or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Goldman Gate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Goldman Gate?

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/2...-to-white.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's political action committee, its employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/2...#ixzz0lpuvVTpJ

It's hard to say what's going on here, but something definitely smells wrong. If evidence surfaces of coordination between the SEC investigation and the White House, what does that mean? Is it abuse of power? Is it even a crime? I suppose at best it's inappropriate...and worst it could be obstruction of justice.

I know I will get flamed for this thought, but the "I" word did enter my mind, especially in light of Goldman's (bundled) contributions to the President.

Thoughts?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 47
The SEC vote against goldman can down along party lines and in an unusual move they announced the charges before trading ended that day causing a loss of billions for Goldman.

This is nothing BUT politics.
post #3 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The SEC vote against goldman can down along party lines and in an unusual move they announced the charges before trading ended that day causing a loss of billions for Goldman.

This is nothing BUT politics.

I wonder how many people with inside knowledge of this got rich shorting the stock.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/2...-to-white.html



It's hard to say what's going on here, but something definitely smells wrong. If evidence surfaces of coordination between the SEC investigation and the White House, what does that mean? Is it abuse of power? Is it even a crime? I suppose at best it's inappropriate...and worst it could be obstruction of justice.

I know I will get flamed for this thought, but the "I" word did enter my mind, especially in light of Goldman's (bundled) contributions to the President.

Thoughts?

Yeah I'll give ya' a thought about this one.

Desperate idea.


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #5 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah I'll give ya' a thought about this one.

Desperate idea.



Really? Not even possible?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/2...-to-white.html



It's hard to say what's going on here, but something definitely smells wrong. If evidence surfaces of coordination between the SEC investigation and the White House, what does that mean? Is it abuse of power? Is it even a crime? I suppose at best it's inappropriate...and worst it could be obstruction of justice.

I know I will get flamed for this thought, but the "I" word did enter my mind, especially in light of Goldman's (bundled) contributions to the President.

Thoughts?

Yes, it looks like abuse of power. But only when Democrats are involved, to a Republican. Their "side" remains blameless and lilywhite. And of course, the inverse happens as well, and both probably in more or less equal proportions.

Unfortunately, people are so tied up in the BS, superficialities and trivia of party affiliation... undoubtedly because of the addiction to (a) traditions and (b) arbitrary media punditry that they remain blind to political reality... which in a few short years, given the current climate and trends, will first viciously bite us all in the ass, then rip us to shreds.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Really? Not even possible?

So unlikely it's not even worth talking about. This is worse than the " Birther " item.

But if the right likes to talk about stuff like this and don't care how they're percieved by all means continue.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #8 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So unlikely it's not even worth talking about. This is worse than the " Birther " item.

But if the right likes to talk about stuff like this and don't care how they're percieved by all means continue.

Worse how? I have not spoken about anything here, just read and saw you basically saying, "No way there's anything here." Wondered if you really meant that the current administration was completely above all possibility of scandal? Now you try to link this to the Birther movement, when there appears to be a money trail to a not insignificant amount of money that leads, possibly, to an even less insignificant amount of money. Smoking gun? Not necessarily. Impossible premise? No way. Worth speculation, possibly. Not even worth discussing? I guess that is your take on it.

I personally withhold judgment until there is something more substantial. But I don't think it is that unlikely... Nothing surprises me regarding DC politics anymore. The more I hear, the less I want to be a part of the process as it exists.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So unlikely it's not even worth talking about. This is worse than the " Birther " item.

Interesting. Worse than the birther folks? Seriously? Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to me that Goldman Sachs (or most of Wall Street for that matter) is in bed with the White House.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Interesting. Worse than the birther folks? Seriously? Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to me that Goldman Sachs (or most of Wall Street for that matter) is in bed with the White House.

Huge stretch? You are very flexible grasshopper. Were your mind as flexible as your figure, you would be most impressive.

Mr. Obama is a secret rich Republican. Surprise! Betcha never saw that one coming!
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The SEC vote against goldman can down along party lines and in an unusual move they announced the charges before trading ended that day causing a loss of billions for Goldman.

This is nothing BUT politics.

Ok, so let me get this straight. The innuendo is that the White House (Obama Administration) may be favouring Goldman because Goldman are huge donors.

So when the SEC (Under the Obama Administration) does something unusual that causes huge losses for Goldman, they are corrupt, how exactly?
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Ok, so let me get this straight. The innuendo is that the White House (Obama Administration) may be favouring Goldman because Goldman are huge donors.

So when the SEC (Under the Obama Administration) does something unusual that causes huge losses for Goldman, they are corrupt, how exactly?

