The distracting benefits of ACORN hysteria

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While most of the media is busy pushing rightwing talking points on the ACORN scandal, Glenn Greenwald puts the story into the proper perspective.

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

follow me over the flip, for more insight...

(First time on the rec list, thanks! Credit goes to Greenwald and ACORN)

Glenn nails this, so I'm just going to put up some quotes, for the full story go here.

All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.

Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government.

...and further more, it's not just finance, but also health insurance companies that get the keys to the halls of power.

As previously documented, Goldman Sachs itself has a virtual lock on the top Treasury positions no matter which party is in power. The vaunted bipartisan "Baucus plan" was literally written by a Baucus aide who just left her position as Vice President of Wellpoint to write the health care reform plan for the Senate -- a revelation which barely caused a ripple. And the Supreme Court is on the verge of striking down the few limits on corporate involvement in our politics, a ruling which may (or may not be) constitutionally defensible but which will flood American politics with so much corporate money that it will give new meaning to the term "oligarchy."

So with this massive pillaging of America's economic security and its control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America's intense economic anxiety being directed? To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?

Apparently, the problem for middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans is not that their taxpayer dollars are going to prop up billionaires, oligarchs and their corrupt industries. It's that America's impoverished -- a group that is growing rapidly -- is getting too much, has too much power and too little accountability.

and on the few grants that ACORN actually gets:

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. Any group that large will have individuals in it who do bad things. The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are (and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit; they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero).

and Glenn finally nails the true intent of the attacks on the nation's largest poor peoples' group.

ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support [by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

[thepizzadude 26]

While most of the media is busy pushing rightwing talking points on the ACORN scandal, Glenn Greenwald puts the story into the proper perspective.

ACORN has received a grand total of $53 million in federal funds over the last 15 years -- an average of $3.5 million per year. Meanwhile, not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of public funds have been, in the last year alone, transferred to or otherwise used for the benefit of Wall Street. Billions of dollars in American taxpayer money vanished into thin air, eaten by private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, led by Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

follow me over the flip, for more insight...

(First time on the rec list, thanks! Credit goes to Greenwald and ACORN)

Glenn nails this, so I'm just going to put up some quotes, for the full story go here.

All of those corporate interests employ armies of lobbyists and bottomless donor activities that ensure they dominate our legislative and regulatory processes, and to be extra certain, the revolving door between industry and government is more prolific than ever, with key corporate officials constantly ending up occupying the government positions with the most influence over those industries.

Exactly as one would expect, the prime beneficiaries of all of that pillaging continue to grow. The banks that almost brought the world economy to collapse but then received massive public largesse because they were "too big to fail" are now bigger than ever; as The Washington Post delicately put it: "The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance." Everything involving the government turns out well for these "behemoths" because they own and control the U.S. Government.

...and further more, it's not just finance, but also health insurance companies that get the keys to the halls of power.

As previously documented, Goldman Sachs itself has a virtual lock on the top Treasury positions no matter which party is in power. The vaunted bipartisan "Baucus plan" was literally written by a Baucus aide who just left her position as Vice President of Wellpoint to write the health care reform plan for the Senate -- a revelation which barely caused a ripple. And the Supreme Court is on the verge of striking down the few limits on corporate involvement in our politics, a ruling which may (or may not be) constitutionally defensible but which will flood American politics with so much corporate money that it will give new meaning to the term "oligarchy."

So with this massive pillaging of America's economic security and its control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America's intense economic anxiety being directed? To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America's poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding at the first sign of real controversy -- could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?

Apparently, the problem for middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans is not that their taxpayer dollars are going to prop up billionaires, oligarchs and their corrupt industries. It's that America's impoverished -- a group that is growing rapidly -- is getting too much, has too much power and too little accountability.

and on the few grants that ACORN actually gets:

As for ACORN, nobody is apologizing for them or suggesting that they've done nothing wrong. Any group that large will have individuals in it who do bad things. The issue is one of proportion. If someone ostensibly opposes government waste and unfairness in tax policy yet spends most of their time focusing on a tiny group that helps the poor and receives a miniscule amount of government money -- all while ignoring or even revering the enormous, omnipotent industries which eat up trillions in taxpayer waste and dwarf the impact of ACORN by many, many magnitudes -- then any rational person would question what the real motives are (and the claim that ACORN is "Now Eligible for up to $8 billion" is pure Beckian deceit; they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero).

and Glenn finally nails the true intent of the attacks on the nation's largest poor peoples' group.

