patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,188,958 comments by 13,845 users - Ceffer, SunnyvaleCA online now
invite responseComments 1 - 14 of 14 Search these comments
MisdemeanorRebel
2016 Jun 2, 6:17pm
The Justice Department maintains a list of government-approved nonprofit beneficiaries. And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups. The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).
To further induce companies to go the donation route, Justice considers these handouts to be worth “double credit†against penalty obligations. So while direct forms of victim relief are still counted dollar-for-dollar, a $500,000 donation by BofA to La Raza takes at least $1 million off the company’s bill.
Interesting - thanks turtledove!
National Council of Der Race, Seig Heil!
http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/race
(Don't let anybody bullshit you, English and Spanish get "raza/race" from the same Latin root, the meaning is absolutely identical).
marcus
2016 Jun 2, 8:03pm
So, first we have decades of republicans saying that the government needs to do less in terms of helping the poor. But then when corporate penalties are directed to charities (non profits that support the poor or communities in general) they complain that the money is going to allies of liberals.
That's the biggest reasons republicans hate unions too. Because they contribute to democrats, but their main objective is (WAS) supporting labor.
What ever happened to Bush senior's "thousand points of light ?" (for those who don't remember, this was a republicans's argument of what charities and nonprofits should be doing instead of government. He referred to them as a thousand points of light.)
If Republicans are interested in containing a president who routinely ignores the rules
That is, a moderate and relatively conservative President who has probably been obstructed by congress more than any President in U.S. history. Is it any wonder he finds other ways to accomplish a little something every now and then ?
Ceffer
2016 Jun 2, 8:18pm
In shorthand parlance, the Justice Department is engaging in extortion and soliciting bribery. Sounds like another ho hum day in the Legal treadmill.
turtledove
2016 Jun 2, 8:49pm
But then when corporate penalties are directed to charities (non profits that support the poor or communities in general) they complain that the money is going to allies of liberals.
This is nothing short of a shakedown. They are extorting money under the threat of expensive litigation that could last a decade, AND it's a backdoor way of force-funding liberal organizations. What you should be really concerned about is the fact that the "damages" didn't end up directly in the pockets of the actual victims.... you know, the damaged parties.
Ronald Reagan: "Government is the problem."
President-8 years.
Governor-8 years.
He was part of the problem.
People seem to think a D or R will make things better.
Doing the same over & over makes one a FUCKING IDIOT TOOL.
marcus
2016 Jun 2, 11:17pm
This is nothing short of a shakedown.
Thats' the way the propaganda piece you're quoting tries so hard to slant this, yes. The don't even outline what the cases are (or were) nor do they specify who the evil right wing nonprofits are.
There are cases where millions of people are adversely affected where remdies can not be applied to all of the individuals, and they choose instead to fund nonprofits that do good in communities.
The fact that these nonprofits are said to be "liberal" is not a valid argument. Even honest republicans will tell you that they would prefer a world where the government does nothing for the poor, and in which all or most such functions occur through churches and charities (nonprofits).
These same republicans would acknowledge that these do gooder nonprofits they would prefer over direct government aid to the poor are very often naturally "liberal." And that some of their funding is obtained by getting liberals in govt to back them. Right ? To the extent they get any govt support, it's probably going to come from democrats. Republicans see their role as fighting against that kind of spending.
This isn't rocket science. What do you want the money to go to ? The heritage foundation or the NRA ?
Every dollar banks donate to the housing arms of the Urban League or La Raza is a dollar those groups can free up to wage an assault on voter ID laws, or to help out Democrats.
Really ? What a total crock of right wing nonsense. La Raza ? Really ?
marcus
2016 Jun 2, 11:33pm
I'll agree with one thing. And that is, I would have rather seen congress work with Obama like most congresses have through history, at least a little. The past couple congresses have spent more of their energy trying to prevent the president from being successful than we have ever seen before.
