Fox Business Network joins with GOP senators to further spread false ACORN attack
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: The Fox Business Network's Elizabeth MacDonald and David Asman advanced Republican arguments, including those made by two senators appearing on the network, against the economic stimulus bill by promoting or agreeing with the false claim that the bill includes billions of dollars in funds for groups like ACORN. In fact, the bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding. Additionally, the bill requires that the $4.19 billion it allocates for "neighborhood stabilization activities" be distributed through competitive processes.
In at least two instances on January 29, media figures on the Fox Business Network advanced Republican arguments against the economic stimulus bill by promoting or agreeing with the false claim, offered by two Republican senators appearing on the network, that the bill includes billions of dollars in funds for groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). During the noon E.T. hour of Fox Business, stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald said to Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): "[I]t's like hog heaven with this pork bill. I mean, it's not a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill ... The 50 million for the NEA [National Endowment for the Arts]; 335 million for the, you know, sexually transmitted diseases; 4.1 billion for activist groups like ACORN." Barrasso replied, in part: "I have great concerns, as you just talked about it, those other, you know, projects -- this is -- these -- this is 40 years of pent-up projects that people have wanted to spend money on." Similarly, on America's Nightly Scoreboard, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed of Democrats and the stimulus bill: "They've used this -- they are using this to just pay off all of their special interests. They're going to put billions of dollars into groups like ACORN." Rather than challenge Hatch's claim, host David Asman responded: "Clearly, there's a lot of payoff."
As Media Matters for America has documented, the stimulus bill does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding and requires that the $4.19 billion it allocates for "neighborhood stabilization activities" be distributed through competitive processes. The relevant provision would require that "not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition" to "States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities," and that "up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance." Moreover, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis wrote on The Huffington Post:
[L]et's be clear. ACORN isn't getting any of this money. Since it is set aside for non-profit housing developers to help purchase, rehab, and resell foreclosed properties, we aren't eligible for it in the first place.
She also said of the "ridiculous" claim that the bill gives ACORN $4 billion: "[T]his $4 billion is pretty much like the last billion we read about in GOP press releases: a complete fabrication of overheated partisan fever dreams."
Media Matters has previously documented Fox News' Steve Doocy and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh making the false claim that ACORN would receive billions of dollars from the stimulus bill, and also noted that news reports by The Hill and the San Francisco Chronicle repeated the falsehood. The claim echoed material and statements from the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Additionally, on America's Nightly Scoreboard, Asman did not challenge Hatch's claim that ACORN "was involved in all kinds of fraudulent voting in the last election," for which he provided no evidence. As Media Matters has noted, while ACORN has, according to The New York Times, "acknowledged cases where canvassers submitted false or duplicate registrations," many states require ACORN to submit all registration forms it receives. Moreover, New York University's Brennan Center for Justice stated in a 2007 report titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud" that voter fraud is "fraud by voters" and "occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system." And in an October 25, 2008, editorial, The Washington Post wrote that there is an "enormous gulf between improper voter registration -- whether fraudulent or merely erroneous -- and actually committing fraud at the ballot box. Evidence of fraudulent voting is scant, though there is always a risk."
On April 12, 2007, the Times reported: "Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews."
From the January 29 edition of Fox Business Network's America's Nightly Scoreboard:
HATCH: Do you realize that they want to create 32 new federal programs at a cost of about $136 billion? Just -- just to mention just a few of the really bad things: They've used this -- they are using this to just pay off all of their special interests. They're going to put billions of dollars into groups like ACORN, which by any measure was involved --
ASMAN: Right.
HATCH: -- in all kinds of fraudulent voting in the last election.
ASMAN: Well, there's -- there's a lot --
HATCH: It's just -- it's incredible to me. They're trying to get away with it.
ASMAN: -- there's a lot of payoff. Clearly, there's a lot of payoff.
HATCH: Oh, yeah.
ASMAN: One big concern a lot of folks have in this bill is whether or not it's going to become a sort of a budget baseline; that is, rather than just a one-shot deal, whether this is going to be the standard now, and it's going to be built on top of this from years to come.
From the noon E.T. hour of the January 29 edition of Fox Business Network's Fox Business:
MacDONALD: You know, [co-host] Cheryl [Casone] makes -- brings up an interesting point: It's the Chinese New Year of the ox, and taxpayers sure are going to get gored. I always say it's the year of the pig; it's like hog heaven with this pork bill. I mean, it's not a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill. So, what's on the table to be cut? The 50 million for the NEA; 335 million for the, you know, sexually transmitted diseases; 4.1 billion for activist groups like ACORN. We're talking -- we need job creation. How -- what's the multiplier effect of such spending here?
BARRASSO: Well, you know, there've been debates about the multiplier effects. Senator -- President Obama talked about a 1.5 multiplier. I think the multiplier is less than 1. I cannot imagine -- we can't drive this economy by having the government do it. That's not the kind of economy that we have. The government can never drive an economy, and I have great concerns, as you just talked about it, those other, you know, projects -- this is -- these -- this is 40 years of pent-up projects that people have wanted to spend money on. They now have a crisis and are looking for a way to spend money on things that, under normal circumstances, would never ever be funded.
...you might be surprised at the number of, supposedly, intelligent people
that will believe them. I don't this is anything more than' part of a long range plan
for the White House in 2010, so they can scream fraud, corruption, special intrest,yadda,yadda,yadda
This must be a pretty good stimulus bill, since the opposition finds it necessary to lie about it.