ACORN isn't just being mentioned in passing as something that needs an examination; it's dominating headlines and the obsessions of the Fox News movement, despite the fact that it's a tiny, microscopic drop in the bucket even when assessed by the principles the protesters claim to support [by a vote of 345-75, the Democratic-led House just joined the Senate in voting to cut off all funds to ACORN; I'm sure the courageous Congress will be doing that to Blackwater, KBR, Citibank, lawbreaking telecoms and many other corrupt corporations who own them any moment now). Claiming you're worried about large government and taxpayer waste while fixating on ACORN proves the insincerity of the ostensible concern, let alone doing so while cheering on the same Wall Street banks, defense contractors, and insurance industries that control and expand government power for their own benefit.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...eria/index.html

I can't believe I agree with almost everything this guy says

The only part is I still think that ACORN is rotten and will continue to do so once they sweep this past garbage under the proverbial rug.

I have yelled and hollered myself hoarse about the amount of power our government has turned over to BIG business. What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton. What makes him think we are mad as hell about the amount of law changes that the banking industry has been allowed to alter to its benefit in the past 20 years, hiding any changes to the "terms" in small print on a piece of paper they stick in the middle of the advertising shyt they shove in your bill, giving you 30 days to say "NO", having the ability to alter interest rates from fixed to variable on a whim. This has all been made readily available to them by the special interest lobbyists in Washington.

And don't get me started on the bailout funds given to the same people who put us in this mess by getting the rules changed for mortgage loans so they could give them to anybody, including those who could or would never pay. Allowing the fraudulent activities in that industry to go unchecked by those in charge. Our government is slowly being taken over by BIG business and it has been rapidly increasing in the past 10 years.

What is the remedy? What can we do? How do we stop this runaway locomotive? These are questions pondered by many on a daily basis. We don't sit around just picking on poor poor ACORN because they got caught. We are relishing in the fact that someone is finally doing something about WHAT they have been up to for years. Who will stand up against Haliburton, Citibank, Chase and the INSURANCE industy. What happens with the insurance in the next few years will show the truth, will we win or will BIG business win again?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton.

Well collectively, because the Right Wingers either shrugged their shoulders or laughed off any time the Left brought up Halliburton. I didn't see any posters protesting those institutions in the Tea Party Protest nor heard anyone mention their names....but they sure had to say a lot about ACORN. I think it's a combination of people who are ignorant to the issues - because many of them only listen to lunatics like Beck and selective outrage....Obama's in the WH, so let's get angry with everything he does.

Hopefully you can see why it's hard to take such outrage as sincere, even if it may contain some merit. It's all about context.

I'm fine with Congress pulling all federal funding from ACORN. I think they'd do justice to the very honorable ideas they were trying to defend by simply dismantling and ceasing to exist. Let other organizations fill their shoes.

[HAL 9000 96]

Actual context doesn't bode well for political incongruity Steven. You know that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actual context doesn't bode well for political incongruity Steven. You know that.

Aye, captain.

[dalegg 143]

What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton.

Well collectively, because the Right Wingers either shrugged their shoulders or laughed off any time the Left brought up Halliburton. I didn't see any posters protesting those institutions in the Tea Party Protest nor heard anyone mention their names....but they sure had to say a lot about ACORN. I

Because...even if they saw Halliburton as excessivley profiting from the war, they still saw the war as protecting them in the long run. Halliburton contractors died in battle. Little bit of a different sort of group than an organization helping people smuggle underage girls illegally across the border to take part in prostitution that would "get rough" at times.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton.

