Somewhere in here is some bits about the "anglo eastern establishment elite finance oligarchs", or whatever Tarpley calls them.
Cracks me up and makes some damn good points in there.
Pointless partisans who get there panties bent over the opening attack on Obama, suck it up.
Alex thinks Bush was a tool bucket too.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you probably have a hard time grasping that concept.
such the tough guy huh?
people like yourself with Napoleon's message board disease only end up looking really foolish, so give it a rest.
you are full of snide comments and acting like a know it all. like I said, give it a rest.
what fucked up point or position are you trying to take?
its pretty embarrassing how little you know about the financial crisis. but we are all here to learn I suppose.
what the hell does this mean? you are bitching...
and you are still bitching? wow
you are just bitching to bitch.
people like you really crack me up.
lol again, just bitching to bitch?
you just don't get it.
what the fuck are you bitching about?
and it just kills me how ridiculous you sound.
you are bitching...
you had NO FUCKING clue...
your genius response...un fucking real.
you really dont have much of a clue whats going on here do you?
they have uneducated people like you bitching about their every move.
go educate yourself about whats really going on..you really are making a fool of yourself.
get over yourself.
you are going to be hard pressed to teach me something.
its painfully obvious that you really dont follow whats going on
what the fuck is your point?
its really hard to debate with someone who has no fucking clue
you are bitching
you are bitching
you will be far better off if you know whats going on as opposed to your constant MO of bitching just to bitch.
damn, you beat me to it! for someone who likes to claim everyone else is a know it all he sure likes to tell people they don't have a fucking clue and he can teach them
projection at its finest!
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
damn, you beat me to it! for someone who likes to claim everyone else is a know it all he sure likes to tell people they don't have a fucking clue and he can teach them
projection at its finest!
you admit know very little about the financial crisis. and have done nothing more then complain about CEO's getting paid too much.
I too saw this on my breaking news email this am- I just get pissed- had to look up the assholes making money at our expense. Send as much bad Karma as I can muster- they think we think they are making things better for us?
I don't pretend to understand alot of this but
Their plan is not our plan anymore and if just half of us would pay attention before its too late
maybe we could change things
I want freedom
I want to have a real voice in a government that works for the people
I want representatives I can believe and trust
I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers
I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work
& I want a country my children can be proud of and prosper in
I too saw this on my breaking news email this am- I just get pissed- had to look up the assholes making money at our expense. Send as much bad Karma as I can muster- they think we think they are making things better for us?
I don't pretend to understand alot of this but
Their plan is not our plan anymore and if just half of us would pay attention before its too late
maybe we could change things
I want freedom
I want to have a real voice in a government that works for the people
I want representatives I can believe and trust
I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers
I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work
& I want a country my children can be proud of and prosper in
its the governments job to protect you. I love silly little one liners like "I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers" what the hell does that mean?
"I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work" - who is responsible for it NOT failing? yours or the government? would you accept bailout money to keep your business running? if so, why is it ok for you, but not our banking system.
speaking of, who do you bank with? lets pretend its Citibank. and say you have more 3 million in the bank. this money is used to fund your small business payroll.
the government lets Citibank fail. because you dont want "the constitution sold to bankers" right? well thanks to the FDIC, 250k is insured. the rest? gone. good bye small business...goodbye employees.
Goldman recorded a charge of 78 cents per share as it repaid the government's $10 billion investment in the bank as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Goldman recorded a charge of 78 cents per share as it repaid the government's $10 billion investment in the bank as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
i'd hope so, they reported a gross profit of $49,802,000, $884,547,000 in total assets and $59,169,000 in tangible assets last year
although, i'm not sure what how much they have paid back in TARP funds has to do with the OP?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Goldman recorded a charge of 78 cents per share as it repaid the government's $10 billion investment in the bank as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
i'd hope so, they reported a gross profit of $49,802,000, $884,547,000 in total assets and $59,169,000 in tangible assets last year
although, i'm not sure what how much they have paid back in TARP funds has to do with the OP?
I have yet to hear your stance on Goldman Sachs. or anything intelligent regarding this entire matter. all you have done is copy and paste some links.
Goldman recorded a charge of 78 cents per share as it repaid the government's $10 billion investment in the bank as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
i'd hope so, they reported a gross profit of $49,802,000, $884,547,000 in total assets and $59,169,000 in tangible assets last year
although, i'm not sure what how much they have paid back in TARP funds has to do with the OP?
I have yet to hear your stance on Goldman Sachs. or anything intelligent regarding this entire matter. all you have done is copy and paste some links.
and all i've read from you is a lot of name calling and a chip on your shoulder. i have given you my stance on Goldman Sachs, when you can discuss things civilly like an adult let me know. you claimed i acted like a know it all with a Napoleon complex yet you refuse to be specific as to HOW while phrases like 'you have no fucking clue', 'what the fuck are you talking about', 'it just kills me how ridiculous you sound', 'uneducated people like you', 'go educate yourself' and 'allow me to teach you!' are common place in your replies and you have offered nothing but hostility and negativity. it's like you just want to be right and attack everyone else, you have no interest in actually discussing ideas and topics
again, what does your link have to do with my OP???