You know it. Rush is afraid of it because, in his words, it will create jobs in Virginia and will likely move Virginia into the blue column for years to come. Without VA republicans can kiss the whitehouse goodbye for another 40 years.
they might just kiss off a few more things if they continue to obstruct governance. All my doubts about american electorate getting it, were erased Nov 4, 2008.
According to the book, "The System", they did the same thing when they buried Hillary's healthcare proposal under a mountain of bullsh*t. They knew that a successful healthcare plan would guarantee a Democratic majority into the foreseeable future, so they pulled out all the stops to sabotage it.
Apparently they are trying the same tactic now.
Taking it a step further, the underlying philosophy of the party is to destroy the middle class. Without a strong middle class, the ruling class can pretty much do whatever they want a la Victorian England.
With Hillary, they only delayed the inevitable. In their authoritarian need to dominate, instead of creating a solution they could live with, the conservative right had to crush the plan with fear and loathing. They have created a monstrous backlash.
Today, due to their recalcitrance, in their lust for absolute control, given the new progressive center of the American public, the political right will have to accept their worst fears of a people first economy.
They could have just met us half way, but they had to have it all and did, and failed in their unyielding ideologic density. May we lefties never become as calcified in our beliefs as the radical right wing.
Better not let those poor folks get too uppity and think their voice actually matter as much as the Republican snobs. You right wingers better knock 'em down a notch with some wicked lies.
These jokers won't be satisfied until they control absolutely everything. Too bad for them they're outmanned, out organized and out classed.
Has anyone determined what "neighborhood stabilization activities" means?
Reading the Huffington link to ACORN I noticed the following:
ACORN recommends that federal banking regulators require lenders to underwrite risky loans, such as interest-only and option ARMs, based on the borrower’s capacity to repay the mortgage during the life of the loan considering the highest interest rates, the maximum possible negative amortization, and significant increases in monthly payments after the introductory minimum payment period expires.
Borrowers are advised to seek HUD-certified homeownership counseling to receive advice about receiving an appropriate loan and to ensure they are not taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders. Borrowers can also call a local ACORN office for assistance.
So even if ACORN does not do lending, it seems reasonable to assume that it qualifies under "neighborhood stabilization activities" as it is deeply involved in helping people qualify for what itself calls, risky loans.
It seems to me that it is one of the groups who are guilty of steering people into those risky loans.
The quotes (with my bolding) ar from
http://acorn.org/index.php?id=8540&tx_ttnews[pointer]=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=18750&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8359&cHash=ccb0425934
I linked to it from the Huffington Post article written by one of the founders of ACORN. I think it was the part that said they have been warning about the subprime meltdown.
i was thinking the same thing. Leave it to liberals to be just vague enough with some generalized touchy feely good language in some funding proposals to avoid being pinned down, but then once the dust settles and nobody is looking their leftwing programs get money tossed their way, under the table and unaccounted for. what exactly does neighborhood stabilization activities mean and can it be itemized and detailed so we know what and why it's being funded?
Seems pretty out in the open to me, according to you guys anyway, there's 4.19 bn allotted for Acorn. Kinda puts the lie to your under the table, unaccounted for line.
The cluelessness, the arrogance, the utter lack of self-awareness by some loonies on the right, while not surprising, is astounding. Do you not realize that the ONLY reason the right has any say on Obama's recovery plan is due to the president's good graces? You should really show some gratitude that conservatives are even being asked for input. So marginalized is the right, they could be steamrolled on this bill right now and the public wouldn't bat an eye.
Have some perspective.
Anyway, government is us, it's ours. It's time to put away all that radical un-American nonsense that government is our enemy. Fact is, the era of deregulation and market fundamentalism has so ruined us, that nothing short of massive government intervention on behalf of the people will turn the tide.
Under the guidance of so many big gubmint conservatives, for so many decades, we have neglected investing in the things that could have minimized this collapse. We have weakened unemployment benefits, busted unions, ravaged living wages, allowed insurance companies to price working families out of coverage; public transit is in shambles, roads are crumbling and bridges falling down. It's no accident, no coincidence that we are going back in time to the 1930's. The same elitist ideology that precipitated the crash back then has returned to reek havoc on lives once again. It's the inevitable outcome of politicians who run against government instead of running it well.
It's time to try what works and discard what doesn't. First it's imperative to give something different a try and not scuttle any opportunity with lies before it has a chance to succeed. Stop lying. Stop rooting for failure.
round,
If you believe people are trying to say that the stimulus bill gives 4.3B to ACORN, you are mistaken or being dishonest.
Not withstanding your magnanamity, the Republican party, although the minority party, still represents quite a number of people in the United States and therefore should have input into these decisions, just as when the Democrats were in the minority, there should be room for compromise. The two party system relies on the 'loyal opposition' to provide balance and compromise. Nothing new about that.
I do believe you are wrong about the public not batting an eye. This bill is so pork laden and full of what normally are 'earmarks' that most people when they find out are not in favor of it. Obama ought to strip out all the pork in the bill and get down to just the stimulus part of the package.
Your rant against "big gubmint conservatives" shows your bias. You completely leave out the many, many years of Congressional dominance by Democrats. They are both to blame.
Today is so much different than the 30's that making comparison's between the two shows a lack of understanding of history and the economic forces at work today.
I have not been rooting for failure, but the stimulus plan, which will cost over a trillion dollars, is not based on science, or proven economic theories. It is simply a further power grab by our government which will add mountains and mountains of debt for generations after this recession has passed.
