ACORN discussion - can we move this into one thread?

[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.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, there has been, specifically malkin.

Link please?

no, I never 'acknowledged" acorn did such.

Then you're not willing to acknowledge reality.

There is a big difference between doing something solely because you think it will be a money-making venture and doing something because you want to avoid a costly legal fight. I know you can see the difference, so I don't know why you insist on pretending that lenders weren't extorted into acting.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Link please?

ugh, I'll have to go read all those malkin columns....

Then you're not willing to acknowledge reality.

There is a big difference between doing something solely because you think it will be a money-making venture and doing something because you want to avoid a costly legal fight. I know you can see the difference, so I don't know why you insist on pretending that lenders weren't extorted into acting.

it comes back to the question: are you asserting that making loans to lower income and minority borrowers equals lowered credit standards.

it appears that you are.

acorn's goal was to increase the availability of loans to these borrowers, not the loosening of standards by the lenders.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ugh, I'll have to go read all those malkin columns....

Yeah, especially if you're going to attribute something to her that I don't think she said.

it comes back to the question: are you asserting that making loans to lower income and minority borrowers equals lowered credit standards.

No, I'm asserting that ACORN pressured lenders into lowering credit standards. And I've backed it up with proof. You've yet to produce anything to refute what I've said.

acorn's goal was to increase the availability of loans to these borrowers, not the loosening of standards by the lenders.

Actually, I've demonstrated that their goal in threatening regulatory complaints was exactly that -- to have the lenders lower their credit standards.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Yeah, especially if you're going to attribute something to her that I don't think she said.

No, I'm asserting that ACORN pressured lenders into lowering credit standards. And I've backed it up with proof. You've yet to produce anything to refute what I've said.

Actually, I've demonstrated that their goal in threatening regulatory complaints was exactly that -- to have the lenders lower their credit standards.

no kg, you have provided links to pieces by the likes of kurtz where they say their opinions about acorn. you and these writers have not shown any "proof" whatsoever that the goal of acorn was for lenders to lower their credit standards.

the only "proof" is that acorn pushed lenders to make more loans to minorities and lower income borrowers.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no kg, you have provided links to pieces by the likes of kurtz where they say their opinions about acorn. you and these writers have not shown any "proof" whatsoever that the goal of acorn was for lenders to lower their credit standards.

the only "proof" is that acorn pushed lenders to make more loans to minorities and lower income borrowers.

Where is the proof of that? Mavdog's word for it?

The pieces I cited aren't just op-ed columns; they're investigative pieces. Cite to some that support your position, if you can. So far, you haven't cited to anything other than your own opinion.

You're trying to draw a rhetorical distinction for some unknown reason, but it's not working.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Where is the proof of that? Mavdog's word for it?

The pieces I cited aren't just op-ed columns; they're investigative pieces. Cite to some that support your position, if you can. So far, you haven't cited to anything other than your own opinion.

You're trying to draw a rhetorical distinction for some unknown reason, but it's not working.

what? kurtz's is an "investigative piece"?

no, it's not. it's his attempt to slam acorn, and it is not factual.

here is what acorn themselves say on their site:"ACORN Housing and CitiMortgage, Bank of America, First American Title Insurance Company, and Fannie Mae announced today the launching of a new non-profit mortgage brokerage called Acorn Housing Affordable Loans, LLC, to help qualified borrowers enjoy the benefits of homeownership throughout Florida. Additional offices will be launched in other states in the coming months. The new mortgage brokerage will also help homeowners faced with resetting adjustable rates that may make their current home mortgage payments unaffordable

http://www.acornhousing.org/index.php

uh, "qualified".

acorn works on affordable housing. that's a euphemism for "cheap"....