2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen Clinton took money from Goldman Sachs she took money stolen from the people.
People like to over look the fact Goldman Sacks profited off selling Toxic Mortgage Derivatives and then bought CDSs knowing the Derivatives they just sold were going to go bad. And of course the American tax payer had to bail out AIG who issued the majority of the Credit Default Swaps (CDS)
Sure Hillary supporters like to point out the TARP funds were paid back. But Hillary fails to point out the $Trillions of dollars the Fed has been pouring into the markets in Quantitive Easing all going to the "Too Big to Fail Banks" she refers to as her constituents.
$Trillions ...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That cost Americans directly every time they bought a can of soda.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)When the Raw material would cost MORE then what the finished part from China cost because Wall St Banks manipulated the price of raw materials
Just like they did Crude Oil when we were paying $4 a gal.
I hope she told them to "Cut it out"
daleanime
(17,796 posts)me a check.'
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)trickling down still stops at the 1%, I see.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That way she could be earning her POTUS dollars from the peoples...sort of.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)They did pay the money back, and $1.4 billion more.
Are you suggesting Goldman is responsible for money the gov't dumped into the markets in general, even if that money wasn't given to them?
Who else should be held responsible for the actions of others? Does that mean Bernie is responsible for the actions of his supporters - like the one that punched the horse? Or the ones that blocked the roads and prevented ambulances and emergency vehicles getting by?
And are you in favor of the old debt-for-life model, that once someone borrows from you, they can never actually pay it back and should be indebted for life?
I thought indentured servitude was something most democrats were against. Or is it OK when it's against a villain? What if the definition of villain changes next week to someone you like?
think
(11,641 posts)By Robert Schmidt, Clea Benson and Phil Mattingly
April 14, 2011 5:36 PM CDT
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. misled clients and Congress about the firms bets on securities tied to the housing market, the chairman of the U.S. Senate panel that investigated the causes of the financial crisis said.
Senator Carl Levin, releasing the findings of a two-year inquiry yesterday, said he wants the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether Goldman Sachs violated the law by misleading clients who bought the complex securities known as collateralized debt obligations without knowing the firm would benefit if they fell in value.
The Michigan Democrat also said federal prosecutors should review whether to bring perjury charges against Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and other current and former employees who testified in Congress last year. Levin said they denied under oath that Goldman Sachs took a financial position against the mortgage market solely for its own profit, statements the senator said were untrue.
In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled the Congress, Levin said at a press briefing yesterday where he and Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, discussed the 640-page report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations...
Read more:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-04-14/goldman-sachs-misled-congress-after-duping-clients-over-cdos-levin-says
Corporate666
(587 posts)what I said. Your post is basically saying "this one guy said they are bad, so don't give them any quarter by pointing out they aren't responsible for the actions of others".
And the guy in question never was brought up on perjury charges, was he? Seems like Levin is full or poop.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34528-on-the-corrupting-influence-of-money-in-politics-bernie-sanders-is-dead-right?tmpl=component&print=1
Corporate666
(587 posts)This post has nothing to do with what I wrote. It's like telling someone they made a big mistake at work and cost the company money, and they reply "Oh yeah? Well, you're a big fat stupid!".
It's irrelevant to the topic. It's a fact that GS paid the money back plus some. If people feel GS should be indebted to the US taxpayer for the rest of eternity, then that person is in favor of indentured servitude. And I thought real democrats were against such things - or, apparently, some democrats are OK with anything, even things democrats stand against, as long as the victim is someone that's considered bad.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)go to purchase?
amborin
(16,631 posts)lostnfound
(16,173 posts)I occasionally have negotiated billion dollar deals in my lifetime and so I'm not surprised at the complexity of ways that "it's all about the money". People who naively accept that our politicians are like gladiators in the ring fighting against each other over the social issues, or that our foreign policy is about spreading freedom and democracy or about true national security interests, don't know about the realpolitik underneath.