Contrary to what you might think, this helps more people than just the banking industry. Without the banks giving out loans, your neighborhood McDonalds stops being able to hand out paychecks. Without incentive to do investments, your own company starts hoarding cash and laying off people just to survive. If a bank goes down -- not only does the bank and all of its employees suffer -- the banks are not prop shops: the money is owned by someone else. Your 401(k), your city's muni fund, pension fund, university endowment, etc., gone.
None of this is supposed to be a justification for trickle down economics, of course. Trickle down doesn't work. This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now.
> I hope the US government remembers 2008 and doesn’t just bend over to the banking industry to only have this same thing happen again in 10 years.
These are very different times. 2008 is probably caused by the financial industry itself, sure. But this time around, the fundamentals is the problem: no matter how good the banks are, they're just not going to survive without help if the whole economy just shuts down for a year.