Calypso Jones wrote:why don't you try some serious reading on this, jack. As if it would matter. Do you remember Dodd's problems with his cushy mortgage deal a few months ago. Dodd, Schumer and Frank ought to be forced to testify rather than ask the questions. Those that got rich were democrats. Btw...i don't know if you know this but Wallstreet is basically left. So at least we agree that they're greedy and the leveraged themselves to the hilt.
I don't think any rational person would argue that some democrats didn't get rich here - just as any rational person wouldn't argue that some republicans didn't get rich on this. [In fact, I'd go further and say that the people that "got rich" off this crisis were less about "republicanism" or "democratism" and more about immoral greed. - but that's another topic].
I think the point here is that Republicans *tend* to want to de-regulate and Democrats *tend* to want to regulate. Both forces are important to strike a balance with *good* regulation. In this case, I believe that too much de-regulation occurred - and that funding of oversite committees during Bush's terms went way down. This knocked regulations and enforcement out of balance.
If Democrats were ever completely in control, they might over-regulate causing businesses to fail (I say *might* here). Whatever power dominates it's important to have a secondary power to keep it on its toes. I believe this crisis was caused by the Republicans being in charge of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches for too long.