How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Questions about ACORN   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Questions about ACORN

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


125 posted 10-02-2009 01:39 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

A place to start that also notes other sources:
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909250007
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


126 posted 10-02-2009 03:49 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I despised ACORN when they used threats, coercion and intimidation tactics to force banks to give unsecured loans to people who had little chance of making payments. I despise them because they helped to create the flood of foreclosures and the damage to the housing and banking industries.


Could you expand this a little Mike it'll help me find the evidence to form an opinion.

At the moment I'm in data collection mode - what should I concentrate on?

I've been looking at the CRA as a starting point, the reason it was instigated, the amendments made over the years and what effect it had on both banks and their interaction with community organisations like ACORN. Am I looking in the right place?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


127 posted 10-02-2009 03:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Jennifer, Barney Frank is a given. Everyone knows that by just watching the video of him proclaiming the soundness of Fanni and Freddie at the same time he was being advised they were in trouble and heading for disaster. I think he labeled that talk some "right wing conspiracy". WIsh I had the patent on that phrase. I'd be rich....

Grinch, ACORN forced banks through intimidation tactics to give mortgages to people who had insufficient collateral or ability to make the payments. I don't have any figures to back this up but I feel fairly confident that many of those mortgages are the ones that have recently been foreclosed on. That would be a logical assumption.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


128 posted 10-02-2009 06:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     No legal grounds for making the determination of guilt, no figures to back you up, you make assumptions of guilt which I do not share and you expect me to come up withy the sources for you because "they are all over the internet," if I understand you correctly?  Is that approximately your case at this point?

     When I put it this way, which is the way it does sound to me, one might assume that a reasonable and objective person looking at the case for your prosecutorial position would have to vote to  acquit.  You haven''t met the burden of proof for a criminal trial, nor even, I think, for a civil trial, which is lower.  What you have done is repeat allegations loudly and often.  

     You have not shown the the number of mortgages run through fanny-may or Freddy Mac were enough to have produced the crash, or whether it was the resale of the mortgages plus other mortgages which were not at all affected by red-lining laws plus the de-regulation of the banking/insurance separation previously enforced by Federal law plus who knows what all other factors, including the way the funding of the national debt was handled that produced the crisis.  

     You have offered a fast catch-phrase of a solution and refused to look at anything else.  And refused actually to prove the allegations you have made.  Where you got these ideas originally, I don't know.  What made you draw the inference that there was any connection between ACORN and the housing crisis anyway?  It seems a somewhat odd connection to draw, and I'd be interested in knowing why you decided this was the chain of reasoning that explained the housing crunch?  It is not one that I would have come to.

     I remain unconvinced that your proof about Barney Frank rises to the level of "a given."  To the extent that the Barney Frank issues bear on ACORN, you might try to discuss them here; but I remain unconvinced that they are more than a distraction.  First, prove what you've said about ACORN.

BK
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


129 posted 10-02-2009 08:11 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
It is not one that I would have come to.


Maybe not Bob, but there is, as Mike has said, some logic in that assumption.

ACORN pushed for access to mortgages in redlined areas, areas were redlined because they contained high numbers of people on or just above the poverty line. People on the poverty line are most susceptible to foreclosure when the economy fluctuates - so it's a logical assumption that they are the people defaulting on their sub-prime mortgage payments.

The issue isn't whether it's a logical assumption; it's whether it's a correct assumption.

At this point I don't think it is, from the little research I've done so far my guess is that it went something like this:

The CRA was introduced to encourage banks to offer loans and mortgages in previously redlined areas. They weren't told to offer cheap mortgages, or unsecured mortgages or mortgages of a value greater than the worth of the property being mortgaged. In fact the CRA stipulated the exact opposite. As an incentive the government promised to look favourably on any bank that could show that it was supplying CRA eligible loans. What the banks got out of the deal was a free pass when it came to expanding across state boundaries, mergers, and acquisitions.

At this point everyone was happy, the people who couldn't previously get loans because of where they lived got loans at the same rates as everyone else. The banks got a little more freedom to grow plus more income from the extra loans and the inner city areas were rejuvenated by all the new homeowners, which cheered the government up no end. The community organisations like ACORN meanwhile thought they'd won a victory.

