Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
they were not employees, they were contract workers.
Now we are talking semantics...employees or contract workers...who is cutting the check to pay these people? Who then is ultimately responsible for the decisions to hire these people and in turn the tactics that these people use.
the lower income are the ones who traditionally were denied the opportunity to register and to vote. those were the ones who had poll taxes thrust as barriers, etc. these are where the highest rates of non-regiatered people are at. it is only logical that these would be the groups who are targeted for registration.
First there is no one DENIED the opportunity to register... we all have an equal opportunity to go down to the local DMV and register to vote.
As for highest reates of non-registered voters...sure target them, but why would you NOT target other areas of non-registered voters? Are these business communities not worthy of ensuring that they are registered?
as for "class wars", well, that is not the goal. - Oh Okay...if you say so, but I'm not buyin...just an opinion so not worth the debate.
you are incorrect, acorn pushed banks to lend in areas of lower income people. as for if these were "unqualified", that was up to the bank to determine, and acorn NEVER forced banks to lend to people who were unqualified...unless you want to argue that all lower income people are unqualified. are you?
My apologies as I don't have the links at my side...but as the stories have indicated, banks had standards in which some people were not originally qualified for a loan, based on "Financial" reasons - they well within the law and yet ACORN threatened Legal/Civil actions under Equal Opportunity based on Ethnic reasons. - The banks fearful of the backlash, regardless of the merit of the threats behind ACORN didn't have the courage to stand up to this manipulation. As a result they changed their standards and starting dishing out riskier loans, basically to people who had originally NOT qualified.
there was a long tradition of redlining by banks that suppressed economic development in those areas. acorn was aggressive in stopping the redlining. do you know what redlining is?
For this I will plead ignorance...so please educate me on redlining.
second, banks and other mortgage lenders wanted to give these loans to credit risk borrowers, they made more money in doing so. no one forced lenders to make these sub-prime loans, lenders did so because it was very, very profiable, and they could sell these loans.
|
Wrong, the banks were intimidated by the threat of civil action from ACORN...they feared the loss of business due to negative publicity feeding negative perceptions.
In the end, people who would have otherwise NOT gotten a loan were granted loans. Today, many of these people are now in worse shape...not only can they no longer pay on this loan, they are being forced out of their homes with little to no hope of paying the bad debt, clearing up their credit or benefiting from this entrapment.
Is ACORN doing anything to educate the people within their community on how to live on a CASH plan and to stay off of credit? I'm simply asking, I'm curious to see if ACORN has adopted a plan of or like that of Dave Ramsey?
Do they want their communities to gain true wealth or to appear to have wealth...what's more important, reality or perception to ACORN?