Post edited by Pepe Silvia on
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
ok I'm ready..what is your stance on Goldman Sachs? and/or your point of starting this thread?
when i tried telling you before you just called it bitching...
my point of starting the thread was i thought it was a good article with a lot of information, like how the speculative commodity market has increased their profits by 2,300% from '03-'08 as well as how many Goldman Sachs employees now have government or influential positions of power. and 'By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.'
or how people who are supposed to be regulating Goldman Sachs do so while sitting on their board
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
ok I'm ready..what is your stance on Goldman Sachs? and/or your point of starting this thread?
when i tried telling you before you just called it bitching...
my point of starting the thread was i thought it was a good article with a lot of information, like how the speculative commodity market has increased their profits by 2,300% from '03-'08
what is the problem with this? are you aware that speculative traders make money when the market goes DOWN just as much or more, as when the market goes up? do you know the current price of oil or looked at a chart from 03-08? I suggest doing so.
as well as how many Goldman Sachs employees now have government or influential positions of power.
probably because they are qualified to do so. but I have no problem with people like you putting pressure on government employees to work for us. but that fact that they previously worked for Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or whoever is completely irrelevant.
and 'By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.'
ok I'm ready..what is your stance on Goldman Sachs? and/or your point of starting this thread?
when i tried telling you before you just called it bitching...
my point of starting the thread was i thought it was a good article with a lot of information, like how the speculative commodity market has increased their profits by 2,300% from '03-'08
what is the problem with this? are you aware that speculative traders make money when the market goes DOWN just as much or more, as when the market goes up? do you know the current price of oil or looked at a chart from 03-08? I suggest doing so.
as well as how many Goldman Sachs employees now have government or influential positions of power.
probably because they are qualified to do so. but I have no problem with people like you putting pressure on government employees to work for us. but that fact that they previously worked for Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or whoever is completely irrelevant.
and 'By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.'
or how people who are supposed to be regulating Goldman Sachs do so while sitting on their board
like who? do you have evidence of any wrong doing?
about $60
the article actually details the connections of who was on what board overseeing who and how they've used their influence pretty nicely. but as an example Secretary Paulson, who was a goldman exec, gave bailuts to the company's owned or ran by former goldman execs while their competitors were allowed to fail.
also Stephen Friedman, a former cochair of goldman sachs, was chair of the fed when it was in charge of overseeing and regulating goldman after it became a bank-holding company and was allowed to keep his goldman stock and even allowed to buy more goldman stock....which is against regulations but luckily his conflict of interest waiver he applied for was granted by the government...he stepped down eventually and was replaced by another former goldman alum
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
good job. its down almost $100 dollars from its high. if you want to blame speculators for the price going up, fine. but you should also be thanking them when it comes down. it works both ways. traders have no interest in what direction it goes.
the article actually details the connections of who was on what board overseeing who and how they've used their influence pretty nicely. but as an example Secretary Paulson, who was a goldman exec, gave bailuts to the company's owned or ran by former goldman execs while their competitors were allowed to fail.
so what? are you implying Paulson gave his buddies a bunch of money and then they all went out and had drinks?
Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest financial institutions in this country, one of the biggest players in the game. they were one of many institutions who received TARP (bailout) money. allowing Lehman brothers (Goldmans chief competitor) was one of the hardest decisions the fed was faced with. at that point, I dont think they knew the ramifications. regardless Goldman Sachs would have survived without TARP money. Paulson pretty much forced everyone to take the money to avoid another Lehman disaster from happening. if you want to educate yourself on this I suggest reading House of Cards...I just finished it. it breaks down the crisis from day one and take you day by day what happened.
also Stephen Friedman, a former cochair of goldman sachs, was chair of the fed when it was in charge of overseeing and regulating goldman after it became a bank-holding company and was allowed to keep his goldman stock and even allowed to buy more goldman stock....which is against regulations but luckily his conflict of interest waiver he applied for was granted by the government...he stepped down eventually and was replaced by another former goldman alum
did he do anything illegal? America's best investment bankers have all gone through GS. it should be no surprise these very men are often tapped to run the country's finances.
I too saw this on my breaking news email this am- I just get pissed- had to look up the assholes making money at our expense. Send as much bad Karma as I can muster- they think we think they are making things better for us?
I don't pretend to understand alot of this but
Their plan is not our plan anymore and if just half of us would pay attention before its too late
maybe we could change things
I want freedom
I want to have a real voice in a government that works for the people
I want representatives I can believe and trust
I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers
I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work
& I want a country my children can be proud of and prosper in
its the governments job to protect you. I love silly little one liners like "I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers" what the hell does that mean?
"I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work" - who is responsible for it NOT failing? yours or the government? would you accept bailout money to keep your business running? if so, why is it ok for you, but not our banking system.
speaking of, who do you bank with? lets pretend its Citibank. and say you have more 3 million in the bank. this money is used to fund your small business payroll.
the government lets Citibank fail. because you dont want "the constitution sold to bankers" right? well thanks to the FDIC, 250k is insured. the rest? gone. good bye small business...goodbye employees.
is that better?
We DO NOT want bail out money we want work- its the trickle down effect every time the economy gets hit this being the worse- its not just our industry look around its everybody
3 million- are you nuts- 250,000 nuts again- you are not getting the concept of small business
We are saying goodbye to many employees who have been with us 15 plus years- they were like family
I used to think the Gov protected us- but it is now bough tand paid for by offshore bankers- our own Fed Reserve- they try to distract with the whole Dem Rep thing but they all are the same
the agenda is in place and its not protecting your rights its a one world Gov where we will have even less voice than now.
Hey are you a banker???
We DO NOT want bail out money we want work- its the trickle down effect every time the economy gets hit this being the worse- its not just our industry look around its everybody
I understand you want work, everyone does. but when there is no work or money to be made, the government steps in to help. thats whats happening today. I dont like, but thats reality.
