What you are reading is simply this:
The FDIC is the government. The New Alliance Task Force is created to “encourage” banks to lend to minorities. If the banks are so eager to make these loans, why does the federal government have to “encourage” them to make the loans?
Fannie Mae has sent letters to banks, warning them they will face prosecution if they do not provide “equal access” to “persons with Limited English Proficiency.” (Not that Fannie Mae has any authority for such prosecution, but as a representative of government, they could legitimately sue on behalf of the “discriminated.”)
Numerous programs have been created to “promote” lending to minorities from the banks.
So why is that? If the banks are trying to “privatize the profit; socialize the risk,” why is the government actively seeking to be put on the hooks.
All that stuff about George Bush you keep posting: I absolute concur that Bush was working for the banks and was borderline seditious in his dealings with Mexico. But that in no way advances any argument that the banks wanted to do these things, only that Mexico wanted us to do this. The remittance is where the banks made their profits off of illegals, since they get a cut of every remittance.
This proves why a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Had you made even a modicum of effort to read the sources I provided, you would know that the NATF is not a purely government organization that was tasked with forcing banks to lend to illegal aliens. Instead, what they really were was a consortium of 62 different members including 34 different banks, banking regulators (FDIC), Mexican Consulate, community-based organizations, (can you say, ACORN?) as well as representatives of the private mortgage insurance companies that came together to reshape the public policy and banking laws to allow banks to gain legal access to the illegal alien market.
Or, are you saying that the banks that were members of the NATF consortium were telling themselves that they had to tap into the illegal alien home loan market?
Fannie Mae has sent letters to banks, warning them they will face prosecution if they do not provide “equal access” to “persons with Limited English Proficiency.” (Not that Fannie Mae has any authority for such prosecution, but as a representative of government, they could legitimately sue on behalf of the “discriminated.”)
Before, or after, Bush took office and his pro-illegal alien policies went into effect?
Numerous programs have been created to “promote” lending to minorities from the banks.
Yes, that's true. The largest were those created under the auspices of Bush's programs, i.e.: the P4P and NATF.
So why is that? If the banks are trying to “privatize the profit; socialize the risk,” why is the government actively seeking to be put on the hooks.
It was not 'the government' seeking to put itself on the hook. It was George W. Bush's policies, such as the P4P and NATF and the American Dream Down Payment Act, etc. that put the government on the hook.
Or, are you saying that a President doesn't set policy for the executive branch of government, sign foreign agreements, set up national programs, give banks $700 billion bailouts, etc.?
All that stuff about George Bush you keep posting: I absolute concur that Bush was working for the banks and was borderline seditious in his dealings with Mexico. But that in no way advances any argument that the banks wanted to do these things, only that Mexico wanted us to do this. The remittance is where the banks made their profits off of illegals, since they get a cut of every remittance.
Your statement above contradicts itself.
You say Bush was working for the banks, but that the banks didn't want the results produced by their employee, Bush.
More contradictions: if banks don't make money off home loans, why are they in the home-loan business? Do they do it for charity? Good will in the community? What is their motive for providing home, auto and business loans, if not for profit?
The fact that you still believe that this was all government and no banks shows you still don't fully grasp the purpose of Bush's policies. Here, again is the two-paragraph conclusion from the FDIC of the P4P and NATF. I've underlined the important parts.
From: Linking International Remittance Flows to Financial Services: Tapping the Latino Immigrant Market:
Conclusion
Recent economic and demographic trends, coupled with increased financial flows across international borders, have significant implications for U.S. banks and thrifts. As more insured financial institutions reach out to the Latino immigrant market, these institutions are expected to experience more rapid deposit and loan growth. In the Midwest, both small and large banks are capitalizing on remittance flows as a short-term strategy to draw immigrants into the formal banking system. Leveraging these relationships will help these institutions offer a broader range of financial services, positively contributing to their bottom line.
Many Latino immigrants will eventually settle in the United States and raise families. Banks in the Midwest are taking steps to capitalize on the growing presence of this immigrant group. The continued success of the New Alliance Task Force demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. As a result, the FDIC is considering the feasibility of expanding the NATF pilot to other parts of the country where there are significant immigrant populations. These broad-based private-public sector alliances will help immigrants increase savings, build assets, and strengthen their financial security.