I ask you, how much is enough and who pays for it?
I recall that back when republicans were threatening the "nuclear option" in the senate that you were a big supporter of that idea. Now the shoe is on the other foot and all of a sudden you want bi-partisanship. I've got a better idea - let the democrats threaten the nuclear option and relegate what's left of the republican party to the basement next to Milton and his red stapler.
You illustrate perfectly the blind spot that has caused the right wing down fall. You pretend the right is not saying anything about ACORN when it's actually all over the tv and radio. You pretend that market fundamentalism still works. In so doing you say nothing of import with your say anything characterization of public investment as pork. The right are the heavyweight champions of corporate pork, so save the drama, AA.
Yes I have a bias away from the conservative, "you're on your own," bilge. It has failed, so don't give me the, "you're clueless about history," line; not when all the right wants to do is continue cutting taxes for the best off, despite the fact that corporate tax cuts have only produced greater imports of foreign oil and greater exports of good American jobs. History is on my side. Get over it.
The right has been exposed to the public to truly be the tantrum throwers they always have been to the left. Limabugh has made it very clear the right is in league with Al Qaeda, in that they too, just like you, are rooting for Obama to fail.
Today is different. Indeed. The crash is global and the governments of the entire world are rallying around similar models of massive government investment to prime their respective economies. But the same old conservative ideology of deregulation, radical privatization of the commons and destruction of workers rights have caused this free-fall and initiated this round of public bailouts.
Failure is not an option, we must try everything, not the same old things that got us here. I think you are too insulated in your conservative cocoon to understand the breadth and depth of the anger people have with the destructive conservative ethic of laissez-faire capitalism.
And please, all of the sudden you're all about science? Do not make me spit my coffee on my laptop. The science of evolution has not been good enough for you in the classroom. The science of global warming has never been good enough for you in the debate of green house gasses. But suddenly, even as the vast majority of economists have signed on to public spending as the best option, you want to act the hypocrite and tell me about science.
You are miraculous. You are the perfect conservative, AA.
AA, I hate to lecture you on grammer, but you highlighted the sentence leaving out the critical part. If you read the sentence leaving out the qualifier, it reads :
ACORN recommends that federal banking regulators require lenders to underwrite risky loans... based on the borrower’s capacity to repay ...(etc.)
See? Acorn is not recommending that lenders be required to make risky loans, as you want us to believe. They are recommending that risky loans be made according to certain guidelines.
Nice try, though.
nerzog,
I did see that. The question is: Why would someone recommend that requlators require lenders to underwrite risky loans.... that in and of itself would say that the loan is not based on the borrower's capacity to repay.
ACORN also says it is involved in non-partisan voter registration. Yeah. Uh huh. The cases of fraud countrywide kind of lead me to question whether their actions match their words.
I think I read somewhere that for ACORN help, one has to commit to attending five "activities" for ACORN. What does that mean? Well, many people feel they are required to take part in sit-in's, protests and other activities where they use their Sol Alinsky strong-arm tactics to bully and coerce private businesses and government agencies to do ACORNs bidding.
In any case, it is a self-serving sentence meant only as a cya for what it clearly is advocating in the first part of the sentence.
AA,
Are you a mindreader these days? Who wouldn't want loans doled out based on the borrower's ability to repay?
If the lender can sell the loan and make a profit on the service fees, then the normal check on lender's ability to pay is pushed off on someone else, like Fannie Mae.
Take a look at Washington National to see how their loan officers were pressured into approving loans that they knew were based on fraudulent applications.
Since they've been making these "risky loans" for 30 years, maybe it's the recent bright idea to slice them up into thousands of pieces and resell them that caused the problem? Just a thought.
You're still misreading the sentence above. ACORN is not recommending making risky loans, just recommending that, if they're going to make risky loans, they be forced to do it according to guidelines. Democrats may share some of the blame for this mess, but your quote doesn't prove it.
Again, AA, what is wrong with the statement other than your interpretation of it? Who was doing the pressuring of these loan officers, AA? Who was in charge from January 2001-January 2007 of regulating these markets?
Why, when Republicans had control of the Senate from 1/95-1/07 did they not regulate this if they thought it was a problem.
I guess the bottom line is I don't know how your post answered mine.
Simple,
They, like the Dems, and the wall street wunderkids, did not recognize the danger.
The problems all came about, correct me if I am wrong, when the regulations were loosened in 1996.
December 09, 2008
Delayed Waxman hearings reveal: Democrats doomed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and destroyed the economy
Congressman Henry Waxman tried to cover up the Democrats’ role in creating the current financial crisis, but his post-election hearing today revealed that Democrats bear most of the blame.
Why the blame? Because Democrats encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the nation’s two largest mortgage lenders, to make high-risk loans to home buyers who were obviously unable to repay their debts.
The Democrats protected Fannie and Freddie from the standard borrowing practices that applied to other financial institutions, and as a result, Fannie and Freddie made about $1 trillion in bad loans, setting the stage for a national financial meltdown.
No one stopped me. Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae chief executive from 1999 to 2004 and President Clinton's budget director from 1996 to 1998, testified today that while he was pushing toxic loans on the economy, federal regulators like the Federal Reserve and HUD failed to stop him. So it’s their fault, not his, he said.
Congressman Mark Souder did not accept Raines’ dodging of the truth.
In complete denial. Congressman Darrell Issa was similarly appalled after hearing from Raines and another former Fannie Mae executive Daniel Mudd, and from former Freddie Mac chief executives Leland Brendsel and Richard Syron.
