The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

ACORN Act -- Cuts off funds to organizations convicted of felonies

palemale

JUB Addict
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Posts
4,901
Reaction score
18
Points
38
Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) has introduced legislation know as the ACORN Act. The acronym stands for Against Corporations Organizing to Rip-off the Nation. Under her legislation, government contractors convicted of a felony would be barred from getting federal contracts. Of course, since Acorn has not been convicted of committing a felony yet, it would not defund them. It would defund loads of defense contractors. As Senator Bernie Sanders points out in the below clip on the Rachel Maddow Show, the top three federal contractors have been convicted or found to have committed some misconduct 109 times in recent years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/maddow-bernie-sanders-hig_n_310935.html
Should Congress enact the ACORN Act? Is it hypocritical for congress people to vote to defund Acorn only, which hasn't been found guilty of any felonies, but not to vote for the ACORN Act?
 
Yes, the name of the act in itself is monumentally stupid in light of ACORN'S antics.

The incredible arrogance of Congress isn't exactly winning the hearts and minds of their constituencies.
 
Seems to me to be a pretty clever way to point out that certain members of Congress are much more likely to act against an organization that may cost them votes than against one that may rip the country off.
 
Yes, the name of the act in itself is monumentally stupid in light of ACORN'S antics.

The incredible arrogance of Congress isn't exactly winning the hearts and minds of their constituencies.


True that!
 
I agree on the pensions. Many states and municipalities deny pensions in some circumstances to employees discharged for serious misconduct or criminal activity. I think in many cases, the employee doesn't necessarily have to be convicted. Seems if the janitor at city hall can lose his pension for stealing a hammer, a congressperson who rips off the taxpayer ought to suffer the same fate.

Nevertheless, corruption by corporations is far more costly to the taxpayer. And who, exactly, do you think is paying bribes and doing favors for corrupt congresspeople? Corporations that get a slap on the wrist when caught.
 
I'm glad that people seem to be waking up about ACORN.

The sub-topic -- pensions for member of Congress. Why should congressmen have pensions? Many companies have dropped their pension plans -- replacing them with increased contributions to 401(k) plans -- some companies have stopped doing anything in regards to retirement for the regular employee.

If social security if good enough for the regular person, it should be good enough for congressmen. Since their salary has gone up -- they can save money.
 
I'm glad that people seem to be waking up about ACORN.

Jack, did you read my post? The ACORN Act would only cut off funds to organizations that have been convicted of a felony. Thus, it would cut off no funds to Acorn, because they have not yet been convicted of a felony. It would cut off funds to many large corporations, including some defense contractors, because they have been convicted of felonies. The purpose of the Act was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who would cut funding to Acorn, but not corporations.
 
Back
Top