@unclemark I will bet that the number of 13s filed that saw their way to discharge and retention of their home is less than 10 percent. Shit maybe 5
And it doesn’t really matter if that disillusionment is rational or not. It’s existence is a problem.Some small, unmoneyed actors ate it. Some who lied and took big risks got away pretty much unharmed.How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
That's a valid question, and we should explore it to prevent future similar crises. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that we decided to respond to the crisis by bailing out large moneyed actors involved, while letting the small unmoneyed actors involved eat it. It looked - and still looks - like, if you are "too big to fail" (seen by most of us as "too rich to fail"), then the government will use taxpayer dollars to bail you out from your mistakes, but if you're just some random guy with a mortgage, the government will say, "Take responsibility for your decisions" and leave you to your fate.
True, but I was trying to circle it back to your OP, which I think still makes a valid point about the role the bailout played in the disillusionment of the average American voter.
Optics and perception matter, no matter their correspondence to reality.