[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But where is the hypocrisy...?[/QUOTE]
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
Thread
Posts in chronological order
How typical of America to put the needs of the bourgeoisie before the needs of the people.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Topic Starter: there's a very, very large gap between a mortgage bank being taken over by the government and socialism. Even though hard-line rightists will certainly call it red.[/QUOTE]
Hey that's me! Woo who!
Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of govt. intervention, but I'm not suggesting the US is a socialist country. Just that whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard.[/QUOTE]
I agree. But the term 'socialism' itself implies financial equality. This is more reminiscent of mercantilism, to be quite honest.
[QUOTE]BTW, what do you call the government bails out a private business with taxpayer money?
[/QUOTE]
I call that humoring speculators and lobbyists.
Hey that's me! Woo who!
Yes, this is an EXAMPLE of govt. intervention, but I'm not suggesting the US is a socialist country. Just that whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard.[/QUOTE]
I agree. But the term 'socialism' itself implies financial equality. This is more reminiscent of mercantilism, to be quite honest.
[QUOTE]BTW, what do you call the government bails out a private business with taxpayer money?
[/QUOTE]
I call that humoring speculators and lobbyists.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But where is the hypocrisy...?[/QUOTE]
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But where is the hypocrisy...?[/QUOTE]
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?[/QUOTE]
Try this thread:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1125758
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?[/QUOTE]
Try this thread:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1125758
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]But where is the hypocrisy...?[/QUOTE]
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?[/QUOTE]
Try this thread:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1125758 [/QUOTE]
Exactly where on that thread are people simultaneously decrying government handouts for the poor while espousing government bailouts for private companies? I must have missed it...
"whenever the poor recieve govt. handouts it's always "an unnatural intervention in the free market" but whenever a private company gets bailed out, it's "for the good of the economy". Or some other feeble excuse to avoid addressing the double standard"
[/QUOTE]
When have you heard that on QueenZone, was my point?[/QUOTE]
Try this thread:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1125758 [/QUOTE]
Exactly where on that thread are people simultaneously decrying government handouts for the poor while espousing government bailouts for private companies? I must have missed it...
Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy? [/QUOTE]
I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae?
Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here?
I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions.
I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae?
Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here?
I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Come on music man, you're not daft so don't play games. That thread turned into an attack on welfare for the poor and yet so far, when I've invited people to comment on the huge govt. bailout of Sallie mae, criticism has been luke warm or non-existant. The double standards of conservatives/republicans in general is obvious -- they should be outraged about this but they're supporting the Prez to the bitter end -- and it's noticable on the small pond that is Queenzone as well. Why is it wrong to use taxpayers money to help the poor but right to do it to bail out a private business? Where's the outrage? Where's the consistancy? [/QUOTE]
I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae?
Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here?
I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions.[/QUOTE]
On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours.
And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage?
I'm not playing games. I'm correcting your misinformed perception of the population of Queenzone. First of all, how do you expect people to comment on and criticize the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when most people have no idea what such a takeover even implies? Welfare is much closer to home, and much more observable. The federal bailout is much more difficult to understand. Even someone as concerned as you on the issue can't even correctly mention which firms are mentioned in the bailout. Sallie Mae?
Additionally, who says you have to be Republican or conservative in order to oppose the welfare state? That is a completely ignorant assumption. The majority of citizens, and most Queenzoners, are largely independent. There are very few members who are identifiable as liberal or conservative, especially among those who replied in the previous thread. Additionally, you'd be very hard-pressed to find a Queenzoner who actually likes or supports President Bush. The only one I can remember is FGT, and when's the last time you saw her posting here?
I don't mean to berate you, but you are being utterly ridiculous here. No one on Queenzone has strongly expressed hypocritical views, and it is offensive of you to make such baseless accusations. If you want to make an accusation, find an actual hypocrisy, and berate the individual who made it. Don't pool Queenzoners, Republicans, conservatives, or Americans into a pool and draw ridiculous conclusions.[/QUOTE]
On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours.
And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours.
And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage?[/QUOTE]
You've been on Queenzone a lot longer than me, huh? Even if by some sheer stroke of chance you *have* been on Queenzone longer than me, it's quite impossible for you to have been here *a lot* longer than me, unless you came across Queenzone before it even existed. It's quite cheap to try to justify your attacks by purporting some arcane experience over me. Maybe next time you could try it on a less experienced member, though.
That said, if you wish to further stereotype, then it is entirely your concern. However, it should also be your concern how rapidly it depletes your credibility. But hey, it's no concern of mine.
Anyway, what have I to address? You'd be very hard-pressed to find a Libertarian who would support such government intervention, myself included. I've never supported this decision, nor have I supported the welfare state...so what would you like me to address, exactly?
As far as Republicans go, they are as varied as a box of crayons, and it would be ridiculous to assume they all believe in the same ideologies on every issue. Arranging people by Democrat/Republican is about as useful as arranging people by male/female when it comes to political positioning. Is religion a staple of conservatism? Well, depending on who you ask, so is atheism.
On and off, I've been on Queenzone a lot longer than you and I see the same usual suspects with the same political pov. How and when I address them is my concern, not yours.
And while the detail of the Federal govt. takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (you are right, I call it SM as that's the end of the business I have dealings with) the basics are that the US govt. is in effect nationalising a private company -- something conservatives/republcians/libertarians are supposedly ideologically opposed to. Care to address that point at some stage?[/QUOTE]
You've been on Queenzone a lot longer than me, huh? Even if by some sheer stroke of chance you *have* been on Queenzone longer than me, it's quite impossible for you to have been here *a lot* longer than me, unless you came across Queenzone before it even existed. It's quite cheap to try to justify your attacks by purporting some arcane experience over me. Maybe next time you could try it on a less experienced member, though.
