The Hypocrisy is Unbelievable

[DarterBlue]

15 hours ago, concha said:

Simple minds are easily entertained. and distracted.

The DNC and George Soros approve.

I won't respond to your comments as they are not worthy of comment. I will say, however, that Hannity's use of HUD resources smacks not only as gross hypocrisy, but also, and probably more importantly, questionable ethics, if not outright abuse. 

Of course you would never, ever acknowledge that. Carry on ...

[zulu1128]

16 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

I won't respond to your comments as they are not worthy of comment. I will say, however, that Hannity's use of HUD resources smacks not only as gross hypocrisy, but also, and probably more importantly, questionable ethics, if not outright abuse. 

Of course you would never, ever acknowledge that. Carry on ...

Can you explain some of this? I mean, I kinda get they hypocrisy angle...it would have been smart to disclose during the Carson interview. Still, hardly the first case of this type of "oops" by an interviewer, no?

As for the rest, I'm not sure you're that familiar with what HUD does on a day-to-day-basis. Providing assistance for real estate transactions is listed on their website numerous times as one of their services.

[RedZone]

34 minutes ago, DarterBlue said:

I won't respond to your comments as they are not worthy of comment. I will say, however, that Hannity's use of HUD resources smacks not only as gross hypocrisy, but also, and probably more importantly, questionable ethics, if not outright abuse. 

Of course you would never, ever acknowledge that. Carry on ...

Educated people agree with you.

 

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, DarterBlue said:

I won't respond to your comments as they are not worthy of comment. I will say, however, that Hannity's use of HUD resources smacks not only as gross hypocrisy, but also, and probably more importantly, questionable ethics, if not outright abuse. 

Of course you would never, ever acknowledge that. Carry on ...

that is what he does most. Insult.

Must be good for his ego when shielding himself as to why he does it. 

[DarterBlue]

8 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

Can you explain some of this? I mean, I kinda get they hypocrisy angle...it would have been smart to disclose during the Carson interview. Still, hardly the first case of this type of "oops" by an interviewer, no?

As for the rest, I'm not sure you're that familiar with what HUD does on a day-to-day-basis. Providing assistance for real estate transactions is listed on their website numerous times as one of their services.

Sorry for the long delay. I had a pretty busy day. I have a pretty good knowledge of what HUD does. So let me explain where I am coming from with my comments. I won't address the hypocrisy angle since you seem to acknowledge it.

So HUD has many programs which provide financial assistance, the aim of which is to provide "Affordable Housing." This financial assistance comes in the form of outright grants, loans and loan guarantees. From reading the articles I posted, while they were not explicit, it seems that what Hannity availed himself of were loan guarantees. Now these guarantees can be a very big benefit, for they allow banks and other financial institutions to provide financing at significantly lower interest rates. This can reduce the cost of construction, rehabilitation or purchase of properties to be used for affordable housing. Given the amount of real property purchased by Sean, savings on these loans over their life probably amounted to millions of dollars in reduced interest payments. 

Now why did I put in my blurb (I believe this is what you are asking about) a comment about : "questionable ethics if not outright abuse"? To qualify for HUD programs, applicants must meet specific criteria. In this case, Hannity's corporate entities would have been the applicant. The criteria vary by HUD program. However, in all instances, the financial assistance must be in the furtherance of the goals of the particular HUD Program, generally providing low cost housing options to specific targeted populations. Often, some of the criteria relate to the ownership and financial condition of the entity seeking the financial assistance. It is possible that one of the reasons Hannity went out of his way to disguise his ownership may have to do with whether his entities would have qualified for the assistance if it had been disclosed. Now I don't know if this is so. But if it were the case then it would obviously be abuse.

With respect to the questionable ethics, I lump this with the hypocrisy of his behavior. For, he time and time again, bemoans programs such as those offered by HUD on the grounds that they are not effective and provide disincentives to the poor to take steps toward self sufficiency. I find it profoundly ironic that one who espouses such values would actually seek to benefit directly from HUD programs. I see this as a clear ethical lapse on his part. 

[zulu1128]

1 hour ago, DarterBlue said:

Sorry for the long delay. I had a pretty busy day. I have a pretty good knowledge of what HUD does. So let me explain where I am coming from with my comments. I won't address the hypocrisy angle since you seem to acknowledge it.

So HUD has many programs which provide financial assistance, the aim of which is to provide "Affordable Housing." This financial assistance comes in the form of outright grants, loans and loan guarantees. From reading the articles I posted, while they were not explicit, it seems that what Hannity availed himself of were loan guarantees. Now these guarantees can be a very big benefit, for they allow banks and other financial institutions to provide financing at significantly lower interest rates. This can reduce the cost of construction, rehabilitation or purchase of properties to be used for affordable housing. Given the amount of real property purchased by Sean, savings on these loans over their life probably amounted to millions of dollars in reduced interest payments. 

 

Probably so, but it's a standard program, designed essentially for anyone of means to obtain property to provide "affordable housing."  The website is pretty explicit in this, and Hannity is by no means the only person doing it. There are probably thousands of others doing it on varying scales.

1 hour ago, DarterBlue said:

Now why did I put in my blurb (I believe this is what you are asking about) a comment about : "questionable ethics if not outright abuse"? To qualify for HUD programs, applicants must meet specific criteria. In this case, Hannity's corporate entities would have been the applicant. The criteria vary by HUD program. However, in all instances, the financial assistance must be in the furtherance of the goals of the particular HUD Program, generally providing low cost housing options to specific targeted populations. Often, some of the criteria relate to the ownership and financial condition of the entity seeking the financial assistance. It is possible that one of the reasons Hannity went out of his way to disguise his ownership may have to do with whether his entities would have qualified for the assistance if it had been disclosed. Now I don't know if this is so. But if it were the case then it would obviously be abuse.

It's also possible (in fact likely) that Hannity did what every other rich and/or famous person does who enters the real estate market...which is to set up blind LLCs to keep their dealings private, and to adhere to the "criteria," (which again, on the website aren't really that strict)

1 hour ago, DarterBlue said:

With respect to the questionable ethics, I lump this with the hypocrisy of his behavior. For, he time and time again, bemoans programs such as those offered by HUD on the grounds that they are not effective and provide disincentives to the poor to take steps toward self sufficiency. I find it profoundly ironic that one who espouses such values would actually seek to benefit directly from HUD programs. I see this as a clear ethical lapse on his part. 

I don't follow or watch Hannity, so I'll guess I'll have to just take you on your word with this claim. Assuming it's true, it's really your only legitimate beef with the story.