Citigroup the Latest to Privatize Profits and Socialize Losses
I’ve said it before, but shouldn’t the executives who ran these companies into the ground be handing back the bonuses they received for doing so before you and I hand them a check for another $20 BILLION?
Maybe Citigroup shouldn’t have poured millions of dollars into the naming rights for the new Mets stadium if things were so tight? On the other hand, since you and I are now directly putting up the money to give Citigroup naming rights to the new Mets stadium, maybe it should be called, “John Q. Taxpayer Memorial Stadium” or “Mets Field: Financed entirely with public money, but we’ll keep the profits thank you very much.” or something..
One other thing.. According to recent conventional wisdom regarding bailouts of private companies, if the average salary of the employees at Citigroup is higher than any of their competitors, we have no business helping them out. After all, if they made poor decisions for years that led to the need for a bailout, it’s the fault of how much they’re paying their workers, right?
My point is this: It continues to amaze me that the power that be - and by that I mean the current administration, you know, the ones who’ve been in charge for 8 years - have no problem throwing money with no requirements or preconditions for how it’s used at the big financial firms, but when it comes to companies that create hundreds of thousands of jobs which happen to be held by those in unions, the well is suddenly dry.
November 24, 2008 12:22 pm 
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.; ?>/images/feed-icon-16x16.gif){kind=icon}
By dmrsilva, November 24, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
WOW! For the first three paragraphs I was agreeing with everything you said. I thought, am I turning leftie, or is Dan turning rightie?
But then I got to the last paragraph, and sure enough, this post just turned out to be another leftie hypocritcal bash. Hasn’t it been the Democratic controled Congress handing out John Q Taxpayer’s money the last two years?
But when you said “no problem throwing money with no requirements or preconditions for how it’s used”, I thought, that Dan is a hypocrite!!
Back in Sept 2005, Rep. Sensenbrenner was one of 11 congressmen who voted against the aid package to Katrina victims. He repeatedly stated that he was not against the amount of money in the bill, rather, he was against the fact that there were no conditions or accountability in the bill. Ultimately, he was proved right when the GAO’s audit proved large sums of that money were missing due to corruption, theft, etc. Well, that’s what happens when there’s no accountability.
So what did Rep. Sensenbrenner get for his stance demanding accountability? “This week, the honor of ‘GOP Moron’ of the Week’ goes to Wisconsin’s own James Sensenbrenner, who represents the state’s 5th congressional district, for being one of eleven congressmen who voted against yesterday’s $51 billion relief supplement for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Not only does he get moron on the week, but ‘Heartless Bastard’ of the day, ‘Jerk of the Month’ and ‘Morally Corrupt Conservative of the Century’.
And who wrote that quote? None other than Dan Cody in his Sept 9, 2005 post (please see his archives). The same Dan Cody who’s now complaining about no accountability of this bailout.
Dan, you win the ‘Hypocrite of the Year’
By Dan Cody, November 24, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
There’s a difference between sending relief money to an area of this Country devastated by a natural disaster and sending money to a private corporation devastated by bad management.
Accountability is one thing. Handouts to corporations sponsoring baseball stadiums is another.
If you can’t, or don’t want to, see the difference between Katrina aid and bailouts for Citigroup, I’m sorry.
By dmrsilva, November 25, 2008 @ 5:49 am
Dan, I actually do agree with you on this. We certainly need accountability and preconditions on the money that we are about to throw at these businesses. I also apologize for the name calling.
However, whether funds are earmarked for humanitarian aid OR corporate bailouts, greed and corruption line the path to each of the destinations. You looked at ‘accountability’ in the Katrina aid package as a ‘road block’ to getting the money to the people who really needed it. The eleven who voted against the aid package looked at ‘accountability’ as a possible way of ensuring that the money actually got to the people who really needed it (or at least a larger portion of the funds).
So, those who voted for the package had this nice warm and fuzzy feeling about helping the victims of the hurricane. In reality though, a lot of that money never even got to the intended victims. So what good did that warm and fuzzy feeling do them? Many of the victims ultimately went without aid, or had to wait until other future relief funds were voted on.
Once again, I do agree with you on this. But this Congress, and all future Congress’s, whether they be R or D, need to start spending John Q Taxpayer’s money with more accountability attached to it.
By senor fancy pants, November 25, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
“It continues to amaze me that the power that be - and by that I mean the current administration, you know, the ones who’ve been in charge for 8 years”
the democrats voted for this, too. pelosi et al were right there doing what the president wanted.
in fact it was house republicans who balked at first, although some changed their minds when it came time to vote the second time.
By Bruno Wolff III, November 26, 2008 @ 10:36 am
My impression of teh Democrat’s strategy for a good portion of Bush’s terms is that they would give him what he wanted because it was so bad that it would hurt the Republicans in the next election. I guess people blaim the party of the president rather than that of congress when things go bad.