ACORN discussion - can we move this into one thread?

[92bDad]

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?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

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.

again, you are mistaken. the work of acorn was for banks to give loans, not to give loans to anybody regardless of their ability to pay those loans.

show me where acorn forced any bank to make a loan to a borrower who should not have qualified....

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?

dave ramsey? for lowest income people? pretty funny.

you have a very limited understanding of economically depressed areas, and it appears that you do not understand what redlining is.

they didn't really have any debt because there was no no bank which would loan them anything. no new businesses, no new homes, no home ownership, no better education. that situation kept the lowest income households just that...lowest income.

that is the reality. that is what acorn was changing.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

again, you are mistaken. the work of acorn was for banks to give loans, not to give loans to anybody regardless of their ability to pay those loans.

show me where acorn forced any bank to make a loan to a borrower who should not have qualified....

This is an easy blanket statement for you to make, because you know that it is difficult to do.

What we can do, however, is apply common sense. We know that ACORN threatened litigation against banks that wouldn't lend to lower income borrowers. Now, if these loans were so profitable and banks knew that they could make more money making them (as you assert), then why would ACORN need to threaten litigation? If what you suggest were entirely true, it doesn't seem that any coercion would have been required.

I'm not saying that greed by the banks can be taken entirely out of the equation, but it seems illogical that you'd have to coerce a bank into lending practices that were more profitable.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

This is an easy blanket statement for you to make, because you know that it is difficult to do.

What we can do, however, is apply common sense. We know that ACORN threatened litigation against banks that wouldn't lend to lower income borrowers. Now, if these loans were so profitable and banks knew that they could make more money making them (as you assert), then why would ACORN need to threaten litigation? If what you suggest were entirely true, it doesn't seem that any coercion would have been required.

I'm not saying that greed by the banks can be taken entirely out of the equation, but it seems illogical that you'd have to coerce a bank into lending practices that were more profitable.

*bump*

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

This is an easy blanket statement for you to make, because you know that it is difficult to do.

What we can do, however, is apply common sense. We know that ACORN threatened litigation against banks that wouldn't lend to lower income borrowers. Now, if these loans were so profitable and banks knew that they could make more money making them (as you assert), then why would ACORN need to threaten litigation? If what you suggest were entirely true, it doesn't seem that any coercion would have been required.

I'm not saying that greed by the banks can be taken entirely out of the equation, but it seems illogical that you'd have to coerce a bank into lending practices that were more profitable.

I'm sure that there is no need to explain to you what redlining is....

acorn threstened banks that would not lend in inner city areas, which were predominate minority areas. there is a connection that these areas had lower income residents. these instances of redlining were based on pure discrimination.

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.

the point that I have made is the lenders became more aggressive in making sub-prime and alt-a mortgages, both to minority and non-minority borrowers, in low income areas and non-low income areas, as they saw the profit margins involved. that is why so many lenders made these loans, these lenders did not make these loans due to pressure from acorn. sub-prime and alt-a mortgages were made in a variety of areas and to a variety of borrowers, borrowers who were low, middle and upper incomes. these designations have to do with credit, not with income strata.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I'm sure that there is no need to explain to you what redlining is....

acorn threstened banks that would not lend in inner city areas, which were predominate minority areas. there is a connection that these areas had lower income residents. these instances of redlining were based on pure discrimination.

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.

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:

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. link

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.

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

Then came the Community Reinvestment Act. Passed in 1977 to prompt banks to lend money in underserved communities, the CRA allowed community groups to file complaints that could hold up or even scuttle bank mergers. As one nonprofit umbrella group observed: "To avoid the possibility of a denied or delayed application, lending institutions have an incentive to make formal agreements with community organizations."


Acorn became among the most successful at exploiting the law, especially after the Clinton administration set up tough new CRA standards. In 1993 Acorn crafted a $55 million, 11-city lending program administered by it and financed by 14 major banks eager to avoid CRA woes. In 1998 Acorn activists disrupted Federal Reserve hearings on the proposed Citicorp merger with Travelers, waving red umbrellas, a corporate symbol of Travelers, and then later protested Citigroup's acquisition of Associates First Capital Corp. Eventually Citigroup signed an agreement to provide mortgages through Acorn counseling centers, including home loans to undocumented aliens in California. In 2000 a U.S. Senate subcommittee estimated that such CRA deals had directed at least $9.5 billion through nonprofits, making the CRA the second-most important funder of social advocacy groups next to the government itself. link

But if the CRA is now unnecessary, ACORN has found a use for it beyond wielding it as a propaganda tool to suggest that “redlining” still exists. ACORN has developed a lucrative niche as an “advisor” to banks seeking regulatory approvals. Thus we have J. P. Morgan & Company, the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN. This act of generosity and civic-mindedness came, interestingly, just as Morgan was asking bank regulators for approval of a merger with Chase Manhattan. Not to be outdone, Chase also decided to grant more than $200,000 to ACORN. link

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.

the point that I have made is the lenders became more aggressive in making sub-prime and alt-a mortgages, both to minority and non-minority borrowers, in low income areas and non-low income areas, as they saw the profit margins involved. that is why so many lenders made these loans, these lenders did not make these loans due to pressure from acorn. sub-prime and alt-a mortgages were made in a variety of areas and to a variety of borrowers, borrowers who were low, middle and upper incomes. these designations have to do with credit, not with income strata.

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.

[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.

[92bDad]

The ACORN Obama Knows
Michelle Malkin

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League claims that Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money. Let’s take a closer look at the ACORN Obama knows.

Last July, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including “Leon Spinks,” “Frekkie Magoal” and “Fruto Boy Crispila.” Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October. A King County prosecutor called ACORN’s criminal sabotage “an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls.”

The group’s vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. The Wall Street Journal noted: “In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN’s practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier.”

In March, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney’s office.

Under the guise of “consumer advocacy,” ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing “anti-poverty” groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza (”The Race”) scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.

As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, “under the table” money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group’s “financial justice” operations attack lenders for “exotic” loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters “no lobby” agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.

Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group’s apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN’s management and minions alike.

Where does the candidate of Hope and Change — the candidate of Reform and New Politics — stand on the issue? Barack Obama, ACORN’s senator, is for more of the same old, same old subsidizing of far-left politics in the name of fighting for the poor while enriching ideological cronies. It’s the Chicago way.

__________________________________________________ __________________

I didn't realize that ACORN was recieving Government money...so not only are they conducting Fraudulant Voter Registration and actually for quite some time, they are also defrauding the government and essentially stealing tax dollars from you and I!!!

This article points to the apparent extortion schemes.

Again the concept of ACORN to be an advocacy group for underdeveloped communities and to help those in Genuine need is admorable...but the actions show a very corrupt organization that is exploiting the peope they claim to help and essentially blackmailing the government and other entities for power and money.

The Republicans are guilty for looking away for so long...but now they have blown the whistle and it is time that the Democrats reach across the aisle and unite America against ACORN and those associated with ACORN.