These two sentences directly contradict one another. One states there wasn't enough regulation, the next states that a change to the regulations set up the first domino to fall.
They ignore the fact that absent those regulations, there would have been no domino.
We're doomed if this is all the more logic that goes into articles like this.
Huh? The second sentence says that weakening the regulations contributed to the disaster.
They ignore the fact that absent those regulations, there would have been no domino.
"The fact???" More like your opinion, and a highly dubious one at that.
I am opposed to the Community Reinvestment act, but not to all regulation.