Well collectively, because the Right Wingers either shrugged their shoulders or laughed off any time the Left brought up Halliburton. I didn't see any posters protesting those institutions in the Tea Party Protest nor heard anyone mention their names....but they sure had to say a lot about ACORN. I

Because...even if they saw Halliburton as excessivley profiting from the war, they still saw the war as protecting them in the long run. Halliburton contractors died in battle. Little bit of a different sort of group than an organization helping people smuggle underage girls illegally across the border to take part in prostitution that would "get rough" at times.

Not even close. Oh come off it, Dale - the Right has been biting at the heels of ACORN before this recent undercover story broke. Second, it was employees who were told by the undercover journalist that they were involved in prostitution. No ACORN employee has been involved in any prostitution ring of any sort.

As for giving Halliburton a free ride (from criticism) - so as long as they are risking life and limb to bilk the American tax payer, it's all good in the eyes of the Right?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's an article from 2002:

Your Tax Dollars At Work -- for Halliburton

And, Where's Waldo?

Would you rehire a contractor who allegedly cheated you on an earlier contract? How about if the contractor overcharged you on the last two contracts? And not peanuts either, but millions of dollars in overcharges. You probably wouldn't. But, that's exactly what the Bush administration has done, giving a Halliburton subsidiary the exclusive contract to provide services to America's frontline, rapid response troops. Meanwhile, Halliburton's former CEO, Vice President ####### Cheney, has all but vanished from public view since reporters want to quiz him about his days at Halliburton's helm. DailyEnron.com

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? A breakdown.

With this publication, taxpayers can take stock of how the federal government spent each 2008 income tax dollar: 37.3 cents went towards military-related spending (military and military-related debt), while environment, energy and science-related spending split 2.8 cents.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2009

Edited September 18, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[dalegg 143]

What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton.

Well collectively, because the Right Wingers either shrugged their shoulders or laughed off any time the Left brought up Halliburton. I didn't see any posters protesting those institutions in the Tea Party Protest nor heard anyone mention their names....but they sure had to say a lot about ACORN. I

Because...even if they saw Halliburton as excessivley profiting from the war, they still saw the war as protecting them in the long run. Halliburton contractors died in battle. Little bit of a different sort of group than an organization helping people smuggle underage girls illegally across the border to take part in prostitution that would "get rough" at times.

Not even close. Oh come off it, Dale - the Right has been biting at the heels of ACORN before this recent undercover story broke. Second, it was employees who were told by the undercover journalist that they were involved in prostitution. No ACORN employee has been involved in any prostitution ring of any sort.

As for giving Halliburton a free ride (from criticism) - so as long as they are risking life and limb to bilk the American tax payer, it's all good in the eyes of the Right?

Yeah, pretty much. Haven't you paid attention to those Tea party videos?

Edited September 18, 2009 by dalegg

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

What makes him thinks that we all don't care about the money that has went into the coffers of Haliburton.

Well collectively, because the Right Wingers either shrugged their shoulders or laughed off any time the Left brought up Halliburton. I didn't see any posters protesting those institutions in the Tea Party Protest nor heard anyone mention their names....but they sure had to say a lot about ACORN. I

Because...even if they saw Halliburton as excessivley profiting from the war, they still saw the war as protecting them in the long run. Halliburton contractors died in battle. Little bit of a different sort of group than an organization helping people smuggle underage girls illegally across the border to take part in prostitution that would "get rough" at times.

Not even close. Oh come off it, Dale - the Right has been biting at the heels of ACORN before this recent undercover story broke. Second, it was employees who were told by the undercover journalist that they were involved in prostitution. No ACORN employee has been involved in any prostitution ring of any sort.

As for giving Halliburton a free ride (from criticism) - so as long as they are risking life and limb to bilk the American tax payer, it's all good in the eyes of the Right?

Yeah, pretty much. Haven't you paid attention to those Tea party videos?

Hey Steve! ACORN has free daycare bud! Go get ya some of that lovely ACORN freebies!

[DEDixon 39]

The Dems controlled congress since 2006... what did they do to reverse Bush? Answer: NOTHING so stop crying about what happen during the Bush Administration.

The Dems liked to say that Bush never vetoed a spending bill... nope and wonder why... had to be lots of Dem programs in those bills that Bush didn't like, but why was he so eager to sign a bill without hesitation... I wonder. Why did the Dems win Congress in 2006? Did they follow through on their promise, the promise they made to win Congress... NO and they didn't even try... I wonder why.

