The CRA argument is three quarters of it's own label - cra*. There is nothing there for the argument to hang on, it is distraction pure and simple, and deceptive to boot. First, the CRA was passed in... 1977 and essentially ended when George Bush took office. So this "bubble" had to have lingered for an incredibly long time. Second, the percentage of bad loans under the CRA is lower than the rate in the subprime market by nearly 100% (indeed, 87% of the subprime loans are still being paid, and over 92% of the F&F loans are solvent). Finally, it is obvious to any rational observer that the timing and impact of the housing bubble are much more aligned with the deregulation than regulation pattern. Indeed, as Obama's advisor Austan Goolsbee notes:
Quote
The traditional causes of foreclosure, even before there was subprime lending, were job loss, divorce and major medical expenses. And the national foreclosure data seem to suggest that these issues remain paramount. The latest numbers show that foreclosures have been concentrated not in places where real estate bubbles have supposedly been popping, but rather in places whose economies have stagnated — the hurricane-torn communities on the Gulf of Mexico and the industrial Midwest states like Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, where the domestic auto industry has suffered.
Did the government cause the bubble? Not according to Austan Goolsbee - Examiner.com

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich