On Apr 25, 10:56*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:24:19 -0400, John H
wrote:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...?id=d000000085

Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also
among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer
money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman
Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal
legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade
and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a
major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would
essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm
tends to give most of its money to Democrats.

they used to. not anymore. the NY times reported yesterday that, since
the begiining of the year, 2/3 of all bribes from the financial sector
now go to the GOP. and last week, the chamber of commerce engineered a
fund raiser/closed door meeting between 25 hedge fund managers and 2
GOP senators.

'Used to' my ass. This year Goldman Sachs has given two times as much
to bribe Democrats as Republicans. Learn to read. Maybe that's why you
lost all your money.

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

I suspect that whatever happens to Goldman will be in accordance with the
desires of the powers that be at Goldman. Obama isn't going to shoot a gift
horse.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package.

uh huh. it has nothing to do with fraud...

the fact the US lost 9 TRILLION In equity in the last 2
years..well...the rich did that so let's give them a pass

The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.

you don't know much about law do you? it's a civil suit, not a
criminal one.

They want to make it illegal.

gee. imagine wanting to make theft illegal.

no wonder the right is up in arms. obama's trying to make fraud by the
rich illegal.

I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

we can only hope although prospects for that right now are slim

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:20:37 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:13:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.
--

Obama went after Goldman to push his financial reform package. The
government is very likely to lose this case simply because what
Goldman did, while sleazy, was not illegal.
They want to make it illegal.
I suspect the result will be companies like Goldman will be split into
two companies (like they had to be before the Clinton administration).
There will be a brokerage company and a trading company, not one
company doing both..

I suspect that whatever happens to Goldman will be in accordance with the
desires of the powers that be at Goldman. Obama isn't going to shoot a gift
horse.

guess he doesn't read much

right now wall street's money is flowing to the GOP

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), John H
wrote:

On Apr 25, 10:56*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:24:19 -0400, John H
wrote:



they used to. not anymore. the NY times reported yesterday that, since
the begiining of the year, 2/3 of all bribes from the financial sector
now go to the GOP. and last week, the chamber of commerce engineered a
fund raiser/closed door meeting between 25 hedge fund managers and 2
GOP senators.

'Used to' my ass. This year Goldman Sachs has given two times as much
to bribe Democrats as Republicans. Learn to read. Maybe that's why you
lost all your money

really? is that what rush is telling you to say? i realize that, as a
conservative, you never think for yourself, because you're not too
bright, but i guess he hasn't forced you to read this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...83-503544.html

Sixty-two percent of the money from that industry has gone to
Democrats, and 37 percent to Republicans. (That has changed somewhat
recently, the Journal notes: In the first two months of the year,
Citigroup, Goldman , J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley gave twice as much
to Republicans than Democrats.)


and this this:

http://wallstreetpit.com/23015-repub...al-reform-bill

where 25 top wall street execs met with the GOP to bribe them behind
closed doors

and then there's:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...216461790.html

Republicans are stepping up their campaign to win donations from Wall
Street, trying to capitalize on an increasing sense of regret among
executives at big financial institutions for backing Democrats in
2008.

In discussions with Wall Street executives, Republicans are striving
to make the case that they are banks' best hope of preventing
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats from cracking down
on Wall Street.

A complete picture of Wall Street's 2009 campaign donations won't be
available for a few weeks. Through the third quarter, campaign-finance
reports show that some major Wall Street players began sending an
increasing share of their donations to Republicans. Many of those
donations came toward the end of this period, because many banks had
essentially shut down their political giving at the height of the
financial crisis.

