The Associated Press wrote about the Fellowship in 2003. Interesting to note that Sen. John Ensign, who admitted to an extramarital affair, is also closely affiliated with the group and is a resident of C Street:
Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the "Fellowship" and the "Foundation" and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
The Fellowship hosts receptions, luncheons and prayer meetings on the first two floors of the house, which is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a church.
The six lawmakers—Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev. and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.—live in private rooms upstairs.
Rent is $600 a month, DeMint said.
"Our goal is singular—and that is to hope that we can assist them in better understandings of the teachings of Christ, and applying it to their jobs," said Richard Carver, a member of the Fellowship's board of directors who served as an assistant secretary of the Air Force during the Reagan administration.
The house, valued at $1.1 million, is owned by the C Street Center, a sister organization of the Fellowship. It received more than $145,000 in Fellowship grants between 1997 and 2000, according to IRS records—including $96,400 in 1998 for reducing debt.
Its tenants dine together once a week to discuss religion in their daily lives.
"We do have a Bible study," said DeMint, a Presbyterian who asked to move into the house less than a year ago when there was a vacancy. "Somebody'll share a verse or a thought, but mostly it's more of an accountability group to talk about things that are going on in our lives, and how we're dealing with them."
Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission.
It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress, and dignitaries from around the world. The group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to host the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records, and pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/24/sanford-cites-secretive-christian-groups-role-in-helping-confront-affair.html (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/24/sanford-cites-secretive-christian-groups-role-in-helping-confront-affair.html)
WOW!!!! Dan....that is horrible.....Lawmakers ACTUALLY trying to get a good deal on rent...and damn those guys for eating lunch together and discussing religion.........don't they know they are being paid by taxpayers.
I most certainly understand your concern and fear.... :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 10, 2009, 01:20:35 PM
WOW!!!! Dan....that is horrible.....Lawmakers ACTUALLY trying to get a good deal on rent...and damn those guys for eating lunch together and discussing religion.........don't they know they are being paid by taxpayers.
I most certainly understand your concern and fear.... :yes:
It is called lobbying and gifts, from the lobbyists, you jackass. The "renters" should be in jail for taking payoffs to do political favors.
Quote from: dan foster on July 10, 2009, 07:40:19 PM
It is called lobbying and gifts, from the lobbyists, you jackass. The "renters" should be in jail for taking payoffs to do political favors.
You mean like the UAW, huge contributors to the dems, who was given a huge interest in GM by Obama, or ACORN, also huge contributors, who is getting all kinds of stimulus money? Or maybe you mean the banks who got TARP money, even though they didn't need it, that Franks and some of the other democratic congressmen either have an interest in or someone they know does.
Quote from: me on July 11, 2009, 08:01:21 AM
You mean like the UAW, huge contributors to the dems, who was given a huge interest in GM by Obama, or ACORN, also huge contributors, who is getting all kinds of stimulus money? Or maybe you mean the banks who got TARP money, even though they didn't need it, that Franks and some of the other democratic congressmen either have an interest in or someone they know does.
Your analogies are completely irrelevant. And, what kind of moron thinks that the GM bailout was payback to the UAW?
Quote from: dan foster on July 11, 2009, 11:31:53 AM
Your analogies are completely irrelevant. And, what kind of moron thinks that the GM bailout was payback to the UAW?
The bail out wasn't it was giving the UAW part ownership that was. They came ahead of the stock holders which is totally wrong.
Quote from: dan foster on July 11, 2009, 11:31:53 AM
Your analogies are completely irrelevant. And, what kind of moron thinks that the GM bailout was payback to the UAW?
___________________________________________________________________-
That all depends on which end of the goat you are looking at.
Investors look at the goat square in the eye & decide to invest or not.
Union members largely are looking up a goats ass for any & all ways to screw the pooch.
The 'new gm' is a goat'sass proposition & the only investor(s) will be our grandkids.
.
( I used an allegory that I knew you'd understand )
.
:biggrin:
Quote from: me on July 11, 2009, 12:14:29 PM
The bail out wasn't it was giving the UAW part ownership that was. They came ahead of the stock holders which is totally wrong.
