As for government and political leaders being “held accountable,” I can't imagine what that means. Clinton wasn't held accountable for the side-effects of the community reinvestment act, nor were the congressmen in that video held accountable for their mistakes. At least private owners have fortunes and careers in the game.

But before answering your question, yet another question. Why was the entire US nation, along with the financial think-tanks.opinion-makers/media doing for the past two decades when the loot was visible?

Why do we wake up only when the water has reached the nose? Why do we think that the responsibility for everything concerning us is only rests with the government?

There is an old saying “VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY”.

Bank nationalization is not for all times to come. I would never have recommended this when Bush & Co were in power. But with Barack Obama and his team enjoying public support and trust, there is no reason to suspect that their intentions would be suspect.

Please understand that if the banks lose trust and indulge in criminal activities, the roots of the a country begin shaking and instability follows that can threaten the survival of a nation. This is not just a case of a bail-out of a company in a crisis.

The banks provide a lifeline to the financial stability of the entire economic fabric of a country/world. Once they begin failing, these can't be left in the hands of a crippled system run by private operators who have no accountability.

At least the government and political leaders can be held accountable. And in this regard elrod has made an interesting point.

I don't see any other way to get the toxic junk off the banks and prevent them from becoming zombies.

I agree with the analysis of the problem, that the banks are broke, without a plan to recover, and voracious for whatever handouts they can get. In other words, they're a lot like the homeless.