Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne
Again, only 5%, not 50-80% sub prime. But you are right that the left wing Democrats concocted, and forced this on the banks. Bush tried to stop it, then embraced it. Another reason to despise Bush.

With all due respect, Bush was on-board from the very beginning of his first term. IOW, he was for it before he was against it.

The bottom-line is that Bush comes from a long line of Wall Street banksters and everything he did WRT to changes in banking laws and real estate policy during his first term was to benefit them.

On February 16, 2001, just 3 weeks after his inauguration, President George W. Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox to discuss the terms of the Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico). (See: Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico))

In Bush's June 17, 2002 speech, he called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase 'minority' spending by $440 billion to create 5.5 million new 'minority' homeowners.

In response to the mandate contained in the P4P agreement, the New Alliance Task Force was formed in May 2003. (See: New Alliance Task Force)

The NATF is a broad-based coalition of 62 members, including the FDIC, Mexican Consulate, 34 banks, community-based organizations, federal bank regulatory agencies, government agencies, and representatives from the secondary market and private mortgage insurance (PMI) companies.

Their goal was to open the Mexican illegal alien market to US banks and visa-versa using low-cost remittances as the bait. As Bush's 2002 speeches show he was talking about hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars going to directly benefit millions of Mexican illegal aliens.

The Congressional Republicans are just as guilty. In addition to calling on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase 'minority' spending, Bush also called for the creation of the American Dream Down Payment Fund.

And, the 108th Congress (2003-2005) responded with the American Dream Downpayment Act. The act was authorized to appropriate up to $200 million per year of US taxpayer funds between FY2004 through FY2007 to go to Bush's 'minorities'.

The sponsor and co-sponsors of this $800 million giveaway?

Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]

Co-sponsors:
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]
Sen. Conrad Burns [R-MT]
Sen. Ben Campbell [R-CO]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
Sen. Richard Santorum [R-PA]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL] Sen. Ben Campbell [R-CO]

But, the banksters got greedy and the real estate bubble inflated and burst during the last half of Bush's second term instead of crashing down onto Obolo's head.

44 posted on 11/07/2014 2:15:39 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Ol' Dan Tucker; stephenjohnbanker

Interesting information Ol’ Dan Tucker.

I appreciate the post.

Certainly puts things into a different perspective doesn’t it.

So they knew they were talking half trillions if not downright trillions here.

I hadn’t realized this was going to illegal aliens also.

Once you circumvent the law, it just snowballs. Illegals shouldn’t be here. They have been too much of a drain already. Now this on top of it.

Just makes me even more upset on the topic.


46 posted on 11/07/2014 2:26:17 PM PST by DoughtyOne (The mid-term elections were perfect for him. Now Obama can really lead from behind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker

The Bush’s are long time open-borders advocates.
They have made no secret of it. Big supporters of the trans-American highway project too, which can only work within a framework of open borders. (Mexico only opposes it on their southern borders).

I’m always astonished that people were not aware of this, especially liberals.

I personally am for more open borders but ONLY if the rules for USA citizens are EXACTLY the same in Mexico and other countries w/r/t employment, owning property outright, owning businesses outright, tax repatriation etc ... which Mexico will not agree to ... so I am against one-way deals. There should be no advantage for Mexicans to becoming USA citizens and vise versa if a true two-way treaty were struck. No need for anyone to change citizenship and indeed with USA citizens going there and opening businesses and buying property, there would be little incentive for Mexican and central American citizens to move to N. America illegally or otherwise. They could be prosperous in their own countries.

Mexico doesn’t want true open borders (with equal terms for all citizens) because the way things are now they can offload their poorer citizens here without consequence and keep their corrupt elite sitting pretty. It’s a sweet deal for them.


58 posted on 11/08/2014 7:39:44 AM PST by Lorianne (fed pork, bailouts, gone taxmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson