The "bailout" for consumers is that they lower interest to 0%. That's what we did in 2007. If people can refinance their homes from 7% to ~2% then they save a fortune and it spurs buyers back into the market and current homeowners to move around and shuffle inventory.
Of course the Parent comment is also correct because banks get bailed out by low interest rates, but the government also bailed out several banks directly. Corporate bailouts are always a debatable topic. In one way we should let bad businesses fail, they failed because of the risks and choices they made and bailing them out is just inviting those mistakes to happen again. But on the flip side, consumers do need banks (as much as we refuse or hate to admit it). Yes banks make money off of us, but we as consumers also need banks. Which is why bailouts get approved.
We have seen this movie before. I'm not sure why everyone is debating the ending. We watched and lived the ending. It wasn't pretty in the middle there, but the market eventually recovered. Here we are getting ready to rewind and watch the movie again.
I'm strongly opposed to the idea of citizens using government-run banks accounts. The Soviets did this and proved how easy it is for the government to control what people buy, down to the individual level a la social credit scores.
Even if the government today were to wield that power safely its simply too much risk to load that gun and hand it to all future administrations.
I'm often hesitant to consider intent as an important factor, but in my opinion it is one here.
In those situations the governments step in with the intent of bailing out the banks. That bailout does happen to help individuals with debt, but the timing and messaging will always make clear that the government was only willing to step in once a banking crisis was a high risk. Borrows often hurt for months or years before the banks show cracks, the government is almost never doing anything about it when only the borrowers are hurting.
To add examples to my vague use of "always" above, I'd point to the housing crisis and student debt in the US.
Individual borrowers were falling behind on mortgages for a year or two prior to the bailouts. Only after banks recognized the train wreck coming due to the MBS bets and did their best to secure their own positions did the government step in.
Student debt in the US has been a growing problem my entire adult life. Not only is it a type of debt that can't be discharged, lending practices have created a vicious feedback loop with universities continuing to raise tuition and lenders happily writing the notes and expecting the government to deal with it. The Biden administration actually did put in the effort to help borrowers, but banks weren't in trouble and ultimately there just isn't political will to do anything about it until banks (and politicians' investments) are at risk.
During the 2008 crisis, the primary focus of the government response was to stabilize the financial system, which was seen as necessary to prevent a deeper economic collapse.
That wasn't just a short term fix though, they changed the entire banking system and solidified the concentration of wealth into a small group of megabanks by introducing new rules that killed off most of the competition from smaller/medium sized banks while the larger ones got floated cash, so they could merge into even bigger ones instead of dying off due to their own poor decisions/misbehavior. That sort of thing always has ripple effects over the long term.
Sure, they wanted to stabilize the financial system but who was it exactly that they stepped in to save? Was the trigger making stabilization necessary the sudden collapse of liquidity among individual mortgage holders or the collapse of liquidity among banks?
Banks are another story, we'll bail them out all day but tax payers and homeowners are left holding the bag.