Doug, I don't understand the political point you're trying to make. So what if the UK doled out subsidies in the Northern Rock case? (And did the Brits really give $108 billion - isn't that like 5% of their GDP or something?) The point is that the Fed is handing out taxpayer cash to incredibly rich shareholders with the full approbation of Democrats. These are the same people who incant "personal responsibility" the minute that it's the problems of the working class that's being discussed. This demands some protest and outrage, no?
Your position doesn't make any sense: We should just accept the bailouts and demand something "in return." But why should the powers that be give us something in return for a bailout we concede is perfectly desirable and necessary anyway? Unless you yell and scream about the unfairness of the bailout, you're in no position to demand something "in return" for it once it passes.
This whole position seems to be part of your unending anxiety about the taint of "populism," which is to be distinguished from social democracy in some way that is unfathomable to me. It makes for pretty puzzling politics.
Seth