I will argue exactly that: what happened in 2009 was a result of government social engineering forcing quasi-businesses Fannie+Freddie to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You didn't even get the date of the recession right. It started in September 2008 with the bankruptcy of Lehman brothers.
Although it's popular among Fox news viewers to blame the recession on the Fair House Act and political pressure to lend to minorities as you just did, the facts don't back up this argument at all. Minority lending in the pre-recession economy was something like 5% of the total mortgages. Even if every single one of those loans was made because of the FHA (they weren't), and even if every single one of those loans was bad (again, not true), it still wouldn't even come close to explaining why the housing market tanked or why the economy exploded. The housing market collapsed because (a) home prices were vastly overinflated, twice their inflationary-adjusted historical levels (b) credit was too easy to come by, allowing people to purchase overly expensive houses with no down payment, (c) The people taking out mortgages were unaware of how dangerous an adjustable-rate mortgage is, particularly those where the rates automatically increase after a year or two. (d) There was - thanks in large part to republican deregulation - a decoupling of mortgage brokering from mortgage lending. So the people brokering the mortgage had an incentive to find unqualified borrowers, inflate (read: lie) about their ability to pay the loan back, and quickly sell off that mortgage to someone else, who has to eat the loss when the person defaults on the loan. Meanwhile, (e) republicans in the Fed and Congress prevented the government from doing anything to regulate this. The net result of all of this was a bubble that, when the downturn happened, burst.
But that still doesn't explain why the economy tanked. A bad housing market drags the economy down, but a housing downturn is not sufficient to explain why the entire economy imploded. Why was this particular housing downturn different from all the rest? The answer is that for the first time in history, we started treating the housing market like the stock market. With credit default swaps ('financial weapons of mass destruction' is how Warren Buffet refers to them), hundreds or thousands of mortgages are packed together into an investment vehicle. The problem is that if even handful of people in that mortgage pool go bankrupt, the CDO starts losing money. If lots of them go bankrupt, it becomes worthless. This risk was not well understood and CDOs were rated AAA grade. So all of Wall Street suddenly began chasing CDOs like they were the end-all-be-all of investment, not realizing that a downturn would render them worthless.
Worse, thanks to the Republicans in congress (and Phil Graham in particular) an important piece of New Deal era legislation was gone. The Glass-Steagal Act prohibited limited all companies to doing either commercial banking, investment banking, or insurance. Under Glass-Steagal, a company cannot, for example, be both an insurance company and a commercial bank. In essence, Glass-Steagal acted as a firewall between important sections of the economy, preventing a downturn in one from spreading like poison to the others. In 1999, Republicans passed (admittedly with Bill Clinton's help) the Graham-Leach-Bliley bill, which repealed Glass-Steagal. With Glass-Steagal gone, every segment of the financial world was prone to a downturn in any one area of the market.
Worst still, the failure of the Federal Government to enforce anti-trust regulations - again, thanks to Republicans - meant that companies could get so large that their bankruptcy would endanger the whole economy. Thus "too big to fail" was born. If you ask me - and most people would agree - too big to fail means to big to exist.
At every every along the way to the great recession, the Republicans pushed for the things that caused the meltdown.