3 million- are you nuts- 250,000 nuts again- you are not getting the concept of small business
the 3 million was a hypothetical #. I work for a small company and the annual revenue is much higher. how much money does your "small company" have in the bank? what is needed to fund your payroll?
the 250k # is the amount of money that is insured by the FDIC. so I guess I'll ask, are you nuts?
my point is, there are millions of "small companies" who use the major banks like BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc...all of which might have been in danger of failing had the government not stepped in with TARP money and loans at 0.05%. had any of those banks failed, all those small businesses would have been forced to liquidate. see where I'm going with this?
We are saying goodbye to many employees who have been with us 15 plus years- they were like family
I used to think the Gov protected us- but it is now bough tand paid for by offshore bankers- our own Fed Reserve- they try to distract with the whole Dem Rep thing but they all are the same
the agenda is in place and its not protecting your rights its a one world Gov where we will have even less voice than now.
sorry, this mini rant makes no sense. do you realize the government IS trying to protect you by protecting those big bad banks you speak of. its called managing systemic risk. if those big banks go down, you go down. trust me, I dont like the situation we are in either.
I'm curious, what should the government do that would make you happy?
good job. its down almost $100 dollars from its high. if you want to blame speculators for the price going up, fine. but you should also be thanking them when it comes down. it works both ways. traders have no interest in what direction it goes.
the article actually details the connections of who was on what board overseeing who and how they've used their influence pretty nicely. but as an example Secretary Paulson, who was a goldman exec, gave bailuts to the company's owned or ran by former goldman execs while their competitors were allowed to fail.
so what? are you implying Paulson gave his buddies a bunch of money and then they all went out and had drinks?
Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest financial institutions in this country, one of the biggest players in the game. they were one of many institutions who received TARP (bailout) money. allowing Lehman brothers (Goldmans chief competitor) was one of the hardest decisions the fed was faced with. at that point, I dont think they knew the ramifications. regardless Goldman Sachs would have survived without TARP money. Paulson pretty much forced everyone to take the money to avoid another Lehman disaster from happening. if you want to educate yourself on this I suggest reading House of Cards...I just finished it. it breaks down the crisis from day one and take you day by day what happened.
also Stephen Friedman, a former cochair of goldman sachs, was chair of the fed when it was in charge of overseeing and regulating goldman after it became a bank-holding company and was allowed to keep his goldman stock and even allowed to buy more goldman stock....which is against regulations but luckily his conflict of interest waiver he applied for was granted by the government...he stepped down eventually and was replaced by another former goldman alum
did he do anything illegal? America's best investment bankers have all gone through GS. it should be no surprise these very men are often tapped to run the country's finances.
i think the economy had a lot more to do with the price of oil dropping than speculators.
the article was about a pattern and how they have ridden out bubbles and gobbled up the pieces since the 20's, like this exerpt: The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s
These companys created the mortgage crisis. sure, the people who bought homes they couldn't afford bear some responsibility but he makes a good point in the videos of how not that long ago to buy a home you needed a 10% downpayment, proof of income, stable work history....then suddenly 'it was like they were writing them on the back of napkins', pretty much anyone could get a loan.
so think about that, why would these financial institutions suddenly change their established rules? you said before you had no problem with these people working closely with the treasury dept. but isn't that like the energy companies helping shape energy policy? and this is just 1 example
so, suddenly the rules are a little different and people who shouldn't be getting loans or for that amount suddenly are getting them, so we're supposed to believe none of them could forsee any problems with this sudden change. but then investment firms and whatnot get mutual funds, pensions, 401ks involved....buying up these commodities, much like former Goldman alum Richard Rubin (Clinton's Treasury Sec) changes the rules about ipo's, going public....(before you needed to be around for 5 years, show a profit for either 2 or 3 years and other criteria, then suddenly it changed to where 4 college students in a dorm room could do it) saying 'the market is booming! look at all the money to be made!! so now all these regular people are invested, a lot unknowingly, and the market collapses, they have made their profits, made their 10's of millions of $ a year but what about the company, shareholders, other people caught in it? they pretty much just shrug and say 'my bad' then use their connections to get bailed out at taxpayer expense.
also, if details of the money are secret and the fed refuses to let anyone audit them how do we really know how much has been given out? just take their word for it? and let's just say the numbers are right and they paid 1/5 back so far, that's still a large chunk they got and kept to bail out from their....what? do we really believe they just couldn't see it coming? if that's true they are incompitent and should be replaced and not influencing anything. if i let a firend borrow $1,000 and know they can't possibly pay me back can i really get mad at them since i knew they wouldnt be able to pay me back?
it was their greed and they were able to make a loooooooooot of money for themselves, take out some competitiors and gobble a bigger share up
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
i think the economy had a lot more to do with the price of oil dropping than speculators.
and you dont think the price going UP had anything to do with the booming WORLD economy? and the stock market was at RECORD highs and everyone was driving SUVs. speculators are the ones who keep prices in check. they take on a ton of risk and keep the price moving. (up or down).
