Republicans = privatized profits & socialized losses

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Simple, true, easy to remember

Republicans are Reverse Robin Hoods who want to transfer wealth from the poor and the middle class to the very upper tiers.

It has been proven any number of times - bail outs of Long Term Capital Mismanagement, Bear Sterns, S&Ls, Chrysler, etc. Were any of those executives or shareholders ever ordered to reimburse some portion of profits taken earlier as recompense? Of course not. If things work out, they get all the swag. If they don't work out, then the now swagless bag is passed along to the taxpayer (you and me)to refill with more swag for them to make off with at a later date in an endless cycle. There is no moral or financial imperative for them to do differently as there is no punishment for bad, wrong, stupid, unethical, immoral, often illegal business practices that are reinforced and condoned by the purposefully toothless oversight or lack thereof of our government.

These are all variations of a smash and grab, although this is the smoother Republican version going on now:

They own the jewelry store. They sell jewelry. They make money. Just not as much as they would like. So, they apply for and get tax breaks. They get government subsidies. They pay the store employees a pittance. Still not enough. So every day, in addition to their salaries, a member of the upper management is allowed to leave with a ring and a necklace. The store becomes emptier and emptier because somehow the inventory is mostly gone and nothing of real value is left. They will need assistance to keep the store open. They will file a claim with their insurance (us taxpayers) who will pay them for the disappeared jewelry (which they actually still have). They will open a new larger store with an all new jewelry inventory that the taxpayer provided them. What's not to love?

[annabanana]

1. Short, pithy, easy to understand.. and it goes

right to the heart of what's wrong with their philosphy.

(I would buy this bumpersticker)

[patrice]

2. I don't understand: If we don't bail out Fannie & Freddie, what happens to the homes

that they financed?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. I'm really not saying that we shouldn't bail out Fannie and Freddie

unless we want to see homes values in this country go to a third of their value.

Fannie and Freddie actually performed a great service by allowing very large quantities of money to be opened up to average Americans to enable them to purchase houses and I don't want to see them go under. But, I do see where a lot of things could have been done better. Too much value concentrated in just 2 entities - perhaps they should have started different Macs working under different guidelines to service various sectors in the housing market so that all the eggs aren't just in 2 baskets.

But, in good times, the investors were getting good returns. My point for all these bailouts is that some people made money which they don't share but when they lose money, they want to spread the loss to all of us.

Especially Bear Sterns, Chrysler and Long Term Capital management. These were purely private entities, not quasi public/private. This is where the whole "too big to fail" argument gets hauled out which might translate into too (many)big(shots)(involved)to fail.

My question about Freddie and Fannie is something that I am confused about which perhaps someone else has better knowledge of. I thought that Fannie and Freddie were the secondary funder and insurer of what is called "conventional" financing. In other words, I always thought they were supposed to have the higher quality of loans, where income, credit rating, down payment, etc. were involved in approving loans and that their failure rate was always extremely low, which is why their stocks and bonds were always considered a safe harbor and something to sell to widows and orphans.

My question is, why are they even at risk? Weren't the whole "sub-prime" and "Alt-A" categories designed to provide funding for people who DID NOT QUALIFY for conventional financing? How did these crappy loans infiltrate into Fannie and Freddie?

[electropop]

8. I don't think the homes disappear.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Or, "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" according to AFL-CIO economist

Ron Blackwell

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1879&updaterx=2008-07-15+11%3A56%3A34

[Overseas]

5. That's the Republican way -- Welfare for the Rich; Tough Love for the Poor ..... Amen

[DFW]

6. Mark Knopfler nailed the Republicans perfectly over 20 years ago

That ain't workin'
That's the way you do it
Money for nothing and chicks for free

[Senator]

7. ... all marketed by protection racket.

Which it has to be. As there's never been a "privatization" success story -- nor a "bailout" that helped anyone but the let-them-eat-cakers.

---

[Greyhound]

9. The systematic looting of this nation is nearing the end game. It was greatly accelerated

in the 80s and continued, unabated, through today. They have thoroughly suckered an ignorant, complacent, distracted populace into mindlessly repeating whatever slogan is inserted into what is left of their minds.