All that didn't last though. By this time the banks had realised that they could sell more mortgages if they weren't too particular when it came to checking that the people they sold them to could actually afford them. In a market where house prices were skyrocketing there was little risk in such a tactic. If the homeowner defaulted the bank foreclosed and made a tidy profit reselling the house. This is where the picture gets a little confusing. The community organisations like ACORN didn't like it when the banks started touting their dodgy loans in the inner city areas, and for good reason if you think about it, they were trying to get people housed not evicted for non-payment. They complained to the government about those types of loans and actually predicted that they'd lead to mass foreclosure and a crash in the housing market and it all got a little heated.

The banks in the CRA scheme, worried that they might lose their CRA status and all the advantages that came with it started to court the community organisations by offering them funding. The community organisations, now aware of their newly found power started demanding more loans in CRA areas and an uneasy standoff ensued for years.

In the meantime the banks were getting even more lax with the eligibility criteria for the loans they offered and had the novel idea of bundling them up and selling them on for a quick profit. Then when the housing market stuttered some bright spark pointed out that all those sub prime mortgages probably weren't worth as much as everyone thought. When banks started to look at what they had they realised that they were only worth a fraction of their face value and when people started to default on their mortgages the whole house of cards came tumbling down.

Fortunately for the people in previously redlined areas were sold fewer of those types of mortgages so negative equity took a little longer to hit them. Unfortunately the downturn in the economy didn't. As Mike logically assumed, a lot of them, like a lot of other folks who hadn't really played a major part in the sub prime fiasco lost their homes because they were on a tight budget and low income. They were bound to really, they were the most susceptible but people naturally assumed when all the foreclosures happened that they'd caused the whole thing.

The above is an early opinion. In reality I'd have preferred more time to gather more information but I think it's close enough for a first stab. Feel free put me right where I've obviously goofed.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


130 posted 10-02-2009 09:00 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There is a special on Fox News starting right now , 9 PM EST, called the Truth About Acorn. Check it out to see if it answers anyone's questions.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


131 posted 10-03-2009 05:16 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

I'm still a little confused by the name Fox News.

Will it be actual news or simply biased opinion based on half-truths and conjecture?

I don't mind the news articles, at least the few I've read, but their opinion based stuff I've seen has been garbage.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


132 posted 10-03-2009 09:32 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It was a report on Acorn's activities, highlighting their voter registration tactics and their storming of the board rooms of different banks and lending facilities demanding payment to Acorn for supposed descrimiation in lending practices, and accusations of predatory lending when the financial institutions did lend to high-risk folks but then had the audacity to expect payment when the borrowers found they couldn't afford it.

The founder of Acorn, Wade Rathke, was also interviewed throughout giving him a chance to explain or defend those actions, which he attempted, poorly, I thought.

I learned though that he did indeed resign as the head of Acorn in 2008 when it became public knowledge that his brother Dale had embezzled money from an Acorn affiliate 10 years ago, and kept that information from the board, whereupon he started another group, Community Organizers International, taking his Acorn philosophies and strategies global.

He was also the founder and still head of SEIU local 100, which shares headquarters space with Acorn.

I also had confirmed that there have been dozens of convictions in several states for voter registration and voter fraud.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


133 posted 10-03-2009 12:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Denise,

Do you mean accusations of voter fraud or accusations of voter registration fraud?  You seem to use the two as if they're the same thing when, like Fox news items and Fox opinion items, the two are definitely not the same.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


134 posted 10-03-2009 01:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It was a report on Acorn's activities, highlighting their voter registration tactics and their storming of the board rooms of different banks and lending facilities demanding payment to Acorn for supposed descrimiation in lending practices, and accusations of predatory lending when the financial institutions did lend to high-risk folks but then had the audacity to expect payment when the borrowers found they couldn't afford it.


That is a topic worthy of consideration. It was little more the the protection rackets of the 20'2 used by organized crime.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


135 posted 10-03-2009 01:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
That is a topic worthy of consideration.


I agree, whether there's any truth to the accusation is certainly worth considering.

Is there any evidence we can look at that may validate the claim?  

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


136 posted 10-03-2009 01:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Voter election fraud was the charge in one of the states, Missouri, Grinch, for voter registration fraud. It seems like it could be the catch-all charge for either.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


137 posted 10-03-2009 02:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two very different things Denise. One is the act of casting a fraudulent or illegal vote or manipulating the votes cast the other is the act of purposely falsifying information to register to vote.

