https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/20/found-2-billion-in-taxpayer-money-earmarked-for-stacey-abrams-linked-group/
I don't care how much you hate DOGE, Elon, or Trump. If you can't muster up any outrage over this transparent attempt to scam the feds, by someone who wants to hold office, you are simply too partisan to take seriously.
30 comments:
Those who rant about DOGE are not serious people.
As with any government entity, it is perfectly appropriate to criticize specific actions. Ranting for no reason is, as always, irrational.
I'm reading the story about this grant. I'm not sure what the outrage is. The group that applied for the grant (Power Forward Communities) in an apparently legal process to get money to pay for energy efficiency programs. Stacey Abrams is connected to another non-profit (Re-Wiring America, where she works as legal counsel it seems) with a similar mission and Re-Wiring America is an ally (or something) of Power Forward.
What is the problem with a non-profit applying for grants that have been put out there to help with an actual problem and then receiving that grant?
What exactly are we supposed to be outraged about? That a black woman is trying to help with poverty and energy problems, along with other colleagues?
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems to be a story about nothing.
Are you suggesting that Abrams (not directly connected to Power Forward) is somehow enriching herself from a non-profit? I mean, I know Trump did that (even though you never posted a story about that, I don't believe), but... what?
You know, if you were outraged about the scams of fake universities, failing to pay employees or stealing from charities when it was Trump doing it, it would be easier to take you seriously about a non-profit legally applying for and winning a grant (which again...what??)
"Power Forward Communities Receives $2 Billion to Affordably Decarbonize American Homes, Boost Local Economies"
https://powerforwardcommunities.org/press-release
Oh no! A non-profit helping with the energy concerns we have and trying to boost local economies!!! AAAAHGGGGGHHH!!! Run for the hills! It's madness!!
Look, the EPA granted this and the group appears prepared to do the work they planned to do with the grant. That's sort of how grants work. What's the deal?
I mean, $2 billion does seem like a lot, but then, it's a big problem/area of concern. I haven't read enough to know what all the money will fund, but I'm willing to bet that "WK" nor you all have, either.
Again: IF it is a legal grant, IF it was legally applied for and IF the money is being spent in a manner consistent with the grant, where is the problem?
The "outrage" boils down to two things.
1. The involvement of Abrahams.
2. The fact that this "nonprofit" had raised a tiny amount of money on it's own and should not have qualified for a grant of this magnitude.
The "outrage" is that this "non profit" was seemingly conceived solely to use Abraham's political connections to the Biden administration to get a grant that they likely wouldn't have qualified for otherwise. That there seems to be no track record of anyone at this "nonprofit" actually accomplishing anything beyond using political connections to get this grant.
Unlike you, I've criticized Trump for all of the straw men you trot out. Strangely, you won't do the same for those you support.
If, if, if, if. That's the problem you seem to have. You bitch about hypotheticals on one hand, then rely on them on the other hand.
How much funding did this "nonprofit" raise outside of this massive grant? How many homes did they "de carbonize" prior to this massive grant?
What track record or previous accomplishments had they demonstrated that would have justified this massive grant?
FYI, since most of the spending pauses are just that, pauses, it seems possible that these people could justify this grant.
I would say that any tax dollars going to anything unproven is a bad expenditure of our money. "De carbonize"? To do what? Pretend they're abating the mythical climate change crisis? No thank you. Indulge your fantasies on your own dime.
1. Unfortunately, using that standard would shut down DARPA, would have prevented the entire space program, the Manhattan Project, and who knows what else.
2. Without specifics, it's hard to evaluate exactly what this program was for. If, for example,if it was about improving thermal efficiency in older homes to reduce electrical and natural gas use then it's probably not a bad thing. There are certainly multiple proven methods that would achieve this goal.
3. As I understand it, the problem is the complete and total lack of any accomplishments or fundraising by this group. It's like they just organized this "nonprofit", solely for the purpose of getting this massive grant. I fail to see how it is responsible in any way to shower a "nonprofit" with billions of dollars in unaccountable grant money when they have zero track record of success in their mission nor any experience dealing with billions of dollars.