There are only scraps left and I think we will find over the next couple of years that as the "big companies" that are left go under we will find they are nothing more than hollow shells with no real assets left to divvy up among the claimants.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. That's exactly what I was getting at.

That's what I meant by walking out with all the rings and necklaces. That is actually literally what Skilling at Enron was attempting to do by setting up all the weird little shell partnerships sold to himself for a fraction of their nominal worth.

I read the book "The Smartest Guys in the Room" and a lot of Enron was a smoke and mirror operation - they started off as a profitable company that sold something tangible but evolved into an illusion of a profitable company that was selling images of future profit while really they were going down the tubes.

[Gregorian]

10. I love it!

I think the short and sweet descriptions are the only thing that work. We're talking bumperstickers in a car centric society.

And since these same people seem to think they're so righteous, let me add another-

If Jesus had been a conservative, he'd have kicked the poor out of the temple, and praised the money changers.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. GOP=Profit for a few; Debt for the rest.

I think that's the same, but with smaller words.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I do like that!

Profit for few, Debt for the rest!

Even pithier - I lost one whole syllable.

I love evaporating thought into its smallest condensed essence. :)

[ColbertWatcher]

14. The idea is based on CO-stanza!

Keep it simple, and just before it hits that magical tipping point introduce your original one, with all that complicated language and ideas and stuff.

Keep the two running for a while, then quietly drop the dumber, first one.

Believe me, no one will notice.

CO-stanza!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. As in George Costanza?

CO-stanza!

A new framing device. Run 2 slogans at the same time that mean essentially the same thing, but make one have more syllables!

One for the polys and one for the monos - Brilliant!!!

[ColbertWatcher]

16. Yes. (EDITED TO ADD)

You do remember the episode I'm talking about, right?

But, don't have them run simultaneously, at least not at first.

Let the dumb one catch on first (I think it would be easier for it to than the polysyllabic one) wait a while, let it catch on, and before it gets "mainstream", introduce the "smarter one" but be sure to link them.

As the smarter one becomes more mainstream, drop the dumb one.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

18. I thought I had seen every Seinfeld but I don't remember that one.

I always aspired to have the Costanza desk with napping space and built in cup holders.

Now you've made me curious and I will have to find some way to check it out.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Took a while, but...

...the episode is called "The Chicken Roaster" (script)

George: I'm going out with her tomorrow, she said she had some errands to run.

Jerry: That's a date?

George: What's the difference? You know they way I work, I'm like a

commercial jingle. First it's a little irritating, then you hear

it a few times, you hum it in the shower, by the third date it's

"By Mennen!".

Jerry: How do you make sure your gonna get to the third date?

George: If there's any doubt, I do a leave-behind keys, glove, scarf, I go

back to her place to pick it up...date number three.

Jerry: That's so old. Why don't you show up at her door in a wood horse?

{Jerry is at his apartment door}

Jerry: "By Mennen"


{later...}

{George and Heather are at a bench in the park. George is holding a bag.}

George: So how do you want to do this?

Heather: Alright George I'll be honest, the first time we went out, I found

you very irritating, but after seeing you for a couple of times, you

sorta got stuck in my head, Costanza!

{Costanza like "By Mennen"}

[liberalla]

33. Did you catch Randi on Tues. - This was her mantra

“Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses” and her daily post has it too.

The Economy is in real trouble. The Grand Oil Privateers want a good old fashioned socialist bail out with our tax dollars. Remember their mantra “Privatize the profits. Socialize the losses”

snip


GOP
Privatize the profits SOCIALIZE the losses

In Washington, Fannie and Freddie’s sprawling lobbying machine hired family and friends of politicians in their efforts to quickly sideline any regulations that might slow their growth or invite greater oversight of their business practices. Indeed, their rapid expansion was, at least in part, the result of such artful lobbying over the years.


more: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, Daily Show Topics

Great show that day.

This is a short and sweet, easily understood description of Bushonomics, and the predicament we find ourselves in... It's easy to remember and rolls off the tongue!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

34. She's not on in my area, unfortunately

I WISH I had the opportunity to listen to Randi or even more - Stephanie.

