You're completely misrepresenting the nuances of various "conservative" ideologies. The Tea Party is not a more-right-wing version of Bush's cowboy conservatism. That's not the case at all. The Tea Party was anti-Bush just as much as they were anti-Obama. Their beef is not with the left-right trajectory of American politics, but with the up-down trajectory.
Also, it was Bill Clinton that created the subprime mortgage crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act basically said "you're a racist if you don't issue mortgages to people who can't afford them." Plus, Fed policies of artificially low interest rates meant that risk was ridiculously under-measured in the market.
Please stop. The Tea Party is about federalism and liberty. I don't know if you're intentionally trying to perpetuate falsehoods, or if you're a true believer about some caricature lie you've been told.
Come on. I absolutely can't stand Donald Trump but, of the two, Hillary is the one with American blood on her hands.
Obama most polarizing president in modern history - CNNPolitics.com
That's what you do when someone tries to do something that you believe is harmful. You try and prevent him from doing it. If someone wanted to punch your wife in the face ten times, you wouldn't compromise with him and agree that it would be okay if he only punched her in the face five times. Trying to stop a thing that you believe is harmful is a good thing. Now you can argue the merits of whether Obama's policies actually are harmful, but a politician who believes Obama is hurting the country is doing the right thing in trying to prevent him from doing so.
Yes, banks like profit. Banks also dislike risk. Interest rates (the price of money) are the magical melting of the two. When interest rates are allowed to accurately measure risk, these markets regulate themselves. "Cheap money" from artificially low rates encourage bubbles, and all bubbles eventually burst.
Again, that's why we have a Constitution with separation of powers. Things only get done if they're consensus things.
You're still harping on this concept that the President is the boss and it's up to Congress to do whatever he wants or otherwise be labeled "obstructionist." I could make the exact same argument you're making about Obama obstructing the Congress' agenda. They're equal branches of government. The President is not in charge. His wants and needs are no more important than those of Congress (see also: SCOTUS nomination).
Of course THE FED said that. The Fed is who's primarily to blame. The reason the banks took the risks you mentioned in your first point is because the risk was cheap. Banks are much more likely to gamble when they can leverage debt at 0% than if they were actually paying market rates.
Again, real interest rates would have regulated the markets without legislation. The derivative speculation was all being done on margin, i.e. debt. When debt is cheap (or free), i.e. low interest rates, it's going to run rampant.
And the banks that get squeezed the hardest by the regulations are the neighborhood and community banks. Regulation doesn't much bother JPMorganCityCountrywideBankofAmericaMerryllLynch.
Maybe I didn't demarcate my points clearly enough. The Community Reinvestment Act was one cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. The Federal Reserve holding interest rates artificially low as a separate point.
Profit and risk are not unrelated. When interest rates properly reflect risk, the decision to take those risks is properly correlated to the expected profit. In other words, the decision to maximize profit and the decision to adequately manage risk lead you to the same conclusion. The fact that the interest rates were too low means that the risk-reward calculation was skewed. Derivative investments weren't perceived to be as risky as they were because they were being bought with free money.
Except that all the new regulations you'd like to see would lead right back to consolidation.
