I know we are sick of this, but in reading seeking alpha this chart really sticks out Notice the keys years, especially 1994. 1998 and 2004 were also important. I can't quite figure 1998 out except that the markets and growth were really hot then. 2004 is interesting, W was calling for more home ownership among the poor and minorities while at the same time overall ownership went down. He sure got his wish. It sure is destructive fast when republicans actually side with liberals. But what happened in 1994? That was key, when it all really started. We know that CRA went through several makeovers over the years with some more important than others. 1992-1994 was Slick Willie's liberal years, before he was forced to the political center in 1995 by the elections. It was a time of liberal activism from Hillary on down. It is important to understand that acts like CRA are only as good as the enforcement of them and the willingness of people to try and accomodate the proponents. By stating that less than half of the shitty loans late in the boom fell under CRA does not mean CRA wasn't influential. This article has some good points on that http://www.businessinsider.com/thre...countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6 but what is most important in that article is that it explains what happened in 1994. The smoking gun, and so typical. Liberalism is financially more destructive than war. Surely there is blame for things that happened in 1999, but would repeal of glass-steagall have even been on the table were it not for the push in subprime? When Republicans and others who know better play this game of 'can't beat em so join em', we get economic destruction. I can just see a bunch of bankers giving up on fighting assholes like Maxine Waters.