Chicago mobsters are nicely ensconced in DC running the country (into the ground)
Not even one mention of Bill Clinton in your little rant there? The one who said "I think everyone deserves to own a house" and proceeded to force the banks to give out bad loans by subsidizing the risk for them, on the backs of the taxpayer. Bush saw this problem, and asked the congress 17 times to stop this massive problem, and he was blocked all 17 times by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The majority of Democrats in Bush's last 2 years, including Obama as Senator, blocked everything Bush tried to do.
Bush was no gem, but but he was not even close to the cause of the financial/housing melt down. Republicans are not totally clean from this either, but they are not even close to the only responsible party for the meltdown. No matter what the Republicans did to regulation on the banks, they sure as phfuck didn't SUBSIDIZE THEIR RISK like your buddy Bill.
Stop blaming Bush and Republicans for Clinton and the Democrats' major phfuck up of subsidizing risk, especially since Bush was blocked by Democrats when he tried to stop it.
There is so much wrong with what you said, it's amazing. I'm not even going to waste my time with the rest of it.
The politicians are not the only ones to blame for this one, the financial institutions played a major role too. There was big money in those subprime loans. Many of the loans had huge upfront costs and fees, and many were adjustable with huge interest rates at the end of two or three years. Although most of them were written by the blood banks, much of the paper was later sold to the big financials. The profits were huge and as long as housing continued upward, there really was no risk. Foreclosure was just another avenue to even more profits on housing appreciation. Next to credit cards with their outrageous fees and 29% interest rates these were the second biggest cash cows on the farm.
==="Although most of them were written by the blood banks, much of the paper was later sold to the big financials. The profits were huge and as long as housing continued upward, there really was no risk."===
That is my entire point. There was no risk because it was subsidized by the government (thanks to Clinton) and it forced the banks to make the loans to compete. If you think banks just suddenly came up with sub-prime loans, or suddenly became greedy you're crazy. They were far too risky, and therefore hardly ever used. As soon as the government absorbs that risk, they become extremely profitable, with zero risk. You cannot blame them for trying to make a profit within the law, especially since if they didn't make the loans, they got audited by the feds way more than normal to make sure they weren't "red lining". The government made it so it was bad for business to not give the loans out, so they gave them out, and sold them to the big guys.
I don't care what regulation you cut, you can never make them do things that risky without subsidizing that risk.
You, of course, conveniently left out the Bush II/Rove Ownership Society, the $440 billion subprime mortgage program that had added to it a no down payment and bad credit features. All in Bush II's first term with a Republican Congress. Add Bush II's gutted SEC and the Crash made the CRA peanuts by comparison. Then add the "trickle down" cover story for the redistribution of wealth upwards and the unfunded wars to the witch's brew.
Of course, underlying much of it also is our corrupt Washington bipartisan Pay-To-Play politics which gave us unregulated, too big to fail Wall Street and a Wall Street in charge of our government insured bank accounts to play with. Add that to the specifically malignant Republican folly and we are just lucky that we aren't at the beginning of a decades' long Depression today with a VERY restive population.
As I said before, whatever they did, they did not back their risk with taxpayer money, which was the major driver behind most of the bad loans.
Let me just put this in a way that anyone in the markets can understand. Lets say the government came to you and said-
"hey maguro_01, we need you to make a lot more trades than you normally would, in MUCH riskier stocks that have terrible risk-reward ratios. In order to get you to do this, we will back all of your risk. If you loose, we will give your entire investment back. If you win, you keep ALL of the profit, minus taxes."
What would you do? Obviously, you would be forced to make those trades, because if you don't someone else will, and you could potentially make a massive amount of money, with zero risk. You would be an idiot not to. Something you would never have done, had they only reduced the regulation, and not backed your risk. The last two years of the Bush admin is when it became apparent what the problem was, unfortunately, or it may not have ended in disaster like it did.