In Roxbury, Brown campaign buys supporters

Obama voters for Brown? A roving UHub photographer captured the scene in Dudley Square.A roving UHub photographer captured the scene in Dudley Square yesterday.

The Herald reports the Brown campaign is paying homeless men about $8 an hour to act like Brown has supporters in Roxbury by holding Brown signs and wearing shirts proclaiming them "Obama supporters for Brown."

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

OOooo

The bias UHub comments, because Liz hasn’t paid Union workers to hold signs at all right!

this is a minor, and not policy-related deception

This is a minor and not policy-related deception, so it doesn't bother me but this one does.

Scott Brown describes himself as pro-choice and campaigns as a pro-choice candidate. He bristles and gets peevish when his opponent challenges the assertion using his voting record as evidence. He even spends 100s of thousands of dollars running ads with his wife and daughters (hiding behind his family) saying people are lying about his record. But the record doesn't lie:

Scott Brown voted to deny abortion coverage in Obamacare, even for for people using their own money to purchase health insurance. In my book, this makes Scott Brown an asshole.

So..

What is ok for one is sleazy for the other? "This is a minor and not policy-related deception, so it doesn't bother me but this one does."

Not to mention your post has no relevance to the captioned article!

clarification

I'm not the anon that posted it, but I think what s/he is saying is that paying people to hold your signs is not seen as a policy issue so s/he doesn't care if either Brown or Warren do this. The "this" anon's references as being a problem is the policy issue of abortion/reproductive rights that s/he then goes off on. So I think anon didn't indicate that it was sleazy for one of them and not the other - s/he didn't care about that issue.

Thank you for identifying Lizzie's flawed argument

These things are so complex with so much buried in them, who knows why he voted against it. He's said several times, some of the concepts were good, but the legislation was bad (and even the Boston Globe agreed with him (?)). Lizzie doesn't seem to understand the process of getting legislation through a divided government.

Even if you agree with her politically, why would you send someone so naive to Washington to represent us? How can someone who claims to have inspired something as moronic and left wing as OWS expect to get any cooperation from a Republican held house even if the Dems manage to hold on to the senate? Send Lizzie to Washington and you might as well send a paperweight - you'll get 6 years of nothing.

Moonbatshit maybe

They saw the legislation she wrote that got passed when the Democrats held all the cards and the Republicans realized that she's a menace (and surprisingly, I think that was buried in the Dodd Frank bill that Brown voted for).

Consumer Headache bureau might be more like it - started some paperwork on a refi this morning and we have to initial/sign literally like 45 places in a 75 page document.

Read the financial pages lately - basically all the small banks are getting pushed out of lots of businesses because this legislation is so complex they can't afford the compliance costs. Smaller broker dealers dying on the vine due to compliance costs as well (and they are often the good guys in a den of thieves). Wells Fargo now controls about 1/3 of the mortgage biz and while rates are historically low, there is growing evidence that with more competition they'd be even lower. Thanks Lizzie - big companies (oil, banks and otherwise) should be taxed/regulated more - here's firsthand evidence that we the people end up paying for that moonbatshit.

She's a danger to herself and others. Like I said - you may like her politics but if people like her ran the world there would be no world to run. It would look like OWS wallowing in a mudbath in January.

What a bunch of baloney

Consumer Headache bureau might be more like it - started some paperwork on a refi this morning and we have to initial/sign literally like 45 places in a 75 page document.

Wait, you think that's a new thing? I've run two refi's in the last dozen years and "45 initials in 75 pages" sounds about par for the course.

Ditto for small banks getting pushed out of by big banks - this has been a well-reported trend for at least a decade now - and you're trying to hang it on the barely year-old Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? That's ridiculous.

Then how do you defend yourself?

This is the problem with libertarian philosophy more than it is Warren's attempt to clean up Wall Street's corruption of banking. The problem is that if we just left it up to the industry to regulate itself (as exampled by the steady erosion of regulation over the past 40 years), then it doesn't because it's not profitable to do so. On top of that, it's up to each individual then to expose the corruption...if they're able to discover it at all in the first place. Given a largesse of money and control over the situation, large banks end up hiding the corruption all too easily and there's just no way for the consumer to win in a deregulated libertarian paradise of banking.

Cleaning up that mess means dealing first with the big players. They're not just the big players because they hold all the cards, but because they have the most customers. The CFPB can then deal with improving small lender options. However, simply relaxing the regulations just shifts the corruption to a bunch of smaller entities instead of a few big ones. Then the larger banks can buy up the corrupt mortgages with their hands clean. What this screams for is a company that helps small banks reach compliance through consulting contracts...not a complete unraveling of the bureau that's making sure over half of America isn't getting robbed blind by banks as we each individually try to make it on our own without being raked over the money pits of hell.

Not about relaxing regs

First - Jeff - I've done several refis myself and I'd say the paperwork is up about 50%. As for the banks - that may be true -but the amount of compliance is killing them faster and taking down some of the larger banks as well - pushing more and more biz into the big banks that we all love to hate.

