What is Digg?94 Comments
- vick3ii, on 09/27/2008, -5/+51FTA: Goldman Sachs bankers are also the number one contributors to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, giving $691,930 to his campaign in this cycle, according to the records.
John McCain's campaign has received substantially less from Goldman Sachs employees, $208,395, although they are, as a group, his fourth largest contributor.
In the 2008 election cycle, Goldman Sachs bankers have come up with $4.8 million in contributions to federal candidates, according to the records. 72 per cent of Goldman's money this year has gone to Democratic candidates and the national party, the majority party in Congress. - inactive, on 09/27/2008, -3/+43FTA:
"Before becoming Treasury Secretary, Paulson was chairman of Goldman Sachs, earning over $140 million in compensation during his seven years as the firm's top officer, according to company filings. Upon taking office, Paulson divested himself of his 3.23 million Goldman shares, reportedly worth $485 million at the time, to comply with government ethics rules."
---
And now he is doing everything in his power to give GS an unfair advantage.
"Goldman Sachs: Wall St. Gangstas"
http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/09/goldma ... - inactive, on 09/27/2008, -3/+24The poops getting deep in this country!
- inactive, on 09/27/2008, -4/+21Nope.
The financial industry has given more to the Democrats in general over the last ten years.
Oil industry - Republicans
Banking - Democrats
If you don't think that donations buy votes, then look how the Republicans always support Big Oil and Democrats always support Big Banks - ericdano, on 09/28/2008, -4/+18"Goldman Sachs bankers are also the number one contributors to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, giving $691,930 to his campaign in this cycle, according to the records." More than McCain. God, ALL these Politicians need to be purged. We have to throw them ALL out and start afresh.
- johndi, on 09/27/2008, -2/+15Nope, he's investing based on knowledge available to the public. It's not his fault if people choose to ignore we have the best Congress money can buy. Unfortunately for us any Government that can be bought is not a good one.
- chukd, on 09/28/2008, -1/+10Capitalism didn't fail. Politicians failed. They pressured all these industries to give loans to people that did not qualify. These are both Democrats and Republicans. The 90% of the mortgages would not of been given out because there was nothing to back up the loan. This was caused by politicians and complicated more by industry when they realized they weren't going to get any money back. There is nothing wrong with capitalism. It has everything to do with political power.
- pintomp3, on 09/28/2008, -1/+9there are more than 30,000 lobbyists in washington, greatly outnumbering the politicians. we need to take back washington, but that will not happen until we change how elections are run. you cannot win office in this country will out significant financial backing from corporations and special interests. that makes you beholden to their interests instead of the america people. reagan and clinton started an arms race in terms of political fund raising that has sold out our government to the highest bidder.
- niradg, on 09/27/2008, -4/+12They may have given more to Obama, but that's true this year for any group/corporation that traditionally gives to both candidates. Obama's fundraising machine is better, he opted out of public financing, and it is assumed by most people that he will win, so he's a better investment.
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -4/+11But a bitch ain't one.
- spunalot, on 09/28/2008, -1/+8"Something smells fishy, right? Well, we haven’t got half the story, which is why the stench will get bigger. Half a fish is half as smelly. Howard Rodman has the whole fish:
* Goldman Sachs gives Hank Paulson seven hundred million dollars (that’s seven zero zero comma zero zero zero comma zero zero zero) in salary and bonuses.
* Goldman Sachs lends Hank Paulson to the Treasury (now that he can afford to be a public servant).
* As the Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson insists that we give Goldman Sachs a lot of money, in exchange for a lot of crap. (If not, we all die.)
* Except it’s not Hank Paulson’s money, it’s ours.
* If the crap turns out to be crap, we’re stuck with it. (And by the way: if it’s not crap, why are they so desperate to unload it?)
* In four months, Paulson returns to Goldman Sachs.
* Paulson receives salary and bonuses from the money we just gave to Paulson to give to Goldman Sachs to give to Paulson.
