We do definitively know, with climate change level certainty (read: there is still the odd ball expert that dissents), that it absolutely needed to happen.
What is much less known, because it kinda kills the talking point, is that the "too big to fail" bailouts were fully repaid with interest, to the tune of an ~$17B profit.
The losses from the program were from the auto industry ($12B) and the struggling homeowners fund ($31B). Which is a bit ironic, because those two are probably the ones that would have the most public support.
What would have happened if we hadn't? What was the doomsday scenario? And, crucially, what would have happened next?
Doomsday scenario is a self-reinforcing feedback loop of:
1) economy tanks, people earn less disposable income or become unemployed
2) consumers spending less tanks the economy even more
We have historical precedent for this in the great depression, and the government going hands-off back then made the problem almost certainly much worse.
You could even make a pretty credible argument that the Nazis only got into power thanks to this, so there's your doomsday scenario.
I don't think this characterizes the situation accurately. The economy doesn't cease to exist, it moves out of the existing financial system. Able-bodied workers, supplies, equipment, knowledge all still exist, they're just awaiting orders. You have your choice of how to spur productivity with the extant resources, including direct investment and propaganda. Many people credit WWII for the recovery, but it was actually just those two things, with the war as the excuse. But you can do it without a war, as with the Japanese economic miracle: some amount of austerity, everyone works towards a common goal, the government backstops the effort. Bonus: no golden parahute overhead.
I think we screwed up after 2008 and I would like to see us get it right this time. The government absolutely should be hands-on, but the focus should be on raw productivity and public well-being, not making certain that certain firms survive the bloodbath.
You know what's a great economic stimulus? You now own the house you owe a mortgage on, clear and free. "But that would bankrupt the mortgage-holding bank!" Okay.
I don't disagree with most of what you say, but one crucial point you miss in my view is that letting public trust in banks & "the economy" collapse is really "expensive" (in hard productivity, not just on paper).
This is what was allowed during the great depression and what we desperately tried to avoid in later crises.
Western democracies are not set up at all to let the government direct and compensate millions of workers on the turn of a dime; micromanagement by government in such a situation can be expected to be extremely wasteful and ineffective, and this only got worse, because we have less generic/unqualified use for human labor than in the past (construction, railroads, motorways, heavy industry), and specialists are even harder to manage.
If everyone stops even just believing in the ability of local supermarkets to provide toilet paper next week or, on the other end of the spectrum, starts distrusting the banking system/dollar entirely, then the consequences can be extensive, expensive and slow to recover.
It might even be worth it to feed taxpayer money to rich greedy capitalists because the public comes out on top still by avoiding that trust collapse.
That's fair, but I think you're again conflating trust in the overarching institution with trust in its current constituents.
This is important because it exposes the needle you have to thread: messaging that makes clear that you're intentionally throwing out the old banks and companies (or their leadership) in order to preserve their prosocial functionality without their antisocial dysfunction. People who are happy to see Goldman Sach burn still want a way to safeguard their money; people who want Mark Zuckerberg to pay the piper don't necessarily want to lose their Instagram galleries or Facebook connections.
The people who run these companies want us to believe that a collapse of the status quo is a total collapse, but it's not. And a government that facilitates transition of ownership and leadership to more capable hands doesn't have to follow the oligarch playbook; different ownership models and transition processes exist.
I'll give an example. Consider people living in a corporation-owned apartment complex. The company collapses - most such corporate landlords collapse - and maybe the bank holding the loan does too. There is no world in which the complex sells at its previous value, and there is probably a temptation to facilitate some transaction, any transaction, that would bring things back to order by designating a concrete owner. Of course, there are people living in the complex, and God knows what happens to them when God knows whoever shows up claiming rights to the units.
Or.
The government steps in. They claim eminent domain and set aside reasonable funds to pay whoever turns out to be the final previous owner. A co-op is formed and ownership is transferred to the current residents as a subsidy; they now own the units they previously rented. Their lives are not disrupted by forced eviction; the municipality is not disrupted by an explosion of homelessness. The main losers are the old owners and banks, and they're bankrupt and dissolved anyway. Life goes on.
I'm not saying that it's an easy transition. Russia showed us how to screw it up. But the successful scenario is a far better outcome for far more people than throwing our hands up, exclaiming that we don't know how to do anything without letting vulture capitalists have their way, and inviting them in to freely carry out the exact scenario (which continues to distort markets and makes the next reckoning all the worse) which is the failure mode of the above proposal anyway.