Washington Mutual Bank victim of the Bush Doctrine?

I think it's stretching it quite a bit to blame this on the "Bush Doctrine" - there is far more involved in all of this than just what Bush wants or does - there are many more people involved. These financial companies are not "victims" in any way - they are in the condition they are because of their own business practices.

Eclectic, when I talked about this with a friend, she said the government couldn't do this. It's hard to realize that we've been used in a way so similar to Nazi Germany or Castro's Cuba. If we don't put up a major stink to prevent these things, Washington could quite easily stomp on us even more, until we're just another sad, oppressed nation! Everyone needs to contact every senator and representative to let them know we can't let it happen!

If the bailout does not go through or is not effective, what's next is a bailout of FDIC which will add another 150 to 200 billion to the cost. Clearly, the FDIC and the Treasury were concerned that there would be a panic and a run on the banks that would bring everything down. There are currently over 100 banks on a government watch list that are expected to collapse if this thing doesn't go through and there is not nearly enough money in the FDIC fund to cover the amount of the insured deposits in those banks. I don't know what allowed the government to step in with Wash Mutual but there has been trouble there for quite awhile. It didn't really happen overnight and I'm sure there was some precedent for what happened. As for the FDIC, it was formed by a piece of legislature in the first hundred days of the FDR administration by something called the Glass Steagel Act. It was a very strict piece of legislature that also separated banking. There were Retail, Commercial and Investment banks and the twain did not meet. The FDIC would only insure accounts that were in retail banks where there was low interest and low risk. FDIC considered investment banks too risky to hold people's savings and too risky for the government to insure. Glass Steagel was never popular. Part of the act was repealed in the early 1980's and that led to the deregulation of Savings and Loans and the Keating mess. The remaining act was repealed in 1999 by bipartisan approved legislature. (Gramm Leach Bliley Act) The 1999 repeal allowed the banks to mix investments and billions in FDIC insured accounts wound up invested subprime real estate packages. This is a simplification but it's basically how we got to today. The blame does not rest with Bush any more than with Clinton or Reagen.

Could you provide the link to what you were reading?