Definitions matter.  Wikipedia

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including national socialism, national syndicalism, along with collectivism, mysticism and populism based on the nationalist values); corporatism (including class collaboration, economic planning, mixed economy, and third way); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, holism, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism.[16][17] Fascism opposes communism, conservatism, liberalism, and international socialism.

Government welfare for banks in a nation where 47 million humans don't have health care is certainly not "socialism."

1. It does nothing to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes
   
2. Very little accountability or oversight
   
3. Does not, contrary to claims, prevent billions of dollars being spent on golden parachutes (or trips to 4-star spa-resorts)
   
4. Doesn't do enough to ensure taxpayers get a return on their investment

the fed can do the former by virtue of low discount rate loans (they just reduced the rate by 1/2 point), the latter isn't required. further, they can shore up the credit market by being the guarantor of last resort. again, they needn't take an equity interest to accomplish this.

i suspect the reason HOLC isn't discussed is that, the more everyone looks at it, the more distasteful it becomes politically. it would be seen (rightly or wrongly) as rewarding people for being greedy & stupid.

Paulson is facing a number of fundamental problems.  One of them is the downward spiral of real estate prices and the upward spiral of foreclosures.  Another problem is that banks are not fulfilling one of their fundamental functions - lending to one another and lending to business.  The two problems are interrelated.  

One way to attack both problems is to create HOLC.  But Paulson could essentially do the same thing without creating another layer of bureaucracy by taking equity stakes in certain banks and then mandating that those banks act as clearinghouses for purchasing troubled mortgages and renegotiating them.  Perhaps this is what Paulson has in mind.  

I believe, I really don't know, that they are against price stabilizations at this still highly inflated level.  I kind of think they think price stabilizations can't possibly work at this level, it would be throwing good money after bad.

Anyway, that's how I understand what Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, Calculated Risk, and others have been saying.