The mistake in '08 was preventing the banking system from purging the idiots who were taking on too much risk. Protect the people, shred the corporations is my motto for financial crisii. And here is the roll call for "A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets" [0]. I'm no expert on Senate procedure, but H. R. 1424 is TARP and that looks like the final vote to me. On the list I do spy "Biden (D-DE), Yea".

So whatever accountability the government faces it isn't enough to stop someone becoming president.

I'm sticking to my point here - I don't think the government is held accountable in any meaningful way for its screw ups. not_kurt_godel's opinion needs more support on this. If the government hadn't stepped in, a lot of banks would have lost everything in 2008 - they were on the verge of being held very accountable and I'm still grouchy that they weren't. The government should not be in the business of buying worthless assets.

[0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_...

These banks had to be bailed out because the ripple effect would destroy the economy and that would have been very disruptive even to companies and individuals that had nothing to do with the housing crisis. Even with the bailout, many suffered.

But I agree with you that the way they bailed them out did not hold them accountable, they should have "invested" in those banks by buying newly issued shares which would have completely wiped out the existing shareholders.

However, rather than the normal way to raise capital, they gave a blanket permit to the federal reserve to buy the bad debt from the banks.

The US government and the people by extension should have become the owners of those banks which they could resell the ownership again on the private market with a profit at a later point.