I think the banks could have fought back harder, and that, in fact, it was there responsibility to do so. However, I do think that the low income loans are things that only Democrats would have an agenda to promote, so I think it is unreasonable to place blame on Republicans for them. It just stands to reason.

If the loans had gone out to large corporations, it might make more sense to think Republicans had their hands in it. Their policy tends towards trickle down economics. But that wasn't the case. The high-risk loans that caused problems were made to low and lower-middle income individuals trying to buy homes they couldn't afford. I just don't see this as being something Republicans would get behind, but I can definitely see it as being something squarely in a liberal agenda.

It's sometimes hard to know what to believe. But looking at results and motives, I think probably this was more a Democrat thing.

Are you going to watch the VP debate? Have you heard about the moderator?

• Gwen Ifill

The guys causing all the trouble? Lehman, Morgan Stanley? They're INVESTMENT banks. The CRA only applies to depository institutions, i.e., COMMERCIAL banks. The lenders involved in the subprime mortgage process now crisis were not even covered by the CRA. Indeed, the vast majority of nontraditional and subprime loans are issued outside the federally regulated banking system. Those mortgages aren't backed by Freddie or Fannie because they're NON-CONFORMING loans - inadequate documentation, inadequate down payments, they're commonly known as LIAR loans and nobody gets liar loans under the CRA - they get FHA CONFORMING LOANS. Just as importantly, many of the investors who were buying mortgages in the secondary market from mortgage companies were not covered by the CRA either.

These bad loans were the result of jumbo mortgages (over $250K) with no equity and ARM terms that went belly up. And those properties were in southern California, on the Florida coasts, and in NYC - not some rundown Cleveland suburb.

But it really all comes out the same - facts mean nothing anymore - only what Rush says is true now.

FHA policies have changed radically in the last six months. They were handing out the so called "liar loans" via brokers - stated income loans - just a few short months ago. Just about anyone could get a loan by stating income that was not verified, and it would be approved by the Federal Housing Administration. So this wasn't just outside lenders, it was government approved lenders too.

In fact, now the only loans you'll get are from outside lenders. They're the ones that take reasonable risks, the ones that live and die by their decisions. I got a conventional loan by a lender that checked me out. It is as it should be. But apparently it hasn't been that way for quite some time. Anyone with a heartbeat could get a loan, and that's why we're in the trouble we're in.

It's helpful to me to seek a more balanced explanation of any public issue that I'm concerned about. In the case of the subprime mortgage crisis, the explanation in the Wikipedia appears to be a balanced and comprehenisve summary. For example, it does mention the Community Reinvestment Act, and it summarizes the positions of detractors and supporters. This is very different from the one-sided comments of politicians about the causes of the crisis.

• Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Honestly, it only increases my feelings that we should not have done the bailout. I had worried in the back of my mind that the "sky is falling" reports might have been real, that maybe if the bailout didn't happen, unemployment would go to 25% and other bad things like that. But really, I don't think this bailout will help much, it just directs funds to organizations that shouldn't get it. If we're headed for a deep cavern economically, this probably won't help it. Only true protection of our workers and industries will work, in my opinion.

I think no job should be exported or allowed H1B status without a prohibitive tax applied, nor should any import be allowed without a high tax. I used to not believe in protectionism, but now I really do. Lower income tax, lower corportate tax, lower all internal taxes but juice up the import tax and impose a tax on any work that is exported, whether by outsourcing overseas or by bringing in H1B workers. That's what I think should be done. It will increase prices of things, but at least Americans will have jobs to pay for them.

As for the credit crunch and the "sky is falling" guys, it still looks to me like the problem started when the door was opened by liberal policies that forced commercial and mortgage banks to lend to high-risk borrowers. Liberal congressmen pushed the impossible situation where people that couldn't afford homes were given unnatural opportunities. Once that door was open, the housing market grew artificially. Banks that were originally forced to make bad loans then adapted themselves to take advantage of the situation. After a while, you had these weird situations where "loans" were given to just about anyone, and they weren't even looking at the ability of the borrowers to pay back the loans. Then, when the leaks in the system started showing, they began to offer even weirder loan types, those "Ninja" loans and "payment option" loans in addition to ARM loans.

In my mind, this is all a progression of the initial attempts at wealth redistribution by the liberals, starting decades ago. It looks like they have gotten what they wanted, millions of homes in the hands of people that can't afford them, and a bailout of the banks that lended the money on the taxpayers tab. This is socialism, forced on us all by crisis. It came in the form of subsidizing homes, millions were living in homes that weren't paid for for months or years. But worse even than taking the money from taxpayers and giving it to the poor in the form of subsidized housing, it looks like lots of mortgage bankers were allowed to profit from the situation. They aren't paying the consequences of their bad actions, instead, their bad loans are being paid for via bailout.

Some have said what caused the problem was the lack of regulation. Perhaps that is true. But if you're going to regulate the banks, the first thing you should do is absolutely prohibit it from being an avenue for the redistribution of wealth. So that pretty much means the liberals need to leave their opinions at the door. They're the ones that pushed that direction in the first place. The second thing is probably the banking games that arose as a result of opening the door to subprime lending should be stopped. But then again, that takes me back to the first point that if you don't allow (encourage, even force) subprime lending in the first place, then the games will stop. The dominoes started falling when the subprime loans were being forced on the banks. That's the root cause, in my opinion.

If we vote in Obama and have a Democrat executive in addition to the Democrat majority in Congress, my fear is we in America will have a real "sky is falling" economy. I'm not sure we can avoid a pretty serious correction, but I am downright afraid of a Obama win. I think America will see 1930's style depression if that happens. I hope I'm wrong.