Kaz - I have no problem with regulations - but the problem is that they try to write rules around everything - and it's simply not effective. The financial crisis didn't occur due to lack of regulations - it occurred because they didn't know what to regulate - or how to regulate what they did know about (which is always the case). The worst situation was probably AIG - and that was going on in London mostly beyond the reach of our regulators. If you read the backgrounds you realize that most of the executives didn't even know the risks they had exposed themselves to. They all relied on various declarations in a long chain, not knowing that several links in the chain were made of little more than spit and paper.

You could not have stopped the financial crisis by more regulation. Fewer, but in the right places, maybe. Unfortunately, almost nobody knew where those places were. We had built a chain link fence around a field of landmines and left the gates open.

I started making a list of the docs I am signing for my refi - it's simply too damned long. This doesn't protect me. it protects the mortgage company from getting sued. It mostly confuses us - and my wife and I are native English speakers with masters degrees. I can't imagine an immigrant with a HS education trying to navigate this. there has to be a better way - but Lizzie just wants to write more rules. Works great in a classroom. In the real world you just end up stepping on a landmine.

butt...butt...butthead

How do you regulate transactions in London or regulate things that you don't even know are going on? If you had studied the financial crisis you'd quickly realize that many of the things that caused the problems became a problem faster than you could have even passed a rule/law/regulation. In 18 months a business that barely existed grew from almost zero at some companies to a size that threatened to bring down the global financial system - and many of the companies thought they even had protection against these problems. Only problem is that the people they were buying protection from had problems on their books that they didn't know about that were bigger than the problems of the people trying to buy the protection. Now you go wrap your head around solving that conundrum. Please be sure to be far away from me when your head explodes from trying to accomplish the impossible.

You might want to start here to begin to understand how futile and wasteful most of this is:

http://www.economist.com/node/21547784

Cronyism is the Problem

Cronyism seems really inbred in many influential often re-elected politicians who create legislation to help big businesses. I believe this explains why companies, mainly the ones who are to big to fail, operate much the way our government has for many decades which is reckless and without regard for us.

Well, you seem easily swayed.

Well, you seem easily swayed. As a woman I am tired of the Dems constant insult that I can only think of my reproductive system. Don't we have REAL wars going on with soldiers dying still? All I hear is this claptrap phoney "war on women". Its an insult to think this is all I think about because of my gender.

Read the bills and you will see that there may be more to it than Dem talking points, you know think!

How do you know they don't support Brown?

Who could know for sure but people aren't stupid and they know budget slashers like Brown, Ryan and Romney are more than likely to cut funding for food stamp and homeless shelters.

What's truly disgusting is that they use the savings to drop the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. Food and homeless shelters versus tax cuts for the rich, when Federal tax rates are already the lowest in 50 years.

Minimum wage is $8.

The minimum wage for Boston is the same as the state: $8.
You are thinking of the Boston Living Wage, which is $13.49.

"The Living Wage Ordinance was passed by the Boston City Council and approved by the Mayor on September 4, 1998. The purpose of the Ordinance is to assure that employees of vendors who contract with the City to provide services earn an hourly wage that is sufficient for a family of four to live on or above the poverty line."

Many people in Boston make below $13.49.

You're slipping

Wow, it took a full 42 minutes from the time this was posted until the first tu-quoique retort from someone on the right. Your response times are slipping. And, given how much time you had, I'm a little disappointed by the lack of effort here; surely you could have pointed at something that's been featured on something more damning than Drudge and Fox News?

Making enemies

We all gotta live here together, friend. The only enemy in this situation is ourselves. This isn't a football game and "the other side" isn't scoring points. Just because they put two numbers up on the screen side by side with red on one half and blue on the other doesn't make it a sports score. The news may even want to conflate the two because it's easier to sell a dog fight than a political discussion, but don't fall for the trap. They just want you to see their ads more than the other news show's.

If any of that sinks in, then you can start deciding which candidate actually is interested in improving your situation.

Yes. He's making a case for being taxed at 14% not 35%.

And if Rmoney wins, he might be able to get the Romney/Ryan plan 1% tax rate on carried interests and capital gains.

The rich, who earn the most from markets sustained by the middle class, are ripping off the middle class using govt power. When they don;t pay a fair share, we pay for the cost of gpv't. They get special deals in the tax code, and billions in tax breaks voted on by Congress.

Not Too Different

Most major campaigns have loads of hacks carrying signs and holding placards. This is a new twist, granted, but I'd rather see some money going to these folks than to some career coatholders.

Also, if these people put together a resume in future, they can put "Worked on Scott Brown Senate campaign, 2012" on it.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

I know.

I know. I never cease to be amazed that sentient people like being punked by simple-minded symbols like an $800 glove-leather "barncoat" or a truck that use to pull show horses and now totes a US Senator from campaign event to campaign event.

I'm not be partisan

by any means, but BOTH political parties and many others do the exact same thing.

Basically 3 types of people hold signs:

1) Political hacks and those who want to be a political hack

2) Paid rent-a-sign holder

3) A small number of genuine and sincere true believers.

