Playing Politics with Goldman

Alex, “the inaccurate idea”!? That’s the best you can do? Honestly?

So, the GOP party line is that Obabma is a socialist, using the power of the SEC to indict the investment bank that owns him.
-
Ooooo-kay.
-
Respectfully, Alex, I don’t think this is all too helpful of a post. No big deal, it’s just a post on a blog, but the fact that a given news story provokes dueling press releases isn’t really that much of a surprise.

I’d like to know what’s so important politically about this particular enforcement by the SEC. Everyone already knows that these sociopaths raped the country just because they could. Who thinks we need some new reason to at least prevent them from dicking us again, except the Beltway whores who also make their living that way?

I suppose it’s too much to ask that you point out that a person would have to be insane to believe both of these mutually exclusive republican talking points.

Alex’s post is interesting, for a while, until his Swampland Tourette’s gets the better of him, as the words “Tea Party” spastically jerk out of his mouth in response to some comment of John Boehner. Really, is there nothing the Swamplanders can write about without foaming at the mouth over the TeaPartyTeaBaggerRightWingNutLimbaughBeckFringe?

I mean, what the Tea Partiers believe is fairly attenuated from the issue of whether the timing of the charges against Goldman was politically motivated.

Nothing really,but if dems say potayto them the GOP must say potahto.

Republicans believe the best way to protect taxpayers is by reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it.”

Sometimes I just don’t know what is worse. That GOP leaders are so stupid that they actually think that the federal government forced banks to reduce their lending standards against their better judgment. Or that Republicans know that the Fannie/Freddie explanation is nonsense but just like to blame poor minorities for the financial crisis out of sport.

I was going to argue with you, but the more I thought about it, the more that blurb about the Tea Partiers sticks out.
.
Almost as if it’s there to increase the number of hits the post generates.

The professional liars are worse, by orders of magnitude. They’re agitating for treason with bald-faced lies about democratically-elected government officials who have done nothing to compare with the traitorous actions of the Bush/Cheney regime they supported. The rubes and authoritarian followers they command are victims, just like the rest of us but worse. Through indoctrination in right-wing dogma they’ve been stripped of everything that matters – morality, intellect, the national interest they so cherish – just to follow the professional liars and traitors who lead the right wing tribe to which they so desperately need to belong.

After eight years of Bush/ Cheney it is hardly surprising that both Republicans and the Press have lost sight of the idea of an independent judicial process.

I can picture the press conference. The gaggle asking the same question over and over hoping for a different answer. Looking at process instead of addressing the story of Wall Street run amuck.

WaPo reports the SEC was warning Goldman Sachs last summer about a possible action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905040.html

Alternatively, one could believe Mitch McConnell.

re Senator Gregg: Yes, the Goldman Sachs suit is the only reason anybody ever thought of financial reform. Some trivial events occurred in 2008 but that had nothing to do with it.

Kind of like the guy on the street who latches onto the inaccurate idea that space aliens implanted a microchip in his brain.

Personally, I’m curious to know how a resolution authority that “would give the President sweeping powers to dismantle or reorganize failing companies” (BusinessWeek) equates to a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them ‘too big to fail.

Well, to his credit, Alex did score one easy point, making Boner look like a buffoon by juxtaposing his bipolar political carciatures, from “a new American socialist experiment” to “Obama is a corporate stooge pushing a bill designed to safeguard a major contributor.”
.
But “Inaccurate idea”? An absurd or ridiculous notion embraced only by those lacking access to an encyclopedia, maybe, but merely inaccurate? My sickle and hammer rust at the fallacy.
.
The irony, thus far in term one, is that Boner’s 2nd stance is closer to the truth. Discounting, of course, the most ludicrous notion ever considered, that the GOP will ever be less a corpo-stooge than Obama.

An appeal to fellow Swamplanders: give the White House Press Corps a break, please. They are trying to make themselves relevant. The WH has to have a hidden agenda, a political motive, and this is always followed by a Darrel Issa requirement for some agency to answer His A**hole’s questions.

After all Goldman Sachs owns our Treasury, doesn’t it? I am always astonished to read about how often these things are secretly negotiated and paltry fines are paid, and it is all swept under the rug. Sure this looks like an effort at accountability. About time, too.

My daughter has the inaccurate idea that the sun is made of lemonade.
.
Hey, opinions vary. You have to present both sides of the debate, right?

I know that this was well covered during the campaign but can we stop saying that Goldmans was a corporate donor to Obama? They were individuals employed by Goldmans who gave money. They weren’t forced to and there was no corporate decision to donate. Obama didn’t take any money from PACs so all of those donations were from individuals. Now that may mean something and people can infer what they want from that, but let’s at least get the facts straight before drawing conclusions.

Do you mean these donations?
.
http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084

I suppose it’s to be expected that you didn’t bother reading the very thing you linked to (and a small coincidence that that link – which is pretty old, in any event – is the blazing headline at Drudge) but I’ll make life easy for you and copy and paste what that site says just above the table you have reproduced:

“This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates”

On the other hand, the line saying that the organizations themselves did not donate is in red, bold and italicized on that site, so I can see how you missed it.

Finally, near the bottom of that table it says that the US Gov’t donated more than $400,000 to Obama – where’s the outcry about W supporting Obama in such a transparent manner?

NFB: Can you detail the University of California figure, please. Did they donate $1,5m as a university? Did Goldman Sachs donate the money or individuals. I looked at donors to both parties and they were usually packaged but came from individual donors.

Perhaps someone at Time Warner can explain how come they gave $590,084 as a corporation to the Obama Campaign.

If packaging is the norm then NFB might consider giving us a list of donors to the McCain campaign from corporate entities.

Some fair and balanced posting?

Alex, one thing you might consider:
.
Even if it were true, and I honestly don’t know, it certainly beats the type of politically motivated actions on the part of the Bush administration.
.
You haven’t just conveniently forgotten about the DOJ and the revelations about that department and Gonzalas leading to his resignation as well, did you?
.
My point is lets even give it to you:
The politics certainly make it a bit easier to do something good for the country for a change.