Someone has actually taken the time to begin an accounting of the things that have led to this mess and they aren't calling it all one political party's fault, all Wall Street's fault or all Main Street's fault, but it does look like there are identifiable causes and people who actively partook in risky, faulty or outright illegal activities. Collectively we are perhaps all to blame for being participants directly or watching people engage in such activities and watching people (the people who could stop it) watch people engage in such activities knowing the end result would not be a 'surprise that caught everyone off guard', but an expected mess that left a lot of people holding the bag and no one wanting to take responsibility or be held accountable for it.

Now, will anyone stand up and admit to their part in this mess or are they\we all going to weasel out of the individual or collective blame for it? Is there enough blame to go around so that it can be said we are all to blame and our accountability will be what we will suffer through in the coming weeks, months and years? More importantly, have we learned anything or will we simply be back to business as usual, living in denial that we did anything wrong or of a need to change our ways? Are we addicted to being a pox upon ourselves?

Not a bad assessment I believe.

I still saq nothing about the Carter administration:

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

It was again hammered home under Clinton in 1997, and raised the percentage of bad loans from 44% to over 50%.

Local politicians.

When so many real-estate people made so much money in real-estate, they then moved themselves into local political jobs (mayors, county commissioners, et al).

After all, they had the excess money to pay for expensive campaigns.

Then when in office, they used tax-payer money to nominally improve infrastructure by purchasing land (at over-market prices) for school land, county buildings, etc. They didn't "profit" directly from these sales (although probably their friends owned the land and profited).

These over-market prices then caused the surrounding properties to excessively rise in value. And these former agents (who still owned their firms) profited as their agents made more money from reselling overpriced homes.

People "move themselves into local politcal jobs"?

You might have noted what was on the list and that the list was only a partial list.

.....b ut I am very familiar with the CRA from more than a passing interest basis. I can assure you, banks were not forced to make risky unsecured loans.

In short, they can claim the devil made them do it, but it does not wash in reality. They still have to be accountable for their actions as much as they would like to weasel out of it with lame excuses.

political jobs by using the profits from their real estate businesses to fund political campaigns.

Flush with serious money, and contacts from their real estate businesses who also had profited (contractors, builders, sellers) they were unbeatable.

I wrote, "I would add to the list". Which both acknowledges the list and obviously indicates I thought it was only a partial list.

.....and your suggestion that money can lead to power and corruption makes you sound like a flaming liberal.

Would you admit we are all to blame for letting corruption prevail in our society or are America's problems, not America's fault?

mentioned them aren't primarily real-estate "people" anymore.

While in this area and in many others, real estate people moved into positions of local government, there are also those regular Local politicians merely influenced by real estate people. They also bought over-priced land for future infrastructure before they were even ready for improvements to the land. (Or had the tax/loan base to support it).

A good example was that USSC ruling that allowed Local politicians to take people's land based on future expected revenue and taxes. However, now that they've bought the land, and loans have dried up...they are stuck with unproductive land.

I was in Panama City Beach recently, and there are TONS of high rise condo's that were built with the expectation of tennants...now sitting empty. No tax base in an empty condo. The people who had the land before (small hotels/homes) WERE paying taxes.

We all lost on that one.

Anytime "we" don't prosecute criminals, we lose. If you have instances where criminals weren't prosecuted and they were responsible for real prosecutable crimes, I would recommend you provide the evidence to your local DA.

The circumstances I've cited don't amount to criminal actions...in fact the USSC ruling supports them.

But it does indicate massive stupidity and reckless disregard for the public monies....and I would HOPE that voters will hold them responsible at least.