4. That they have a notable grifter and failure involved, apparently because of her connections with the Biden administration, isn't a particularly good look.
1. Except that those projects are in line with the function of the federal government to protect the nation. So right there, they are set apart from things like "climate change" subsidies. Further, at this point, those projects are based on proven ideas.
2. Specifics is usually a good thing.
3. And thus the highlighting of this subsidy. Little to nothing supporting the spending.
4. That alone makes it suspect.
1. I'd say that you could make an argument that using less natural gas and electricity could be within the purview of the federal government. You're the one that said you didn't want your tax dollars going to "anything unproven". Everything I listed includes R&D into things that are "unproven".
2. Yes, without specifics it's difficult to evaluate. Unlike Dan who sees some magic words and immediately thinks that something will be awesome, I'd prefer to see specifics.
3. Which is my point. There are ample reasons to highlight this grant as problematic. As opposed to Dan's magic words approach.
4. Again, my point.
1. Ah, yes. We're going to do this dance again. If R & D is in the realm of the federal government's mandate to secure the nation, I would expect it would delve into that which has yet to be proven viable. But things like "climate change" are things which aren't proven to even be a real thing and thus are unworthy of spending our tax dollars to develop that which doesn't actually have any effect on the climate. I use that as one example of wasted money on the "unproven". I continue striving to consider all possible ways in which my comments can in any way unclear. I fear it will always be a problem.
2. Here, we see that which unproven as having done any damn good of any kind, regardless of their name and stated purpose. Doesn't inspire confidence it's money well spent.
3. Indeed. As to that stated purpose, we're still left with weak claim that it's worthy of our tax dollars being used to fund it. It's as if any request for funding must be granted, when the feds shouldn't be in the business of doling out our bucks in the first place. We definitely need to narrow sharply the list of that which constitutes a worthy request for federal funding, subsidy or grant. We clearly ain't made of money.
There are perhaps reasons to ask questions. I'm always fine with asking questions. But suggesting/stating we should be outraged when no finding of wrongdoing has occurred and when you for some reason want to attack a black woman as being a "notable grifter" and "failure," and associate her with some alleged rumor of misdeeds on her part, THAT is something to be outraged about.
In my day, conservatives liked to actually respond to data, not gossip and slander.
And for what it's worth, I don't think you care much about actual grifters whose corruption has been established and who's been actually convicted of felons or you wouldn't vote for one and defend him so much.
IF any Democrat (or Republican) had an established case of overt corruption, I would not defend them and I certainly wouldn't vote for them. If any Democrat had dozens of women alleging sexual harassment and worse, you can be sure I wouldn't vote for them. If any Democrat was actually convicted of multiple felonies, I wouldn't vote for them. If any Democrat had actually boasted about sexual assault and ogling teenagers and laughed about it! - you can be sure I wouldn't vote for them.
And that's one of the differences between you all and folks like me and my conservative parents (when they were alive): We have a moral and rational consistency in opposing corruption, sexual assaults, boasting about sexual assaults, electing unrepentant convicted felons AND against slander, rumor-mongering and gossip.
And I can't believe I have to even point out why that's important.
The "outrage" is that this "non profit" was
A. seemingly conceived solely to
B. use Abraham's political connections to the Biden administration to get a grant that
C. they likely wouldn't have qualified for otherwise.
D. That there seems to be no track record of anyone at this "nonprofit" actually accomplishing anything beyond using political connections to get this grant.
Can I safely assume that you have not one shred of proof of any of these rumors and innuendo? That you have no proof of Ms Abrams being a "grifter..."?
If so, would you be a better man and admit as much and apologize for spreading rumors and gossip and slander?
You know, like the Bible teaches?
Now, once again, $2 billion IS a lot of money. I'm fine with asking the question, but assuming that a black woman is involved in some sort of scam with no data, THAT is something to be outraged about.
1. Well, as long as "anything unproven" actually means "anything unproven" then by the specific standard you proposed, any R&D would not be funded because R&D is by definition part of "anything unproven". But don't tell me, let me guess. You didn't really mean what you said when you said "anything unproven", you really meant that "anything" actually should be interpreted as "some things". Gotcha. No reason to do any dance. You can just acknowledge that you expressed yourself poorly and move on. If history serves, you'll likely spend a bunch of time trying to justify why "anything" doesn't really mean "anything".
