When is "nationalizing a bank" not "nationalizing a bank?"

When Harry Reid says so:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he supports efforts of the federal government to dramatically expand its stake in Citigroup, but wants people to back off from the dramatic rhetoric. 

“It’s not nationalization, it’s protecting the taxpayers’ interests,” Reid (D-Nev.) told MSNBC’s Morning Joe program on Monday. 

“In the bailout, the TARP, that we made sure the American taxpayer had a way of getting paid back for their investments,” Reid said. “That’s what this is all about and it’s the right way to go.” 

The federal government is in talks to take as much as a 40 percent stake in the struggling bank’s common stock, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday. 

Republicans have criticized Democrats for moving closer to bank nationalization – something White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs signaled that the administration signaled would oppose on Friday.

“My main concern is that Washington is sending mixed signals to Wall Street, which is causing private capital to remain on the sideline," said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Until investors are clear about the government’s intention with regard to future market interference, confidence will not be restored to the financial sector.”

There's a reason gold is over $1000 an ounce. There is a reason investors are fleeing into government bonds. There's a reason the stock market is tanking.

And it isn't because Republicans opposed Obama's porkalicious stimulus bill.

It's because no one knows what these revolutionaries are going to do next. And it doesn't help when Harry Reid decides to call a spade a heart and plays down a government takeover at Citigroup as just looking out for taxpayer's interests - as if the trillions already spent show how much Democrats care about taxpayers.