X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:43:24 PST
From:         "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
Subject:      Re: bounced checks
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

> Let me get this straight: if -T.'s credit union did not charge
> interest, then the Congress's situation would have been OK with
> you?
>
> At any rate, the fact that the overdrafts (no checks in question
> were ever bounced) were interest free did not cost the tax-payers
> (that is you) a penny.  So what is it to you?  Not that I condone
> this privilege but it was far from being illegal or abuse of
> *public* funds.
Here's the deal, OK.  Interest free loans that are not mentioned on a
tax return as taxable income is against the law.  Interest free loans
used to run a campaign is against the law.  Interest free loans to invest
in an island in the Caribbean lends itself to being a good question about
whether it's against the law.  Further Federal money, our money, was used
in at least 2 instances when the house bank ran out of funds and had to
borrow money from us, interest free.  This last argument hasn't cut a lot
of water with other people but it bothers me so I'll mention it.  The house
bank was run with our money.  The people, the facility, the paper all of
that was our money.  That was used to run a badly managed and possibly
very corrupt bank.  Oh yeh, another reason this is bad is that the sargent
of the bank lent money that wasn't his to people.  But since this didn't
involve our money that isn't important right?
>
> >> -T.
>
> > Jason
>
> --KAT
>

> From: "(Jonathan Fisher)" <jfisher@NETXWEST.COM>
>
> >Can we, at least, try to be factual.  Boxer bounced 143 checks.  This
> >is significantly less than "hundreds of checks".
>
> No, not really.  Anyway, Paul's original point was that Boxer bounced a hell
 of
> a lot of checks.  Your # of 143 helps him make his point.
>
> >  As for the corruption
> >line, I think that people who deliberately bounced checks were corrupt.
> >I don't put Boxer in that category.
>
> Oh come on.  If she had bounced a check here and a check there, I could buy
 the
> explanation that it was inadvertant.  But I find it hard to believe that
 ANYONE
> would keep making the same mistake over and over again 143 times.
>
> In fact, you might be better off admitting that she did it on purpose.  Any
> other explanation makes her look like a moron.
>
> >Jonathan
>
> Jason
>

I've heard too many definitions of bounced checks to play that game.
Call it what you want but if any of our congresspeople did what I mentioned
above, I feel that it is illegal.

Going back to another different conversation about my new senator Barbara
Boxer, I will say that the point of my post was that Paul had said that
Boxer bounced "hundreds of checks".  Note the plural of hundred.  He clearly
meant to put Boxer in a larger category of bouncers than she was.  I posted
the actual number of bounced checks that she bounced (143).  I don't personally
believe that she is corrupt, like a lot of other congress-people.  Yes it
looks bad and yes she has a lot of explaining to do, which she won't do.
But I don't believe that she is corrupt.

Jonathan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU