Does the foreclosure crisis start people to talk about proper healthcare reform, unemployment insurance, income support for working poor single parents or childcare?

I agree, but the underlying problem is that politics is reactive rather than pro-active. I'm not sure if people on the average simply lack the cognitive skills to links effects to causes, or if they're not trained to think in those terms, or if the noise machine makes it impossible for them to think like that.

But whatever the reasons, the effects are clear - crises like these aren't noticed ahead of time, and are dealt with reactively.

It's one of the problems faced by progressives. We'll say 'Yes, but this is caused by that and if we change that the problem will go away.' And they say 'WTF are you talking about?' Because it makes no sense to them.

So pushing core social issues to solve core social problems is always an uphill struggle. I think Edwards seems to be doing some of that, so it's not all bad news. But it's always easier for the noise machine to make a lot of noise than for it to start being honest about causes, effects and means.

redstar:

Were the assets worthless? Warren Buffett didn't think so, nor Lehman Bros., nor GE Capital who eventually bought up all the paper and the servicing rights.

I'm sure this could be done again - in fact it's an obvious first step for everyone to sit down and work out what his paper might be worth in real terms. Rather than playing with bailout funds, it would be smarter to get everyone to go through an honest valuation process and then start looking for some interested firesale buyers.

But it's not going to happen for a while, because it's going to mean making a full public accounting statement of loss. And anyone who breaks ranks to do that before they're forced to by auditors (can auditors still be trusted?) is going to see their share price go into freefall.