Sure they should come before the stockholders (the stockholders never worked a day in their life), but I doubt you have it correct. You will need to cite a reference for your claim.
Quote from: Philodox on July 11, 2009, 01:05:17 PM
___________________________________________________________________-
That all depends on which end of the goat you are looking at.
Investors look at the goat square in the eye & decide to invest or not.
Union members largely are looking up a goats ass for any & all ways to screw the pooch.
The 'new gm' is a goat'sass proposition & the only investor(s) will be our grandkids.
.
( I used an allegory that I knew you'd understand )
.
As before, your allegory is irrelevant, dumbass. But, kudos for learning a big word. You sure do write purdy, now.
I think you are incorrect.
The word "an" is used before a word starting with a vowel: we say "a horse", "a child" but "an orange", "an elephant".
Allergory is a noun...so 'an' would be correct.
Quote from: pariann on July 11, 2009, 03:17:55 PM
I think you are incorrect.
The word "an" is used before a word starting with a vowel: we say "a horse", "a child" but "an orange", "an elephant".
Allergory is a noun...so 'an' would be correct.
I changed it as it really wasn't what I meant, anyway. The allegory was irrelevant.
Quote from: dan foster on July 11, 2009, 02:53:11 PM
Sure they should come before the stockholders (the stockholders never worked a day in their life), but I doubt you have it correct. You will need to cite a reference for your claim.
______________________________________________________________________
Gee F/C... those brokers who oversee your mutual funds or 401 ( along with the state of Indies ) retirement accounts may have a disagreement with your oversimplified analysis.
They must have put the part about the union getting the gravy & every other legitament investor getting the shaft in fine print.
Union folk got no time for no stinkin fine print, do they f/c ?
.
Quote from: dan foster on July 11, 2009, 02:53:11 PM
Sure they should come before the stockholders (the stockholders never worked a day in their life), but I doubt you have it correct. You will need to cite a reference for your claim.
I do believe a lot of the stock holders were people who worked there. They might not have had any controlling interests but they did have stock which suddenly became worthless. I really think you open your mouth before you think sometimes.
Quote from: me on July 11, 2009, 08:07:04 PM
I do believe a lot of the stock holders were people who worked there. They might not have had any controlling interests but they did have stock which suddenly became worthless. I really think you open your mouth before you think sometimes.
And both of you a'holes have now made claims that you fail to back up with any kind of facts. Please cite something. And, please tell me how your current statement has anything to do with what the UAW got vs stockholders vs anything else?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jun/13/gm-plan-really-uaw-bailout/
Quote from: me on July 11, 2009, 08:07:04 PM
I do believe a lot of the stock holders were people who worked there. They might not have had any controlling interests but they did have stock which suddenly became worthless.
The link you provided (which is an opinion piece, incidently, not a news story) does not say the GM workers held stock. What is does say, is that a component of the deal is the United Automobile Workers' health care fund gets 17.5 percent of the common stock. Which is now worthless, according to you.
So how is the UAW coming out better of than any other stockholder? Worthless paper is worthless paper.
They have a say in the running of the company now and the stockholders are just out on their ear. That might not be a blessing though for the union because they will have to take a hit if they go the wrong way with the company. If they close up shop they're done and if they stay open they'll have to cut back on the wages and benefits they figured the company should be paying the workers for the same reason it was a bad idea for the company to have to pay them, not cost effective. Therefore the union will be working against themselves in a sense and the workers might still have a job but they will be making less so they can pay into the union who will now openly be thinking of themselves rather than the employees. Hum, maybe Obama put the unions in the trick bag here.... :wacko: Anyway just thinking out loud so to speak. I'll try to get a chance to go huntin' a link with a little better explaination that isn't an opinion piece.
Quote from: LOsborne on July 12, 2009, 07:50:20 AM
The link you provided (which is an opinion piece, incidently, not a news story) does not say the GM workers held stock. What is does say, is that a component of the deal is the United Automobile Workers' health care fund gets 17.5 percent of the common stock. Which is now worthless, according to you.
