesn't completely support the image (he votes a little further left than people realize), he's treated like a "traditional republican" (non-evangelical, hawkish, fiscal conservative) that happens to belong to the wrong party. We don't have too many fringers (of either end) in Indiana, so Bayh draws very well with the wide majority huddling in the middle. If it weren't a senate seat, I think the republicans would probably let Bayh run unopposed rather than put up a sacrificial lamb every 6 years.
Hoosiers support Bayh pretty soundly on this one, even if he's guilty (which, honestly, I kinda doubt). Although his voting record doesn't completely support the image (he votes a little further left than people realize), he's treated like a "traditional republican" (non-evangelical, hawkish, fiscal conservative) that happens to belong to the wrong party. We don't have too many fringers (of either end) in Indiana, so Bayh draws very well with the wide majority huddling in the middle. If it weren't a senate seat, I think the republicans would probably let Bayh run unopposed rather than put up a sacrificial lamb every 6 years.
dteowner
Shoegazer
You do realize that it's the Democrats that keep shooting campaign finance reform down, right? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
No, I didn't, but then again I haven't seen the proposals either.
IMHO the only way to insure there's no corruption is to make it illegal for any candidate to accept donations or favors from anyone. Public financing seems like the only option....
IMHO the only way to insure there's no corruption is to make it illegal for any candidate to accept donations or favors from anyone. Public financing seems like the only option....
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
'cause you'd be limiting the amount of ad time the candidates could use to get their platforms across.
Not saying I like it (mandatory public financing would be my ideal solution), but the courts already ruled spending caps are unconstitutional.
Not saying I like it (mandatory public financing would be my ideal solution), but the courts already ruled spending caps are unconstitutional.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
But that's not the point, the point is you're not letting them spend their money/assets to get their message out. The court has said speech=money and you *cannot* limit campaign spending.
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Hmm, why would the courts say that speech=money? One can say anything for free... There's a right to speak, but not a right to be heard...
dteowner
Shoegazer
As a private citizen or a group, you have the right to buy time on tv. As long as it meets obscenity laws, you can say whatever you want in that time you bought. You could peddle Sham-Wow or you could peddle "Change We Need". By limiting campaign spending for advertising, you're limiting the ability of people to use their money as they see fit.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
You also have the right as a candidate to get your message out to the voters. So limiting the expenditures is limiting your 'speech' that way.
I still think public financing is a good way to go but there are constitutional issues associated with it (and this isn't just a righty/lefty partisan issue, it's been pretty routinely viewed this way by the courts AFAIK).
I still think public financing is a good way to go but there are constitutional issues associated with it (and this isn't just a righty/lefty partisan issue, it's been pretty routinely viewed this way by the courts AFAIK).