StaggerLee
Scrapple
  
   
       
 
Since: 3.10.02
From: ST Louis
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
|  #1 Posted on 28.11.09 1640.22 | Instant Rating: 3.03 | http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/us/politics/28acorn.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww
The federal government stopped payments to Acorn when tons of their illegal activities were brought to light, but the AG says that the Feds should pay them, since they had contracts.
BUT, the federal government limited executive pay if the companies took bailout money, despite the fact that the individuals had contracts with their employers.
Acorn helps the Democrats, so they get the money. This administration is so crooked, and they don't even try to hide it. | Promote this thread! |               | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
| #2 Posted on 28.11.09 1718.17 | Instant Rating: 8.85 | Eric Holder's name doesn't even appear in this article.
Could you do a little better job of picking your thread titles in the future so it looks less like trolling?
  | PeterStork
Landjager
Since: 25.1.02
From: Southern Illinois - BLEH
Since last post: 38 days
Last activity: 22 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #3 Posted on 28.11.09 1719.30 | Instant Rating: 4.60 | Except that
1.) The executive pay restriction didn't apply to companies who had already received bailout money at the time the new rule was announced, so companies had the option of opting into the bailout program and playing by the restriction, or choosing to not take government funds.
and
2.) Companies could still pay their execs more, but it had to be in stocks that couldn't be sold until all government payout had been paid back.
exit 670 dot com | digital route 66 | AWArulz
Banger
Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY
Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #4 Posted on 28.11.09 1728.44 | Instant Rating: 4.73 | | (deleted by CRZ on 28.11.09 1744) | TheOldMan
Morcilla
Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 20 hours
| #5 Posted on 28.11.09 2120.15 | Instant Rating: 4.47 | Trivia:
Originally posted by http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/09/doh-anti-acorn-bill-ropes-in-defense.html
The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.
In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.
...
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.
Maybe they should have insisted on this bill being posted for at least three days before rushing it through?
 | StaggerLee
Scrapple
Since: 3.10.02
From: ST Louis
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
| AIM: | |
| | | Y!: | |
|
| #6 Posted on 29.11.09 1932.26 | Instant Rating: 3.03 | Originally posted by CRZ
Eric Holder's name doesn't even appear in this article.
Could you do a little better job of picking your thread titles in the future so it looks less like trolling?
Sorry, they say "Justice Department" all throughout it. I would figure he would have a say in official justice department decisions. | DrDirt
Boudin blanc
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 3 days
| #7 Posted on 29.11.09 2214.47 | Instant Rating: 7.47 | Originally posted by StaggerLee
Originally posted by CRZ
Eric Holder's name doesn't even appear in this article.
Could you do a little better job of picking your thread titles in the future so it looks less like trolling?
Sorry, they say "Justice Department" all throughout it. I would figure he would have a say in official justice department decisions.
Correct in theory but in large organizations like the DoJ run by bureaucrats there for decades, not necessarily.
Perception is reality |
| | | | | | | |
