Bank intimidation tactics to make bad loans that Fannie Mae then bought up.. It is not in dispute that bad loans were backed up by government mortgage programs.
I’m not sure why you are even arguing these events given that Congress has already dropped the hammer on ACORN.
I don’t know, sounds like a first amendment issue to me. The went to the homes of CEOs and protested. Not really my cup of tea, but is there anything illegal in doing that?
Wait a second, is this why ACORN was shut down? Because it protested to get what it wanted? I sure hope that’s not the case you’re trying to make?
Well, that’s my point exactly, I am NOT arguing those points. Congress dropped the hammer on one charity, for whatever reason, and I’d like to see them keep going.
ACORN can’t possibly be the only (or even the worst charity) out there getting federal funds. Strike now while the hammer is hot.
The problem with this analysis if you have decided to write your own version of Congress’ rules. “Theft and cover-up is enough to withhold federal money.” OK, let’s say I accept that version.
So how did you get to, “Surely any other organization that does something similar (or worse) should also lose federal money.” Perhaps Congress was solely concerned with punishing financial impropriety. If that was their motivation, then they don’t apply this rule to Catholic Charities because the crime committed by Catholic Charities’ staff wa not financial in nature.
I don’t say it was. I DO say that you’re not entitled to declare that you know what Congress was thinking.
If you can find a citation showing that Congressmen were concerned with financial impropriety, I’ll bite. Otherwise, I’m going on my recollection of the Republican witchhunt.
They were shut down because tax money was used by a bunch of jackasses to ruin the housing market. We, the citizens of the United States paid good money to get fucked in the ass. What about this that a politician understands do you not get?
That it’s untrue. Well, it’s true in the same sense that welfare abuse is a big drain on the federal deficit, i.e. almost completely irrelevant.
At the risk of injecting some facts into this thread, I will point out that “The Catholic Church” receives no money from the Federal or State governments.
There is no entity so identified in any law or contract. Instead, the Catholic Church is an internally ordered association that is represented in the United States as a series of separate legal entities, namely the 236 (263?) diocese that are located throughout the country, as well a number of individually chartered schools and businesses, (such as Catholic Charities).
Given that the majority of those diocese actually did comply with the efforts to put a stop to pederasty among priests following the synods of 1989 and 1993 that addressed those issues, before one could sanction “the Catholic Church,” one would need to identify the specific diocese, (Boston, LA, St. Louis, etc.) where the bishop or Chancery chose to not act on the recommendations of those synods to comply with local law in identifying predators to law enforcement, keeping them separate from children, etc. Otherwise, one would be specifically targeting groups of innocent people to be punished for the actions of different people.
Similarly, Catholic Charities is a series of corporations that provide licensed social services to various state agencies, following the normal bidding that accompanies any contracts let by states and counties. Unless one can show that each individual corporation was guilty of engaging in criminal behavior, it might not be possible to cut them all off from funding.
Well, here’s a resolution offered up that seems to express that:
Which of those points would you pigeonhole under “financial improprieties”? 
Wait a second, so ACORN did lose it’s tax exempt status?
I was told by not one but two very respectable people that they did not lose their tax exempt status. Any chance either of them will apologize?
Right, all is valid and good. I’m actually glad to see the diocese took steps.
Problem is that ACORN was structured in a very similar way, but nobody actually cares. Acts done by one individual group was then transferred to all groups. Acts done by individuals was transferred to all charitable entities. And then weren’t exactly given the chance to make changes.
The Catholic Charities are the charitable organization under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, with respect to each diocese. The priest working for the diocese, and for the Catholic Charities, committed heinous offenses, far worse that voter registration fraud.
So Bricker posted a list of offenses, none of which seem any where remotely comparable to the list I presented. Which makes me wonder, why was one group targeted by not the other.
And frankly, it doesn’t even have to be the Catholic Church and it’s charities and schools. Like I said, I picked them because they’re easy. There are millions of charities that have laundry lists of trivial offenses just like ACORN. But only one was targeted and destroyed.
Congress set the rules, I just want to see them followed.
I take it that you are a very recent immigrant? (Looking for consistency in the actions of Congress? 
)
BTW, I suspect that you still have a problem with your attempted analogy. While the Community Organizations (of ACORN) may exist as hundreds of small, independent agencies, Congress still targeted the Association (in ACORN) that accepts and disburses cash from fund-raising efforts or legislative largesse. There simply is not any analogous entity in the U.S. Catholic Church. Even the US Council of Catholic Bishops has no legal authority regarding the various diocese.
And that’s really the thing: you want to enforce a legalistic approach to what is a political question.
How much is given to this or that charitable or non-profit organization is necessarily a judgment call and, as such, is firmly committed to the discretion of the elected political branches of our constitutional separated government.
Now, as a rhetorical device, I am plenty familiar with the “what if we applied this rule to everyone?” hypothetical and it has is value for moral suasion. But if you (the impersonal you) really cared about progressive politics, you (the impersonal you) would spend less time caviling on the internet about inconsistencies and more time building up progressive organizations (perhaps doing this off the internet, if such a thing can be imagined) and winning public and political support for them. Alas, too many of my fellow-travelers on the left find that road far less appealing.
No. Why should I? ACORN did not lose its tax exempt status.
Your ability to effectively debate would be increased dramatically with more careful attention to reading.
That was a resolution, offered up by one Congressman. I quoted here to answer the question of whether individual Congressman had any concern about financial problems. But Congress did not approve that resolution; it was referred to the Ways and Means committee and died there.
And in general, resolutions that express “the sense of Congress” have little legal effect. So even if that resolution had passed, it would not automatically translate into a loss of tax-exempt status – although I grant that the IRS would most probably have looked very carefully at the determination findings.
Do some homework? What, exactly, in my post led you to believe I was looking for “phony non-profits”, or disparaging the Church, or Catholic Charities, in any way?
As a practicing Catholic, I’m well aware of what “Corporal Works of Mercy” means and why the Church, and Catholic Charities, do what they do.
Is Congress going to be responsible for the children in the streets without an orphanage or the poor people in line for food? Do you have any clue how many poor rely on Catholic Charities?
Congress should remove it and then you will see how many poor there are. I say bring it on. People need a wake up call.
Sounds kind of like the blackmail attempt they tried on D.C. recently.
I have no doubt that Catholic Charities do great and needed work.
But your post gives the impression that Congress can’t do anything to them because of this. So if, for example, they were involved with voter registration fraud, and had illegal videos of their staff saying stupid things, Congress STILL couldn’t cut funding. In effect, they are too big to fail.
ACORN also did some good work, and without them a lot of people will suffer. All the good deeds in the world can’t make up for a couple of alleged bad ones.
Most of the affiliates are still in existence, right? Can’t they just aggregate under a new umbrella organization and perform the same functions?