So are you saying that what Hightower wrote is wrong? If so then please feel free to educate us as opposed to engaging in the as hominem attacks.
Now, go back to the Hightower article and see what I wrote about it. I said that "Hightower's article was pretty much correct. Your attempt to derive conflict where none exists was, on the other hand weak." You chose to accept Hightower's conclusions without thinking.
Now, let's look at this a bit differently. I said that TARP is working. You said the CRUX of the article said that the only way they have profit is because of TARP. Sorry, that is not how it works.
TARP would be a liability on their books, no matter how you look at it. My guess is that TARP is in an "off the books" account so that it allows the bank to maintain normal ops, but they would not be able to, as you suggest have a $50B loss, get $55B TARP and suddenly claim a $5B profit. While clever, that is not the way the system works.
So, to clarify, please understand that if you understood macroeconomics much of this would be really much easier. The TARP is working as designed. Both the JP MORGAN example and the BoA example are proof of HOW it is working to different degrees, depending on how the different institutions addressed risk in their near past.