Throughout the 1990s to 2007, Democrats led by Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make high-risk loans in the name of giving low-income families a chance to own a home. Trouble was, the borrowers couldn’t afford the debt, and experts warned Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Congress that major defaults would follow.
Regulation opposed. Whenever Republicans urged tighter regulations, the Democrats suggested the Republicans were being stingy with a program they claimed was working well. As Barney Frank said in 2003, when President Bush proposed stricter rules for Fannie and Freddie:
Frank, in Congress since 1981, currently is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. In effect, he is in charge of producing legislation to heal the financial sector he murdered.
Who is responsible? Former President Clinton has admitted Democrats were largely at fault for the bad home loans that undermined the economy.
Before the Nov. 4 election, Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held hearings on the investment firms that traded the bad loans, and he blamed “Wall Street greed” for the current crisis.
But in order to hide the Democrats’ criminal recklessness, Waxman refused to take up the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle until after the election. Even today, the Fannie-Freddie hearing was eclipsed by a bigger story of a Democrat demanding bribes.
Frank Warner
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2008/12/delayed-waxman-hearings-democrats-doomed-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-destroyed-economy.html
Funny thing about your 2003 article, AA:
Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as “a pretty darned good bill,” a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate.
Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was “more interested in the deal than the result.” When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious.
“The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,” Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. “They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.”
Mr. Card and Mr. Hennessey said they had no regrets. They are convinced, Mr. Hennessey said, that the Oxley bill would have produced “the worst of all possible outcomes,” the illusion of reform without the substance.
Still, some former White House and Treasury officials continue to debate whether Mr. Bush’s all-or-nothing approach scuttled a measure that, while imperfect, might have given an aggressive regulator enough power to keep the companies from failing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all
Any thoughts on that?
Click on my NYT article, AA and read the banner behind Bush. Putting all the blame on the Dems is totally incorrect. Again, why not when you have control of both Houses and the Presidency, pass a tough bill if you are worried? Looks like Bush put a stop to a bill his Treasury Secretary called a good one. Why?
fried,
I do not put all the blame on the Dems. Just most of it. :-) Somewhere else I do believe I have stated that I blame the pressure groups, like ACORN, liberal Democrats for pushing the relaxed regulations, Republicans for going along with it, the lenders for passing the risk and Wall Streeet for trying to capitalize on it. They all share the blame to one degree or another. However, I am convinced that it all started with the liberals trying to get banks to loan money to people who were not acceptable credit risks. The goal was noble, the results - a disaster.
As with the Treasury Secretary, and Mr. Oxley, there are many opinions about every bill. We don't know if that bill would have worked, but it may have. Only hindsight is 20-20.
What specific liberals and what relaxed regulations are you talking about in your revisionist polemics?
AA,
You are absolutely ridiculous. Bush pushed the ownership society. This was his dream. Did you read the quotes? Did you read how upset Oxley was at the time? Bush had a chance, with both houses supporting him, to pass reform. He chose to be against the bill and his Republican compatriots followed.
Yes, hindsight is 20-20, but when Republicans were in charge of both houses for 12 years and all three branches of government for six and they decided to expand house ownership at any cost. Please don't blame ACORN when your cropped quotes just reinforce that they were trying to find appropriate loans.
Bush's treasury secretary raised red flags, Senator Oxley raised red flags, Bush didn't listen. Expanded home ownership was Bush's baby. Do you think his quotes were lies or his philosophy.
The last time the Dems held both houses and the Presidency was 14 years ago. Were the policies in place then the reason for this? Are the mortgages that are in trouble and the policies that led to deriviative trading from 14 years ago? Do you blame Phil Gramm at all?
I assume you would blame the Dems for anything though, even if there was only one in both houses. Your blindness and bias are astounding./
Very well said.
Who said this (from: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163451/page/1):
"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," he said in October 2004."
and pushed for "like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth"
Who said all of these (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/19/bush-ownership-society/):
5/6/04: “Thanks to being the most productive workforce in America, and I might say, thanks to good policies, this economy is strong and it’s getting stronger. … Home sales were the highest ever recently. That’s exciting news for the country.”
8/28/04: See, I love an ownership society. It’s a hopeful society. It’s a society that provides stability in times of change.
8/9/04: If you own your own home, and building equity in your own home, and you’re changing from job to job, it provides great security and relief.
8/6/04: Home ownership is at an all-time high now in America. That’s fantastic news. Isn’t it wonderful to have somebody for the first time be able to say: welcome to my home; I’m glad you’re here at my piece of property.
Whose advisor said this (answer in quote from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all):
"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems,” said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush’s former chief economics adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. “Had we, we would have attacked them.”
Same article: “The Bush administration took a lot of pride that homeownership had reached historic highs,” Mr. Snow said in an interview. “But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost.”
Read the NYT article and let me know your thoughts.
Does every loan not carry risk?
So let's get this straight.
Guidelines for loans are just a self-serving cover-up for what they really want. And because you "think" you read something somewhere, that leads you to conclude that there are "strong-arm tactics" going on against business and government.
But liberals here are partisan because they rely on limited sources of information which bolster their point of view.
Got it.
Brab,
I read a lot of stuff. I don't have at my fingertips for this discussion. Accept it or not.
If anyone can dispute that 'requirement' I mentioned, have at it.
There would have to be some evidence to dispute. If the choice is "accept it or not", then I won't accept it. It's something to bear in mind the next time you ask someone for a link, which you do fairly often.
The main point is that you were corrected, and it didn't seem to change your views in the least little way. Even though the statement didn't mean what you said, it was just "cya". You bemoan how those with contradictory views are treated here, but you demonstrate yourself how it's about behavior, not ideology. See what I'm saying?
I found it. Read Mchelle Maulkin's column titled: Stimulus Slush Fund for Housing Entitlement Thugs
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/01/30/stimulus_slush_fund_for_housing_entitlement_thugs
The part I referred to was about one of the ACORN like groups called Massachusetts-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA).
I don't believe I was 'corrected' as you have stated.
I read the quote I provided and I brought out what I believe to be the relevant part and the reason I discount the other part. If you disagree, so be it.
So no, I do not see what you are saying.
You're using Malkin as a source for something?
Bahhahwahhahha!!
That's funny man, really funny.
So it's not ACORN. What do you have against groups trying to, you know, make their neighborhoods better?
So it's not ACORN, it's just "ACORN like". Thanks for the Malkin link.
Why would someone recommend that requlators require lenders to underwrite risky loans.... that in and of itself would say that the loan is not based on the borrower's capacity to repay
I'm sorry that your capacity to understand plain English is so limited. But I'll try to explain. The quote says "risky loans, such as interest-only and option ARMs, etc." Standard English construction informs us that it is the type of loan, not any individual example of a loan of that sort, that is being called risky. Jumping out of a plane at 20,000 feet is risky but that doesn't mean that everyone who does it has an equal capacity to survive regardless of whether or not they have a parachute.
So what it's clearly saying is that those types of loans should continue to be available and be issued "based on the borrower’s capacity to repay" allowing for, the rest of the sentence says, the potential hazards.
Does that help?
Larry,
You can parse if you want. A risky loan is just that. The part left out is that ARMs and intrerest only loans may have been acceptable under the conditions when the loan was granted, are not acceptable now. Therefore whoever counseled these people into taking the loans, did not do their homework.
The bottom line is that they are subprime loans because the people are not 'prime' accounts. Too many people who should not have gotten loans for homes they could not afford, were given those loans. ACORN and people like Barney Frank, Janet Reno, and others pushed to change the lending standards that have been the cause of all this mess.
He's not "parsing" in the derogatory way you're using the word. He was attempting to correct you. You were wrong, and you are wrong. A risky loan is not always equivalent to another risky loan. The statement from ACORN was saying that IF risky loans are made, protections should be in place.
Now that is funny. This repeated parsing to try to make the sentence say something different from it actual meaning is laughable.
You can interpret your way if you want, but I believe you are in the small radical left wing minority. The meaning is clear. ACORN pressured banks to make risky loans to people who were definitately high risk and sub prime. They are as guilty for this foreclosure mess as every bit as much as the lenders, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the legislators and politicians who loosened the rules.
AA, for something like the millionth time, the problems with FM/FM are a piece of the collapse, not the entirety of it. You can keep quoting rabid weasels all night and day to back up your opinion but that will not change the fact that many financial institutions were voluntarily issuing bad loans because they could make a profit on selling the derivatives and they thought that the real estate bubble would never ever burst. Look up WaMu and Countrywide, ACORN never told them to do a thing, they did it to themselves. Look at the comparison of mortgage defaults percentagewise between private lenders with no obligations to FM/FM and those under it.
But you won't do that, will you? You'd rather believe that Barney Frank made all this happen and it is his fault that the economy is imploding. Those darn **gs! I read on Malkin that they made Rachel Ray wear a terrorist head scarf and abort Jesus on a bus full of illegals wearing Semtex vests headed for your house.
Not to mention, Barney Frank managed to crash the entire world economy in the less than 2 years he had on his chairmanship...
Moonbat,
I don't know why you would think I would disagree with your first paragraph. I do not. Yes, I blame WaMu and Countrywide and Lehman Bros. and the rest too. There is plenty of blame to go around. So in that, we are in agreement.
But your second paragraph shows you are so wrapped up in bigotry, vitriol, and typical leftist name-calling that you can't see it. Why do all you leftist resort to name calling? You are laughable.
Gosh, where would I get the idea that you think that Acorn and Barney Frank and the "libs" are completely to blame? Hmmmmmm....
"Posted by anotheramerican
ACORN and people like Barney Frank, Janet Reno, and others pushed to change the lending standards that have been the cause of all this mess.
Posted Friday January 30,"
Would you like a big soft pillow for your fainting couch because I have offended you with my terrible uncivil behavior? I know that in your world passive-agressive name calling is completely helpful and constructive behavior, especially if one uses a cute little emoticon with it.
Look, people like you and the inflated talking heads on tv and radio keep telling the rest of us that the best solution to our problems is to keep listening to people WHO HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY WRONG FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS! So, pardon the living Eff out of me if that might make me attack. Oh wait, don't pardon me, I'm not sorry.
you are free to write what you like. However you rant was laughable, full of vitriol, namecalling and bigotry. Do you deny it? I simply pointed it out.
You again lapse into emotional overload with your capitalizataion and dogmatic pronouncements that makes me not take you seriously.
Laughable? In that anyone would ever consider that facts may actually sway you in your predetermined conclusions that all bad things in the universe are the fault of "liberals and leftists," I would call that laughable.
Full of vitriol and namecalling? Yep, but I don't pretend to be pure as the driven snow while launching attacks left and right like some others consistently do.
Bigotry? Um, nope. Unless you have your own special definition of the term, which I am sure you do.
I don't care if you take me seriously. My goal is not to convince you of anything. My goal is to dissuade anyone else from thinking you have a serious point that should be considered.
I'd also note that once again, it is absolutely amazing how you are able to respond almost every time that someone insults you but you seem to be struck mute by fact based logical arguments that discredit your sources while providing citations and back up for theri own.
A risky loan is just that.
Already answered: "Risky" refers to types of loan, not to every individual example of such loans. The term "risky" means that these types are thought to have a higher risk of default than "standard" loans - but it does not mean that they are risky and standard loans aren't.
And it does not mean that every particular example of such a loan is riskier than every particular example of a standard loan.
ARMs and intrerest only loans may have been acceptable under the conditions when the loan was granted, are not acceptable now
The very statement you quoted said granting of loans should be "based on the borrower’s capacity to repay the mortgage during the life of the loan considering the highest interest rates, the maximum possible negative amortization, and significant increases in monthly payments after the introductory minimum payment period expires." That is, it should take into acount the very changes of conditions you say makes the loan "not acceptable now." You ability to ignore the clear meansing of the very words you quote continues to amaze me.
What's more, the fantasy that the poor, weak, and timid banking industry was bullied by that mean ol' ACORN and that mean ol' Barney Frank into "changing the lending standards" really needs to be retired; it's getting moldy and is starting to smell. The Community Reinvestment Act, usually identified as the source of all evil by folks of your ilk, outlawed "redlining," the practice of refusing to grant credit to anyone in certain (poor and/or minority) neighborhoods, that is, refusing loans not based on an applicant's income or financial status but on their address.
But it did not require any change in standards, in fact it in so many words required "sound business practices." Every bank, every lending institution, carries a certain amount of risk on its books. What the CRA did was to require that some portion of that risk be in the communities where those institutions operated. You take deposits from people in that neighborhood? Then you have to be prepared to have some portion of your overall risk be in investments in that neighborhood. (Thus the name of the bill.)
The cause of "all this mess" was old-fashioned greed in the banking industry that drove a bubble in housing prices with the use of increasingly-complex financial instruments that they convinced themselves virtually eliminated risk by spreading it around. That in turn encouraged the granting of riskier and riskier credit and "predatory lending," convincing people to take out loans the institutions knew the people couldn't afford because that institution expected to package that loan with others and sell the package to someone else. Besides, they told themselves, there really wasn't any risk to speak of because if they default, well, we seize the property and sell it at auction for at least the value of the loan because over time "real estate always appreciates." It was, in short, greed.
The bubble has burst, bringing down (to mix my metaphors) the house of cards with it, exposing (to really mix my metaphors) the rotten core within. And the result, to what should be no one's surprise, has been for the industry and its sycophants to go screeching across the political landscape looking for someone, anyone else to blame for its own short-sighted profligacy.
Larry,
I liked your description and I agree with much of it. However as noble as the CRA was, it did force lenders into making loans that were riskier... which had it's own cascading effect. This is one area we disagree.
I appreciate you grouping me with other ilks. :-)
did force lenders into making loans that were riskier
Bullsh**t. No one was ever "forced" to do anything. The Bush Admin. relaxed the oversight of the lending industry and allowed banks to package mortgages as securities and sell them overseas. This brought in large amounts of cash that banks weren't used to having. And guess what? Banks aren't in the business of holding onto cash. They lend it out. And since there wasn't any significant oversight, you had ARM's, interest-only, and stated income loans which are inherently risky.
What voter fraud did ACORN commit again? Because, you know, they didn't.
According to the CEO of ACORN (Or director, or whatever she is, she runs the entire organization) in the same thing you referenced, she said that ACORN would not be eligible for any of that funding anyway. And even if they were, so what?
Hahaha... just google 'Acorn lawsuits corruption'. I came up with 64,000 hits. Hahaha... You obviously have been too busy drinking kool aid to notice.
The problem is that the stimulus package would give these funds away and not prohibit intermingling the money for lobbying or political activities.
Giving money to these highly political liberal organizations is crazy if you ask me. To say they are non partisan is laughable.
AA,
As a tangent, and by your line of reasoning, Googling "Bush War Crimes" gives me 212,000 hits. Does that mean you believe he's a war criminal?
If you think that giving money to "highly political liberal organizations" (as you define community outreach organizations) is bad, were you protesting Bush's faith-based initiatives as giving mony to "highly political conservative organizations?"
fried,
I was simply pointing out, and you know this, that there are many, many lawsuits and actions against ACORN for illegal activities. Ranging from voter fraud to embezzlement. It is rife with corruption. But since it is on the left that is okay with you is it not?
The problem, which you seem to ignore, is that groups like ACORN have a definite political agenda and have documented proof that they use underhanded means to advance their political goals at the same time proclaiming themselves to be non partisan. On top of that they receive millions in federal funds. Or do you deny that too?
If you have evidence of faith-based initiative money being spent by organizations who engage in the types of law breaking that is common with ACORN, please tell us. Do you know of any?
AA,
Its not ok if they are found guilty. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, but guilt is the problem. If they are found to have broken the law, I will be demanding they don't get the money. Until then, our country was founded on innocent until proven guilty. I am not ignoring anything, AA. Show me ACORN's political agenda on their website, AA.
Show me convictions of ACORN, AA.
