>>Perhaps somebody should write to this fellow to tell him that TARP is not manna from heaven, it is a taxpayer bail-out of an industry that broke itself. Individual banks may not have needed $, but plenty of $ in the banking system reduces the risk of widespread bank runs that not even the best-run bank is likely to survive. As for control: if any commercial entity ponies up the cash to rescue a failing entity, the first thing they do is take control and institute emergency measures to repair whatever caused the failure- including supervision or replacement of current management. In this respect, government seems fairly benign. IMHO the objection is to the label "government" not to the idea that a rescuing investor is expected to take control, especially of an entity that needed saving after it screwed up.
>
>I agree with your premise that a bailed out company has zero say about controlling influence from the bailor. The issue however is in regards to private entities which were forced to accept TARP money in the first place and are being refused when attempting to return the money. With a number of banks this more closely resembles a hostile takeover rather than a rescue.

Do you truly believe the government is interested in a hostile takeover of banks, in controlling the banking system? To me this seems like a conspiracy theory of the first order. Black helicopter kind of stuff.