The banking deregulation began under Carter, Clinton carried the torch and further changed the banking rules to help get more people into their own homes.
Subprime meltdown was the direct effect of bankers, but there is no way they could have played their games if the democrats hadn't given them the tools to do so.
Time to remove your partisan glasses and see reality.
It doesn’t matter much what happened under Clinton’s watch. The important thing was that there was no subprime lending under Clinton’s watch.
Subprime lending mainly started after the dot com meltdown (once dot com mania subsided, the business sector needed another Ponzi scheme). It really exploded in 2003 to 2006.
Bush and his cronies controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006. If Bush was any good at all, he would have seen it coming and passed some legislation to prevent it. But as I said before, Bush was averse to any kind of regulation on businesses.
Since the meltdown occurred under Bush’s watch, he gets the blame for not preventing it (which he could easily had done, he controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006).
Incidentally, Captain, you were a member of my fan club over at canada.com, I am giving you a second chance here. Let us see how good you are in not letting me get under your skin.