I get it. The only real policy the right has at this point is preventing the left from gaining power or perceived as having any major successes, and of course keeping taxes as low as possible for the rich and corporations. . This is in spite of the fact that the current left side of our congress is to the right of where the right wing of congress was 50 years ago. Most people here probably aren't old enough to remember Nixon, the nasty right wing President that democrats hated in 1970.
Nixon was behind the EPA,, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the Endangered Species Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and OSHA, not to mention a lot of other progressive policy. Noam Chomsky calls him the last liberal President.
THe same corporate shills that wrote the piece you are so moved by above, would like to undo all of Nixon's progressive legislation.
Thanks for informing me of some ways that Obama is pissing those assholes off.
turtledove
2016 Jun 3, 10:30am
The don't even outline what the cases are (or were) nor do they specify who the evil right wing nonprofits are.
Those would be left wing.... and they are listed right there in the article:
The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).
What I find interesting is that you are so determined to defend left-wing policies that you refuse to even acknowledge that what they are doing is violating the spirit of laws that were designed to PREVENT exactly what they are doing. There is a reason why you cannot funnel this money through third-party organizations. It reeks of abuse. How would you feel if the organization were an adoption (in other words, pro-life) organization? How would you feel if it were an abused women's organizations (feminists)? Or Black Lives Matter, or the Clinton Foundation...? The point is there is a reason why this is frowned upon. To claim that the ends justify the means is absurd. We are a nation of laws. Obama has spent a great deal of effort playing the "define the word 'it'" game. He uses his knowledge to skirt the very laws that make up this country. Perhaps that's okay to you because he's a liberal and you happen to think everything he does is justified... And what will you do when the evil Republicans use the same established practices to further their agendas? You would have a stroke and you know it. So who is being dishonest here?
The fact that these nonprofits are said to be "liberal" is not a valid argument. Even honest republicans will tell you that they would prefer a world where the government does nothing for the poor, and in which all or most such functions occur through churches and charities (nonprofits).
That is such bullshit. How much did Obama donate to these charities, personally? Yes, he's fine with charity as long as someone else is footing the bill. He gets to look like a super-swell guy and it doesn't cost him a penny. He gets the tax payers to do his donating for him. The specific charity is almost irrelevant. It's the process that's the problem. Were the Latinos the only ones who were affected by the housing crisis? Who decided that? Just remember, someday, you might not like the charities that Trump chooses to fund with his ill gotten gains through extortion.
Furthermore, donations are typically voluntary. Does this sound voluntary to you when "donating" comes with a "do it or else" clause?
marcus
2016 Jun 3, 7:02pm
What I find interesting is that you are so determined to defend left-wing policies that you refuse to even acknowledge that what they are doing is violating the spirit of laws that were designed to PREVENT exactly what they are doing. There is a reason why you cannot funnel this money through third-party organizations
I think if we had a fascist (or corporatist) government and every single solitary nonprofit that had objectives to help the poor and low income families was labeled "liberal" you could and would make the same ridiculous argument. That is, if a suit against banks had them paying damages to such entities.
marcus
2016 Jun 3, 7:13pm
>
How would you feel if the organization were an adoption (in other words, pro-life) organization?
If the banks were being sued for something that even very indirectly could be construed as adversely affecting the adoption process then I would think it's great.
You see, I'm not terrified that republican politicians might get funding from people that provide adoption services even if it's true that they would. To me I'm just going see it as about adoption. And being pro choice, but not particularly liking abortions, I think adoption is great. Just like back in the day, normal republicans thought doing for the poor and low income families was great.
Then again, it is also true that I'm not paranoid about republicans gaining power, because we have been swinging to the right for a few decades now, and they have so much power that our government is broken. Whereas the people that write the propaganda that you so readily buy, are terrified that they might lose some of that power. That's why their singular goal with Obama was to prevent him from being successful
What's best for the people is never even on their radar.
marcus
2016 Jun 3, 7:16pm
The point is there is a reason why this is frowned upon.
There are reasons that some people frown on the banks making out like bandits in the aftermath of the crash too.
