>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.
>
>I agree it may seem unfair that "unsophisticated" banks that kept out of the sub-prime malarkey have received "the treatment" but a bank run would have taken them out too.

There are some VERY large banks, who WERE invested in sub-prime, but who did not need a bailout who were forced to accept. It's not merely the small ones.

>As for repayment:presumably the stakes that accompanied the $ will be sold for a nice profit once things stabilize. Perhaps government does not want to accept current market price and/or feels a need for continued liquidity in the market.

If it was merely a matter of liquidity then they wouldn't be passing legislation to restrict activity, compensation or dictating loan practices.

>Anyway, that's what happens when a self-governing sector fails society. It's not just banks: whether it be physicians, lawyers, bankers or whoever, if they damage society by failing to govern themselves appropriately then controls are placed that affect all of them, not just the bad apples. This creates an incentive for self-governing groups to protect society as well as themselves. I'm not sure why bankers started thinking this did not apply to them.

Why should they they're just following the lead of our elected leaders. (see Fannie/Freddie)

Saying "that's what happens" is not good enough. The federal government is not to inject itself in private business in America as doing so goes against the founding ideals of this country. Not that this has really mattered for 80 years...sigh.