I'm having a hard time finding the difference of the Fed's action with AIG, the S&Ls a few years back and a couple other such instances, with when the Fed also provided bail-out loans for New York City and everything done by FEMA (which is itself a "bail-out" agency) and the Army Corps of Engineers because people insist on not adequately insuring their property and provide for the most basic of self-protection. We elect follk to make decisions for us as to whether the public good is taken care of by applying money to the wound, as opposed to preferential treatment to a specific person or group. If we are not satisfied with the elected folk's judgment, that's why we have periodic elections. However, the factors for what constitutes public good has gotten applied pretty much the same over the years, political party notwithstanding.

Bankruptcy laws are "forcing people to pay" debts which arise from taxes, obtaining money or credit by false pretenses, fraud or embezzlement, alimony and child support, willful injury to someone or their property, a fine, an educational loan, or a debt which they failed to list. Also, if the debt is secured by collateral (e.g., car loan) and the debtor wants to keep the collateral, then the debt is reaffirmed. That's really not draconian.