It absolutely did:
https://www.investors.com/politics/...ill-not-tax-cuts-caused-the-financial-crisis/
Obama sought to expand the policies that created the housing crash in the first place:
"Recreating the mortgage crisis
As if that weren’t enough, Obama’s new credit cop, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is out to recreate the conditions that caused the 2008 mortgage collapse by pressuring banks to make loans to people who can’t afford them in the name of racial “fairness.” And it’s happening behind closed doors.
CFPB won’t let private citizens or reporters into meetings with its 25 paid advisers, the Consumer Advisory Board, whose taxpayer-compensated members include trial lawyers who make a living suing banks, former ACORN activists, and even a member of the Democratic National Committee. Some have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grant money to ferret out discrimination in housing and lending.
“They want input from liberal activists and Democratic partisans without public scrutiny,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute official John Berlau, who last year represented a Mississippi businessman barred from a Consumer Advisory Board meeting in what Berlau says was a “clear violation” of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
One influential CFPB adviser, Ellen Seidman, happens to be one of the architects of the disastrous housing policies that caused the mortgage crisis. Seidman encouraged subprime lending in “underserved” communities as a top Clinton bank regulator enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). “Growth in the subprime credit market indicates that credit needs in many low- and moderate-income areas are being met,” she said in 1999. She also cheered the relaxation of credit standards and the development of the subprime securities market.
“Without CRA as an impetus,” Seidman said, “this market would likely not have developed.”
Now Seidman is helping rewrite the rules for home lending. CFPB recently released new mortgage rules that, despite claims of tightening standards, require no minimum credit scores or down payments and even count payments from “government assistance programs” as qualifying income for low-income borrowers.
Radical advisers also have opened up a new “fair lending” front — car loans.
CFPB has sued the nation’s largest car lender, Ally Bank, for $100 million over discrimination charges.
Ally denies the allegations, arguing it prices for risk, not race. Indeed, the administration failed to take credit scores and other key risk factors into account in its investigation — just as it failed to take them into account shaking down almost three dozen mortgage lenders — including Bank of America and Wells Fargo — for a combined $810 million over alleged lending discrimination.
Discriminating against minority borrowers would be a deplorable crime if true. But investigators have no direct evidence it’s occurring. Cases are based exclusively on statistics showing “disparities” in loan outcomes by race. For the first time, federal civil-rights enforcers are relying on stats, rather than actual acts or intent, to prove racism.
They assume “statistically significant” disparities in loan rates between whites and minorities proves lenders are discriminating against minorities. But there’s a fundamental flaw: They’re not comparing whites and minorities with the same credit backgrounds.
They’re missing their credit scores, debt-to-income ratios and other key information that influences lending decisions (like down payments and trade-ins) in their computer screens. In short, they’re making reckless allegations.
Though investigators argue crunching the raw data is sufficient to prove racism if it shows “significant” racial gaps in loan pricing, they won’t define “significant” — despite repeated bipartisan requests by Congress.
Critics complain even the dubious statistical threshold they’re using to trigger discrimination investigations is arbitrary and capricious.
“CFPB refuses to release any sort of analysis or methodology as to how they reached their conclusions,” National Auto Dealers Association spokesman Baily Wood said."
https://nypost.com/2014/02/15/barack-obama-makes-up-his-own-rules/
Only the state has the power to create artificial barriers to entry as they have a monopoly on the use of force.
The government created the 1%, all monopolies are created through government intervention in the market.
I'm denying that it had anything to do with helping Israel.
