While it's true that banks continue to receive better-than-usual rates from the government, I don't entirely buy this reasoning. Firstly, the liquidity (i.e. "risk") is essentially free for the government/FED (printing money etc.). Secondly, I believe that if the government failed to act to prevent another depression, the loss would be far greater - if nothing else, there would be a huge loss associated with covering of the insured deposits if a commercial bank failed (which would be very likely if any big financial institution failed, because they are so intertwined).

I do think, however, that after having been "bailed out", a business should have a very high tax rate on profits (90 - 99%) for a number of years/decades.