What are you new to politics? Either Obama is tossing GS under the bus or using this as leverage or something else. Could also be payback for paying back TARP too soon and getting out from under the political influence that comes with TARP. What it's not is a genuine effort to prosecute wrong doing.

Chicago politics come to Wall Street.
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

What are you new to politics? Either Obama is tossing GS under the bus or using this as leverage or something else. Could also be payback for paying back TARP too soon and getting out from under the political influence that comes with TARP. What it's not is a genuine effort to prosecute wrong doing.

Chicago politics come to Wall Street.

Riiight. Makes perfect sense...
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Huge stretch? You are very flexible grasshopper. Were your mind as flexible as your figure, you would be most impressive.

Just because it is difficult for you to see very close connections between Goldman Sachs, in particular, and Wall Street, in general, and the Obama White House (and the Bush White House, and the Clinton White House) isn't my fault.

All you have to do is look at his Treasury Secretary. Timothy Geithner is old buddies with both former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson (Bush) and Robert Rubin (Clinton) both of which worked for Goldman Sachs for more than 25 years each, including both serving as Chairman and CEO of the firm. Additionally, Timothy Geithner's Chief of Staff is a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist.

There's more than a passing connection here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

Mr. Obama is a secret rich Republican. Surprise! Betcha never saw that one coming!

Careful, your bias is showing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #15 of 47
Again, the assertion that the Obama admin is "throwing GS under the bus" and is not "legitimately attempting to prosecute" and this is somehow due to their "connections" is fucking nuts. Not one of Sammi Jo's conspiracies ever made less sense than that.
post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, the assertion that the Obama admin is "throwing GS under the bus" and is not "legitimately attempting to prosecute" and this is somehow due to their "connections" is fucking nuts. Not one of Sammi Jo's conspiracies ever made less sense than that.

Yes. It's fucking nuts. No where in history has a politician said or appeared to do one thing publicly while doing something else in reality behind the scenes. Never in history have the connected interests shaped or influenced actions of politicians. Fucking nuts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, the assertion that the Obama admin is "throwing GS under the bus" and is not "legitimately attempting to prosecute" and this is somehow due to their "connections" is fucking nuts. Not one of Sammi Jo's conspiracies ever made less sense than that.

If you can't make a connection between GS donating to Obama's campaign and Obama's SEC suing GS for fraud, then you're not watching enough Glenn Beck.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

If you can't make a connection between GS donating to Obama's campaign and Obama's SEC suing GS for fraud, then you're not watching enough Glenn Beck.

Yes, because this is completely fabricated by Glenn Beck.

What about those who see this possibility but haven't watched Glenn Beck? What say you then?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, because this is completely fabricated by Glenn Beck.

What about those who see this possibility but haven't watched Glenn Beck? What say you then?

The absurdity of connecting the two items should speak for itself, but... since you asked.... I say that IF you actually believe this "possibility", then you just might be as mentally unbalanced as Glenn Beck (or, as tonton so succinctly put it, "fucking nuts").
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

The absurdity of connecting the two items should speak for itself, but... since you asked.... I say that IF you actually believe this "possibility", then you just might be as mentally unbalanced as Glenn Beck (or, as tonton so succinctly put it, "fucking nuts")*.

Of course.


*Since I clearly have expressed my belief that there is this possibility can we officially count this as an ad hominem statement from you?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Of course.

*Since I clearly have expressed my belief that there is this possibility can we officially count this as an ad hominem statement from you?

Well, if you want to split hairs, then I have to ask:

1. Shouldn't you consider "you just might be" a qualifier that prevents this from being an ad-hom?

2. Was the original "fucking nuts" post also an ad-hom?

3. Is expressing the possibility that you don't actually believe what you posted an ad-hom?


eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's hard to say what's going on here, but something definitely smells wrong. If evidence surfaces of coordination between the SEC investigation and the White House, what does that mean? Is it abuse of power? Is it even a crime? I suppose at best it's inappropriate...and worst it could be obstruction of justice.

I know I will get flamed for this thought, but the "I" word did enter my mind, especially in light of Goldman's (bundled) contributions to the President.

Thoughts?

The highlighted portion says it all.

Until such evidence surfaces, all this amounts to is wild conjecture based on the Republican obsession with finding fault in every single action and statement President Obama makes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The SEC vote against goldman can down along party lines and in an unusual move they announced the charges before trading ended that day causing a loss of billions for Goldman.

This is nothing BUT politics.

Yes, the SEC vote was along "party lines" - those lines having now become "Republicans will oppose everything Obama does regardless of the merits". If you want to take party out of the equation, look at the vote of the Independent member.