These companys created the mortgage crisis. sure, the people who bought homes they couldn't afford bear some responsibility but he makes a good point in the videos of how not that long ago to buy a home you needed a 10% downpayment, proof of income, stable work history....then suddenly 'it was like they were writing them on the back of napkins', pretty much anyone could get a loan.
blame has to be spread around to everyone. in my opinion, responsibility essentially falls with the person seeking the loan. yes the companies hold blame but people need to take responsibility for their own actions.
companies like Goldman Sachs were not the ones giving loans however. but they do have egg on their face for creating Credit default swaps and trading repackaged loans as a commodity. that is what brought down many of the investment firms like Lehman. I dont feel sorry for them
so think about that, why would these financial institutions suddenly change their established rules? you said before you had no problem with these people working closely with the treasury dept. but isn't that like the energy companies helping shape energy policy? and this is just 1 example
so, suddenly the rules are a little different and people who shouldn't be getting loans or for that amount suddenly are getting them, so we're supposed to believe none of them could forsee any problems with this sudden change. but then investment firms and whatnot get mutual funds, pensions, 401ks involved....buying up these commodities, much like former Goldman alum Richard Rubin (Clinton's Treasury Sec) changes the rules about ipo's, going public....(before you needed to be around for 5 years, show a profit for either 2 or 3 years and other criteria, then suddenly it changed to where 4 college students in a dorm room could do it) saying 'the market is booming! look at all the money to be made!! so now all these regular people are invested, a lot unknowingly, and the market collapses, they have made their profits, made their 10's of millions of $ a year but what about the company, shareholders, other people caught in it? they pretty much just shrug and say 'my bad' then use their connections to get bailed out at taxpayer expense.
unfortunately this is one of the negative effects of capitalism. and guess what, there is NO perfect system. but capitalism is by far the best economic system in the world. if gives the most choices, allows for wealth creation, provides free market competition to create the best products and services, and in the end makes the individual responsible for their own success or failure.
also, if details of the money are secret and the fed refuses to let anyone audit them how do we really know how much has been given out? just take their word for it? and let's just say the numbers are right and they paid 1/5 back so far, that's still a large chunk they got and kept to bail out from their....what? do we really believe they just couldn't see it coming? if that's true they are incompitent and should be replaced and not influencing anything. if i let a firend borrow $1,000 and know they can't possibly pay me back can i really get mad at them since i knew they wouldnt be able to pay me back?
you won't find any disagreement from me about wanting the Fed audited. they need to be the MOST transparent financial entity in this country and they are often times not.
there are several watchdog organizations out there however. here is a detailed list.
We DO NOT want bail out money we want work- its the trickle down effect every time the economy gets hit this being the worse- its not just our industry look around its everybody
I understand you want work, everyone does. but when there is no work or money to be made, the government steps in to help. thats whats happening today. I dont like, but thats reality.
3 million- are you nuts- 250,000 nuts again- you are not getting the concept of small business
the 3 million was a hypothetical #. I work for a small company and the annual revenue is much higher. how much money does your "small company" have in the bank? what is needed to fund your payroll?
the 250k # is the amount of money that is insured by the FDIC. so I guess I'll ask, are you nuts?
my point is, there are millions of "small companies" who use the major banks like BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc...all of which might have been in danger of failing had the government not stepped in with TARP money and loans at 0.05%. had any of those banks failed, all those small businesses would have been forced to liquidate. see where I'm going with this?
We are saying goodbye to many employees who have been with us 15 plus years- they were like family
I used to think the Gov protected us- but it is now bough tand paid for by offshore bankers- our own Fed Reserve- they try to distract with the whole Dem Rep thing but they all are the same
the agenda is in place and its not protecting your rights its a one world Gov where we will have even less voice than now.
sorry, this mini rant makes no sense. do you realize the government IS trying to protect you by protecting those big bad banks you speak of. its called managing systemic risk. if those big banks go down, you go down. trust me, I dont like the situation we are in either.
I'm curious, what should the government do that would make you happy?
Yes of course i know about the 250k being insured- i've handled our companies bookkeeping for 17 years but i still don't think you are getting the small business crunch right now. Most of us do not have 250,000 in the bank anymore!
I have a feeling where you are employed is not what I speak of. I am talking America- the small mom & pop shops trying to make it. The small family businesses. We had 35 employees before 911 now after lay offs there are 8 of us left and yes we scrimp to make payroll with my husband at times not getting a check.
I believe our Gov is in the banks pockets sorry and Yes I know if the banks go down we will see the worst depression ever which of course will happen to us little folk but to the very rich the heads of these banks they will be fine you can rest assured on that. Its not a rant- time will tell- but please keep your eyes and ears open cause I was like you til I started listening and watching what is happening. I was very pro Gov- and what do I want from them- I want less Fed and much more local where we can actually be heard.But thats not going to happen now cause mark my words they are moving toward one world government and you and me are the worker bees
Yes of course i know about the 250k being insured- i've handled our companies bookkeeping for 17 years but i still don't think you are getting the small business crunch right now. Most of us do not have 250,000 in the bank anymore!
I have a feeling where you are employed is not what I speak of. I am talking America- the small mom & pop shops trying to make it. The small family businesses. We had 35 employees before 911 now after lay offs there are 8 of us left and yes we scrimp to make payroll with my husband at times not getting a check.