2. Again, my point. Between the lack of specificity, and lack of track record, it seems like a poor investment.
3. Sure.
I must have missed where it was demanded that anyone be outraged. Well, she is a grifter and a failure, but I guess we can't say that because she's black.
What "gossip and slander"? The reality is that the fact that this grant was made without much thought to the competence of the "non profit" likely because Abrams was a favorite of the Biden/Harris administration is enough to at a minimum pause this grant.
For the record, when what you think is so often factually wrong, then what you think has virtually zero value.
Interesting, so you'd be happy to talk about corruption after the grant has been dispersed and the money has been wasted. But to actually look at the qualifications of the "non profit" and the character of those involved before passing out billions, isn't something you'd be interested in.
As I've been quite open about calling out corruption and even potential corruption on both sides, your personal attacks and unprovable claims ring hollow.
Which is why those questions should have been answered, and should be answered before writing a blank check to people who are unable to raise funding for themselves other than through a government grant. Perhaps the qualifications of people who've raised less than $1,000 for their goal should be measured before throwing billions at them. As I believe I said, if they have a plan with measurable specifics and the ability to perform those specifics, then reconsider the pause.
FYI, her skin color has nothing to do with my concerns about her. It's the fact that she's failed multiple times at running for office and appears to have no qualifications to receive this grant. I know it's easier to make passive aggressive hints about racism than to acknowledge reality, but when you've got nothing you have to fall back on your stale, made up, bullshit, tropes.
Craig...
I must have missed where it was demanded that anyone be outraged.
Also Craig...
If you can't muster up
any outrage over this
transparent attempt to scam the feds,...
In other words, YOU are literally the one who literally said people should be outraged.
You're welcome.
Beyond that, I see that your answer is, NO, I do NOT have any proof of the false attack claims I've made about this black woman or this organization. They are literally rumors and slander.
I pray that one day you'll mature to the point where you're no longer comfortable passing on gossip as if it were a fact.
Dan
There are reports that Se. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) backed legislation that funneled millions to a non profit that his wife runs. She personally pocketed almost 3 million of the over 14 million in government funding.
It's simple don't fund no profits if people involved in government, or their families stand to pocket millions of taxpayer dollars. It's called a conflict of interest.
My bad. I did miss that. I'm an imperfect human and occasionally miss things. I apologize.
My point, however, stands. That outrage at any attempt to defraud the taxpayers is an appropriate response.
Given that I haven't made any "false claims" that I'm aware of, and you haven't proven anything I've said to be false, I must express respect for your courageous battle with a straw man. Very brave.
Once you start sticking to facts, I'll take you seriously. But given how often you're wrong about things, that'll not be anytime soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/us/stacey-abrams-ethics-voting-rights.html
https://www.wusf.org/2025-01-16/pro-stacey-abrams-groups-to-pay-record-fine-for-breaking-georgia-campaign-finance-law
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/us/politics/nonprofit-stacey-abrams.html
Well, if the NYT reports that Abrams has ethical issues, I guess it's safe to question her ethics in this case as well.
Given that this was one of the grants from the "Inflation Reduction Act" (misleadingly named as reducing inflation was not really part of the act) that was rushed out before the Trump administration took over, it seems reasonable to conclude that Abram connection with the Biden/Harris administration might have influenced that decision.
Back in the day even the "appearance if impropriety" was enough to cause problems not now.
Finally, as we've seen in MN the setting up of "non profits" to defraud the government and enrich the founders of the organizations actually is a problem and perhaps rushing to give billions to a group with no track record and no history of accomplishing anything was not a wise choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your comments in response to me suggest you don't understand the difference between spending money on unproven assertions of the existence of notions such as "climate change", as pushed by the left, versus the proving of what is or isn't true or possible inherent in R&D. Your penchant for clinging to your incorrect intention of my comments even after clarification mystifies me.
