The reason is simple: We need to stop letting the government make life difficult for American business.
I love simple reasons. Really. They're almost always accurate.
Because fuck knows it wasn't the companies who asked for money to prop up their failing business models with, it was the government's fault for being captured and giving in.
All that's happened in the past 20 years is people lobbying to get more freedoms for a select few companies, the government granting that because of no adequate oversight and a severe lack of foresight in legislators (perhaps partly due to regulatory capture, but that's pretty hard to reconstruct), and businesses capitalizing on that to fleece everyone they could out of their money.
And yet, somehow, this is all the fault of government rather than of the egotistical fuckers who feel it is their "duty" to maximize corporate profit (and get "healthy" bonuses out of it in the process). The credit market was destroyed because the banks can currently borrow from the government at no cost, and use that money any way they like, which is far less risky than loaning to businesses. Which is why they don't feel the need to try to restart small loans etc. anymore. And there were no strings attached to those loans because of filthy little fuckers like Geithner and Summers who conveniently forgot, or claimed that "regulation at this point would keep the banks from using and applying their expertise".
No aspect of this "crash" has anything to do with the crippling effects of regulation, if anything, regulations prevented it, until they were abolished (Glass-Steagal, leverage rules for the big 5 being suspended in a backroom without oversight, you name it they've done it) through lobbying by rich people who wanted to become richer and didn't care what the effects would be for everyone else. And all of this largely made possible because senators are so dependent on campaign contributions (much more so now in the age of TV than ever before) that they will suck anyone's cock just so they can stay in power a bit longer. Why US citizens accept this to be the case I haven't the faintest, but it's probably because nobody in the MSM is really pointing people towards the fact that only on token issues (abortion) where the public "speaks up" they have any input in the process any more.
"We do the opposite of what would help" because the things that are done then do help a group of perhaps 10.000-100.000 people who have the most say. Only their interests don't really always mesh very well with the interests of the other 300 million.
bureaucratic rules that small companies have to adhere to explain perhaps 0.001% of the variance, but considering how much money they make compared to the big ones, your problems really don't matter.