At it's core, it's about ensuring that banking services are provided to low income communities - specifically areas that banks "redlined" when no government intervention was involved. 

I'm just going to say that in my view, the Keynesian intervention (past and present) has more realistic approach.

The few who survived have enjoyed a huge increase in demand and a competitive landscape that has not caught up yet.To solve the problem outside of government intervention, private businesses need to spot the opportunities in the market.

Govt intervention or a drop in market value causing a decreased cash flow could put you upside down on payments.

So I called local police and was told there was no intervention at that address.What now?

Earnings from a business that does not require direct involvement from the owner (creation of business systems; also referred to as a cash flow muse business) or offering a service that doesn't require the merchant's intervention.

In a nut-shell, gene would have found ways to keep all investors compensated if he ran out of funds to payup or his consulting project would have been DOA.Consider the probable scenerio due to SEC intervention- Gene knows (his legal team must have advised him what lies ahead) his scheme can not stand SEC violations and he knows funds will be frozen by SEC - so what is he supposed to do but save as much as he can and hide- Gene might have anticipated SEC moves and may have money hidden in unreachable places - so now investors have no access to such funds.

Wall Street did not bail out RE, government intervention with our tax dollars and devaluation of our dollar was the so called savior.To the rest of your points, I agree.

And agreed that many opportunities are aggressive...I am speaking to the others that are based on sound demographics and market fundamentals (absent massive government intervention).Time will tell...just speculating at this point.

Where we are likely going to have disagreements is on how much the government should intervene, I think most people (and certainly most economists) will tell you that there has to be at least SOME government intervention.