That said, if you wish to further stereotype, then it is entirely your concern. However, it should also be your concern how rapidly it depletes your credibility. But hey, it's no concern of mine.
Anyway, what have I to address? You'd be very hard-pressed to find a Libertarian who would support such government intervention, myself included. I've never supported this decision, nor have I supported the welfare state...so what would you like me to address, exactly?
As far as Republicans go, they are as varied as a box of crayons, and it would be ridiculous to assume they all believe in the same ideologies on every issue. Arranging people by Democrat/Republican is about as useful as arranging people by male/female when it comes to political positioning. Is religion a staple of conservatism? Well, depending on who you ask, so is atheism.
What a broad church the Republican party is. No doubt they like country AND western. Still, I must have missed their election manifesto pledge to fully nationalise Fannnie and Fred.
I'd like to have an idea of how all that works...why it generates such a crisis. I can't find an explanation of it in lay terms! Securities are like bonds? So the companies issue bonds based on the value of the real estate? How does it work in the real world...!???
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
(Pulling my hair off)
It's desperating, really, to read the newspaper and don't understand A THING.
Really. I don't know whether the writers working in the newspapers don't grasp it either or they're only assuming that everybody knows what's about.
Why don't they make a graphic? A diagram?
Like: People X - takes loan from Company Y.
And then it goes escalating to see the big picture.
Hahaha.
I mean, it'd be helpful, I don't know. On the weekend edition the guys could make a kind of special guide explaining the basic economics behind it all and how it works. With maps, graphics, diagrams to help, pictures, baloons, rainbows, I mean, just something that could help me understand the thing!
Is it just me?
I see these things and I don't know, really, what people are talking about.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
(Pulling my hair off)
It's desperating, really, to read the newspaper and don't understand A THING.
Really. I don't know whether the writers working in the newspapers don't grasp it either or they're only assuming that everybody knows what's about.
Why don't they make a graphic? A diagram?
Like: People X - takes loan from Company Y.
And then it goes escalating to see the big picture.
Hahaha.
I mean, it'd be helpful, I don't know. On the weekend edition the guys could make a kind of special guide explaining the basic economics behind it all and how it works. With maps, graphics, diagrams to help, pictures, baloons, rainbows, I mean, just something that could help me understand the thing!
Is it just me?
I see these things and I don't know, really, what people are talking about.
Holly,
That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food.
In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field.
That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food.
In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field.
Well said, Lisser. The welfare system as we know it today is horribly broken. It should be a temporary system, not meant to milk for a lifetime.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lisser wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Holly,
That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food.
In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field. [/QUOTE]
This thread or my comment on the other thread was not meant as an attack on you. But your thread quickly became an attack on those on welfare, which I'm sure was not your intention. I see your point: we have the same problem here, and no doubt in other western countries. The line between helping people genuinely in need and the problem of those living off the backs of others is a fine one. All I'm trying to do here is point out that welfare for the rich gets little criticism whereas welfare for the poor gets a lot. I'm genuinely stunned at the lack of outrage by republicans at the actions of the Bush admin: when did 'privatise profit, nationalise debt' become an acceptable policy for republicans?
Regards
bri
That thread you linked to was started by me and I never meant that I was against a welfare system. However since I work daily with people who use the welfare system I feel I am qualified to say that our welfare system is flawed, and seriously so. I don't feel that the poor are a burden but if those that are in a position to help the poor don't help them properly, they will remain poor forever. Who wants to stay poor their entire lives? The goal of the welfare system should be to help people in dire situations to work their way out of the situation. The welfare system in American does not work very well because it is supposed to be temporary aid, not lifetime, unless of course you are disabled and you receive SSDI and that is totally different from welfare. We should be teaching welfare recipients a skill, a craft, a trade, help them with education costs bc higher education in America is not free, we should teach them budgeting skills. Giving someone a cash check each month without holding them accountable for something does not do them any good if they are going to spend it on a big screen TV or go to bingo and spend it all. I'm also qualified to speak on that as well since I play bingo a lot :) I can assure you the bingo halls are packed after the 1st of the month when some people that receive welfare get their checks. The money is spent so they go without electricity or water. They sell their food stamps for half their value to receive cash and so they go without food.
In my state we have something called KTAP. It stands for Kentucky Temporary Assistance to Parents. I have no clue why it is called temporary bc there is nothing temporary about it. It is a montly check parents receive and they can use it to buy what ever they want, big screen TV, X Box 360, cigarettes, beer, gamble with it. It's just not a good idea to do this. I don't have all the answers but I definitely do not believe that all of the poor are a burden on society. I am all for helping them work towards a goal to get out of poverty but some of them seem quite content with living in less than ideal conditions, no food, no clothing but having internet, cable, and watching it on a 64 inch TV. I work in this field, I see it everyday and have for the past 11 years I've been in this field. [/QUOTE]
This thread or my comment on the other thread was not meant as an attack on you. But your thread quickly became an attack on those on welfare, which I'm sure was not your intention. I see your point: we have the same problem here, and no doubt in other western countries. The line between helping people genuinely in need and the problem of those living off the backs of others is a fine one. All I'm trying to do here is point out that welfare for the rich gets little criticism whereas welfare for the poor gets a lot. I'm genuinely stunned at the lack of outrage by republicans at the actions of the Bush admin: when did 'privatise profit, nationalise debt' become an acceptable policy for republicans?
Regards
bri