I believe our Gov is in the banks pockets sorry and Yes I know if the banks go down we will see the worst depression ever which of course will happen to us little folk but to the very rich the heads of these banks they will be fine you can rest assured on that. Its not a rant- time will tell- but please keep your eyes and ears open cause I was like you til I started listening and watching what is happening. I was very pro Gov- and what do I want from them- I want less Fed and much more local where we can actually be heard.But thats not going to happen now cause mark my words they are moving toward one world government and you and me are the worker bees
well I'm still confused. you recognize that if the government did not help the banks, we would see a long deep depression correct? so is it right or wrong that the government injected capital into the financial system?
from the rest of your post I get the feeling you want less government, which I'm perfectly fine with, but you cant have it both ways. meaning, bitch about when the government steps in to help banks and bitch when the government sits back and does nothing, allowing a depression to occur.
and you dont think the price going UP had anything to do with the booming WORLD economy? and the stock market was at RECORD highs and everyone was driving SUVs. speculators are the ones who keep prices in check. they take on a ton of risk and keep the price moving. (up or down).
they kept it in check so much they increased their markt by 2,300% in 5 years.....
blame has to be spread around to everyone. in my opinion, responsibility essentially falls with the person seeking the loan. yes the companies hold blame but people need to take responsibility for their own actions.
companies like Goldman Sachs were not the ones giving loans however. but they do have egg on their face for creating Credit default swaps and trading repackaged loans as a commodity. that is what brought down many of the investment firms like Lehman. I dont feel sorry for them
they helped in the decline of underwriting standards also: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/busin ... .html?_r=2
In the first major settlement involving Wall Street’s role in the subprime mortgage business, the Goldman Sachs Group agreed on Monday to pay up to $60 million to end an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state.
also isn't this like entrapment? a cop can't ask me to buy weed then bust me, that would be a set up, isn't this the same thing? they change the underwriting standards knowing a lot of it will fail but they don't care because they are making money from it all the same.
thats right. and I would have it no other way. the alternative is socialism or even communism.
what's wrong with being social? sorry, but i don't think it's a very good system that a Goldman ceo got a $60+million bonus while they were helping create and capitalize on market disasters, or health insurance companies working to make more profit while giving less care.....
also, i read an interview with David Cay Johnston about Goldman Sachs who thinks Goldman didn't really need the bailout but it's a good appearance to have money paid back so quickly
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
they kept it in check so much they increased their markt by 2,300% in 5 years.....
and? price of oil was still resprested by the supply and demand of that product. economy boomed/usage soared = price went up. economy tanked usage crashed = price went down.
the fact the traders profited by this is completely irrelevant.
they helped in the decline of underwriting standards also: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/busin ... .html?_r=2
In the first major settlement involving Wall Street’s role in the subprime mortgage business, the Goldman Sachs Group agreed on Monday to pay up to $60 million to end an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state.
also isn't this like entrapment? a cop can't ask me to buy weed then bust me, that would be a set up, isn't this the same thing? they change the underwriting standards knowing a lot of it will fail but they don't care because they are making money from it all the same.
I agree. these are all reasons why we have a economic crisis on our hands. all we can do now is learn from the mistakes and move on.
what's wrong with being social? sorry, but i don't think it's a very good system that a Goldman ceo got a $60+million bonus while they were helping create and capitalize on market disasters, or health insurance companies working to make more profit while giving less care.....
also, i read an interview with David Cay Johnston about Goldman Sachs who thinks Goldman didn't really need the bailout but it's a good appearance to have money paid back so quickly
there is nothing wrong with being social but there are huge problems with socialism.
its great that you dont like CEOs getting paid alot of money. tough shit, get over it. would you rather the US government set salary and bonus limits? no fucking way
Yes of course i know about the 250k being insured- i've handled our companies bookkeeping for 17 years but i still don't think you are getting the small business crunch right now. Most of us do not have 250,000 in the bank anymore!
I have a feeling where you are employed is not what I speak of. I am talking America- the small mom & pop shops trying to make it. The small family businesses. We had 35 employees before 911 now after lay offs there are 8 of us left and yes we scrimp to make payroll with my husband at times not getting a check.
I believe our Gov is in the banks pockets sorry and Yes I know if the banks go down we will see the worst depression ever which of course will happen to us little folk but to the very rich the heads of these banks they will be fine you can rest assured on that. Its not a rant- time will tell- but please keep your eyes and ears open cause I was like you til I started listening and watching what is happening. I was very pro Gov- and what do I want from them- I want less Fed and much more local where we can actually be heard.But thats not going to happen now cause mark my words they are moving toward one world government and you and me are the worker bees
well I'm still confused. you recognize that if the government did not help the banks, we would see a long deep depression correct? so is it right or wrong that the government injected capital into the financial system?
from the rest of your post I get the feeling you want less government, which I'm perfectly fine with, but you cant have it both ways. meaning, bitch about when the government steps in to help banks and bitch when the government sits back and does nothing, allowing a depression to occur.
I'm recognizing that the Gov is the Banks- that the choices made are by this private bank that the whole "bank problem" was orchestrated to acquire trillions in debt that we the people now owe the Federal Reserve
(which is the private bank formed in 1913 when America was sold out to the very rich bankers who from that point on owned America) that of course keeps printing dollars that are not backed by gold. So America (the people) are broke and in debt to the bank .
I am not really bitching about either- its what is happening if you choose to look and see. Lets start by abolishing the private bank (Federal Reserve) oh but we owe them trillions of dollars ummm but wait that trillions of dollars was money that went to bail out the banks- they are in the win win we are in the lose lose
unless we open our eyes and demand a Gov that is by the people once again.
I'm recognizing that the Gov is the Banks- that the choices made are by this private bank that the whole "bank problem" was orchestrated to acquire trillions in debt that we the people now owe the Federal Reserve
(which is the private bank formed in 1913 when America was sold out to the very rich bankers who from that point on owned America) that of course keeps printing dollars that are not backed by gold. So America (the people) are broke and in debt to the bank .