In the meantime,
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/07/faithbased_establishments.html
Many have been accused of using federal funds for worship-based activities, which is illegal. Many have been accused of using religion as a test to hire folks, which is illegal. So, yes, there is accused law-breaking. If accusations are all you require, there you go.
Voter fraud is when voters get registered illegally, and then actually vote. I think you should learn what voter fraud is before you decry that ACORN participated in it. They didn't. They had some funky registrations, and they turned those over to the registration boards in various places around the US, as they are REQUIRED to do.
Can you show me any cases of actual voter fraud during the 2008 elections? If you can, I would be surprised, and if there were any actual real cases of fraud, they are few and far between. Something like less then 100 people have been prosecuted for actual voter fraud in the last 20 some odd years.
ACORN has a political agenda of course. They aren't underhanded about. They want to help poor people prop themselves up, and make the best of where they live. Wow! That's some scary stuff right there. There is no documented proof, that you mention, that they use underhanded means to advance their goals. Prove it! Thing is, you can't.
ACORN is non partisan. They will work with anyone. And you're very wrong. ACORN does not apply for, nor does it receive federal funding.
"
Does ACORN Recieve Federal Funding?
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants.
ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support. For example, ACORN has received contracts to:
The contracts that ACORN receives on these projects are for delivering specific activities, all of which are tax-exempt qualified in accordance with federal grant guidelines. No payments are received until work product has been delivered.
None of ACORN's contracts to perform work on projects receiving federal grant money has provided funding for voter registration."
http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=17857&tx_irfaq_pi1[showUid]=161&tx_irfaq_pi1[back]=P2lkPTE3ODU3&cHash=3b5f677fec
What has ACORN been convicted of in breaking the law? Show us a conviction. People who have worked for ACORN have been convicted of things (and most of the time, these people were turned in by said organization), but the organization itself, has not. What kind of criminal convictions are you talking about? There aren't any.
You're so incorrect about ACORN, it's laughable.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,490,000 for another american is an idiot
Moon,
Speaking of idiots, you Must be referring to someone else. I am proud to be anotheramerican.
But I'll give you 4.0 for this most recent lame joke. :-)
HEE HEE HEE,
I Googled "another american is a douchebag" and got 82,000 hits.
nerzog,
It only shows me your intellectual level... Take a bad joke and make it reflect even more poorly on you.
you know how these lawsuits came about,as well as we do
"Has anyone determined what "neighborhood stabilization activities" means?"
Good grief. Use the Google for cyring out loud....
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish a loan and grant program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help States, metropolitan cities, and urban counties preserve the equity and ensure the safety of the neighbors of homes made vacant by the predatory lending and foreclosure crises, to prevent and reduce the incidence of such vacancies through various means, including purchasing and rehabilitating owner-vacated, foreclosed homes with the goal of stabilizing and occupying them as soon as possible, either through resale or rental to qualified families;
(2) to distribute these loans and grants to areas with the highest levels of foreclosure and delinquent subprime mortgages, and largest increases in the rate of vacant and abandoned single family homes;
(3) to provide incentives for States, metropolitan cities, and urban counties to use the funds to stabilize as many properties as possible; and
(4) to provide housing for low- and moderate-income families, especially those that have lost homes to foreclosure.
Wow! That's so dangerous, I don't even know what to think about it...
My question still stands. How are the funds used to stabilize as many properties as possible? What does that mean specifically?
Your question still stands because you're too lazy to inform yourself.
Read starting page 222 of the bill. The bill isn't vague, just saying "neighborhood stabilization activities." It specifically limits the fund to "emergency assistance for the redevelpment of abandoned and foreclosed homes." It doesn't even mention "nonprofit" As far as I know, I don't think that ACORN qualifies as a (A)financier (B and E) building contractor or (C)land bank operator, or (D) demolition contractor.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
Also you claim:
"It seems to me that it is one of the groups who are guilty of steering people into those risky loans." - AA
Wrong. The recommendation is not to get people into new ARMs and other risky balloon payment loans. The recommendation is to require lenders to underwrite ALREADY EXISTING risky loans. The author spent the entire article describing a pattern of minority borrowers and how they were descriminated and steered into these loans by the banks disproportionately. When are conservatives going to understand that what caused the mortgage crisis was not "risky borrowers" (i.e. minorities), but risky loan structures with high payoff to the banks as long as home values never go down?
Misleading emphasis, I believe. This clipped version is more correct, I believe:
ACORN recommends . . . regulators require lenders to underwrite risky loans . . .based on the borrower's capacity to repay . . . considering the highest interest rates, the maximum possible negative amortization, and signifigant increases in monthly payments. . .
If I read this correctly, ACORN recommends that lenders only allow risky loans IF the applicant can pay back the loan under the worst possible conditions(for the applicant).
The bolding in the second paragraph only emphasizes that ACORN can help people to avoid unscrupulous lenders.
Dang. If I was associated with ACORN, I'd be feeling pretty good about myself these days. I'd have to figure I was doing important work if the rightwing nutjobs are going to such lengths to attack the group.
They fear of communities having strength in numbers, just like they fear democracy in the workplace. Any notion of non-wealthy, non-religious people coming together and uniting for a common purpose scares the hell out of them.
Actually, to be more precise, that's "non-Christian".
Pete,
The tactics advocated by Sol Alinsky, ACORN and the rest are further examples of modern liberal fascism.
Pete,
Your inclusion of religion into this discussion only again shows your anti-Christian bigotry.
