[stig]

Am I misremembering? I recall the S&L crisis caused a ton of people to be foreclosed on their homes. The S&L system was not bailed out it was put out of its misery and big banks bought them up for pennies on the dollar. I don't even think the FSLIC could hand the defaulting S&Ls and the FDIC had to step in and help cover insured deposits.

So if it means letting the commercial real estate owners getting foreclosed and banks going belly up then I am all for a bailout.

If it means allowing current investors to hold onto their real estate that they leveraged too high to cover for a downturn, then NO I am not for it. If it means the banks that wrote the risky financing get made whole then NO I am not for it.

[RomanSoldier19]

The ultimate cost to taxpayers was estimated to be as high as $124 billion.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/savings-and-loan-crisis#resolution

[Alberta's Child]

With a fiat currency like ours, the role of the government is to protect the value of the currency — even if it means artificially propping up non-performing assets that are collateral for loans. The government’s only interest in bailing out the borrower is to keep the lender solvent — thereby propping up the currency.