This distinction is probably why ACORN has never been prosecuted for either. As an organisation they cannot cast a fraudulent vote as votes are cast by individuals. Equally as they play no part in the voting process itself they have no opportunity to manipulate the votes once cast. They could be accused of voter registration fraud however to prove that you'd need to show a clear intention to defraud. As the process of registration includes an official who clears all applications before they're registered that isn't that easy, it's made even more difficult because ACORN are legally obliged to present to that official all completed forms, to do otherwise is a federal crime.

As I understand it the average number of forms presented for registration that are rejected as incomplete or containing false information is 5% of the total forms presented. The average rejection rate of forms presented by ACORN is 7%, I haven't yet found the figures for Conservative groups that are involved in voter registration but I'd suggest that due to the nature of their work their rejection figures are comparable.

This begs a question. If Conservative groups are following the same rules which stipulate that all forms are presented, whether obviously containing false information or not, could they be equally accused of voter registration fraud?

BTW how did the Missouri case go?

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


138 posted 10-03-2009 03:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Grinch, you may find this article interesting...
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132703
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


139 posted 10-03-2009 03:29 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

By September 1992, The Chicago Tribune was describing Talbott's program as "affirma- tive-action lending" and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won on behalf of minorities.

And Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five area financial institutions (including two of her former targets, now plainly cowed - Bell Federal Savings and Avondale Federal Savings) were "participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low- and moderate-income people with troubled credit histories."

What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. "If this pilot program works," crowed Talbott, "it will send a message to the lending community that it's OK to make these kind of loans."

Well, the pilot program "worked," and Fannie Mae's message that risky loans to minorities were "OK" was sent. The rest is financial-meltdown history.

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


140 posted 10-03-2009 03:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.

Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call “direct action,” orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=&w=MQ==


As Carl Horowitz of the National Legal and Policy Center notes:

    “In July 1997 … roughly 200 ACORN protestors stormed a session of the Chicago City Council (which was discussing “living wage” issues at that time), pushing over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backing police against doors, and blocking entrance to the room by late-arriving alderman and staff; six persons were arrested in the fracas.”

On another occasion, ACORN dispatched four busloads of protesters to the site of Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley’s home, where they screamed profanities at the mayor and his family. Additional ACORN members, meanwhile, piled mounds of garbage in front of Baltimore’s City Hall to protest the alleged paucity of services in the area’s poor neighborhoods. “We’re up in their face,” an ACORN representative said proudly.

In 1995 ACORN protested what it characterized as the Republican-led Congress’ proposed “spending cuts” on welfare programs. (In actuality, no cuts were being proposed; the Republicans were calling for an increase in welfare spending, but it was a smaller increase than ACORN wanted.) The New York Post describes the scene of this ACORN demonstration:

    “House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from [ACORN] poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance. Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, ‘Nuke Newt!’ and ‘We want Newt!’ Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying. The demonstrators' target, Gingrich, hadn't yet arrived -- and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN's foot soldiers cheered.”

Such tactics are by no means a thing of the past for ACORN. As recently as June 2009, an angry mob of at least 150 ACORN protesters nearly knocked New York state Sen. James Alesi, a Republican, down to the floor and also spat in the face of his chief of staff. The protesters were reportedly upset that two Democratic senators had decided to caucus with Republicans — a move that, when finalized by the state Senate, would hand Republicans control of that body.


As noted above, housing activism is a major priority for ACORN, which has formed housing collectives in a host of targeted areas. These collectives pressure local authorities to place them (the collectives) in charge of renovating and managing abandoned or dilapidated properties for poor tenants. In turn, the local authorities provide money for renovation -- much of which ends up in ACORN bank accounts. The tenants are compelled to "earn" their new homes by investing "sweat equity"; i.e., working without pay on renovating the properties. ACORN or its designated "housing collective" retains title to the land on which these buildings stand. If the tenants decide to move out, they are required to sell their property back to ACORN, at cost, no matter what the market value of the property. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968
Just as ACORN was heavily involved in voter-registration fraud, so was it a key player in the chain of events and policies that led to the housing and banking crash of 2008. That crisis had its roots in the 1977 passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a federal law that outlawed “redlining” (the refusal of banks to lend money to borrowers located in areas known for their high default rates on loans). The CRA required banks to extend credit to undercapitalized, high-risk borrowers in low-income, mostly-minority areas. The Act also established extensive government oversight to monitor how well banks were complying with its mandates.

