Sure you can.

It's like giving rules to a child.

For example you don't want a child to eat sweets before bed.

Regulation is like saying "You can't be in the kitchen after 5pm"

Oversight is like telling your child he can't have sweets... then punnishing him for doing it.

Predatory lending was illegal... it's just nobody bothered to have any oversight.

Some people believe regulation and assurance  is better.  If he's not in the kitchen he obviously can't eat the sweets kept there.

Other people believe oversight and freedom is better.  If he's not aloud in the kitchen he can't do a great number of things he can do that's perfectly ok for him to do.  Like get some juice or play a game on the kitchen counter.

Kasz, sound logic and reasoning in a political thread rarely work.

But, Thank you for pointing out the definitive differences between "oversight" and "regulation"

*facepalm* 

Most people have accepted that Raines isn't even an advisor in Obama's campaign at all and yet you still refer to him as Barack's "Chief Financial Advisor"?

You can't be taken seriously in anything you say if you continue to lie and twist the truth as it fits your political agenda.  You are becoming a joke and your topics have officially become slightly better articulated political versions of Crazzyman's topics.

They're the same damned thing.

Desroku, sound logic and reasoning in a political thread rarely work.

But, Thank you for pointing out the similarities between "oversight" and "regulation"

How do you figure?  One is being restrictive to prevent an action from happening.

The other is watching someones actions and punishing them from doing the illegal act.

It's the difference between telling soemone they can't own a gun and punishing people who shoot other people.

And since our OP brought up the CRA (not by that name - he doesn't know whatc the fuck he's talking about, so it stands to reason that he doesn't know the name of applicable law) I thought i'd squash that now.

The CRA did not cause the crisis.

First, it was passed in 19fucking77. Yeah, yeah, I know. It was biding its time.
Second, most subprime loans were not made under CRA. Perhaps 25% were, probably less.
Third, institutions not covered by the CRA were over twice as likely to give out subprime loans, and at higher interest rates.
Fourth, subprime loans themselves did not cause this. Selling these mortgages as securities did. That's a practice that exploded during this decade.

WTF?
How the hell do you use not going in to the kitchen past 5pm as an example of regulation?

If little Timmy wants to access the medicine cabinet inside the kitchen but you have it locked THAT'S regulation. Little Timmy can eat, open the fridge, and do whatever he wants but if he wants medicine he needs to call you and ask permission. This might limit Timmy from taking medicine while your not there, but it protects Timmy from poisoning himself. Timmy can still eat and grow just fine if he eats his apple a day and plays by the rules, and in the absolute need to take medicine you can help him decide the safest way to take the potentially deadly medicine.

I mean the government WANTS the economy to prosper, they aren't going to limit potentially profitable avenues unless it is detrimental to either the consumers or the business, amirite? Priming the pump with poison will kill everyone who drinks from it.

You just defined the same thing two different ways: Prohibition of an action.

I think what you mean to say is that one is proactive and one reactive. Except that's wrong. Neither is necessarily proactive or reactive. You just invented that distinction for your own purposes. 

Everyone is full of shit trying to point fingers. I'll say what I have said in every thread about this, BOTH PARTIES screwed up. The republicans had 6 years of pres+congress, dems had congress in 2006+. Both sides had time to fix this, they failed. Stop trying to say each party is responsible.