ACORN's "People Platform" Is The Same As The Socialist Party Platform of 1922.

[Contumacious]

ACORN People's Platform


Socialist Party Platform of 1922.

Why is the Federal Government Financially Supporting An Entity Which Seeks To Destroy US?


.

 

[Contumacious]

ACORN may be found guilty of the relatively petty crimes it is now being accused of, but there is a much larger issue that is being ignored. Over the past thirty years or so, ACORN has been a major player in what can be described as a legalized extortion racket administered by the Federal Reserve and the Comptroller of the Currency, among other federal government agencies. The racket started with Jimmy Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which empowered "community groups" like ACORN to effectively extort billions (yes, billions with a "b") of dollars from banks. Much of the money is then used for ACORN’s political activities, which involve the mass registration of Democratic Party voters; supporting left-wing political candidates at all levels of government; organizing rallies, protests, and lobbying efforts for various planks of its "People’s Platform,"


.

 

[Contumacious]

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mortgage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities."


.

 

[Contumacious]

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mortgage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN, which is one of the biggest, are empowered by the law to "protest" proposed bank expansions or mergers. This is the main "business" that ACORN has been in for the past thirty years. They file a protest with the Fed, while demanding that the bank that is proposing the expansion or merger give it – ACORN – millions or sometimes billions of dollars, to be lent to sub-prime borrowers by ACORN, which keeps for itself some of the loot. (WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375 billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans.)


.

 

[Political Junky]

The US has cut funding of ACORN.

 

[Contumacious]

The US has cut funding of ACORN.

Not after they did a lot of damage.


.

 

[Contumacious]

When Forbes magazine columnists Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer interrogated Boston Fed official Alicia Munnell about the Fed’s claims of systemic lending discrimination in the early 1990s, Munnell was forced to admit that she had no evidence of it. She and other Fed officials (and the Clinton administration) continued to step up CRA enforcement anyway. This suggests that the goal has always been a forced redistribution of wealth through Fed banking regulation. Charges of systemic discrimination have been used as a ruse to intimidate any un-cooperating mortgage lenders (Not that stupid and self-destructive bankers who discriminate on the basis of race do not exist.)

In order to avoid having their business plans voided by the Fed, or being prosecuted for housing discrimination, mortgage lenders are forced to participate in what is essentially a legalized extortion racket. But then again, what is government but just another criminal gang?

 

[anna]

George siros aka barry hussein's sugar daddy, groomed hussein to be just like him a big azz commie!!!!

 

[Fatality]

ACORN People's Platform


Socialist Party Platform of 1922.

Why is the Federal Government Financially Supporting An Entity Which Seeks To Destroy US?


.

we should ask obama

 

[Polk]

Leave it to Contumacious to go around chanting about how being black makes you a bad credit risk.

 

[Vel]

Really? Can you show us exactly where he says that? I didn't see a sentence that said black people are poor credit risks until I saw YOUR post.

 

[Polk]

Really? Can you show us exactly where he says that? I didn't see a sentence that said black people are poor credit risks until I saw YOUR post.

That's the underlying assumption behind blaming the CRA for the crisis. If you're not working from the baseline assumption that minorities are bad credit risks, the argument completely falls apart.

 

[Contumacious]

Leave it to Contumacious to go around chanting about how being black makes you a bad credit risk.

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mortgage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN, which is one of the biggest, are empowered by the law to "protest" proposed bank expansions or mergers. This is the main "business" that ACORN has been in for the past thirty years. They file a protest with the Fed, while demanding that the bank that is proposing the expansion or merger give it – ACORN – millions or sometimes billions of dollars, to be lent to sub-prime borrowers by ACORN, which keeps for itself some of the loot. (WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375 billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans.)


.

 

[Ame®icano]

ACORN People's Platform


Socialist Party Platform of 1922.

Why is the Federal Government Financially Supporting An Entity Which Seeks To Destroy US?


.

They are both called platforms.

 

[Polk]

Leave it to Contumacious to go around chanting about how being black makes you a bad credit risk.

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mortgage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN, which is one of the biggest, are empowered by the law to "protest" proposed bank expansions or mergers. This is the main "business" that ACORN has been in for the past thirty years. They file a protest with the Fed, while demanding that the bank that is proposing the expansion or merger give it – ACORN – millions or sometimes billions of dollars, to be lent to sub-prime borrowers by ACORN, which keeps for itself some of the loot. (WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375 billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans.)


.

Except that's not how the CRA works...

 

[Contumacious]

Leave it to Contumacious to go around chanting about how being black makes you a bad credit risk.

The Federal Reserve Board has been ACORN’s "partner" in this endeavor ever since 1977, when the Fed was given responsibility (along with the Comptroller of the Currency) for enforcing the CRA. For those who are not yet familiar with the CRA, which was significantly strengthened during the Clinton administration, it works like this: The ostensible purpose of the Act is to get banks to make more mortgage loans in "minority and low-income" neighborhoods. These loans have been defined by the government as "sub-prime" loans, implying that the borrowers have credit ratings just a tiny, tiny smidgen below the "prime" or highest-credit-rating borrowers. This of course is a farce, as nearly everyone now knows. The Fed keeps track of such loans, and gives each lender a CRA ranking. A poor ranking can destroy a bank’s plans for branch expansions, mergers, and other activities.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN, which is one of the biggest, are empowered by the law to "protest" proposed bank expansions or mergers. This is the main "business" that ACORN has been in for the past thirty years. They file a protest with the Fed, while demanding that the bank that is proposing the expansion or merger give it – ACORN – millions or sometimes billions of dollars, to be lent to sub-prime borrowers by ACORN, which keeps for itself some of the loot. (WaMu bank, which is now defunct, once boasted of having made $375 billion in CRA loans; the Fed gave Countrywide Bank an award after it made $600 billion in such loans. It, too, was bankrupted by the loans.)


.

Except that's not how the CRA works...

HOW does the CRA works...LINKS, please


.

 

[Polk]

First, the outline of the bill

(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;

(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and

(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.

(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

FDIC Law, Regulations, Related Acts - Consumer Protection

What is this saying? It's saying that banks must offer credit services in addition to taking deposits in communities where it operates. Why was such a law necessary? Because before the passage of the CRA, banks would often times accept deposits and other types of accounts in minority communities, but would refuse to extend loans to credit-worthy buyers because of where they lived (this goes on to an extent even today, as African-Americans who take out loans are charged an additional eight percent on average, even after accounting for all other factors).

At no point does the bill require banks to extend loans to people with bad credit. The only way it can be argued that it does so if you hold to the idea that minorities are credit risk independent of other factors.

I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where! And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple.

CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".

Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

CRA always recognized there are limitations on the potential volume of lending in lower-income areas due to safety and soundness considerations. And, that a bank's capacity and opportunity for safe and sound lending in the LMI community may be limited.

FDIC: Speeches & Testimony - 12/17/2008

If three-fourths of the bad loans were issued by banks not subject to these rules, the rules aren't the source of the problem.