ACORN discussion - can we move this into one thread?

[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.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the cra that mandates that banks lend to unqualified borrowers.

I never said that, and you know it.

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.

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

Which, of course, is not what I said.

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

well, are you?

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.

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

Actually, it shows that ACORN intimidated banks into reducing their credit standards, thereby making loans to borrowers who otherwise would have been unqualified.

acorn did not pressure the banks to lower the standards

Yes they did. Read the links that I provided, or provide your own which refute them.

[Mavdog]

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".

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.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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".

Right. How did you turn that into me saying that "the cra mandates that banks lend to unqualified borrowers"? Because I never said that.

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.

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a statute requiring/forcing/mandating something and ACORN pressuring/intimidating/coercing banks using the threat of regulatory complaints?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Right. How did you turn that into me saying that "the cra mandates that banks lend to unqualified borrowers"? Because I never said that.

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a statute requiring/forcing/mandating something and ACORN pressuring/intimidating/coercing banks using the threat of regulatory complaints?

sure, yet kurtz and others blame the cra for the mortgage crisis.

once again, there is no evidence that acorn, or anyone else for that matter, forced lenders to make loans to unqualified borrowers.

the lenders who made loans to unqualified borrowers did so on their own.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sure, yet kurtz and others blame the cra for the mortgage crisis.

I haven't seen anybody blame the CRA itself. I've seen people blame ACORN for the way they used the provisions of the CRA to extort banks into lowering credit standards. I've seen people blame either the Clinton or Bush administrations (or both) for toughening CRA regulatory standards. But I haven't seen anybody blame the CRA itself.

once again, there is no evidence that acorn, or anyone else for that matter, forced lenders to make loans to unqualified borrowers.

the lenders who made loans to unqualified borrowers did so on their own.

You acknowledge that ACORN pressured/blackmailed lenders into lowering credit standards on the one hand, and then on the other hand you say that lenders acted "on their own."

That doesn't make any sense.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I haven't seen anybody blame the CRA itself. I've seen people blame ACORN for the way they used the provisions of the CRA to extort banks into lowering credit standards. I've seen people blame either the Clinton or Bush administrations (or both) for toughening CRA regulatory standards. But I haven't seen anybody blame the CRA itself.

yes, there has been, specifically malkin.

You acknowledge that ACORN pressured/blackmailed lenders into lowering credit standards on the one hand, and then on the other hand you say that lenders acted "on their own."

That doesn't make any sense.

no, I never 'acknowledged" acorn did such. I acknowledge that acorn pressured lenders to make more loans to lower income and minority borrowers.

you and I both know that lower income borrowers are not credit risks merely due to their income levels.