I pray that one day Dan will no longer be a racist, seeking every opportunity to label better people as such, simply because better people aren't afraid to justly criticize the questionable behavior of those who might also be of a different race. I know this is "embracing grace" to Dan, but it isn't to Jesus.
You're wrong. If one adheres to the formula you espoused that we shouldn't fund "anything unproven", that would literally (based on the widely accepted meaning of the word anything), actually mean anything. You are the one who advocated for the not funding "anything unproven" standard, not me.
Now, I guess you could argue that there are some exceptions to the standard you articulated ("anything unproven") or you could have used another term besides "anything".
Now, as to your example of "climate change", it's too vague to respond to. However, a case could be made for using taxpayer funding to upgrade appliances and mechanical/HVAC equipment to more efficient equipment so as to simply use less resources, and lower emissions.
As far as "clinging" all I'm really clinging to is that "anything" actually means anything. ": any thing whatever : any such thing" Yeah, I'm "clinging" to the common, accepted, usual, definition of "anything".
You could simply acknowledge that you misspoke and move on, but instead your going to argue that "anything" does not mean "anything".
I don't believe that Dan could actually "embrace grace" if it came up and bit him on the ass. His actions demonstrate some a poor understanding of what showing grace to others might actually look like in action as to lead one to conclude that he has no idea what grace really is. That he thinks that showing grace involves lying about others, spewing vitriol, spewing expletives, and ad hom attacks seems to indicate a sever grace defecit.
I do agree that it would be helpful if Dan was to release his obsession with race and with filtering everything through the lens of race.
Craig...
That outrage at any attempt to defraud the taxpayers is an appropriate response.
Also Craig...
Given that I haven't made any "false claims" that I'm aware of...
You LITERALLY just falsely claimed or at least gossipped that there was some effort to defraud the taxpayers WHEN you've proven NO FRAUD.
I don't know how to help you see your own rational, slanderous inconsistencies.
Dan
Except that I did not do so. I DID make a general statement that fraud against taxpayers SHOULD generate outrage. In other words, it is 100% appropriate to be outraged by a bunch of immigrants who defrauded the federal and state government out of large sums of money intended to feed people. It is 100% appropriate to be outraged at the governmental entities that allowed the fraud to take place. When something has the appearance of potential fraud (a "nonprofit" with connections to someone who has influence with the administration in power, which has no track record of accomplishments, no track record of fundraising, and no apparent expertise in the purpose, gets billions of dollars rushed to them) it certainly gives the appearance of potential fraud and should be investigated. To think that raising questions or waiting for the billions to get wasted is somehow wrong seems bizarre.
But, I get that you don't always pick up on nuance or look past your prejudices when you skim things.
It's easier to make unfounded, ad hom attacks, than anything else.
You're just trying to find a way out of the hole you dug. I don't know anyone who would suggest R & D is spending on the unproven in a manner parallel to spending money on the "climate crisis". The money spent on the "climate crisis" is not R & D so much as acting as if there's actually a crisis. That's not R & D. R & D is about proving or disproving in order to acquire useful, actionable knowledge. The "climate crisis" is nowhere near "settled science" and I'd argue not a widely held position. Subsidizing solar panels, windmills, electric cars...those are items pushed on the basis of the unproven claim of a "climate crisis".
Did I misspeak? I guess you can say that if you need to be right. But again, I would never have suspected you'd make this category error in the first place.
"I would say that any tax dollars going to anything unproven is a bad expenditure of our money."
The above quote are your exact words. R&D is literally funding that which is "unproven". Obviously you can try to pretend that "anything unproven" didn't actually mean "anything unproven", which you appear to be doing. I'm not digging any holes here, I'm simply taking the words that you chose to write at face value.
That you can make excuses to justify your poor choice of words, or justify why you actually, really didn't mean what you said is obvious. Just as obvious is that there are differences between spending on what's "unproven". Of course, unless you plan to argue that "anything" actually doesn't mean "anything", it seems pointless at best.
Pointing out that "anything" almost always actually means "anything" and that R&D is almost always involved in exploring the "unproven" isn't a "category error" it's basic English.
Post a Comment