"I wish I had a pancake"

With a nannerpuss?

I always understood "Public-Private Partnership" to mean that the Public Taxpayer funds or assumes all the risk for a venture and the private corporation reaps all the profits or retains all the benefits of the venture.

These type of partnerships are usually said by certain politicians to "be in the best interest of the town/city/state/region" because of increased amounts of any of the following: jobs available; tax revenues to be generated; tourism revenues; etc.

The same politicians usually disappear soon after the deal is completed and almost always are completely gone on to be lobbiests by the time said private corporation comes back to that local government saying that it needs more money due to: construction overspends; unforeseen environmental remediation; environmental givebacks; additional services not provided for in the original contract; rehabilitation of public roadways or utility infastructure, etc...

@econobiker: That's the old model. The new model will still risk the taxpayer's money, but if the private groups actually reap huge profits, they'll retroactively tax them at 90%.

@t-r0y: Good thing companies know how to doge taxes.

I always understood "Public-Private Partnership" to be new speak for nationalization.

Public Private Partnership means we get dragged out into the street and f*ed in the a**.

Nah, seriously, it mean banks with bad debt ("legacy loans") can create secondary entities to purchase those bad loans at their full face face value, using government assistance for 93% of the value of the bid placed by the intermediary entity. The bank then has cash and has gotten the bad loans off its balance sheet. The intermediary entity can then go declare BK, and then go find a nice dark corner to die and rot in. End result, the public funds used to purge the bad assets from the remaining bank will become preperty of the bank, as the loans provided are non-recourse. Approximate cost to tax payers? 3-5 trillion dollars.

@Frank Murphy: Nationalization implies governmental control of the entities being nationalized. In the case, the PPIP just throws money at the corrupt and incompetent institutions and individuals responsible for this mess.

@orlo: Yeah, and maybe the employees can get some help from Tim Geithner, or Barney Frank, or Charles Rangel, or Tom Daschle.

@dangermike:

Suuuweeeet deal!

Oh, wait...I'm one of those tax payers. =/

Wanna know what is going on and what it means from someone who's been there before (S&L Scandal of the 80's)? Here is a great interview that discusses what has been/is going on right now: [www.pbs.org]

It's the definition of fascism.

The Motley Fool had a great article about how this will be easily exploited leaving taxpayers with the cost and banks get off free. [www.fool.com]

@michaelgibbons:
+1

@t-r0y: How precisely would this happen with the funds that went to the foreign banks?

Not that I believe the domestic companies will be paying their taxes here...