To claim that the ends justify the means is absurd
I didn't say that. I said I kind of like seeing Obama finding workarounds with our broken government and broken economy.
This is the Obama administration riding roughshod over the most basic of congressional powers—those of spending and oversight. Adding to the insult, Justice is routing money back to programs that congressional Republicans deliberately stripped of funds.
Yeah maybe it's wrong and I'm okay with it.
Compare me to the republitards that would take down the government and the global economy in a temper tantrum when they don't get their way over spending cuts (only when democrats are in power of course).
marcus
2016 Jun 3, 7:20pm
Furthermore, donations are typically voluntary. Does this sound voluntary to you when "donating" comes with a "do it or else" clause?
Were the Latinos the only ones who were affected by the housing crisis?
Wow, you got a lot of in depth details out of that WSJ piece that I totally didn't.
He gets to look like a super-swell guy and it doesn't cost him a penny.
NO, it isn't even about him. You read way too much into this story. Can you find a link that more objectively looks at this whole phenomenon, especially listing all the places that damages were directed ?
Just as one example of your error in thinking: Some La Raza org is on a list of organizations that they can give to to pay their damages. They didn't say that anyone has.
So while direct forms of victim relief are still counted dollar-for-dollar, a $500,000 donation by BofA to La Raza takes at least $1 million off the company’s bill.
Saying this doesn't even imply that BofA gave any money to LaRaza.
I'd love to see the whole list.
Would you ?
turtledove
2016 Jun 3, 7:44pm
I think if we had a fascist (or corporatist) government and every single solitary nonprofit that had objectives to help the poor and low income families was labeled "liberal" you could and would make the same ridiculous argument.
I think you are talking out of your ass. Government legally strong arming private corporations into "donating" money to the "charitable organizations" chosen by that government is just plain indefensible. Doesn't matter why they are doing it. Wouldn't matter if the organization were ordained by Jesus himself. It's a backdoor way of funding pet charities chosen by a select few. It's an abuse of power, period.
You're right that these groups are known liberal groups. But you hardly know me well enough to say what I might argue, so I'm sure I don't have to spell out where you may stick that argument... It would be an abuse of power no matter who is doing it.
Why don't you take a moment to stop thinking that this is a republican vs. democrat argument, cuz I know that causes your brain to cloud over. For a brief moment just consider what the consequences would be if this practice were allowed to continue irrespective of who gets to choose the beneficiaries (and keep in mind that all charities aren't exactly charitable).... It kind of gives an advantage to all charities that happen to support the current power brokers, doesn't it? Imagine that the right-to-lifers were suddenly blessed with all these cash donations... OR the NRA Foundation... all the good they could do, right? We'd be covered up by their propaganda and they'd use their new found wealth to make sure that the hands that feed them stay in power. If I'm not mistaken, the law says that judgments in favor of the US Govt., must be paid to the Treasury... No doubt these smarty pants came up with a way to skirt that requirement claiming that they somehow misunderstood a word like "it."... But we all know what the spirit of that requirement is and why it's there... AND that requirement is there to protect YOU. If you can't see the danger in what's happening then I can only assume that you are so brainwashed to accept liberal agenda at face value that there's really no talking to you.
marcus
2016 Jun 3, 9:22pm
Why don't you
Why don't you get the information of what's happening before judging it.
I still don't know who is on the list. I only know some of them are deemed "liberal." THey choose who to pay, but only as a settlement for a law suit that they lose. turtledove says
stop thinking that this is a republican vs. democrat argument
That's your problem from the start.
I view this as what it is, given the limited information and very biased way the story is told by an obvious extreme partisan.
What were the banks sued for ?
Without the complete list of who the banks can chose from to pay punitive damages too, I can't really judge. But I've seen this kind of BS before, and I know that if we saw the full list, it wouldn't seem as bad as the most liberal ones on they list (that they could choose).
