I really don't know how to begin to respond to your last point. The government takes my money every year and the nature of our government is that once they have it I dont get to decide how it was spent.

My point was that we the people should have a say in how our money is spent, and if it's being misappropriated we should raise hell. There is no reason why taxpayers should have to spend more than $7 trillion so that big banks can profit, the government can profit, but the Average American gets nothing. There are cities in America where tens of thousands of homes were foreclosed virtually overnight-- those families got absolutely no relief despite paying their fair share of taxes and being promised leniency on their debt.

I can still take my money and put it in a bank and I can know that my money will be there tomorrow when I go to get it.

This could have been accomplished in man different ways. The bailout was not the only way to achieve this, it just happened to be the most preferred way for the banks. Most importantly, there still isn't any guarantee that we aren't headed for another major financial crisis.

all the things I have said about the original point have been true.

This whole conversation started because your original points weren't exactly true. Obama was a bad example because he took money from the banks and then engineered a bailout that benefited Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. And furthermore, I seriously doubt that anyone could receive millions of dollars from anyone or any company without that enormous sum of money affecting their judgment. It's called a conflict of interest and I think we should scrutinize any politician who is receiving large sums of money from any moneyed interest.