Roxbury residents vs SEIU

It isn't much of a stretch to believe that an SEIU member might also be an Obama voter. Don't the conservatives claim the unions back democrats 100% of the time, (true or not?) What is a stretch is that there's a large number of Scott Brown voters in the Roxbury, and that they've switched from Obama to Brown. Of course, this is a sleazy, slight of hand move, and typical of the barn jacket. Paying people to hold signs isn't a terrible fraud, particularly if they represent a voting group that for the most part, votes for the candidate in question. Paying people who don't represent a fraction of the voters to hold signs for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all is sleazy.

Okay

Name some. By all means, lets see some evidence.

Of course, it is possible that this does happen. Some proof of your "concept" however, is more than welcome.

Okay

So ... were they compensated for the time they spent doing something they supported OR did they tell you directly that they were voting for Brown but holding signs for Warren.

See the difference?

Yes

they got paid! And most Union workers blindly vote for who their Union has endorsed, this is what they call being "Union Strong".

not in the trades...

Might have been like that in the great yesteryears, but nowadays, at least among the trades, getting union guys to vote for Elizabeth Warren is not a given. Check out a union construction site sometime -- the radio is locked in on some talkradio station and you will find more GOP-leaning sentiments, especially towards Scott Brown, than the "Unions are big meanies who bully and shakedown the poor job creators" trope that seems to be the common wisdom. If ONLY unions were as blindly and rabidly followed as Tea Party groups, as deep-pocketed as PACs and corporate interest groups and had the pols by the balls as utterly as corporate America. They ain't what they used to be.

true

Rank and file vote for whomever they want but they also spend time at union meetings hearing the reasons why the union is endorsing one candidate or another. So they have a good picture of why the union endorses one candidate or another.

Republicans spent the last two year in Republican majority states obliterating union rights, including Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio NH and Maine.

Romney and Ryan are totally on board with anti-union policy, so any union guy that votes Republican at least knows they're voting against their own interest and for a greatly diminished bargaining power for compensation and work conditions.

Also, Mailings

Rank and file vote for whomever they want but they also spend time at union meetings hearing the reasons why the union is endorsing one candidate or another.

Unions regularly make mailings to members urging them to vote for those candidates they perceive as pro-union. We have received several at our house.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

landfill material

...and how many of those mailings have moved you on political positions?

(Aside from making you want to vote the opposite of what they're saying.)

I have family in unions and I don't think they go to union halls more than once a year, if even, and that's for doing the paperwork for their benefits. They talk crap about the rampant corruption in the union and complain about the money taken out of their paychecks for dues...all the while enjoying very generous healthcare benefits that have saved their sorry asses repeatedly.

You don't appreciate what you've got until it's gone. In this country there's a lot of people who will soon be appreciating decent salaries and jobs in general if the sucking sound of our nation's wealth going into off-shore bank accounts doesn't stop.

No

What's the difference? Either way they were paid for their effort. If they really supported the Warren campaign, they would have declined the money, or donated it back to the campaign.

Elizabeth Warren. Pot? Kettle?

Elizabeth Warren campaign jobs have been posted on craigslist for months. Why is Brown the problem again? I will admit the shirts should say "Ed Brooke supporters for Brown" since the GOP is the only Massachusetts political party to send an African American to the U.S. Senate, 1967-1979. Racist MA Democrats never would.

The White Nationalist Movement

and other racist nazi type organizations have been very willing to tell people about their move to hijack conservative and christian political movments at the local level, mainly by muting their old message and re-branding.

It's the same old stuff, but they realized they need to both appear to move towards the center, and also to be legitimized by legitimate political channels to stick around.

There's no surprise this type of racism has crept into the part of Lincoln.

give us a break, you are

give us a break, you are grasping at straws. Do you think no one here realizes that since Brooke was elected in 1966 the Massachusetts Dems have only had occasion to nominate a non-incumbent candidate 4 times? And that includes Warren. So you think that is a significant sample? We'll concede the 0 for 4 in nominating an African American, but that's a lofty 50% women (Coakley and Warren). Care to guess how many women the mass gop have nominated in the combined 446 years of US Senator tenure?

Dishonesty

The sign holding, esp. with the added bonus of the pro-Obama shirt is particularly dishonest. It's an example of someone with plenty of wealth using his wealth as leverage on someone who has so little. These are the same people that are constantly let down by governmental policies, and Republicans blame these people for being homeless and in poverty because they supposedly won't take responsibility for themselves. It's fine for Brown and his party to run them down in terms of cutting their benefits, and then turn around and pay them a pittance to sell their party line? It's disgusting.

What's especially disgusting is that he's doing this after attacking Warren for her Native American story, which he's hammered on over and over, and says its a sign that she's dishonest. What does this say about him? Or will he miss the news again and just "not know"?

I walked right by all of this and didn't see

the "Obama supporter for..." on the tee shirt.
To get paid $8/hr did you have to prove you voted for Obama, or was that was implied because you are an African American?
Ya, I know, I answered my own question.
How about pulling this stunt in Chinatown, with Asians wearing the same tee shirts? Would that be racist?
Or better yet, in Southie, with whites wearing tee shirts saying "McCain supporter for Warren".