But sure, there is a minor issue here in terms of use or abuse of power. But I can't help but like it, after 8 years of watching the ultimate worst scumbags in the history of congress deny Obama everything he wanted to do, for the sole purpose of preventing him from having a positive impact.
Because you know what that might have lead to.
More democrats.
Republicans talk often about using the “power of the purse†to rein in a lawless Obama administration. If they mean it, they ought to use their year-end spending bill to stop a textbook case of outrageous executive overreach.
This scandal comes courtesy of the Justice Department, which for 16 months has engaged in a scheme to undermine Congress’s spending authority by independently transferring dollars to President Obama’s political allies. The department is in the process of funneling more than half-a-billion dollars to liberal activist groups, at least some of which will actively support Democrats in the coming election.
It works likes this: The Justice Department prosecutes cases against supposed corporate bad actors. Those companies agree to settlements that include financial penalties. Then Justice mandates that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of “donations†to nonprofits that supposedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods.
The Justice Department maintains a list of government-approved nonprofit beneficiaries. And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups. The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).
This strategy kicked off with the $13 billion J.P. Morgan settlement in late 2013, though in that case the bank was simply offered credit for donations to nonprofits. That changed with the Citigroup and Bank of America settlements, which outright required $150 million in donations. The BofA agreement contains a provision that potentially tees up nonprofit groups for another $490 million. Several smaller settlements follow the same mold.
To further induce companies to go the donation route, Justice considers these handouts to be worth “double credit†against penalty obligations. So while direct forms of victim relief are still counted dollar-for-dollar, a $500,000 donation by BofA to La Raza takes at least $1 million off the company’s bill.
The purpose of financial penalties is to punish, and to provide restitution to real victims. The Justice Department would make the case that this money is flowing to groups that aid the targets of supposed banking abuse, such as homeowners. But that assumes the work these groups do is targeted at actual victims—which it isn’t. It assumes that the work these groups do in housing is nonpartisan—which it isn’t. And it ignores that money is fungible. Every dollar banks donate to the housing arms of the Urban League or La Raza is a dollar those groups can free up to wage an assault on voter ID laws, or to help out Democrats.
This is the Obama administration riding roughshod over the most basic of congressional powers—those of spending and oversight. Adding to the insult, Justice is routing money back to programs that congressional Republicans deliberately stripped of funds. In 2011 Republicans eliminated the Housing Department’s $88 million for “housing counseling†programs, which spread around money to groups like La Raza. Congress subsequently restored only $45 million, and has maintained that level. These bank settlements pour some $30 million into housing counseling groups, thereby essentially restoring all the funding.
It’s also a classic Obama end run around the law. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, who has spent a year investigating and pushing back against Justice’s slush fund, has noted that the Miscellaneous Receipts Act requires money received by the government from any source to be deposited in the Treasury. Directing banks to give money to third parties is a slippery way of evading that statute.
He’s also noted that Justice’s own internal guidelines discourage donations to third parties, precisely because of the risk it “can create actual or perceived conflicts of interest and/or other ethical issues.†No kidding. Mr. Goodlatte has discovered that some of the activist groups that stood to benefit from these transfers were involved in getting the requirements put into the settlements. He’s called on Justice to end the practice, and the department’s response has been to double down.
Which is why Mr. Goodlatte crafted a one-sentence amendment to the annual appropriations bill for Justice, one that strips the department of money if it continues with its slush-fund ruse. His amendment passed easily on a voice vote this summer.
Yet Justice has aggressive Democratic defenders in the Senate, who strongly oppose including the provision in the final, year-end omnibus. And some Senate Republicans seem willing to oblige them. Which is nuts.
The GOP is currently wrangling with Democrats over which policy riders to include in that final bill, and that’s well and good. But the Goodlatte amendment is so germane as to be obvious. It goes to the heart of the question at hand—spending—and to Congress’s right to control the national purse. If Republicans are interested in containing a president who routinely ignores the rules, here’s a place to stand.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justices-liberal-slush-fund-1449188273