According to the New York Times:

“Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates,” Mr. Bernanke said in remarks to the American Economic Association.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/economy/04fed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Happy New Year, readers, but before we get on with the debates of 2010, there's still some ugly 2009 business to report: To wit, the Treasury's Christmas Eve taxpayer massacre lifting the $400 billion cap on potential losses for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the limits on what the failed companies can borrow.

The Treasury is hoping no one notices, and no wonder.

The government wants taxpayers to think that these are profit-seeking companies being nursed back to health, like AIG.  But at least AIG is trying to make money. Fan and Fred are now designed to lose money, transferring wealth from renters and homeowners to over extended borrowers.

In today's Washington, we suppose, it only makes sense that the companies that did the most to cause the meltdown are being kept alive to lose even more money.  The politicians have used the panic as an excuse to reform everything but themselves.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628350980043082.html

According to Zero Hedge:

It has become conventional wisdom, perhaps even cliche, to pin the origins of the credit crisis on the big banks or, AIG or even the practice of financial modeling.  Certainly, these actors have received the most play in the media, and have now endured the focus of populist ire for more than a year.  We now think that the analysis leading commentators to focus blame on these entities is fatally flawed.

We have seen no credible data that any of the large banks or other underwriters of mortgage backed securities ("MBSs") or collaterized debt obligations ("CDOs") or firms like AIG selling protection on the same actually misrepresented the character of underlying collateral.  This is in direct contrast to the allegations of Edward Pinto as printed by the Wall Street Journal.  If Pinto is correct such that the mis-marking of mortgages by FANNIE AND FREDDIE and the discovery thereof destroyed confidence in the accuracy of ratings in mortgage backed securities and their derivatives (and it seems probable to suspect that he is) then it seems almost beyond question that the policies (or policy malfeasance) of FANNIE AND FREDDIE, and not the actions of large banks or firms like AIG are the proximate cause of not just the credit crisis, but also the continuing multi-act, multi-bailout farce that continues to be passed off to the public as necessary "stimulus."

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/origins-american-kleptocracy

According to JCA:

This paper from the Cleveland Fed, which used to shine under the governorship of Jerry Jordan, suggests several reasons why there was no significant housing bust in Canada. Interesting that after each politically correct reason stated, there is an' oh-by- the-way' in addition that cuts to the heart of the problem.

Yes, Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the US.  But the Fed set the tone for banking regulation and they not only did not take away the punch bowl, they spiked it with high grain alcohol.  The Fed was the 'cop on the beat' and they looked the other way. And they still are.

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-was-there-no-canadian-housing-bust.html