>Didn't take long for the evidence to appear.
>
>OK, but in that article the only "evidence" that they overstepped the mark is an allegation by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. He may well be right, but his saying so isn't actually enough to convince somebody who hasn't already made up their mind. Maybe there's more to come.
>
>In the meantime, at least one of those banks still is undercapitalized and plans to dilute shareholder worth to meet the requirements. As for the rest...well, start with Goldman Sachs: without the billions they scooped from the AIG bailout, they were dead. Work it through and it's clear that only government intervention saved these banks. ALL of them. And now some of them want to lose their savior-shareholder which seems ungrateful but is fair enough if there are 2 willing parties.

Therein lies the problem. They either weren't allowed or were deemed "to big" to fail. The free market is based upon a risk-reward model which must be maintained or the integrity of the system will continue to be flawed. By forcing governmental control the State has removed the private risk from the equation leaving us with a public-risk, private-reward model. These actions have set us up for the next failure and considering the public is now directly on the hook for the losses, if things go bad, they will be exponentially worse then the problems we would've had if we simply let the big boys fail and take our medicine.