Nathan Deal did WHAT with foreclosure relief funds?? (felony, budget)

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by neil0311

That adds a ton to the conversation. I infer from your comment you vote for Democrats? How surprising.

No he was a crook while in congress and jailbirds don't change their stripes.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by bellhead

No he was a crook while in congress and jailbirds don't change their stripes.

You mean like John Edwards, Bill Campbell, Victor Hill and plenty of local and national Democrats? Only reason I mention it is that being corrupt isn't limited to one party. It's unfortunately a symptom of the political system we have now. Not condoning it on any level, but let's not play coy that it's a problem with one party.

Now, on the merits of Gov Deal and the OP's question/statement. What exactly do you think is corrupt about the way he or the state (the legislature is involved in general fund expenditures you know) has used this money?

Stop the innuendo and partisan bashing and make some specific allegations if you feel there has been fraud committed.

[dentedhelmet]

Originally Posted by cittic10

It was a settlement for the homeowners and the crimes that the banks have committed against them. It should be used to help the homeowners, not to used for corporations and business development. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

The banks, in many cases, underwrote mortgages for families that could not really afford the mortgage to begin with.

Does the homeowner not have any responsibility for their part in signing onto an agreement that they cannot uphold, and what about the government pressure to turn everyone into homeowners? Now, there's the crime. Who is going to hold the federal government responsible for its crimes? I hope voters will this November.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

What is a "gubmint?" Is that like spearmint?

First, do we know specifically what projects were funded by that money? A poster mentioned corporations and now you've leaped to a conclusion that to my knowledge hasn't been supported by anything in evidence. We don't know that any money was given to anyone.

Second, as I understand it, the money was paid to the states as a penalty for potential wrongdoing by these financial institutions, in exchange for the states not prosecuting or delving deeper. There were no strings attached or prescriptive uses for the money.

Third, it's always amusing how the knee jerk libs come out of the woodwork with slogans and preconceived notions that somehow the Gov or Republicans in general must be doing something wrong because they didn't throw $100 million down a rat hole by sending checks to people, which is the knee jerk lib solution to every problem.

Fourth, look at the other states who also put the money in their general funds. States like NY and CA that are overwhelmingly blue. The whole premise of the thread is just silly.

Why? A lawsuit gives the states $5 to help plug their budget holes, and Georgia takes 20% of that--far more than its share of the population. Would you not agree that something fishy is going on?

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Would you not agree that something fishy is going on?

I wouldn't agree. What exactly and specifically "fishy" do you assume was going on, and how would that escape all of the legal eyes on the settlement, from each of the states and the feds?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I wouldn't agree. What exactly and specifically "fishy" do you assume was going on, and how would that escape all of the legal eyes on the settlement, from each of the states and the feds?

I don't know exactly what happened. And that's what bothers me. Hell I couldn't even get this piece of info from the AJC; had to look elsewhere.

If this is just some mundane, "yeah this is what the funds were allowed to be allocated toward," then we could have a debate as to whether they were spent the best possible way. But if it's more than that, well then yeah, somebody needs to look into this. And if that doesn't happen, then trust me, that wouldn't be a first.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

I don't know exactly what happened. And that's what bothers me. Hell I couldn't even get this piece of info from the AJC; had to look elsewhere.

So you don't know what was done inappropriately or if anything was, but you feel sure something was and you know it when you see it?

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by neil0311

You mean like John Edwards, Bill Campbell, Victor Hill and plenty of local and national Democrats? Only reason I mention it is that being corrupt isn't limited to one party. It's unfortunately a symptom of the political system we have now. Not condoning it on any level, but let's not play coy that it's a problem with one party.

Now, on the merits of Gov Deal and the OP's question/statement. What exactly do you think is corrupt about the way he or the state (the legislature is involved in general fund expenditures you know) has used this money?

Stop the innuendo and partisan bashing and make some specific allegations if you feel there has been fraud committed.

He resigned from congress to run for governor only because he was going to be thrown out of congress on ethics violations. During his campaign for governor there are multiple charges of routing campaign funds through his daughters law firm or something like that. It was mainly to pay her a 6 figure salary. "I think this is correct but cannot remember the details and am too lazy to find them."

Resignation ends ethics probe of ex-Rep. Nathan Deal

He could have used the money to plug the Hope scholarship he has helped destroy. By cutting the higher education budget the current people in charge have balanced the state budget. To fix this the universities have raised tuition to make up the missing funds. With 1/2 of all students on hope the scholarship fund has been drained. So basically he's doing an end run around the state constitution by using the lottery to fund the state budget...

[cittic10]

Originally Posted by dentedhelmet

The banks, in many cases, underwrote mortgages for families that could not really afford the mortgage to begin with.

+++ And millions more who could afford it until they lost their jobs. Don't forget why the banks wrote those loans in the first place. They were going to sell this bad debt and then bet against it. They knew full well what they were doing and the disasterous effect that it would eventually have on the economy.

Originally Posted by dentedhelmet

Does the homeowner not have any responsibility for their part in signing onto an agreement that they cannot uphold, and what about the government pressure to turn everyone into homeowners? Now, there's the crime.

+++ No, the crime is where the banks took large bailouts from the american tax payer to stay in business after creating a house of cards that collapsed from their own greed. Then buying our politicians to prevent any meaningful legislation that would either prosecute them or keep this from happening again. I bought two houses in the last ten years and not once did the government pressure me to do so. Come to think of it, if anyone did that, it was the banks. They were constantly telling people anyone could afford to buy a house. No credit? No Job? No problem! "Lost another loan to Ditech!" Remember that? "We'll just do an interest-only loan... It'll be cheaper than your rent" Remember that?

Originally Posted by dentedhelmet

Who is going to hold the federal government responsible for its crimes? I hope voters will this November.

+++ Who's going to hold the banks accountable for their crimes? Credit default swaps? Hiding toxic assets? Robo signing? Countless other frauds, lies and criminal scandals? If you want to hold the government accountable for something, hold them accountable for not prosecuting the real criminals and not coming up with regulation to keep it from happening again.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by bellhead

He resigned from congress to run for governor only because he was going to be thrown out of congress on ethics violations. During his campaign for governor there are multiple charges of routing campaign funds through his daughters law firm or something like that. It was mainly to pay her a 6 figure salary. "I think this is correct but cannot remember the details and am too lazy to find them."

Resignation ends ethics probe of ex-Rep. Nathan Deal

He could have used the money to plug the Hope scholarship he has helped destroy. By cutting the higher education budget the current people in charge have balanced the state budget. To fix this the universities have raised tuition to make up the missing funds. With 1/2 of all students on hope the scholarship fund has been drained. So basically he's doing an end run around the state constitution by using the lottery to fund the state budget...

I understand what he was accused of in Congress, although he was never found guilty and there were some accusations of partisan meddling. For the sake of discussion, even if he was guilty of what the accusations said, that doesn't mean he did anything wrong in regard to a settlement that was made between the banks and many states, and that the legislature and many others were part of in deciding what happened to the money.

What I'm not able to do is take the leap from he was tainted in Congress to how he unilaterally did something unspecified that was "fishy." No one can tell me what you suspect he did, only that because he was under suspicion in Congress (whether or not correctly), then that must mean that because you don't agree with spending the money as part of the General Fund that Nathan Deal is responsible for doing something untoward with it.

Be specific and where is your evidence, other than saying that correlation means causation in your view.