Seems convoluted. Why not just let the business venture fail?
Usually because the business failure could mean thousands of primary job losses, and possible tens of thousands of secondary job losses from other businesses that support the first. Depending on the region, that could have massive ripple effects across the local, regional, and possibly national economy.
We don't have a strong social safety net in the USA so that would likely lead to large scale poverty, homelessness, and massive increase food insecurity. These things then ripple out to other businesses in the area completely disconnected from the primary failing business causing more job losses as so forth.
The amount of public money to try to support the population and economically revitalize the region is massive when set next to a comparatively small bailout that would maintain the workforce at the primary business and and avoid the other businesses affected secondarily.
In short; its cheaper to pay the bailout so the primary company can pay their bills again than to operate in a pure market economy of boom and bust.
And if the basic function of the business is so integral to the function of society then it should not be a business, but should be a regulated administrered aspect of government.
If a business functioning is so important it needs to get bailed out, in this case it should be nationalized.
This can get messy very quickly:
From a domestic point of view, if the business is one of many providing the product or service, then the government now has a vested interest in driving any public spending to that one nationalized company while the surviving non-nationalized companies attempt to compete.
From an international point of view, if that nationalized company produces products for export, then you get the same problem we have with many companies in trade regulations. For example, the WTO prohibits direct subsidies tied to exports. The USA accuses China of this all the time and is the basis for many import bans in countries around the world.