Do you really think the Republicans voted on the merits more than the "politics"? Please feel free to defend the Republican votes to keep the bad ol' SEC from bullying those poor, poor victims at G-S.

And also - yes, the attempt to manufacture controversy over the timing of the SEC and the finance reform bill is exactly "nothing BUT politics".
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Do you really think the Republicans voted on the merits more than the "politics"?

You appear to be making two interesting assumptions here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The Republicans have voted against this despite its merits.
2. The Democrats have voted for it because of its merits.

Am I correct that you are making both of these assumptions?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You appear to be making two interesting assumptions here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

1. The Republicans have voted against this despite its merits.
2. The Democrats have voted for it because of its merits.

Am I correct that you are making both of these assumptions?

These "assumptions" are my opinion based on the available evidence. They are no more or no less "assumptions" than your opinion (which I am assuming is contrary to mine ).

Again - if you want to argue that my opinion is incorrect, you'll need to convince me of the merits behind the Republicans' "No" votes.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

These "assumptions" are my opinion based on the available evidence. They are no more or no less "assumptions" than your opinion (which I am assuming is contrary to mine ).

Again - if you want to argue that my opinion is incorrect, you'll need to convince me of the merits behind the Republicans' "No" votes.

Are you assuming that the bill has merits? Nothing but merits? No detrimental aspects? Based on what? You've read the entire bill and arrived that the conclusion that, on net, it has only advantages and no disadvantages and that the only reason anyone would vote against is for partisan reasons?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Are you assuming that the bill has merits? Nothing but merits? No detrimental aspects? Based on what? You've read the entire bill and arrived that the conclusion that, on net, it has only advantages and no disadvantages and that the only reason anyone would vote against is for partisan reasons?

Merits of the bill?

Ummmm.... I have been posting not about the finance reform bill votes, but about the party line votes of the SEC commissioners in approving the filing of the SEC case against Goldman Sachs.

Look closely if necessary - it's the topic of the thread, and of the posts to which I replied.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Merits of the bill?

Ummmm.... I have been posting not about the finance reform bill votes, but about the party line votes of the SEC commissioners in approving the filing of the SEC case against Goldman Sachs.

Look closely if necessary - it's the topic of the thread, and of the posts to which I replied. My mistake.

I apologize. I was confusing this thread with the Wall Street "reform" bill thread.

My questions still stand only tweaked a bit:

Are you assuming that the case has merits? Nothing but merits? Based on what? You've seen all the evidence and arrived that the conclusion that it has only merits and that the only reason anyone would vote against is for partisan reasons?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I know I will get flamed for this thought, but the "I" word did enter my mind, especially in light of Goldman's (bundled) contributions to the President.

Thoughts?

I especially enjoy the line of thinking that, because Goldman contributed to Obama's campaign, he is..... doing exactly the opposite of what they want!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I apologize. I was confusing this thread with the Wall Street "reform" bill thread.

My questions still stand only tweaked a bit:

Are you assuming that the case has merits? Nothing but merits? Based on what? You've seen all the evidence and arrived that the conclusion that it has only merits and that the only reason anyone would vote against is for partisan reasons?

The SEC's Enforcement Division built the case, took it to the commission, and asked for approval to pursue the case. (Side question - do you think the Enforcement Division has more Bush appointees than Obama appointees?)

Why not let the court decide the merits of the case, instead of you or me or the Republican commissioners? Why would the Enforcement Division spend many months and many, many man-hours building the case, and then present it to the commissioners, if it didn't have at least enough merit to take it to trial?

Here's some relevant background material to support my opinion:

Quote:
Republican opponents of strong legislation cried foul. “The events of the past five days have fueled legitimate suspicion on the part of the American people that the commission has attempted to assist the White House, the Democratic Party and Congressional Democrats by timing the suit to coincide with the Senate’s consideration of financial regulatory legislation,” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, wrote in a letter to Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C. chairwoman.

Ms. Shapiro promptly denied that anything of the sort had taken place. So did the White House.

The more interesting question may be why the Republicans thought it was good politics to seem to be allied with Goldman.

One reason to think it did not happen is simply the way the S.E.C. works. Goldman knew of the enforcement division’s thinking last summer. In September, it tried to persuade the S.E.C. staff that the case was unreasonable.

Under normal S.E.C. procedures, the enforcement division would have asked for commissioners’ approval of a court filing at least a month before the commission acted. It is not clear how anyone in the commission would have known in early March what the Senate would be doing in late April.

