> It cost the taxpayers nothing (in fact it made us money)
I was surprised to learn that the "bailout" was in fact a loan that was repaid with interest for a "net profit of $121 billion" [1] rather than just giving the banks money. After learning this, I polled many people around me and few had understood the terms of the transaction. So I think there may be significant public misunderstanding there.
Even if people do understand it was a loan, there's an argument to be made that the money could have been spent in better ways (e.g. early education improvement, preventative healthcare etc. that also give long term returns in preventing crime and reducing healthcare costs). If you believe not giving the loans would have caused the total collapse of the economy and worsened of all of those things (crime, healthcare, education etc.), then it seems a worthwhile investment. But not everyone may share that perspective.
> What part of that are people mad about, and why?
Another element of the controversy was the payment of $218 million of bonuses to the executives of AIG which was being bailed out and effectively run by the federal government [2]. Apparently the government allowed the bonuses because Geithner said there was no legal basis for voiding the bonus contracts.[3]
Some people think controversy over government mortgage relief spawned the Tea Party movement based on this speech by Rick Santelli [4] about his dissatisfaction with the government's bailing out the "losers" who couldn't afford their mortgages.
Some people also feel there could have been more regulation of the financial sector or breakup of big banks [5] or more stipulations attached to the loans.
Just some suggestions based on my understanding of the history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG_bonus_payments_controversy
[3] https://youtu.be/uYJLyGoWbzY?si=geM87strQlH7EURN&t=1079
[4] https://youtu.be/5v1EtiEuSEY?si=055bAuiZiIq-YHXy&t=3023
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%E2%80%93Kaufman_amendmen...
It seems only the very simplified narrative actually sticks, especially when it is convenient for anti-establishment types to do so (and realistically, approximately no-one really _likes_ Wall Street). But I think it's important to consider that while probably the government didn't go as far as it could, it did for the most part help prevent the crisis from getting worse for those who were not responsible while for the most part not doing much for the people working in finance, especially those that they could nail for outright fraud.