ADN

I checked all this out. SEE, here is the problem, land was surveyed, and evaluated independently. Had to be for grant. The houses could go up. He built 12 instead of 50. Was asked to show the money, and he went out of business. Right, this "Nt-for-profit" was run by a man who owned the business the Not-for-profit owned. That is ILLEGAL. He then sued his own mom for her social security checks.

Later he shows up, and plans a garden, Obama, knowing this dude is scum, but scum who worked for him helps get him an earmarked grant. The dude through his not-for-profit then hires HIS WIFE's company with taxdollars, to do something...

and they can account for maybe 3,000 of the 85,000 he originally gave her, and NONE of the 20,000 he paid her right before her "construction company" went "out of business." Nevermind there were no bidding processes for the work, or his wife's company never had any other clients EVER.

I don't think Obama did it for the 500 dollars... but who knows what lobby money there was for the bill that passed this was earmarked to. But ultimately, I think Obama did it for the empty promise that he would "work tirelessly" to get extra money for this project and see it done. (and he never ONCE did another damn thing for the project, or had any oversight.)

Stupid and/or crooked.

Seeing as that this story hasn't hit the 'Keating Five' level, I'd pretty much say the jury is still out...

And again, Obama wrote the grant, not the check...If dude did something foul, what part did Obama's hand have in it..? What exactly is the dirt dump here..? And over some shit that popped off YEARS ago...WTF..?

Obama Campaign wrote:“In December 2004, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity certified that grant money had been spent appropriately after CBHA submitted a series of expense reports and documentation showing progress at the site.”

Seems like that beef needs to be taken out on someone else Homez..

Kumicho wrote:Seeing as that this story hasn't hit the 'Keating Five' level, I'd pretty much say the jury is still out...

You do realize the Keating Five bail-out DID pay off for the american people right? We MADE money on that bail-out.

And again, Obama wrote the grant, not the check...If dude did something foul, what part did Obama's hand have in it..? What exactly is the dirt dump here..? And over some shit that popped off YEARS ago...WTF..?

If the guy fails to deliver on taxdollars and you give him your endorsement to get more... you are NOT working in the interest of the tax payers.

Obama Campaign wrote:“In December 2004, the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity certified that grant money had been spent appropriately after CBHA submitted a series of expense reports and documentation showing progress at the site.”

And they got a 1.75 million earmark for SUN-FARM, which was estimated to cost about 60,000. Hmm,.. Obama walked into Congress with a to-do list of grants for special interests. Almost 18 million dollars of them, of the 90 million dollars he has earmarked so far.

Seems like that beef needs to be taken out on someone else Homez..

307.2 Billion dollars. That is how much the combined total taxdollars Obama's existing economic plan costs. That kind of money can buy a lot of beef.

raum wrote:You do realize the Keating Five bail-out DID pay off for the american people right? We MADE money on that bail-out.

Not that I don't believe you, but in 10 minutes of searching, I couldn't find a single person to share your view...Most, for the most part, are in stark contrast of...The word associated with Keating-5 is usually 'scandal'...

raum wrote:If the guy fails to deliver on taxdollars and you give him your endorsement to get more... you are NOT working in the interest of the tax payers.

Does every representative that writes a grant owe a responsibility to see to it that other branches of gov't do their job or what..? He wrote the grant...The DCEO said it checked out...I'm really not sure what you're saying he should have done in light of...And unless he's the only person in congress that has asked for earmarks, has received the most earmarks, or flat out LIED about not requesting ANY earmarks this year, the point is..?

Kumicho wrote:

raum wrote:You do realize the Keating Five bail-out DID pay off for the american people right? We MADE money on that bail-out.

Not that I don't believe you, but in 10 minutes of searching, I couldn't find a single person to share your view...Most, for the most part, are in stark contrast of...The word associated with Keating-5 is usually 'scandal'...

2.6 billion dollar bail-out retrieved assets worth 5.5 billion dollars. woot! every person who lost money was part of the capital gains disbursement and the US treasury profited.

also:
The Senate Ethics Committee probe of the Keating Five began in November 1990, and committee Special Counsel Robert Bennett recommended that McCain and Glenn be dropped from the investigation. They were not. McCain believes Democrats on the committee blocked Bennett's recommendation because he was the lone Keating Five Republican.

In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.

So, the man paid back the bit of cash raised for him... when all he did was sit in the room with someone he considered a friend. He ALSO disclosed it in detail in his biography. http://www.mccainfactcheck.com/facts/11 ... five.shtml

(this and obamafactcheck.com are full of good, fair nonpartisan assesments and debunks. check em out!)

raum wrote:If the guy fails to deliver on taxdollars and you give him your endorsement to get more... you are NOT working in the interest of the tax payers.

Does every representative that writes a grant owe a responsibility to see to it that other branches of gov't do their job or what..? He wrote the grant...The DCEO said it checked out...I'm really not sure what you're saying he should have done in light of...And unless he's the only person in congress that has asked for earmarks, has received the most earmarks, or flat out LIED about not requesting ANY earmarks this year, the point is..?[/quote]

YES. Senators are obligated to oversee their own grants by the legal code of ethics that binds Congress to the legislative branch of government, and the legal code of ethics which self-same requires lawyers to not represent the the defense of those that confide to the lawyer they are guilty of the alleged crime. it is part of the power they are given "to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution of the government of the United States, or in any officer or Department thereof."

This assumption of power was legitimized in 1927 on the subject of social welfares and civil liberties. the actual mandate was enacted in 1946. Since 1993 they have been able to do this by appointed staff, with a full copy of all findings on grants to be available. This is typically done by congressional commision, such as FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and not applicable by Department. These congressions serve as a oversight and auditing force for the actions of Departments, such as the Department of Energy.

This is HOW we hold our congress responsible, and is the only check to their power explicitly not provided by presidential veto.

That being said, any man who writes a check and doesn't check to see if he got what he was promised is not a man I want holding my checkbook.

Just a CDR, nothing to see here...