It may have been legal for Goldman to put together synthetic collateralized debt obligations, known as C.D.O.’s, to allow people to bet on the collapse of the housing market. But such a product does not raise capital for any useful purpose. And we know that the buyers of this paper went broke.

Nor does it help that the man who put the deal together, the Goldman trader, Fabrice Tourre, wrote in an e-mail message to a friend, “More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse.” He went on to describe himself as “fabulous Fab,” a man who created “complex, highly leveraged exotic trades” that he called “monstruosities” (sic) whose implications he did not understand.

He wrote that as he was putting together this deal.

The S.E.C. case asserts that Goldman should have told potential buyers that John Paulson, a hedge fund manager who wanted to short the synthetic C.D.O., had been heavily involved in choosing which earlier deals would provide the reference points for the C.D.O., and misled some people who did know of his role into thinking that Mr. Paulson was bullish.

Goldman argues that few people knew at the time who Mr. Paulson was and so his involvement would not have mattered to the investors. It also argues that the selections he influenced were immaterial in the end because the whole market collapsed, just as Mr. Paulson had expected.

The final straw for Goldman, and Wall Street, may have been the statement by Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive, that he and his firm were doing the Lord’s work. Such praise is normally reserved for those doing selfless acts of charity, which is not exactly the public perception of investment bankers.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...eal/?src=busln

Quote:
April 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission split 3-2 along party lines to approve an enforcement case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to two people with knowledge of the vote.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with Democrats Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter to approve the case filed on April 16, said the people, who declined to be identified because the vote wasn’t public. Republican commissioners Kathleen Casey and Troy Paredes voted against suing, the people said yesterday.

Schapiro, an independent appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, cast the deciding vote in a high-profile case for the second time this year. In February, she sided with Democrats in a $150 million settlement with Bank of America Corp. tied to its takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co.

“She’s not worried about consensus because ultimately, this case is going to be decided by a jury trial,” said Peter Henning, a former federal prosecutor and SEC attorney who teaches at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit. “It might help Goldman a little bit in the public-relations battle to show that there is division.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a2hjcExsletI
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #30 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah I'll give ya' a thought about this one.

Desperate idea.



I should have expected such a response for you. You clearly didn't even read what I posted. I said "IF evidence surfaces of coordination...what does that mean?"

I'm asking because I don't know. I THINK it could be obstruction or something similar, IF evidence was found. IF Obama was involved (who knows), that could lead to impeachment.

Relax.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #31 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Yes, it looks like abuse of power. But only when Democrats are involved, to a Republican. Their "side" remains blameless and lilywhite. And of course, the inverse happens as well, and both probably in more or less equal proportions.

Unfortunately, people are so tied up in the BS, superficialities and trivia of party affiliation... undoubtedly because of the addiction to (a) traditions and (b) arbitrary media punditry that they remain blind to political reality... which in a few short years, given the current climate and trends, will first viciously bite us all in the ass, then rip us to shreds.

I really wasn't addressing party or GOP scandals. Nor was I attempting to imply Republicans are blameless...for anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So unlikely it's not even worth talking about. This is worse than the " Birther " item.

But if the right likes to talk about stuff like this and don't care how they're percieved by all means continue.

That's just nuts. It's not even worth looking at? The SEC is investigating as we speak.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Again, the assertion that the Obama admin is "throwing GS under the bus" and is not "legitimately attempting to prosecute" and this is somehow due to their "connections" is fucking nuts. Not one of Sammi Jo's conspiracies ever made less sense than that.

It's amazing: Bush couldn't take a dump without the Dems calling for an investigation. But now? Something like this isn't even worth investigating. Apparently, the SEC disagrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

I especially enjoy the line of thinking that, because Goldman contributed to Obama's campaign, he is..... doing exactly the opposite of what they want!

The question is whether they timed the charges to benefit Goldman.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 47
No SDW. This isn't even worth looking at. It's just dirt made up by the conservatives to throw a little something in Obama's path.

Highly unlikely comes to mind.

If it was true by some wild stretch of the imagination it would be a huge controversy. However there's no reason to believe this is the case. There's more reason to believe that it's just the Republicans trying to kill yet another reform by Obama that they don't want to see pass ( I also can imagine the banks whole heartedly wishing the Republicans well on this as they don't want this either ). As a matter of fact that part is almost transparent.

You know. Like " Death Panels ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #33 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No SDW. This isn't even worth looking at. It's just dirt made up by the conservatives to throw a little something in Obama's path.

Highly unlikely comes to mind.

