ACORN Seeks To Turn Back Local Foreclosures

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2008
84,532
16,091
2,180
Photo by: Georgia Samios
" Are you ready to go in your house?' Yes I am.' Are you ready?' Yes, I am Yes, I am.' I'm claiming this house.' [noise of lock breaking] Everyone come on in. This is your house again. This is your house.' This is my house.'
Donna Hanks' story is all about what went wrong in the housing boom - and a roadmap of how we got to where we are today. In 2001, Hanks sold her longtime house on Clinton Street and bought this row house flanking Patterson Park, for 87-thousand dollars -- cash. By March 2008, she had lost the house to foreclosure. Last fall, Hanks was evicted. Since then, the 56-year-old has lived in four different rentals.
Yesterday, ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, cut the lock on the South Ellwood Street property. Hanks stepped into the house for the first time since September 29th. ACORN officials say she'll live there after the house is made livable. It's ACORN's way to press for an immediate moratorium on foreclosures until the President's plan can get going, says community organizer Joseph Cox.





http://www.usmessageboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=20
 
ACORN was a founder of the so-called squatters rights movement. Put as simply as possible this is just another of ACORN's round about assaults on the Idea of private property that has been going on since the organizations began more than 20 years ago.
 
It's going to get harder and harder with each passing day for them to deny they were behind the subprime mortgage mess... yep! they caused this whole economic meltdown with their social engineering..
 
Sorry it's a lot more complicated than that. It has to do with incremental changes over the last forty years each one by itself seeming like nothing in particular but aggregating together an avalanche. No one did this on purpose much as some of us would like to believe other wise.
 
Last edited:
Sorry it's a lot more complicated than that. It has to do with incremental changes over the last forty years each one by itself seeming like nothing in particular but aggregating together an avalanche. No one did this on purpose much as some of us would like to believe other wise.

I'd almost believe it, if it weren't for the likes of Franks and Dodd...
 
They aggrevated the situation they did not cause it. For that they ought to be shot or at least removed from public office for gross incompetence or dereliction of duty or Malfeasance or corruption.
 
Gramm Leach Bliley act 1999 folks.

That and the refusal of the Bush admin to stem this tide when the effects of its passing were made so apparent.

To pretend it was anything else is just partisan stupidity.
 
To pretend that that is all there is to it is so completely irrational, truth, that it puts you on the same plane as the The John Birch Society and the conspiracy loons that think The WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_crisis_impact_timeline#2001-2006

Take a look at what happened in late 2003.


2003-2007: The Federal Reserve fails to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.

BBC NEWS | Business | The US sub-prime crisis in graphics

Now go look at this chart of the sub prime lending habits.
 
Last edited:
Its was deregulation of the industry and the complete lack of oversight by Bush admin that did this.
 
The industry wan't for all practical purposes deregualted in any meaningful way and The Bush Admin is on record as having wanted more regulations especially for the federal entities Fannie and Freddie and the Democrats for stone walling them in any case.
 
And the Bush admin is also on record for keeping the states from dealing with this problem on their own.

That is why Spitzer was targeted for investigation.
 
Glad to see the ACORN break-in issue posted again. I posted about it within another thread where I said I heard the live interview audio as the break-in was occurring. Jillian said my post was a rant. I proved her wrong and she disappeared. Hmmm wonder if she will comment here? I can admit when I am wrong, can a liberal?
 
Last edited:
Spitzer was targeting people who weren't his contributors and the evidence is that the majority of his investigations were frauds designed to tarnish political foes rather than actual enforce any real laws.

Do you know why mortgage rules were being abandoned? Of course not. You know nothing about the real estate market. You don't know that thanks to local rules and regs it cost far more to build a house today than it did 30 years ago and almost none of that had to do with direct labor costs.
 
Banking Activities and Operations; Real Estate Lending and Appraisals


On August 5, 2003, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking suggesting three new regulations that expand the authority of national banks and displace state law in an unprecedented fashion. These proposed regulations relate to real estate lending, lending not involving a security interest in real property, and deposit taking.3

They did nothing to prevent these steps to block the states from doing their own policing of the market.
 
Last edited:
Keep missing the point it makes you look like a partisan ass.

Shusssh, you don't know it but she can 'burn, burn, burn' your brain with her 'facts.' She googles and doesn't understand. :lol:
 
Spitzer was targeting people who weren't his contributors and the evidence is that the majority of his investigations were frauds designed to tarnish political foes rather than actual enforce any real laws.

Do you know why mortgage rules were being abandoned? Of course not. You know nothing about the real estate market. You don't know that thanks to local rules and regs it cost far more to build a house today than it did 30 years ago and almost none of that had to do with direct labor costs.


Oh yeah and you have nothing to be biased about huh?

The results speak for themselves and you are showing your partisanship.
 

Forum List

Back
Top