Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: goldman sachs fyi

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 11, 2012, 3:23 p.m. EST by ericweiss (575)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

as of 10/1/2012, willard got 6.5 times as much money as Obama did
[ not counting super pac secret money ]

20 Comments

20 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Dont worry, John Corzine is still living the good life, and Jamie Dimon already went though his bullshit engagement with the Banking Committee...

Blankfein's stooges may be donating more money to Romney, but Obama's actions the last 4 years have proven him to be a good frontman.

Besides, what would happen to public opinion if they were so transparent and just flooded Obama with money because of their pleasure with his undesire to prosecute the banks?

These election are not about choices, because these are not choices, they are punishments. Who will destroy the nation slower is what it comes down to.

These elections are about maintaining faith in the two party system. Because without that, the power structure is facing a serious upheaval from the people that it simply cannot contain.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

These elections are about stopping the right wing pro 1% conservatives.

If we are to take the country/govt back from the 1% we must 1sy dilute their power while we create the new system, from the ground up, horizontal, with direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Conspiracy. Could be you and I agree this is a group of conspiracies from the Executive Office down. Eric Holder, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Mary Schapiro...a Rogues Gallery.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Link please.

If you are talking about Goldman Sachs employee donations to candidates- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444752504578024661927487192.html

According to this article, the total donated by GS employees to Romney is $1.8 million between contributions to the campaign directly and to the super pac.

In 2008, GS employees donated $1 million to the Obama camp. So far this election they have donated $136,000 to Obama.

That's more than 6.5 times as much money this election cycle. But what's your point? That GS employees don't like Obama anymore?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes it is. Did you just find it?

"Goldman has been the No. 1 source of campaign cash to Democrats among companies during the 23 years the Center for Responsive Politics has been collecting such data." (see my link above)

A Goldman spokesman said, "Donations are made by individual employees according to their own views." Goldman is prohibited by law from making corporate donations to political candidates; the firm also has a rule against donating to super PACs and other independent entities. (same above link)

The employees have changed the party they are supporting this year. What's your point?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So he really was just stating the obvious. I'm not refusing to accept that, I'm just wondering why he thought it was worth posting.

Makes me wonder what gave them the idea that Obama would be "friendly to the industry" in 2008.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the obvious is that they're both funded by banks.

"Obama is funded by banks... but Romney is more funded by banks"... LOL my new favorite argument from democrats. Hahahahahaha

Democrats and republicans are just a massive joke now. These clowns forget Obama was more funded by Goldman than McCain was in 2008... It wasn't bad back then but it's bad now that Romney is the more funded. LOL that's their "stating the obvious" lol

Neither of their candidates present solutions... only bandaids and bullshit. No talk of minimum wage increase. No talk of GTFOing these wars TODAY. No talk about reforming trade agreements to bring jobs back to America. No talk about monetary reform. Instead both of these groups support a monetary policy that gives unlimited resources to Wall Street and nothing to the people.

And to answer your question about 2008... it's called TARP.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Exactly-they are both funded by banks. Seems that this was news to ericweiss.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Read this and stop beating up one politician when ALL our problems are rooted in conservative policies along with the few dems who cave in to vote for them.

http://www.nationofchange.org/loyalty-s-chumps-street-bankers-man-2008-obama-s-been-dumped-money-men-1350050302

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

TARP was a repub gift to their 1% constituents. Dems failure was caving in to the bankers blackmail and supporting it.

Didn't banks give to Pres Obama 'cause it was obvious McCain couldn't win?. The banks are certainly gonna give to the winner more if the winner is known.

And although they gave to Pres Obama aren't they screaming bloody murder about the fin reform that their repub puppets delayed, watered down & promised to repeal. Taking money is less important when you do not do what the money givers want. You understand that concept.?

If you really are interested in prosecuting you would be screaming about the huge cuts repubs made to fin prosecution budget, and you would complain about the weak regulations repubs created to protect indiv execs.

But instead as always your focus is on attacking one party/pol.

Change requires we replace pro 1% conservatives w/pro 99% progressives, & protest for change that benefits the 99% and lays the groundwork for a new pol system.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

LOL at everything you just said.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But no substantive response. I guess you know I'm right.

Keep laughing, laughing boy!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I have heard many people proclaim both parties are equally in the GS corner. I think these numbers clearly dispel this "accusation"

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

All these numbers do is show a sudden and overwhelming change in donations from Goldman Sachs employees from the Democratic party to the Republican party.

It does seem ODD though that literally up until 2012 these evil, nasty, bank employees have been funding the Democrats...including prior to, during and after the economic collapse...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So the employees poured a million dollars into Obama/Democrats in 2008 because....????

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Link was in my very first post-just didn't light up as a link. Fixed it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444752504578024661927487192.html

I count 17 to 10. Not EVEN a 2 to 1 ratio. And it doesn't say how many shares or how long they've been held etc.

But here's some good news for you- http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index

Goldman Sachs not only repaid their bailout debt, but the US profited almost a BILLION AND A HALF dollars on the deal. But sadly, those darn Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac haven't been nearly so kind to the US and her citizens have they? Even Barney Frank admits that he and others who pressured the government into low income housing loans were WRONG:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/2010/08/21/barney_frank_comes_home_to_facts/page/full/

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”

{But wait...there's more:}

"Some would say Frank’s mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies number one and two. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.

In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can’t even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That’s right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from -- you guessed it -- the Treasury.

Then there’s this head-scratching detail: In an absolutely outrageous move last Christmas Eve, President Obama signed off on $42 million in bonuses for the top twelve Fannie and Freddie executives, including $6 million apiece for the two CEOs. (Hat tip to attorney Stephen B. Meister.)

Voters are on to all this. So politics may indeed be motivating Barney Frank’s turnaround. But I’m going to credit him with more than that.

I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse -- including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government’s overreach -- simply needs to be abolished.

Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has come to a similar conclusion. Geithner told a recent Washington conference on the future of housing finance that the system needs fundamental change. He said, “We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses.”