I am not really bitching about either- its what is happening if you choose to look and see. Lets start by abolishing the private bank (Federal Reserve) oh but we owe them trillions of dollars ummm but wait that trillions of dollars was money that went to bail out the banks- they are in the win win we are in the lose lose
unless we open our eyes and demand a Gov that is by the people once again.
ok so you want to start by abolishing the fed. great. I'll stick to the reality of the situation and hope for more realistic solutions.
I'm recognizing that the Gov is the Banks- that the choices made are by this private bank that the whole "bank problem" was orchestrated to acquire trillions in debt that we the people now owe the Federal Reserve
(which is the private bank formed in 1913 when America was sold out to the very rich bankers who from that point on owned America) that of course keeps printing dollars that are not backed by gold. So America (the people) are broke and in debt to the bank .
I am not really bitching about either- its what is happening if you choose to look and see. Lets start by abolishing the private bank (Federal Reserve) oh but we owe them trillions of dollars ummm but wait that trillions of dollars was money that went to bail out the banks- they are in the win win we are in the lose lose
unless we open our eyes and demand a Gov that is by the people once again.
ok so you want to start by abolishing the fed. great. I'll stick to the reality of the situation and hope for more realistic solutions.
Did you mean The Federal Reserve as i did? Cause yes- have our Government our representatives (we the people) take back our power. Before 1913 our Gov was printing the money when it was handed over to this private group of very wealthy bankers and became the Federal Reserve. We could start by having Congress ask for an audit of the Federal Reserve (trillions of $'s are unaccounted for) which has not been required. I'm afraid the problem here is you are perhaps not choosing to see the reality of this situation- how can you suggest a solution when you don't recognize the problem. As I said I too was very red white and blue and believed in my Gov and thought it was here to protect- but the rights and power of the American people are being compromised now- we are being used to support the agenda of these very wealthy bankers who are moving toward a one world Gov. That is why I stated (as you call it a mini rant!) I want my Constitution back and a country(not a world) that my children can proper in and be proud of and have a voice. This is the only way to control Government and make for less not more.
is that what we have? seems like Goldman Sachs has many advantages others don't, that doesn't seem so free to me
Goldman has competitive advantages. not illegal ones like you seem to suggest.
I think what he meant is that Goldman and other banks have many LEGAL advantages that others don't. These are fictional legal advantages that normal citizens would be convicted of fraud for engaging in, but by virtue of the massive lobbying efforts they can afford, they get laws passed to protect them and give them perks that are antithetical to the free market. It's like socialism for corporate financial institutions. Why is it ok when a minority interest like banks lobbies congress with massive funding to pass laws that give them free perks that hurt the general welfare, but it's awful when the citizens through activism and action pressure their representatives to provide free perks (like health care) that benefit the general welfare? Which one of those looks more democratic, and which looks more like an old British aristocracy?
Comments
yea, I've been a member since 02. can't say I've seen you there.
I'll sum it up for you.
almost anyone on this board: post facts, often times backed by personal first hand experience.
Byzine: thats bullocks. look at my Wiki link. I made it red. its red!
Somewhere in here is some bits about the "anglo eastern establishment elite finance oligarchs", or whatever Tarpley calls them.
Cracks me up and makes some damn good points in there.
Pointless partisans who get there panties bent over the opening attack on Obama, suck it up.
Alex thinks Bush was a tool bucket too.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Yep, that's me in a nutshell.
Oh, and it's 'bollocks', not 'bullocks'.
+1 (hehehe...couldnt resist.)
damn, you beat me to it! for someone who likes to claim everyone else is a know it all he sure likes to tell people they don't have a fucking clue and he can teach them
projection at its finest!
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
you admit know very little about the financial crisis. and have done nothing more then complain about CEO's getting paid too much.
I don't pretend to understand alot of this but
Their plan is not our plan anymore and if just half of us would pay attention before its too late
maybe we could change things
I want freedom
I want to have a real voice in a government that works for the people
I want representatives I can believe and trust
I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers
I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work
& I want a country my children can be proud of and prosper in
its the governments job to protect you. I love silly little one liners like "I want my constitution back before it was sold out to the bankers" what the hell does that mean?
"I want our small business of 17 years not to fail now after all this hard work" - who is responsible for it NOT failing? yours or the government? would you accept bailout money to keep your business running? if so, why is it ok for you, but not our banking system.
speaking of, who do you bank with? lets pretend its Citibank. and say you have more 3 million in the bank. this money is used to fund your small business payroll.
the government lets Citibank fail. because you dont want "the constitution sold to bankers" right? well thanks to the FDIC, 250k is insured. the rest? gone. good bye small business...goodbye employees.
is that better?
Goldman recorded a charge of 78 cents per share as it repaid the government's $10 billion investment in the bank as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
i'd hope so, they reported a gross profit of $49,802,000, $884,547,000 in total assets and $59,169,000 in tangible assets last year
although, i'm not sure what how much they have paid back in TARP funds has to do with the OP?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I have yet to hear your stance on Goldman Sachs. or anything intelligent regarding this entire matter. all you have done is copy and paste some links.
and all i've read from you is a lot of name calling and a chip on your shoulder. i have given you my stance on Goldman Sachs, when you can discuss things civilly like an adult let me know. you claimed i acted like a know it all with a Napoleon complex yet you refuse to be specific as to HOW while phrases like 'you have no fucking clue', 'what the fuck are you talking about', 'it just kills me how ridiculous you sound', 'uneducated people like you', 'go educate yourself' and 'allow me to teach you!' are common place in your replies and you have offered nothing but hostility and negativity. it's like you just want to be right and attack everyone else, you have no interest in actually discussing ideas and topics
again, what does your link have to do with my OP???
