>>Are you really buying this? Sure the events might be correct (but incomplete, as I did miss Bush speech in 2003 at the washinton university promoting Fanny mae and freddy mac as the banks who are working on plans to enable each american to buy a house), but are you really unable to see the political motives bleed through. If you don't, please imagine what a democrat would write.
>
>I've seen what the Democrats have written, and what the socialists have written and I've then looked at the long history of legislative, activist and political events leading up to this and have concluded that this timeline, while incomplete with regards to all the hands involved, is essentially accurate and those blaming "free wheeling capitalism" and "de-regulation" are either ignorant or lying. My suspicion is the latter considering the political season.

It is selectively incomplete. The role of GWB and Alan greenspan was far larger than this article implies. the article begins with slamming obama and ends up concluding this another failed socialist attempt. I mean, I was intending to read it unbiases but the first paragraph alread set the tone to dismiss this article at forehand.

I'm more inclined to go along if both left and right media report the same events and leave up the conclusion up to the reader. With these kind of articles it is too much slanted to a political preference. The best you now can do is to get both left and right media reports, combine them and draw the conclusion. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

>>It certainly would not be something that ends with "The narrative is of another failed socialist experiment, this time a massive federal effort imperiling the whole U.S. banking industry."
>
>That's exactly what it was. The regulators/politicians/activists etc forced banks to break long held lending standards in order to give money to people who would not be able to pay it back. They changed the rules so that it was illegal to not accept subprime borrowers and then they changed the rules at Fannie/Freddie to hide the risk. It was bad regulation based on a flawed social experiment pushed through by politicians and activists. This has nothing to do with the free market.

Again, I can't follow this. AFAICS, this is the result of DEREGULATION and a failure of REGULATION. The democrats have deregulated and the republicans have proposed a number of laws to regulate. Now how is this a social experiment? And how does fall the resistance to regulate of the D's and the deregulation of the D's fall in the believed political spectrum?

Even alan greenspan has admitted (just recently) this events are a failure of the free markets and he did misjudge this. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/stories/2008/10/27/bookmaned_1027_2DOT.html

>>If you can come up with something that really lists the unbiased fact rather than pre cooked and politically loaded conclusions, I'd be more inclined to accept it.
>>This is a perfect example of manipulating media... I can't believe people are buying into this crap (unless they want to read what they want to believe).

>Where exactly is the "crap". This is a timeline of events, you can look them up. You can find video of the committee hearings. You can find the legislation online. It's all there for the world to see. Or you can simply scream "greed", "free wheeling capitalism", "de-regulation", "Obama 08", without regard for the facts.

The timeline is incomplete and seems to selectively included the points to draw the conclusion (in stead of drawing the conclusion based on all the points). The beginning and end of the article makes this perfectly clear.