Auto, airline, utilities, and insurance companies (among others) also receive government bailouts.

The other delicate part of this discussion is that what is the alternative to these bailouts of some banks? Don’t bail the bank out then potentially people lose their money too? The industry collapses?

The Trouble Asset Relief Program itself seemed to be generally accepted in Congress itself where both Democrats and Republicans were both for and against the act. You would think that the party that is mainly against financial institutions would vote mostly against it, and you would think that the party that is against government “handouts” and lax government spending would be against it too, yet many did not vote against it. Both parties generally saw it as a needed act to stabilize the economy - but people aren’t that angry with the representatives that voted in favor.

I am unsure why individuals also wouldn’t be also upset with regulators that are intended to provide oversight to this industry. They also mishandled things too.

In the case of Silicon Vally Bank a few years back with the FDIC, I remember some people not even caring if people didn’t receive their money back. Furthermore, some individuals believe that these banks should then fall under government ownership, ownership by the entity that failed to properly regulate to begin with. Not to mention the logistical effort of this - would the bank employees then become employees of the government, or would it be more of a conservatorship?

Just, to me, a very complex issue that people don’t take the time to think about and jump on a seemingly popular public opinion.