Under CRA guidelines, any bank wishing to expand or to merge with another financial institution would be required to first demonstrate that it had complied with all CRA rules. Final approval for expansions or mergers could be stalled, or derailed entirely, if "community groups" like ACORN were to accuse a bank -- however frivolously or unjustly -- of having violated the mandates of CRA.

In the early 1990s ACORN, thus empowered by the CRA, insisted that banks demonstrate their commitment to minority lending by drastically lowering their standards on down-payments and underwriting, and by making loans even to borrowers -- especially nonwhite minorities -- with bad credit histories. If banks expressed reluctance to do so, ACORN intimidated them into compliance by threatening to sue them, to smear them in the media with negative-publicity campaigns (accusing them of racist and anti-immigrant lending practices), and to block any mergers which the banks might seek in the future. These threats were often accompanied by rowdy crowds of ACORN demonstrators swarming bank offices and lobbies.

In response, terrified bank executives routinely agreed to appoint ACORN as their official “advisor” on CRA compliance, thereby giving the group carte blanche to channel loans to its own hand-picked recipients. One ACORN leader boasted that her organization had become proficient at dragging banks "kicking and screaming" into high-risk loans for low-income people with shady credit histories. By September 1992, ACORN was issuing fact sheets broadcasting its success in having forced lenders to lower their credit standards on behalf of minorities. Ultimately, ACORN proudly claimed “credit for saving the CRA.”

The New York Post explains what happened next:

    “As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little -- since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the ‘secondary market.’

    “That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a down-payment.

    “So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie….

    “ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied….

    “ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP [Republican] reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond….

    “[In June 1995] the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights -- regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.”

This strengthening of the CRA’s loan mandates, coupled with the authority that ACORN and other “community organizations” were given to intervene at yearly bank reviews, placed ACORN and likeminded activist groups in a position of great influence. Banks, eager to receive good reports from these groups (in order to avoid having their merger plans blocked or their lending practices challenged by the Justice Department), funneled immense sums of money to ACORN, et al.  As the New York Post puts it, “intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America's financial institutions.”

One financial-industry consultant explains, with resignation: “The banks know they are being held up, but they are not going to fight over this. They look at it as a cost of doing business.”


According to author and political analyst Michelle Malkin, in 2005 ACORN’s San Diego office “publicly announced a partnership with Citibank to secure home loans for illegal aliens.” Wrote Malkin in September 2009:

    “In 2005, Citibank and ACORN Housing Corporation — which received tens of millions of tax dollars under the Bush administration alone — began recruiting Mexican illegal aliens for a lucrative program offering loans with below-market interest rates, down-payment assistance and no mortgage insurance requirements. Instead of the Social Security numbers required of law-abiding citizens, the program allows illegal alien applicants to supply loosely monitored tax identification numbers issued by the IRS.

    “The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that ‘undocumented residents’ comprise a vast market representing a potential sum of ‘$44 billion in mortgages.’ Citibank enlarged its portfolio of subprime and other risky loans. ACORN enlarged its membership rolls. The program now operates in Miami; New York City; Jersey City, N.J.; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Bridgeport, Conn.; and at all of ACORN Housing's 12 California offices.

    “San Diego ACORN officials advised illegal alien recruits that their bank partners would take applicants who had little or no credit, or even ‘nontraditional records of credit, such as utility payments and documentation of private loan payments.’

    “The risk the banks bear is the price they pay to keep ACORN protesters and Hispanic lobbyists from the National Council of La Raza screaming about ‘predatory lending’ off their backs. These professional grievance-mongers have turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act — which forced lenders to sacrifice underwriting standards for ‘diversity’ — into lucrative ‘business’ opportunities. Or rather, politically correct blackmail.

    “As the Consumer Rights League noted in a 2008 report on the group's successful shakedowns of financial institutions, ‘an agreement with Citibank, a significant ACORN donor and partner, showed that some activists become less active when deals are in place.’”
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


141 posted 10-03-2009 03:37 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Thanks for the link Mike, I'll certainly look at the allegations though from what I've read so far the article seems to exaggerate the involvement of ACORN in the sub-prime fiasco.

That isn't to say ACORN didn't play a part - I wouldn't be confident at this point to say that one way or the other.