* It’s our money. Or was. But we don’t get preferred shares. We don’t get a ten percent dividend. We don’t even get a free copy of The Warren Buffet Way: Second Edition (Paperback). We get crap"
From: http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/buffetpaulsongol ... - 08soso, on 09/28/2008, -0/+6Apparently, you don't read the NY Times and their article on the $20B at stake with AIG. AIG is stuck with a lot of bad paper that Goldman doesn't want to ruin its sterling reputation.
- badqat, on 09/28/2008, -2/+8Watch the vote on Monday and see how it falls. We've already heard there is a "deal" how many times now?
The Dems are playing CYA, and want the Republicans to join in this travesty. - EZLA, on 09/27/2008, -3/+8Paulson is a Democrat this stuff is no surprise. Geez, why do you think the "getting on one knee thing" toadding to Pelsoi? Lou Dobbs did a run down on this prior to the debates. The Democrats that are leading this bailout or in the bailout for the industry that has fed them for 20years. Bush doesn't know crap about economics. Paulson comes running with the sky is falling and he believed it. They knew for 9 MONTHS this failure could/would happen. Why now? Who has it benefited? ___________Barrack H. Obama! People ____ SET-UP!!
The no-show bill that they FALSELY claim McCain undid by showing up contained 20% of the money going to ACORN. Google: Obama and Acorn............... - inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4Yikes. Too liberal, even for Digg. Congrats, that's not easy to do. You should move to another country.
- mcsenget, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4Guess how many reasons former CEO Henry Paulson has?
- razorsedge555, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5Will the real mafia please stand up?
Yahoo just posted an article about Santo Trafficante and the Tampa mob. They had nothing on these clowns.
Wake up people! There are no political parties, just thieves. - Oatlord, on 09/28/2008, -4/+8Man you guys will do whatever it takes to support Obama. At least Republicans are able to point out McCain's faults and failings. You guys think the sun rises and sets out of Obama's *****, when in fact, he's just more of the same ol' tired Democrat, just like all the others.
- ericd543, on 09/28/2008, -0/+4It's not the same money. The $43 million is already theirs, the $700 billion is negotiable.
We're F'd either way. The damage is done. A trillion won't be enough. The bailout is a give away and is not necessary, or morally responsible, if you ask me.
It's better for the long term if we take our lumps now, which are long overdue. There's nothing left but the struggle -- Washington will continue to spend beyond its means, the Fed will print more dollars and we will suffer inflation.
It's time to ditch the Fed for a new, mo' better system. I hope it's done in the light of day this time. http://www.frugalfun.com/jekylisland.html - connieLingus, on 09/28/2008, -1/+5come on...what really happened is that wall street had an insatiable appetite for mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and were *begging* mortgage lenders to give loans and credit to anyone with a pulse so they could buy the loan paper, repackage it into complicated (ie derivative) instruments that supposedly had little to no risk and very good returns, and sell it to wealthy investors all over the world who thought they had the inside track on great investments that us "little people" were too dumb to understand.
turns out all their mathematical models were wrong, and they are stuck with a bunch of worthless "securities" and big, "real-world" losses, so they are crying to congress not to actually buy the mortgages, which would make pretty good financial sense, BUT TO BUY THE CRAPPY WORTHLESS PAPER and let us, the suckers who actually have to pay our overinflated 1st and 2nd mortgages with REAL money, finance this bailout.
So we’ll see US $700 billion, or some percentage thereof (now projected at US $250 billion plus US $350 billion as long as Congress does not object), thrown into the hopper and we’ll probably see a rate cut sooner rather than later. The rate cut will be useless because no one will be able to qualify for a loan. Wall Street will benefit but no one will see a dime of that money outside of a select few on the Street. Mr. Paulson will probably buy assets at close to 100 cents on the dollar, and that is a waste, and the average American will see what is left of his wealth diluted. The toxic securities will eventually be priced at what they are worth, zero, and we’ll have to pay for it. Besides the amount agreed upon is nowhere near enough to solve the problem. The real problem is that a debt-ridden economy is trying to resolve a credit crisis through the creation of more debt. - dysonlu, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3Be careful what you wish for. Any medicine don't taste good, smell good nor feel good. Any medicine is painful. If the government does nothing, financial institutions will crumble one after the other. Sure that'll probably make people like you happy because that's what those "greedy bastards" deserve; in the name of accountability, right? Guess what? Where will companies and individuals get financing if banks dissappeared or in a terrible shape that they are afraid to lend money? Who will fund expansions and new projects? Who will employ more people? Who will restore confidence and trust you speak of? Imagine the disaster.
