text: For those interested in some details of attempts to rein in Fannie and Freddie, there is this. It at least suggests that Democrats are far from blameless in this, though I don’t have the time, expertise, or interest to apportion blame exactly.
  I guess, in theory, that IndyMac would have pulled through. I don’t know how likely or unlikely that would have been, though.
  I daresay with such a letter, the strongest of banks would at least have a hard time handling the run.
  Schumer’s actions are certainly open to question. Unlike you, I do not see the world in black and white, and I am happy to call Democrats to task, something they often merit.
  Utter nonsense. I’ll give you credit that you go with Schumer’s actions being questionable at least. (I’ll also say I’m amazed you got there with only the slight tap of the sledge!) But you lose those extra points when you start in on deregulation. Anon has this one correct when he says:
  tightly regulated industries (usually) work okay, and also correctly de-regulated industries also (usually) work okay. It’s where you have these bastardized hybrids where things go completely to pot.
  To blame this on deregulation, 2 years after the Democrats take over again, and begin shifting direction toward greater regulation, is thereby questionable at least.
  Yes, I noted the Post piece, and have something in the hopper for it, which I may or may not use. (You’d be surprised perhaps by the amount of writing I do that never makes it online for one reason or another. Usually, it’s because by the time I get it near finished, new info comes to light that makes the stuff better off re-writen from line 1.) Their angle on the Democrat culpability is interesting, and unlikely from an MSM outlet.
  Yes, many, even solid banks, would not survive a run. But, would there even be a run? Initially I was thinking that there would not be a run, because depositors would not give much credence to Schumer’s letter. After a second thought, I think I don’t really know what would happen. That depends on psychology as much as anything else, and I have no idea about that.
  BTW, the WP article certainly portrays Schumer negatively. Matt Yglesias (a liberal blogger), also lays blame on Schumer.
  Then if it’s obvious, you’ve made no great discovery, here. And of course things are shaky just now, and have been since 9.11. That meshed with the cyclical nature of economies, and “Green” anti growth policies, particularly surrounding the price and production of oil, what the hell did you expect?