I do have a comment regarding the tactics used by ACORN with regard to disrupting the meetings and discussions at the time - in my opinion their actions were deplorable - regardless of whether their reason to do so was correct it doesn't excuse such uncivil demonstrations.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


142 posted 10-03-2009 03:48 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Great links, Michael. Thanks.

The Missouri cases resulted in convictions, Grinch.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


143 posted 10-03-2009 03:53 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch



Were ACORN convicted Denise?

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


144 posted 10-03-2009 06:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Mike,

I'm still merrily churning through the history of ACORN, the legislation  surrounding the CRA and the facts and figures surrounding the sub prime crisis.

I was interested to discover that pre-2002 banks didn't supply sub-prime mortgages - they couldn't until banking rules were relaxed. Another interesting fact is that only one in five sub-prime mortgages were supplied through the CRA compliant banks - those associated with ACORN.

I'm still trying to verify this article completely but so far it seems to be accurate:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008229403_opin05froma.html

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


145 posted 10-03-2009 07:43 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You are trying to verify an opinion article? Ok...
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


146 posted 10-03-2009 08:49 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
You are trying to verify an opinion article? Ok...


Yes.

All opinions or claims that purport to contain facts can be verified.

For example, take this from your first opinion piece:

quote:
IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.


The claim that a complaint was filed against Avondale Federal Bank is verifiable.
The fact that ACORN held a bank fair is verifiable and the number of banks involved is verifiable.

All those facts turn out to be correct. This part of the opinion is factual correct however it isn't what you might call factual complete.

It would have been worth mentioning that the original complaint made was that Avondale claimed CRA status but still enforced the redlining principal - either turning down otherwise eligible applicants based on the area they lived in or by loading the repayment terms and deposit required. That fact is useful to get a clearer picture of what actually happened and to form your own opinion.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


147 posted 10-04-2009 02:48 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     The Wikipedia article on the CRA provides a good history and an excellent bibliography for followup on the material you're talking about, for whomever is interested.  It seems reasonably evenhanded in terms of political viewpoint and gives good historical review.

     From a Liberal point of view, the practice of redlining was odious because it had bands accepting deposits from within redlined zones, thus taking money out of the community, and refusing to make loans inside the zones, refusing to reinvest in the zones.  The result was to create some pretty awful slums.

     The CRA was designed to force banks to make loans to qualified buyers within these redlined zones.  Many banks lobbied against it.  Why they did so, I can't tell you.  My speculation is that they felt that the areas were so depressed that they couldn't imagine anybody wanting to invest in them, and that any investment there was simply money thrown away.  I think that the more radical explanation of racism is probably either wrong or played a very small part in the matter.  The color that interested the bankers most was green.  I could be swayed by research, but that's what I think at this point.

     Of course ACORN demonstrated and applied political pressure.  They present themselves as community organizers.  That is what it says on the proverbial Sign over the Front Door.  When you walk around to the proverbial Loading Dock in the Shipping Department out back, why would you be shocked to see community organizing being loaded on the trucks for distribution around the community?  Is it a shock that community organizers organize communities around community issues?  Access to credit is one of those.  Investment in the community by community businesses is another.  No taxation without representation is another still.

  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


148 posted 10-04-2009 03:49 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Regarding ACORN  in more depth, I've located two pieces.  The first piece is short and to the point, and from The Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092303679.html

     This second piece is much more detailed.  The executive summary is good, the whole paper runs to about sixty pages and it talks about the how of the distortion of ACORN in the media.  One of the points it speaks about is the fact that most of the mistakes found in the voter registration by employees of ACORN are found and flagged by ACORN itself, who separates these registrations out in presenting them to the registrar BUT HAS NO CHOICE in whether on not to present them at all.  Every registration that is completed must be submitted to the registrar, no matter how outlandish by law.

     This is why ACORN employees are sometimes guilty of submitting false registrations, though rarely, but the organization is not.  

     The Right wing doesn't distinguish, for reasons of its own.  I like to think it can tell the difference between what ACORN has to do by law and what it wishes to do by guile, especially since the dubious applications have been flagged and noted, but perhaps they can't.


http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/acornstudy/acornstudy.pdf
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


149 posted 10-21-2009 03:23 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Uh-oh. Breaking News, this time in Philly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af9DDayHwbg&feature=player_embedded
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Questions about ACORN   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors