It's very easy to make up unfalsifiable scary stories to justify policies you like.
That said, the government had no real choice. I'm no financial system expert, but used to work in finance and even I can see that something was needed or else the system would collapse. Is it possible that you're letting your distaste of the financial system and players involved color your judgment?
The choice we faced was either cut off the leg or the patient dies when the gangrene spreads. No one likes cutting off the leg, but if the alternative is that you die, I think the choice is obvious.
It's unlikely, since I don't have any distaste for finance. In most threads I'm the solitary defender of the financial sector.
As I said, it's easy to make up a scary story of doom. The scary story assumes that everyone will try to continue doing everything they previously did before the banks collapsed, and then give up rather than do things differently. Or perhaps the assumption is that the way things are now is the only way things could be. Either way, I'm unconvinced.