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
ok I'm ready..what is your stance on Goldman Sachs? and/or your point of starting this thread?
this thread is about Goldman Sachs is it not?
when i tried telling you before you just called it bitching...
my point of starting the thread was i thought it was a good article with a lot of information, like how the speculative commodity market has increased their profits by 2,300% from '03-'08 as well as how many Goldman Sachs employees now have government or influential positions of power. and 'By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.'
or how people who are supposed to be regulating Goldman Sachs do so while sitting on their board
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
what is the problem with this? are you aware that speculative traders make money when the market goes DOWN just as much or more, as when the market goes up? do you know the current price of oil or looked at a chart from 03-08? I suggest doing so.
probably because they are qualified to do so. but I have no problem with people like you putting pressure on government employees to work for us. but that fact that they previously worked for Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan, or whoever is completely irrelevant.
agreed. I don't care for this either.
like who? do you have evidence of any wrong doing?
about $60
the article actually details the connections of who was on what board overseeing who and how they've used their influence pretty nicely. but as an example Secretary Paulson, who was a goldman exec, gave bailuts to the company's owned or ran by former goldman execs while their competitors were allowed to fail.
also Stephen Friedman, a former cochair of goldman sachs, was chair of the fed when it was in charge of overseeing and regulating goldman after it became a bank-holding company and was allowed to keep his goldman stock and even allowed to buy more goldman stock....which is against regulations but luckily his conflict of interest waiver he applied for was granted by the government...he stepped down eventually and was replaced by another former goldman alum
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
good job. its down almost $100 dollars from its high. if you want to blame speculators for the price going up, fine. but you should also be thanking them when it comes down. it works both ways. traders have no interest in what direction it goes.
so what? are you implying Paulson gave his buddies a bunch of money and then they all went out and had drinks?
Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest financial institutions in this country, one of the biggest players in the game. they were one of many institutions who received TARP (bailout) money. allowing Lehman brothers (Goldmans chief competitor) was one of the hardest decisions the fed was faced with. at that point, I dont think they knew the ramifications. regardless Goldman Sachs would have survived without TARP money. Paulson pretty much forced everyone to take the money to avoid another Lehman disaster from happening. if you want to educate yourself on this I suggest reading House of Cards...I just finished it. it breaks down the crisis from day one and take you day by day what happened.
http://www.amazon.com/House-Cards-Hubri ... 0385528264
did he do anything illegal? America's best investment bankers have all gone through GS. it should be no surprise these very men are often tapped to run the country's finances.
3 million- are you nuts- 250,000 nuts again- you are not getting the concept of small business
We are saying goodbye to many employees who have been with us 15 plus years- they were like family
I used to think the Gov protected us- but it is now bough tand paid for by offshore bankers- our own Fed Reserve- they try to distract with the whole Dem Rep thing but they all are the same
the agenda is in place and its not protecting your rights its a one world Gov where we will have even less voice than now.
Hey are you a banker???
I understand you want work, everyone does. but when there is no work or money to be made, the government steps in to help. thats whats happening today. I dont like, but thats reality.
the 3 million was a hypothetical #. I work for a small company and the annual revenue is much higher. how much money does your "small company" have in the bank? what is needed to fund your payroll?
the 250k # is the amount of money that is insured by the FDIC. so I guess I'll ask, are you nuts?
my point is, there are millions of "small companies" who use the major banks like BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo, etc...all of which might have been in danger of failing had the government not stepped in with TARP money and loans at 0.05%. had any of those banks failed, all those small businesses would have been forced to liquidate. see where I'm going with this?
sorry, this mini rant makes no sense. do you realize the government IS trying to protect you by protecting those big bad banks you speak of. its called managing systemic risk. if those big banks go down, you go down. trust me, I dont like the situation we are in either.
I'm curious, what should the government do that would make you happy?
no I'm not.
i think the economy had a lot more to do with the price of oil dropping than speculators.
the article was about a pattern and how they have ridden out bubbles and gobbled up the pieces since the 20's, like this exerpt:
The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s
These companys created the mortgage crisis. sure, the people who bought homes they couldn't afford bear some responsibility but he makes a good point in the videos of how not that long ago to buy a home you needed a 10% downpayment, proof of income, stable work history....then suddenly 'it was like they were writing them on the back of napkins', pretty much anyone could get a loan.
so think about that, why would these financial institutions suddenly change their established rules? you said before you had no problem with these people working closely with the treasury dept. but isn't that like the energy companies helping shape energy policy? and this is just 1 example
so, suddenly the rules are a little different and people who shouldn't be getting loans or for that amount suddenly are getting them, so we're supposed to believe none of them could forsee any problems with this sudden change. but then investment firms and whatnot get mutual funds, pensions, 401ks involved....buying up these commodities, much like former Goldman alum Richard Rubin (Clinton's Treasury Sec) changes the rules about ipo's, going public....(before you needed to be around for 5 years, show a profit for either 2 or 3 years and other criteria, then suddenly it changed to where 4 college students in a dorm room could do it) saying 'the market is booming! look at all the money to be made!! so now all these regular people are invested, a lot unknowingly, and the market collapses, they have made their profits, made their 10's of millions of $ a year but what about the company, shareholders, other people caught in it? they pretty much just shrug and say 'my bad' then use their connections to get bailed out at taxpayer expense.
