Galbraith v. Geithner, Goolsbee v. Krugman

Here's the video of James Galbraith's take on how under the Geithner plan th the banks get insulated and the taxpayers take the hit for bad loans.

And here's the Hardball video of Austan Goolsbee, Director of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, scarcely able to disagree with Krugman's point about socializing the losses and privatizing the profits.  Krugman said:

"[T]he Geithner scheme would offer a one-way bet: if asset values go up, the investors profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt. So this isn’t really about letting markets work. It’s just an indirect, disguised way to subsidize purchases of bad assets."

Since the government will guarantee smtg like 85% of face value, the only loss is the buyer's half of 15%.  If the mortgage proves to be good, or the house has value, then all the gain goes to the buyer.  

Is that right?

So after you view these two videos, please tell me why is the administration doing this?

Is it that ideology makes Congress an insuperable obstacle to nationalization - even though that would get us public control of the banks at low cost (because their obligations exceed their assets) and the public would get the gain if the debt is collected, or the asset sold at a decent price?