[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Actually, redlining was a term that was coined in the Chicago area and referred to banks that would lend to low income whites but not middle income minorities. In other words, there was clear racial discrimination involved because they would lend money to a less qualified white borrower.

yes, redlining is discriminatory.

That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about, as Stanley Kurtz put it, "ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers." From Kurtz:

there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the cra that mandates that banks lend to unqualified borrowers. the act establishes incentives for banks to set up branches and to make loans in areas that are determined to be underserved. it was a result of the prevalent redlining that existed prior to its enactment.

See above. Also, see the following quotes from City Journal:

still no evidence that the cra mandated banks to make loans to unquaified borrowers.

unless, of course, your position is that all minority and all lower income borrowers are unqualified?

well, are you?

So, yeah, I think the evidence shows that they extorted banks into both lowering their credit standards and paying them cash not to create legal problems for them related to proposed mergers.

no, the evidence you provide shows that acorn "intimidated banks" into making more loans to minority and lower income borrowers.

again, are all minority and lower income borrowers unqualified?

Respectfully, I disagree. As I noted above, you can't remove greed from it entirely, but there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons that the banks had their credit standards set at a certain level, and they were, in fact, pressured/blackmailed by ACORN into lowering those standards.

Banks are in the business of making money. If the "sub-prime and alt-a" mortgages were so profitable, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have had to pressure them at all.

there was no readjustment of any lending standards which the banks themselves did not set. if a borrower could not qualify for a loan there is nothing in the cra that says the bank should make that loan.

acorn did not pressure the banks to lower the standards, they pressured the banks to make loans to borrowers who were previously denied the opportunity to borrow. it was up to the lender to determine if the borrower was qualified or not.