Quote:
Originally Posted by kg_veteran
I never said that, and you know it.
|
the quote from kurtz, that you posted, said "Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards".
Quote:
You said, "did acorn threaten lawsuits if the bank would not lend to unquaified borrowers? that is the argument that you appear to make, and it is not supported by any facts. if you could produce any backup to support your assertion, let's see it."
In response, I produced the various quotes and links above demonstrating that ACORN threatened to file regulatory complaints against banks that would have effectively delayed attempts by those banks to merge or expand unless those banks would comply with ACORN's demands to reduce their credit standards and/or pay them consulting fees.
No, my position is that ACORN pressured banks into lower their credit standards by threatening to file regulatory complaints using provisions of the CRA, as demonstrated by the links and quotes I provided.
Actually, it shows that ACORN intimidated banks into reducing their credit standards, thereby making loans to borrowers who otherwise would have been unqualified.
Yes they did. Read the links that I provided, or provide your own which refute them.
|
the links merely say that acorn did what they allege, and they offer no evidence that banks were forced to lend to unqualified borrowers.
the cra mandates that lenders keep records on loan applications, who was approved and who was denied. any bank that follows prudent lending guidelines for approving and denying loans is in compliance. there is no requirement to change any bank's standards to comply with cra.
acorn pushed to increase lending to lower income and minority borrowers, it was up to the lender to determine which loans were of the amount and quality of borrower to fund.