Recently, congressional democrats have been looking at a drastic overhaul of the retirement system; in particular, they want to do away with any tax relief for private, retirement investment (401K, IRA, etc).  Proponents claim that the federal government oughtn't 'subsidize' people's private investments.  
This should make every hard-working person as mad as I am for this reason: tax breaks are not a subsidy!  These pinheads claim they are giving investors money because the federal government is taking it from them!  This is the same line of argument used to decry the 'subsidies' to big oil and the like.

But the real fury should be reserved for the premise underpinning this argument: that you only have any money because the government allows you to keep it.  Against this idea, there are too many arguments from principle and pragmatism to list.

   Let's assume that the government had provided better regulation of GSEs: would that have made the difference?  Surely, it would have to some extent; however, it wouldn't have solved the problem altogether.  

   I suggest a deeper problem and it's one that most people won't be too well pleased to hear: willful ignorance on the part of many, many Americans.  Allow me to explain. 

First, many of our neighbors have been complicit in so-called 'no-doc' loans.  These neighbors lied about their income at the behest of mortgage brokers and loan officers.  

   The second issue is a bit more complicated.  It begins with the age-old paradigm of investment: diversify.  Doubtless, this is true; but it misses a very important point.  In order to diversify well, one must know something about that in which they are investing.  Far too many people left the entire savings, 401K, and other holdings in the hands of their financial advisor (with no oversight).  While advisors aren't bad in and of themselves, complete and utter dependence on them is a perilous.  Rather than leaving one's financial future in the hands of someone else, perhaps knowing something about the companies in which one invests and the industies in which these conpanies participate.  Here's a good example: Surely everyone who took basic economics understands leveraging as it applies to banks.  When a bank or investment house has exceeded healthy limits, an investor should be wary of such an institution.  In addition, an investor who has some basic idea of company processes would also be beneficial; for example, a company who orginates or buys 'no-doc' loans or securities based on these loans.  Beyond this sort of first-hand financial information, indepedent analysis is available.  The key here is to investigate all the companies in which you own stock.  Doublessly, this is a lot to ask of most people, but let's be clear - their life savings depends on it!  Who shouldn't guard preciously that for which they've toiled for 30 years or more, that which will allow them age with dignity and relative ease, that which will help their families in the years to come?