It would exactly be a tax funded bailout. Most people would indeed decry it because the people complaining about tax payer funded bailouts would be wondering w

It would exactly be a tax funded bailout. Most people would indeed decry it because the people complaining about tax payer funded bailouts would be wondering why we were willing to tax 10 billionaires more money to make whole people with more than $250k, instead of using that money to prevent the discontinuation of a program that say, reduced child poverty by 46% in the US. For the record, I don’t consider this a bailout. Making whole people’s deposits isn’t what I would consider a bailout because I look at a bailout as protecting entities from the negative consequences of bad decisions, whereas I don’t see depositing money in a bank as a bad decision. This is the equivalent of the govt using its vast assets and reputations to make while the victims of Madoff, for example, which without govt intervention would have meant that the fund’s assets were disposed in a fire sale, so the victims get less money than they would have if the govt intervened and provides short term liquidity allowing those assets to be disposed off at a higher market value. But it’s still socialistic, and it strongly indicates the need for government regulation and intervention, because no private entity could do this, and basically undermines strong economic libertarianism.