- 64bitllama, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4How is this not straight up bribery? How can corporations be allowed to do this?
- mahadiga, on 09/27/2008, -8/+11Buffet just invested $5 billion in GS.
Isn't it Insider Trading? - lazerus9, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3Are you as ignorant as your comment suggests?
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+3You know the stuff that comes out of your butt, and politicians mouths.
- lofispy, on 09/28/2008, -1/+4I hate to say it, but we're headed to the dark ages irregardless of what Congress does...if they do nothing the financial sector fails, nobody can get a loan, etc. If they progress with the bailout as it has been so far proposed, they either print 700 billion out of thin air or borrow, one of which would lead to a massive devaluation of the dollar, the other massively increasing the deficit yet again, and still leading to a devaluation of the dollar through different means. Either way, the market has been allowed to be artificially inflated for far too long (with the bailout creating a market even further removed from economic reality) and it will readjust itself either now by doing nothing, or even worse a few years down the road.
There is however a third option, we could listen to the one guy who saw this coming long before anyone and has spent his entire long spanning political career railing against the very broken system that we're now trying to put a band-aid on. And that would Reps. Dr. Ron Paul. Now before you accuse me of being one of those Paul-freaks who jumped on the bangwagon without thinking, know that there are a lot of things I disagree with the man on, but how can anyone deny that 9 time out 10 the best person to listen to in any bad situation is the guy who saw it coming, as opposed to the people who denied to they where blue in the face there even was a problem at all as they sat blindly reaping millions from the very same corporations that they say needs saving. And while I do not have the eloquence or economic savvy to truly flesh out his positions for you, I can abridge it at thus....the system is fundamentally broken, over the last century a blind and deaf populace has allowed a long line of governmental interventions that has terribly skewed the free market and democratic philosophies put forth by our forefathers. Unfortunately for us in these modern times, we are left with only the option of taking one on the chin in the name of our children's future and seeking to return our markets and governmental policies back to the purity of said forefathers intentions, with the addendum that they must also address the realities of the increasingly connected world and global marketplace....
In other words....are you supporting the bailout because of your own knowledge, or are buying into the doomsday scenarios put forth by those with their own agendas and corporate masters to serve? - weebit, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2This is what happens when corruption is the law of the land. Don't expect anything lawful to happen.
- SpinningHead, on 09/28/2008, -2/+4"Politicians failed. They pressured all these industries to give loans to people that did not qualify."
For the millionth time, the Community Reinvestment Act did not mandate giving out bad loans. This had to do with lack of regulation and oversight. This administration even used government agencies to halp lawsuits brought by state attorneys against predatory lenders. Those lenders didn't do it to be nice or follow a mandate. They issued these loans because they could bundle them and pass off the loans for quick profits.
"unfettered capitalism leads to corruption" - Theodore Roosevelt - Jazzello, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2I understand your point, but some medicine does taste good. Companies seeking funding for lower risk established businesses will always find funding, it is simply a good investment. What we are talking about here is accountability. Credit unions and smaller regional banks are faring much better than large banks, because they are more transparent and understand their markets. These huge banks are failing because of the risks they took, had they been more transparent and understood the markets they would be doing fine. We will suffer for their incompetence, but we will suffer more with the bailout. Think about the inflationary pressure. The bottom line is banks must loan money, it is what they do, Without the bailout, they will loan money with care. Had they done this initially, we wouldn't have a problem.
- nickstang, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/ceo-s23. ...
I wanted to share this with you. I find it interesting in the following excerpt from the article that some banks will not participate if they put salary caps on what the CEOs make. It begs the question, Are the banks really in a dire financial situation?
Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs whose wealth is estimated at $700 million, argued that including any such provision would result in banks refusing to participate in the program.
As the New York Times reported Monday, “Mr. Paulson said that he was concerned that imposing limits on the compensation of executives could discourage companies from participating in the program.
“’If we design it so it’s punitive and so institutions aren’t going to participate, this won’t work the way we need it to work,’ Mr. Paulson said...” - d1a1s1, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2I just got a headache. Does the ***** ever end??
- ColonelJessup, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Hit me!
- kevincw01, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2@kautylia I think you're wrong. There are many financial institutions that will survive if we don't bail them out. And these companies can provide sufficient credit to America. Look at the strong companies buying the dead every week (BofA, Jp Morgan, etc). Will there be fewer choices to choose from for a while? Yes but eventually there will be new banks and financial companies to replace the ones who made bad decisions. Bailing the bad apples out only serves to artificially prop them up temporarily until they make the same mistakes again.
- odigity, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3Interestingly, I convinced myself that the government is always the antagonist, by examining the evidence.
- rune420, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2He was pretty much guaranteed a 10% return on his investment because of the warrants that came along with it, so it was a pretty sweet deal for him. I don't think he would have done it without those terms, but obviously he must be a believer that GS will not collapse.
- sodade, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2Corporatism is what has failed. We are as capitalistic as the USSR was socialistic.
- voodoo3, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3The thing is, the Banking industry is like any other industry. It was the lobbiest for those well established banks that helped create the laws that triggered the credit crisis. Americans have to stop lobbying in government and end the corruption.
In the end, the banks just found a new way to tax Americans and increase it's business model. - netturtle, on 09/28/2008, -0/+2"As a group, Goldman Sachs bankers have been the country's top political campaign contributors this year and have given $29.5 million in contributions since 1989, according to the Center."
- goon5000, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1If he doesn't work there and he owns no shares, then what's your point?
- dysonlu, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1@kevincw01: Of course not all banks will disappear but fewer banks means less capital, it's as simple as that. Yes, you can let the free market fix itself; survival of the fittest so to speak. But do you want the American economy to fall into depression? Do you want it to stagnate for a decade? Look at Japan; they've been slow to react and fix their banking system -- they are still recovering close to a decade after their banking system meltdown.
- SmokinOkie, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1What we need is a good old fashioned revolution. Git rid of all those worthless policitoes and start with a fresh batch of new ones. Same constitution, new people.
Lets start with the Kennedy ***** and work our way down the chain from there. - FreeTalkLIve, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1They passed a financial Patriot Act.
- dysonlu, on 09/29/2008, -0/+1@Jazzello: Yes, the US banking system needs fixing. A bailout alone will not fix it I admit. A bailout needs to be combined with an overhaul of the banking system, with tighter regulation, better oversight. The bailout is to prevent the catastrophe of a decade-long depression, not to fix the flawled banking system. That's what the public needs to understand.
- lynxha, on 09/30/2008, -0/+1Does paulson really think this would work. I believe that he wants to help the former company that he ran for 15 years retain its wealth and just maybe he'll hope that more compensation will fall right back to him. This administration which has failed the american public miserably wants to go out with a big shine,but we can all see that this is not going to happen. You have to take a close look at how many criminals have really been helping this crisis to escalate
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Typo, please ignore.
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1There should be a simple rule for political contributions: you are allowed to contribute only if you are allowed to vote.
Can foreign governments vote? No, so they wouldn't be allowed to contribute. Can corporations vote? No, so they wouldn't be allowed to contribute. - inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1Yes we can!
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -1/+2Democrats are Darlings of Wall Street
LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na- ... - aflaks, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1...probably...?
- spawnfree, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1in a world full of emotionally crippled self-hating and material-loving humans who go unnoticed around ordinary people?
we can make a great world once the psychos are identified and removed from power.
unfortunately they latch on to all forms of power, from cults to the banking industry.
oh and when they see people being happy and healthy they get jealous.
read about co-dependent relationships, then try to see it in the relations between government and the people.
or companies and consumers.
then you will have a headache. -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is