The full-scale assault on regulated banking was launched with the 1979 ascension to chairman of the Federal Reserve Board by Paul Volcker, who publicly announced his commitment to the "controlled disintegration" of the U.S. economy. Volcker's argument was that the successful transformation of the U.S.A. to a "post-industrial society" was inhibited by FDR's banking reforms, which were designed to maximize investment into areas of production which increased physical productivity. The revitalization of industry and agriculture under FDR was facilitated further by massive investment in infrastructure.
Note how the economy has been demolished in a controlled manner by allowing the support structure, i.e. infrastructure, to collapse - a process symbolized by cutting the WTC's beams with demolition charges. The same people are behind both, although they've used a different variety of henchman in each case.
Obama's "reconstruction" plan comes nowhere close to rebuilding what has been lost since approximately 1970 in terms of our industrial capacity. His idea of "infrastructure projects" consists of repairing schools, roads and bridges, which would amount to pissing away whatever money is spent on it because the underlying economy is in such bad shape, that it's like putting frosting on a rotten cake. LaRouche's idea of an infrastructure project is NAWAPA, which is as fundamental as it gets. Think of it as a new interface for an agro-industrial economy to the physical world. The resources spent on it would have been spent effectively, because it would make it easier to produce the next-higher "layer" of infrastructure, which in turn would do the same for the next-higher layer, and eventually, to our ability to afford to do the sorts of things that Obama proposes we do first. The order in which things are built makes a huge difference in whether we can afford them. The only thing Obama's plan is intended to accomplish is to get him and Congressional incumbents re-elected.