Watch "The Wire"... they talk about "The Game"all the time... it is ALL about the Game .... there is a Game being played in Washington too, that's all it is, but it fvcks up a lot more lives.

NEITHER SIDE are saints, NEITHER SIDE is better than the other so if you think you are "all that" because of where you sit politically, get a fvcking life.

(just had to use some bad language tonight... feel much better for it too... now where is my beer?)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Dems controlled congress since 2006... what did they do to reverse Bush? Answer: NOTHING so stop crying about what happen during the Bush Administration.

The Dems liked to say that Bush never vetoed a spending bill... nope and wonder why... had to be lots of Dem programs in those bills that Bush didn't like, but why was he so eager to sign a bill without hesitation... I wonder. Why did the Dems win Congress in 2006? Did they follow through on their promise, the promise they made to win Congress... NO and they didn't even try... I wonder why.

Oh geez....maybe you weren't sober when you posted this, but.... DE - the Democrats finally had a majority in Congress in 2006 but the Senate if you recall was still in the Republican's favor. So Congress could vote and approve legislation only to see it die in the Senate.

These arguments over who controlled what in such and such years are pretty meaningless without actually seeing what legislation was pushed forward by whom, what made it through the Senate all the way to the President's desk and what was vetoed.

I'll be happy to compile a list for you if you'd like, of all the key legislation since 2006, which would be much telling than your anecdotal generalization that since the Democrats had a majority in Congress, the ball was in their court to make legislation happen. If it were only that simple.

[dalegg 143]

Oh geez....maybe you weren't sober when you posted this, but.... DE - the Democrats finally had a majority in Congress in 2006 but the Senate if you recall was still in the Republican's favor. So Congress could vote and approve legislation only to see it die in the Senate.

Wait a minute Stephen- After the 2006 elections, the Democrats picked up 5 seats in the senate to put them in a statistical tie with the Republicans at 49/49, but the 2 independants- Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders vote with Democrats so realistically that was 51-49 Democrat.

Edited September 18, 2009 by dalegg

[DEDixon 39]

The Dems controlled congress since 2006... what did they do to reverse Bush? Answer: NOTHING so stop crying about what happen during the Bush Administration.

The Dems liked to say that Bush never vetoed a spending bill... nope and wonder why... had to be lots of Dem programs in those bills that Bush didn't like, but why was he so eager to sign a bill without hesitation... I wonder. Why did the Dems win Congress in 2006? Did they follow through on their promise, the promise they made to win Congress... NO and they didn't even try... I wonder why.

Oh geez....maybe you weren't sober when you posted this, but.... DE - the Democrats finally had a majority in Congress in 2006 but the Senate if you recall was still in the Republican's favor. So Congress could vote and approve legislation only to see it die in the Senate.

These arguments over who controlled what in such and such years are pretty meaningless without actually seeing what legislation was pushed forward by whom, what made it through the Senate all the way to the President's desk and what was vetoed.

I'll be happy to compile a list for you if you'd like, of all the key legislation since 2006, which would be much telling than your anecdotal generalization that since the Democrats had a majority in Congress, the ball was in their court to make legislation happen. If it were only that simple.

That is no excuse really. Listen to Nancy when she talks about health care... she speaks like she's going to do it all herself.

When she got control of the House, she didn't speak about ending war anymore or at least not like she was BEFORE the election. Once the Dems got control, they pretty much dropped fighting to end the war. Again.... wonder why? Back room deal with the Bush Administration? hmmmm. See Stephen, neither of the parties are saints.

Oh geez....maybe you weren't sober when you posted this, but.... DE - the Democrats finally had a majority in Congress in 2006 but the Senate if you recall was still in the Republican's favor. So Congress could vote and approve legislation only to see it die in the Senate.

Wait a minute Stephen- After the 2006 elections, the Democrats picked up 5 seats in the senate to put them in a statistical tie with the Republicans at 49/49, but the 2 independants- Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders vote with Democrats so realistically that was 51-49 Democrat.

THANK YOU!