A banking buddy told me Janet Reno promised a “reign of terror” if the banks didn’t devote a percentage of their loan money to sub prime.
Corruption in the name of socialism brought us here. Many people in high places got wealth (in New York) and power (in Washington) from the idea of broadly extending home mortgages (not to mention credit cards) to people who couldn’t pay them back. The risk is that the same wealthy and powerful people will get more wealth and more power from the solution.
Oddly, only John McCain — not a libertarian stalwart — stands between the U.S. and (the next step to) socialism. The Democrats support Bush in overthrowing constitutional principles in the name of expediency (i.e., keeping their political supporters safe). The Republicans are beginning to show some spine against this outcome. With Bush in the wrong camp, only McCain can lead the way to a better of many bad solutions.
An election is occurring at a propitious time. It remains to be seen if McCain will stand with the Founders or with the “community organizers”, and which side the voters will choose — if they get a choice.
I suspect the second is much larger but don't have the numbers to back that up. Both were bad and stupid on the banks' part, but if we want to show how much of the problem was caused by the CRI we need some qualitative data on it.