is that politicians have allowed lenders to charge the highest interest rates and higher fees to the people who can least afford them, on homes, automobiles, and all other forms of credit.

Why do I feel our country has been taken over by rotten greedy people with business suits on?

AIG went broke losing bets on which poor people wouldn't be able to pay off their mortgages.

I just watched senator Dodd stand in front of TV cameras and lie about who in congress gave the AIG people bonuses, and when caught , admit doing it and say, but the White House was in on it too.
does anyone else see it like me, that the real reason this country is down the toilet is politicians in both parties listen to dollar signs more than constituents screaming in outrage?

I agree that that is part of the problem. However, I believe that problem the real problem is the American Consumer who can't figure out how to live within there means. American Express, Mastercard, and Visa all maxed out, a car that costs a yearly salary for them, and a house with a mortgage that is worth more than they will make in a lifetime all because they are too stupid to realize that credit and debt is a bad thing. If they realized and understood the concept of paying cash instead of putting everything on a piece of plastic, then we wouldn't be in this mess. But, I guess the original premise of the American consumer being stupid and needing saving from politicians is the answer.

The year before the repeal, sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crisis peaked in 2008, they were approaching 30%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#cite_note-14

The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#cite_note-14

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

- Ibid

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

http://tinyurl.com/cmcmmw

However, claims that there was no warning of the crisis were repudiated in an August 2008 article in the The New York Times, which reported that Richard F. Syron, the CEO of Freddie Mac, received a memo from David Andrukonis, the company's former chief risk officer in 2003, warning him that Freddie Mac was financing risk-laden loans that threatened Freddie Mac's financial stability. In his memo, Mr. Andrukonis wrote that these loans "would likely pose an enormous financial and reputational risk to the company and the country."The article revealed that more than two-dozen high-ranking executives said that Mr. Syron had simply decided to ignore the warnings. Other cautions came as early as 2001, when the late Federal Reserve governor Edward Gramlich warned of the risks posed by sub-prime mortgages.[36] Reuters reported in October 2007 that a Merrill Lynch analyst too had warned in 2006 that companies could suffer from their subprime investments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble

And there's a good reason that this same situation didn't occur in my country, and it's called government regulation. It's the same for a lot of other countries too, that had the same fiscal conservatism in place that prevented such abuse

People lose their homes because they bought more home than they could afford.

The movie "Kit Kitteridge" suggests that many took in borders in the days of the Depression in order to make their mortgages. So why not now? Loans, loss of job...all of this has to be taken into account before one purchases a home, vehicle, etc.

No one is bailing me out. I'm still waiting on my bail out. It has not arrived. Until it does, I'm not at all sure why we are bailing out the few while the many must struggle on and figure it out for themselves. NOT FAIR.

It goes WELL beyond the few people whom might have bit off more than they could chew.