Well as I understand it, it went both ways. Barney Frank as the head Dumbocrap on the Finance Committee:

Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News Channel, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[50] In 2006, a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005."[51] In response to criticism, Frank said, "In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, 'Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it's going to put people in homes they can't afford, and they're gonna lose them.'"[10]

In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007–2009.[52] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[52] The 2005 bill included Frank objectives, which were to impose tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing. Frank and Mike Oxley achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the Financial Services Committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. "If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing," Oxley told Frank. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote that Frank "is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters."[10] Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[52] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 and removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[52] Frank stated further that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administration's approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bush's desk in July 2008. Moreover, "we were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[citation needed]

he pushed them to give mortgages to unemployed, illegal immigrants, and was the one who pushed the "no SSN needed for mortgage" program. The bankers, seeing a huge amount of loan origination fees and loans backed by the gov't, went for the ride. Got huge bonuses, and proms and all, for riding the tiger. Then, the looters paid for their social program by just bowing a whole bunch of funny money by cooking the books, making huge loans and forgiveness, etc. The periphery was all the other finance houses and businesses had to bailed out, as they took their corporate money and bought in on a sure thing. More gov't bailouts. And lots of he said/she said finger pointing by both sides. Net result: another trillion in debt, and no one to blame.
Minimum wage is the same thing, see my post on Oregon's insanity, where they couldn't wait to save the people (and get their votes) by raising it, with no research, no thought, no nothing. Now their own researchers say that Oregon will lose a huge amount of jobs, and thousands of businesses will go under, and all fast food will be automated. Those voters will not have any jobs, and be vassals of the state,and of course, no one will be blamed. This is the insanity we call "freedom" and "democracy". Bah...

I would agree, but I believe they are both complicit.
Sound Banking in the US was destroyed by the 1913 Fed reserve act. Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island to craft a plan that has been progressing(sic) ever since.

"Recall Mama Obama ranting during the campaign that “some folks are going to have to give-up some of their pie so that others can have some?” Neither she nor the multitudes like her understand the basics of Economics 101. Our economy is not a zero-sum game.":

It's my fu@$ng pie! Not yours. Go give them your pie. I hate people who think whats mine is theirs and what theirs is theirs. Oh, I just described a politician...

That's because she and her ilk see themselves as the lords and everyone else as the peasants. She already has more than 99.999999% of the rest of the planet but it isn't having, it's preventing others from having that consumes them.

Excellent Dino I knew there was more.

Yes, indeed, the RINO's are very culpable and are a large part of the ruling class.

we do the best that we can....... Thanks. -- j
.

You could create a new type business or write a book: "How I Get Government Freebies" by Myron Mooch.

i do not think it is actually possible. historically the usa government has caused companies to leave the usa for other countries where labor costs were lower to manufacture. that caused the suppliers to those companies to leave the usa or lose the business. as time has gone by; all of this process was started in the 1960's). the policy of the usa government believed as those who work in the government still believe they are helping the poorer countries of the world. so by making the usa a poorer country that means we aren't buying product made in the poorer countries any longer. is walmart buying big from china any longer; NO. the result is that china is suffering big time. the trickle down deterioration of the economic world is happening and it is happening much faster than people in the usa are aware of. if a wealthy american loses its a lot, if a poor american loses it doesn't change his life as it does the "former wealthy" person. years ago i left nyc on my sail boat for the bahamas. was a live aboard for 13 minths. that was 1974. i was back in the bahamas 3 years ago and the way of life has not changed or gotten worse but these people don't know the difference because they never had the opportunity to know any difference. that is what the rest of the world is like. so as far as i am concerned our enemy is the government of the usa and the results of its actions were eloquently detailed by Ayn Rand in ALL of her writing, not only Atlas Shrugged.

I am preparing to lay off 50% of our minimum wage workforce and transfer the assembly work to china. I need to do it now in case they forbid laying off low wage employees and moving production out of the country. The alternative for us is to go out of business. Government here is really going to destroy what made this country a great place to live. It isnt any more. Trump is right about that, but I somehow doubt he is going to get elected, and even if he was its unlikely he could reverse the trend to socialism very much

My wet finger says the equilibrium price is close to that in large urban areas, and everywhere else it's lower, so the $15 wage floor would cause a significant increase in unemployment. I think it would also slightly hasten the adoption of automation.

It's a way to feel like we're doing something about poverty while actually making things slightly worse.

Several cities have raised the minimum wage within their boarders. The effect of that has been to drive the businesses out of those cities. So now we will have a plethora of minimum wage paying businesses in the next town over. The neighboring towns will see a boon to their economies and tax roles.