Through the first nine months of 2009, about 54% of donations from
Bank of America Corp.'s political action committee and employees went
to Republicans, according to campaign-finance data compiled by the
nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That was a switch from the
2008 campaign, when 56% of the company's donations went to Democrats.
Shirley Norton, a BofA spokeswoman, said it doesn't base PAC donations
on party affiliation

On 25/04/2010 12:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:53:55 -0600,
wrote:

On 25/04/2010 8:56 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:24:19 -0400, John
wrote:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...?id=d000000085

Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs, one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks, was also
among the many banks in 2008 and 2009 to receive billions of dollars in taxpayer
money to help it stay afloat. Like others in the securities industry, Goldman
Sachs advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal
legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade
and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a
major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would
essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. The firm
tends to give most of its money to Democrats.

they used to. not anymore. the NY times reported yesterday that, since
the begiining of the year, 2/3 of all bribes from the financial sector
now go to the GOP. and last week, the chamber of commerce engineered a
fund raiser/closed door meeting between 25 hedge fund managers and 2
GOP senators.

It is probably why Obama is in a snit with Goldman, not enough bribes.

which is great. that's the way the balance of power works in our
corrupt political system. the outcome is the same. the enemies get
screwed; in this case it's the investment bankers

which is just as it should be. but you defend them 'cuz they're rich
and they steal from the middle class that you hate

No. I play the game as presented to me and don't let, or shall I say
try not to let my predispositions in how I think it should work cloud me
to how it real does work. I try to divorce my feelings and spend most
of the energy at observing and learning. Because at the end of the
stock ticking day, it maters not a damn what I or you think, it maters
how the market moved and why.

People do have the real power, just that they don't turn their brains
onto reality always looking for the lazy way out of their self made
problems. So like a herd of sheep they follow the Mesiah Obama hoping
for the quick fix, in the microwave and all is well.

Hey, I don't deny the system is corrupt. That is why it is failing.
Doesn't mean I can't make some money trying to pick and back producers.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 12:09 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:05 -0400, wrote:



I think BP is ****ed that the political donations have a tendency to
move the winners early. Especially when coming from large institutions.

gee. imagine my disappointment that corruption and bribes can win an
election.

you a fan of the mexican electoral system, as well as its economic
system?

So? What are you doing to change it? Vote for the same old corruption
parties like Rep and Dem? How about the Tea Party? New faces at least.

Or start your socialist party.
--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 12:51 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 25, 2:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:05 -0400, wrote:

I think BP is ****ed that the political donations have a tendency to
move the winners early. Especially when coming from large institutions.

gee. imagine my disappointment that corruption and bribes can win an
election.

It's really good to hear one of you liberal admit that's how BO got
in, though. Refreshing.

BO does know how to lie well doesn't he. I will give him that.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 12:57 PM, hk wrote:
On 4/25/10 2:51 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 25, 2:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:05 -0400, wrote:

I think BP is ****ed that the political donations have a tendency to
move the winners early. Especially when coming from large institutions.

gee. imagine my disappointment that corruption and bribes can win an
election.

It's really good to hear one of you liberal admit that's how BO got
in, though. Refreshing.


I thought it was because the majority of voters were afraid that if
McCain were elected, he'd die in office and Ms. Moron would be president.

I will say I was surprised on how many women haters are out there like
yourself.

Personally most ordinary house wives without Harvard could do a better
job of budgeting than Obama from Harvard.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.

On 25/04/2010 1:00 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:57:11 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/25/10 2:51 PM, Jack wrote:
On Apr 25, 2:09 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:06:05 -0400, wrote:

I think BP is ****ed that the political donations have a tendency to
move the winners early. Especially when coming from large institutions.

gee. imagine my disappointment that corruption and bribes can win an
election.

It's really good to hear one of you liberal admit that's how BO got
in, though. Refreshing.


I thought it was because the majority of voters were afraid that if
McCain were elected, he'd die in office and Ms. Moron would be president.

i recently watched the movie '13 days'...about the cuban missile
crisis.

can you imagine what would have happened if mccain was president...he
got senile (as he already is) and palin was pres?

we'd all be radioactive ash.

Depends, do you follow the rant on Nostradamus. Don't believe in the
**** myself but 2012 is supposed to be the big end of it all. Given it
is also the year in which Obama faces certain decimation at the polls,
why not start a war? Say 666 days after his initial inauguration. He
could be an anti-christ.

But I think Obama is just a hype turkey jack ass whey in over his head.

--
Socialism and statism are great as long as someone else pays for it.