But it is great that it is her mantra, or rather, that she exposes that it is the secret philosophy that fuels the GOP.

The irony is just so heavy. The so-called "free market" deregulation types come running back to Mommy and Daddy (the government and the taxpayers) whenever their plundered and looted companies start toppling over.

The AFL-CIO economist that I posted above says that it's Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, which is also an inversion of what common wisdom would have you believe.

I look longingly at the Europeans with their healthcare and free tuition and mass transit and 2 month vacations. Americans think they are #1 just because they don't know any better.

[Raster]

17. And it's not just rethuglicans. It's corporate capitalism...

and its insane emphasis on short-term shareholder profit maximation, which more often than not means government subsidies, tax breaks and, if necessary, bankruptcy assistance.

Your analogies and examples are RIGHT ON THE MONEY! The deck is stacked against individuals, and it's time to change this!

Thanks for posting!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. You're right that it's not just Republicans

Corporate capitalism has ensnared a large share of Democrats as well, I would wager. Which probably explains their strange somnambulism in matters we individuals consider urgent.

I'm sensing a tipping point on this matter, not just on this board but even in the MSM overall. If they had even been just a little more restrained in their greed, they could have kept the carnival in town a lot longer.

[Greyhound]

21. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:kick:

[Greyhound]

35. Thom Hartmann for President!

:kick:

[paparush]

22. Obama Needs to Repeat that, non stop, for the next 4 months.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

23. Yep. And we have to hold corporatized Dems just as accountable

as we hold corporatized Republicans.

The jig is up.

[paparush]

24. Rock it, Phoebe!

[Political Heretic]

25. Hey I believe I said that somewhere...... :)

Oh yeah...
http://political-heretic.blogspot.com/2008/07/privatized-profits-socialized-losses.html

Which I got from a post on DU yesterday. Just further proof that all good points eventually trace their way back to DU. :)

Cheers!
PH

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

26. The thought is not original to me, of that I am sure

And, it is not a new idea - it's a pretty old point of view. Profits are private, losses get disbursed to the general population if you're big enough and have enough clout. Similar criticisms have been levied through every single public bail-out of a private entity.

Now that we have been played for fools repeatedly with this same scam, perhaps at some point we might wise up collectively as the poor sheared sheep that we are and say, no more.

I honestly think that CEOs and BODs should be asked to repay bonuses and stock options if they presided over a losing concern that wants a bailout.

Cheers back!

[Political Heretic]

28. don't misunderstand - I was just giving kudoes to DU and "great minds" and all that

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

30. I totally got that and I didn't misunderstand you

Isn't that "crictical mass"?

There IS a convergence of many minds thinking about the same topics and reaching similar conclusions and influencing one another. It's one reason why I love DU so much. Sometimes I say "yes! yes!" when it seems like someone has posted my own feelings before I could (usually better than I could have).

Other times I feel like I literally hear a "ping" when my mind gets stretched and I see a perspective I never thought of.

:toast:

[Fire Walk With Me]

27. "The Company Store".

K&R.

[Kansas Wyatt]

29. The Republicans bought out the The Company Store

And took over the Government.

Now it's under a new name.... The Corporate Government Store.

They were still pissed about the New Deal, so they reversed the New Deal and turned it into the Raw Deal. Not only are we working for the Company Store again, the Government is managing our debt to it and keeping it's thumb over us at all times.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Chysler Actually Paid Back Their Loan

At least give them credit...we sure didn't see that from the Airlines or should be sitting back on those repayments from Bears Stearns. Give Democrat Lee Iacoca some credit.

An excellent piece and you can apply this template to a lot of other industries as well...airlines, telecommunications, oil...the one entry into this corporate welfare game is the ability to write big checks to the RNC.

Cheers...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. Good point! A "bailout" is actually supposed to be a loan , isn't it?

So, if the governement "loans" one of these entitites money, how is it collaterallized? Who "guarantees" the debt? How does a taxpayer experience the repayment of the debt they funded?

Why aren't these bailed-out entities becoming public/private entities almost immediately?