So how is the UAW coming out better of than any other stockholder? Worthless paper is worthless paper.
______________________________________________________________________
If the company didn't have government intervention you would be right... the investors & suppliers got 17.5% on the dollar of what was owed them in bankruptcy. The Union Workers received 17.5% of the NewGM.... Now, don't let that 30 Billion that 'we the people' bought into pass you by. That would amount to..what...5.25 Billion of Welfare monies that the UAW got because of government stupidity.
I just thought about this, you should check & see just how much did GM owe the Union before the bankruptcy, & why didn't they just take a haircut like the rest of the investors..?
Don't worry... your grandkids will enjoy paying for your greed. & you won't see them pissing on your graves... lol
.
Quote from: Philodox on July 12, 2009, 02:14:50 PM
______________________________________________________________________
I just thought about this, you should check & see just how much did GM owe the Union before the bankruptcy, & why didn't they just take a haircut like the rest of the investors..?
First, I doubt you thought anything. Second, why don't you tell us how much GM owed the Union before the bankruptcy? It's your "thought".
Quote from: dan foster on July 19, 2009, 03:32:34 PM
First, I doubt you thought anything. Second, why don't you tell us how much GM owed the Union before the bankruptcy? It's your "thought".
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090526_240387_page_2.htm
Quote from: me on July 19, 2009, 05:06:35 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2009/db20090526_240387_page_2.htm
___________________________________________________________________--
Thanks, Me... You're a better man that I am. lol
I wouldn't give the simple-minded bastard the time of day. lol
.
Quote from: Philodox on July 20, 2009, 09:32:16 PM
___________________________________________________________________--
Thanks, Me... You're a better man that I am. lol
I wouldn't give the simple-minded bastard the time of day. lol
.
I normally don't but couldn't help myself this time... :biggrin:
Quote from: Philodox on July 20, 2009, 09:32:16 PM
___________________________________________________________________--
Thanks, Me... You're a better man that I am. lol
I wouldn't give the simple-minded bastard the time of day. lol
.
Together, you guys are twice the moron I thought you were. Your insinuation of the UAW taking a cut before anyone else, then implying it was larger than it should be is completely disproved by the story in the link. Thanks "me" for showing what a dumbass philodo is.
Hmmm... according to the link, the answer to how much GM owed the Union before the bankruptcy is 20 Billion dollars. As part of the restructuring the union gets a note for 2.5 billion in cash and preferred stock, and another 6.5 billion in preferred stock after the company emerges from bankruptcy (if ever.) Now since we have all agreed GM stock is worthless, how did settling for less than twelve cents on the dollar equate to the union making out like pirates while everyone else got screwed?
maybe they could appoint a czar to do the math for the bailouts.
someone who could get the concept of simple bookkeeping right.
Quote from: Elaine on July 21, 2009, 09:22:27 AM
maybe they could appoint a czar to do the math for the bailouts.
someone who could get the concept of simple bookkeeping right.
:biggrin:
Quote from: dan foster on July 20, 2009, 10:10:00 PM
Together, you guys are twice the moron I thought you were. Your insinuation of the UAW taking a cut before anyone else, then implying it was larger than it should be is completely disproved by the story in the link. Thanks "me" for showing what a dumbass philodo is.
_____________________________________________________________________
The fact that you can't grasp such a simple concept is not my ( or Me's ) fault.
It is no wonder you seek assistance from cradle to grave... You couldn't make it by yourself.
....yeahhh, salute Walter Ruether.... Heir Ruether..!
.
Quote from: Philodox on July 22, 2009, 11:19:09 AM
The fact that you can't grasp such a simple concept is not my ( or Me's ) fault.
Simple concepts are all you and 'me' have.
Quote from: Philodox on July 22, 2009, 11:19:09 AM
_____________________________________________________________________
The fact that you can't grasp such a simple concept is not my ( or Me's ) fault.
It is no wonder you seek assistance from cradle to grave... You couldn't make it by yourself.
....yeahhh, salute Walter Ruether.... Heir Ruether..!
.
Yes. I am just overwhelmed by your superior knowledge and intellect. Amazing.