It's really no wonder people feel like they do when they look at the facts like you do Zakharra. I don't know if you realize it, but there's a lot you're twisting. Many of your statements are blatant falsehoods or exaggerations which're really close to the truth. For example:
When the bailouts are handed out to entire industries wholesale such as the banking and auto
But uh, they didn't. There were banks that didn't receive a bailout, and Ford was barely touched. To my knowledge all they got was a line of secured credit, which is next to nothing. When you consider there are 3 purely domestic car manufacturers, changing 66% into 100% is quite a falsehood. Plus the Industry is composed of a great deal of cars manufacturers, we only meddled with the American borne ones, not necessary the ones that do a lot of business (and even manufacturing) in America. And before you claim that none do, there's a lot of car companies that actually have plants here that aren't the big 3. And banks are an even worse example of your "entire" vs. "actual" claim.
it has a negative impact on the public when billions of their tax dollars are tossed away like that. A lot of people think those businesses should have been allowed to fail and collapse.
Thinking they should of been allowed to collapse is fine, it's a legitimate philosophical belief. But this notion that tossing away tax dollars to keep those companies alive had a negative impact is completely without data. We don't know if it was a smart move or not yet. We do know that a credit crunch hasn't arisen to the point of completely decimating local industry. Things aren't wonderful, but you can't exactly claim that our bailouts did nothing. Many economists agree they weren't bad decisions. So your claim there is based on ideological grounds, likely without any current non-biased evidence. That and "tossed away" is a blatant falsehood. They're going to have to repay what they can, and very few industries we've loaned cash to have just downright failed and will be unable to repay the money (if any, I haven't heard of one).
Also when two of the three automakers file for bankrupcy anyways, with the government holding a majority of the shares, it leaves people asking why? The we hear that there are banks able to make payments back to the givernment, but that they are being not allowed to make those payments. Again it leaves people wondering why? Many people see it as an attempt of the government to take more control over US industries. How many people trust a bureaucracy? Not that many.
Again, that's a cynical point of view. It's another example of you taking a situation and deciding you're going to choose one of the worst possibilities to believe. There's not a shred of evidence that any of this is the government using the crisis for a power usurpation is actually what's going on. There's been perfectly legitimate reasons for every bit of meddling that was done, along with the President personally assuring the country that he doesn't want to be doing this and that it's a short-term thing. The majority of the country doesn't want this to become a permanent change (and I'm with them), until there's an actual reason to suspect foul play, simply assuming it off of some "power corrupts" or "government is evil" principle is paranoid and illogical.
The "why" you say people are asking in your post isn't hard to find. It's just that people are fearful and there are a lot of talking heads putting stupid ideas in their mind instead of the truth. There's always someone out there willing to tell you something crazy in hopes of endearing you to their cause, especially when you're in shaky waters already. It's a lot harder to try and take people's hands in this troubled time and assure them when they're already leaning one direction.
As for the why, they didn't want the auto-industry to go into bankruptcy (which is why they attempted to fix things with earlier plans). It happened because there was ultimately nothing they could do because they underestimated how big of a mess GM and Chrysler were in. There were hard issues to be dealt with, the Union first and foremost, so finding a resolution to the problem was going to be hard. It's not surprising that it failed, I don't see any evidence of anything sinister and don't understand how anyone can. I do understand how people can feel shaky over this much government involvement. But jumping from that shakiness to the conclusion that there's a grand conspiracy for control isn't logical
As far as the conditions of repayment for the financial industry in relation to bailout money, I've heard so many conspiracy theories about this. But it's just a simple matter of practicality. Assume they'd let people pay back with no strings attached, then some of the banks which cannot afford to give the money back might be tempted to (in an attempt to get rid of the ugliness associated with the bailout) and then fail, completely wasting our efforts in the first place. Making them wait to repay us until they can actually afford to do so without forgoing the original purpose of giving them the money (to make credit more fluid) is hardly unfair. It's essentially forcing them to stick to the plan.
It's easy to sit back, twist facts in a very small way, use loaded language, and make cynical assumptions about our government. It seems to be a popular trend in today's political climate. But if anything these statements are born out of ignorance, paranoia, and a feeling of uncertainty.
It's possible that all of our efforts to fix the economy will go to waste, and that the Democratic reliance on Keynesian economics will prove ineffectual. There's certainly an argument to be made for that in opposition of the majority party's actions at current. What does the political discourse no good is to take the point of view that there's disingenuous actions going on. It reminds me of the sort of things the liberals did during the Iraq war, when they wouldn't shut up about some supposed "blood for oil" motive behind the war despite the fact that there wasn't any evidence to support such claims. If you're not willing to give those who oppose your idea the benefit of assuming they're genuine in lieu of any idea to think otherwise, I don't see why anyone should take you seriously as you cannot possibly add anything of value to a debate by assuming unprovable motives.