The radical left is the new KKK.
the Massachusetts-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA). Founder Bruce Marks proudly calls himself a "bank terrorist." As I reported last spring, Marks threatened to march into the neighborhoods of bank executives and bully their children. He's done it for years, all under the guise of "social justice" and "neighborhood stabilization."
Marks' agenda is blatantly political and personally lucrative. NACA -- with dozens of offices across the country -- has a no down payment, no closing costs, low interest rate policy for low-income minority borrowers and takes a hefty fee for each transaction. NACA loan applicants are then required to attend workshops that indoctrinate them in the group's protest thuggery.
The NACA recruits serve on, you guessed it, "Neighborhood Stabilization Committees." Those whose loans are approved must then pledge to assist the stabilization committees in five "actions" (like the spring 2008 mob protest at Bear Stearns' New York headquarters) per year. It's an endless cycle of demonstrations on the front end (to get the loans) and the back end (to prevent foreclosures on bad loan risks) and back again in an endless loop. These shakedowns have yielded nearly $10 billion in payoffs from capitulating corporate giants Citigroup and Bank of America.
-today's Malkin column.
http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200901300007?threaded=1#428721
oops. I pasted in the wrong url. My apologies.
http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200901300007?threaded=1#428721
I'm going home. My browser was not refreshing the url when I tabbed. Sorry.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/01/30/stimulus_slush_fund_for_housing_entitlement_thugs?page=2
Have a great weekend. Great discussion!
Are you out, AA?
AA,
Please be careful with the KKK references. Has the "radical left" killed anyone? Has Marks bullied anyone like he threatened to? Provide evidence of violence when you make KKK references.
Oh, and Michelle Malkin as a source? Really? Would you see quoted material from those on the left as credible, AA?
Just the mere mention of Christianity is enough to set him off on a righteous anti-bigotry crusade complete with personal insults and accusations toward other posters. Thus come the references to dark episodes in history and comparisons to fascism and violent racism. He does not have any intimate knowledge of my feelings toward Jesus but swears that by a mear mention of Christianity, and it's obvious prefential treatment and discrimination of other religions by the political right, that I am the bigot.
I wasn't referring to groups who break the law, protest a private citizen's house, harass people, restor to violence, or whose leaders take advantage of membership to enrich themselves without earning it.
You are a such an idiot, I don't even know where to begin.
Fascism really? Liberalism is the total opposite of fascism, I don't think that the word means what you think it means. Is ACORN MAKING people join their group, and adhere to what they think? NO, Not even close.
The radical left is the new KKK? Really? Who has the radical left lynched because they don't like their skin color? Comparing someone to the KKK is not just wrong, it's freakin' amazingly insulting.
Marks from this organization (just one of thousands from around the country by the way) made these threats? Did he carry them out? Or was, he just talking the big game? If he does something illegal, like bully children, toss his butt in jail. You're equating one person to an entire movement? Again, idiotic. That would be like me saying, AA is intellectually challenged, and ignorant about tons of things, must hold true for ALL republicans/conservatives. Which, I, as a fact know is not true.
Don't quote Malkin for anything. She's not a source. You've got to be kidding me using her as some sort of source about, well, anything. She's an even bigger idiot than you are.
Oh, and that "radical" NACA group you keep talking about, like they're some subversive organization, maybe you should read up on them:
https://www.naca.com/index_main.jsp
Since when is protesting illegal, or bad? "Mob" protests? Really? Aren't most protests, mobs? Well, except when conservatives try to protest, they normally can't muster more than a few dozen people to show up and care about something.
And anti-christian from pete? He didn't say anything of the like. We all know that you're a Jesus freak, so give it a rest. Guess what? We don't care if you are, or if you're not, which is what Pete was essentially saying I think. In other words, you don't HAVE to be a christian to be accepted into the general community at large.
Read starting page 222 of the bill. The bill isn't vague, just saying "neighborhood stabilization activities." It specifically limits the fund to "emergency assistance for the redevelpment of abandoned and foreclosed homes." It doesn't even mention "nonprofit" As far as I know, I don't think that ACORN qualifies as a (A)financier (B and E) building contractor or (C)land bank operator, or (D) demolition contractor.
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
Also you claim:
"It seems to me that it is one of the groups who are guilty of steering people into those risky loans." - AA
Wrong. The recommendation is not to get people into new ARMs and other risky balloon payment loans. The recommendation is to require lenders to underwrite ALREADY EXISTING risky loans. The author spent the entire article describing a pattern of minority borrowers and how they were descriminated and steered into these loans by the banks disproportionately. When are conservatives going to understand that what caused the mortgage crisis was not "risky borrowers" (i.e. minorities), but risky loan structures with high payoff to the banks as long as home values never go down?
"The tactics advocated by Sol Alinsky, ACORN and the rest are further examples of modern liberal fascism."
What tactics exactly? Registering people to vote?
Oh, and just who are "the rest"?
Oh, and just who are "the rest"?
The Professor and Mary Ann, in the later version. This thread is a perfect picture of how AA earned the nickname Barney Fife. Amazing that somebody can get logically pantsed like this and still come back with the same delusional sense of self-importance over and over.
Michelle Malkin as a supporting source? From someone calling others "laughable"?Mind-boggling.
Rush Limbaugh was pushing this same false premise this morning. He said that there was lots of pork in this and that organizations like ACORN would be getting this money. Those things have already been documented to be false, but why should that stop Rush or other liars?
Y do wing-nuts hate
??? Because they help people VOTE!!!
Exactly. Paul Weyrich said it best (for the wingnuts, that is).