If it was true by some wild stretch of the imagination it would be a huge controversy. However there's no reason to believe this is the case. There's more reason to believe that it's just the Republicans trying to kill yet another reform by Obama that they don't want to see pass ( I also can imagine the banks whole heartedly wishing the Republicans well on this as they don't want this either ). As a matter of fact that part is almost transparent.

You know. Like " Death Panels ".

There is absolutely nothing that suggests this is some Republican conspiracy. What we do have is a lot of questions about coordination. No one is claiming there is evidence of improper conduct. But the fact that you think it's not even worth investigating just shows how partisan you are.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is absolutely nothing that suggests this is some Republican conspiracy. What we do have is a lot of questions about coordination. No one is claiming there is evidence of improper conduct. But the fact that you think it's not even worth investigating just shows how partisan you are.

SDW I heard about this on the news the other day from the republican party claiming this might be the case. It's before you started this thread. I don't think it's a conspiracy I think it's sophistry and has no roots in reality. Just another attempt at a road block in the way of reform.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW I heard about this on the news the other day from the republican party claiming this might be the case. It's before you started this thread. I don't think it's a conspiracy I think it's sophistry and has no roots in reality. Just another attempt at a road block in the way of reform.


SDW can say what he wants, but there's factually a far greater connection between the Bush administration and 9/11 than there is between Obama and Goldman Sachs on this issue. The Republicans who support this "theory" put Sammi Jo to shame.
post #36 of 47
So companies who made huge donations to politicians calling in or attempting to call in favors happens every day in both parties, but since it's a Democratic President involved all of a sudden there are serious concerns? Did I get that right?

Let's all remember now, the repeal of McCain/Feingold was a GOOD thing...
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #37 of 47
Know Our Enemies, EHMs - Meet The Wall Street Economic Death Squad:

Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, John Mack, Vikram Pandit, John Thain, Hank Greenberg, Ken Lewis.

These men presided over the largest transfer of wealth in history, from the working class to the flamboyant super rich. What these men have done is obscene. After crashing the economy, trillions of dollars have been funneled into the pockets of a select few, in secrecy, while billions of people suffer in poverty, billions suffer to survive. This small tight-knit Wall Street cadre has committed a crime against humanity.

By the way, aren't conservatives supposed to be "tough on crime"? Or is that duplicity only reserved for crimes committed by poor, or relatively poor people?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

What it's not is a genuine effort to prosecute wrong doing.

Meanwhile for those of us whose feet are not planted firmly in Bizarro land, not only is the JD prosecuting GS for civil charges, they are considering criminal charges.

But... but... it's a TRAP!!!!! It's wagging the dog!!!! It's not a GENUINE effort. It's a red herring to hide the Obama conspiracy to help them!!!!

Oh... and it's timed to minimize the damage (to GS)!

LOL. Right.

Meanwhile Republicans prefer the status quo that led us to financial disaster, rather than even considering the financial reform bill. Oh, and they would evidently rather Obama NOT prosecute Goldman Sachs... or something...

I'll agree with one thing. It's timed to minimize the damage. The further damage to the economy. Which Conservatives are evidently not concerned with when you consider their opposition to the financial reform bill.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's hard to say what's going on here, but something definitely smells wrong....

Thoughts?

Perhaps Goldman did something wrong - not denying that - but to punish them and not the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is something far worse!

Fannie Mae, under the leadership of the Franklin Raines, committed far more fraud than Goldman Sachs... the crooked people who have contributed to the financial meltdown came first from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in teh housing mess! Yet, this administration's Wall Street Reform crusade doesn't even mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Why? Scapegoating Goldman Sachs while forgetting about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is absurd! When will Carl Levin start releasing e-mails from Franklin Raines/Fannie Mae -- it was their fault for prompting this whole mess!
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Perhaps Goldman did something wrong - not denying that - but to punish them and not the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is something far worse!

Fannie Mae, under the leadership of the Franklin Raines, committed far more fraud than Goldman Sachs... the crooked people who have contributed to the financial meltdown came first from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in teh housing mess! Yet, this administration's Wall Street Reform crusade doesn't even mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Why? Scapegoating Goldman Sachs while forgetting about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is absurd! When will Carl Levin start releasing e-mails from Franklin Raines/Fannie Mae -- it was their fault for prompting this whole mess!

So... to keep things moving forward, we do one of the following:

A) Pass a bill that is going to address a lot of other concerns, in the expectation that we can then turn to Fanny and Freddy, or;

B) Stop everything out of pure spite and go nowhere.

Conservatives are dead set on maintaining their zero momentum, just to say a big "fuck you" to the Obama administration. How conservative of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Goldman Gate?