also, if details of the money are secret and the fed refuses to let anyone audit them how do we really know how much has been given out? just take their word for it? and let's just say the numbers are right and they paid 1/5 back so far, that's still a large chunk they got and kept to bail out from their....what? do we really believe they just couldn't see it coming? if that's true they are incompitent and should be replaced and not influencing anything. if i let a firend borrow $1,000 and know they can't possibly pay me back can i really get mad at them since i knew they wouldnt be able to pay me back?
it was their greed and they were able to make a loooooooooot of money for themselves, take out some competitiors and gobble a bigger share up
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and you dont think the price going UP had anything to do with the booming WORLD economy? and the stock market was at RECORD highs and everyone was driving SUVs. speculators are the ones who keep prices in check. they take on a ton of risk and keep the price moving. (up or down).
in a free open market, companies like this are going to exist.
blame has to be spread around to everyone. in my opinion, responsibility essentially falls with the person seeking the loan. yes the companies hold blame but people need to take responsibility for their own actions.
companies like Goldman Sachs were not the ones giving loans however. but they do have egg on their face for creating Credit default swaps and trading repackaged loans as a commodity. that is what brought down many of the investment firms like Lehman. I dont feel sorry for them
unfortunately this is one of the negative effects of capitalism. and guess what, there is NO perfect system. but capitalism is by far the best economic system in the world. if gives the most choices, allows for wealth creation, provides free market competition to create the best products and services, and in the end makes the individual responsible for their own success or failure.
you won't find any disagreement from me about wanting the Fed audited. they need to be the MOST transparent financial entity in this country and they are often times not.
there are several watchdog organizations out there however. here is a detailed list.
http://www.tarptales.org/node/1029
thats right. and I would have it no other way. the alternative is socialism or even communism.
I have a feeling where you are employed is not what I speak of. I am talking America- the small mom & pop shops trying to make it. The small family businesses. We had 35 employees before 911 now after lay offs there are 8 of us left and yes we scrimp to make payroll with my husband at times not getting a check.
I believe our Gov is in the banks pockets sorry and Yes I know if the banks go down we will see the worst depression ever which of course will happen to us little folk but to the very rich the heads of these banks they will be fine you can rest assured on that. Its not a rant- time will tell- but please keep your eyes and ears open cause I was like you til I started listening and watching what is happening. I was very pro Gov- and what do I want from them- I want less Fed and much more local where we can actually be heard.But thats not going to happen now cause mark my words they are moving toward one world government and you and me are the worker bees
well I'm still confused. you recognize that if the government did not help the banks, we would see a long deep depression correct? so is it right or wrong that the government injected capital into the financial system?
from the rest of your post I get the feeling you want less government, which I'm perfectly fine with, but you cant have it both ways. meaning, bitch about when the government steps in to help banks and bitch when the government sits back and does nothing, allowing a depression to occur.
they kept it in check so much they increased their markt by 2,300% in 5 years.....
is that what we have? seems like Goldman Sachs has many advantages others don't, that doesn't seem so free to me
they helped in the decline of underwriting standards also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/busin ... .html?_r=2
In the first major settlement involving Wall Street’s role in the subprime mortgage business, the Goldman Sachs Group agreed on Monday to pay up to $60 million to end an investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office into whether the firm helped promote unfair home loans in the state.
also isn't this like entrapment? a cop can't ask me to buy weed then bust me, that would be a set up, isn't this the same thing? they change the underwriting standards knowing a lot of it will fail but they don't care because they are making money from it all the same.
what's wrong with being social? sorry, but i don't think it's a very good system that a Goldman ceo got a $60+million bonus while they were helping create and capitalize on market disasters, or health insurance companies working to make more profit while giving less care.....
also, i read an interview with David Cay Johnston about Goldman Sachs who thinks Goldman didn't really need the bailout but it's a good appearance to have money paid back so quickly
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
and? price of oil was still resprested by the supply and demand of that product. economy boomed/usage soared = price went up. economy tanked usage crashed = price went down.
the fact the traders profited by this is completely irrelevant.
Goldman has competitive advantages. not illegal ones like you seem to suggest.
I agree. these are all reasons why we have a economic crisis on our hands. all we can do now is learn from the mistakes and move on.
there is nothing wrong with being social but there are huge problems with socialism.
its great that you dont like CEOs getting paid alot of money. tough shit, get over it. would you rather the US government set salary and bonus limits? no fucking way
(which is the private bank formed in 1913 when America was sold out to the very rich bankers who from that point on owned America) that of course keeps printing dollars that are not backed by gold. So America (the people) are broke and in debt to the bank .
I am not really bitching about either- its what is happening if you choose to look and see. Lets start by abolishing the private bank (Federal Reserve) oh but we owe them trillions of dollars ummm but wait that trillions of dollars was money that went to bail out the banks- they are in the win win we are in the lose lose
unless we open our eyes and demand a Gov that is by the people once again.
ok so you want to start by abolishing the fed. great. I'll stick to the reality of the situation and hope for more realistic solutions.
I think what he meant is that Goldman and other banks have many LEGAL advantages that others don't. These are fictional legal advantages that normal citizens would be convicted of fraud for engaging in, but by virtue of the massive lobbying efforts they can afford, they get laws passed to protect them and give them perks that are antithetical to the free market. It's like socialism for corporate financial institutions. Why is it ok when a minority interest like banks lobbies congress with massive funding to pass laws that give them free perks that hurt the general welfare, but it's awful when the citizens through activism and action pressure their representatives to provide free perks (like health care) that benefit the general welfare? Which one of those looks more democratic, and which looks more like an old British aristocracy?