Carl Levin drops repeated s-bombs during Goldman hearing

[PJABBER]

Political contributions aren't illegal so the question isn't whether Goldman-Sachs contributed to either party. It's whether they got any special treatment in return for those contributions.

Goldman-Sachs contributed more to Democrats than Republicans, but they contributed more to Democrats. From the lashing they're getting in Congress, and considering the Fed's fraud suit against them, it doesn't seem to have bought them much.

It would be interesting to know how much they contributed to Republicans who are currently filibustering to block financial reform legislation.

Well, GS donated only about $230K to McCain so they were obviously betting that Obama was going to win. The bet is almost always on whom they expect to win, and McCain was not one to be beholden to his donors anyway.

You can get a better idea of who pays for whom using the OpenSecrets site.

As noted above by Fern, being lashed by Congress is a contrarian indicator - it seems to precede some largess to the company/industry on the carpet. GS stock is up 1% today so the market is not worried about any adverse effects. I personally thought the hearings were a joke.

GS is not much at risk of any criminal prosecution and civil penalties are truly minuscule in relation to the monies that get made. Just the cost of doing business, really.

The Democrats need these large bundling donors. There is no way that they are going alienate them prior to an election, so I expect more hot air and no serious consequences.

As I mentioned above, the return on investment the large donors get is magnitudes larger and this proposed "reform" bill is sickeningly sweet for large firms when you look at how it protects them and thus enables them to market with a "backed by the USA government" stamp on their products and services. Truly "too big to fail."

Right now I am much more curious as to how the November elections are being funded as we already know the extent of the Democrat payoff.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Democrats need these large bundling donors.

Republicans are jealous- the big money was on them when they looked like winners, but now, well now they look more like worn out nags...

 

[PJABBER]

Republicans are jealous- the big money was on them when they looked like winners, but now, well now they look more like worn out nags...

The smart money is smart, unlike yourself, being partisan and all.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hehehe. Me, too.

So you're the pivot man to his swing man of the Wing Nut circle jerk.

 

[PJABBER]

So you're the pivot man to his swing man of the Wing Nut circle jerk.

Nope, but I have been in the bizness of both Wall Street and Washington long enough to kinda somewhat know which ways deals are made and promises kept.

And you, yourself, have been around the block long enough to know I am right, once you let your partisan blinders slip just a bit.

:awe:

Blankfein supports financial reform legislation

By Vicki Needham -
04/27/10 06:45 PM ET
The Hill

A financial regulatory reform bill has at least one supporter outside of Congressional Democrats, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of investment bank Goldman Sachs.

"I'm generally supportive," Blankfein told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Wall Street will benefit from the bill because it will make the market safer, Blankfein said.

"The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself," he said. "The biggest risk is risk financial institutions have with each other."

American consumers also would benefit from better regulations, he said.

Blankfein said he didn't know all the bill's details and couldn't speak to provisions that affect community and consumer banks and mortgage originators because they are "remote" to our experience.

Goldman rallies for Obama in Wall Street 'reform'

By: Timothy P. Carney
Washington Examiner
April 16, 2010

In his self-styled war against Wall Street, President Obama appears to have a powerful ally: Goldman Sachs.

The nation's largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial "reform" proposals will help Goldman's bottom line.

"Given that much of the financial contagion was fueled by uncertainty about counterparties' balance sheets," Goldman Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn wrote in a letter at the beginning of the annual report, "we support measures that would require higher capital and liquidity levels, as well as the use of clearinghouses for standardized derivative transactions."

Goldman's executives are calling for two regulations here. First, they want the federal government to restrict free-wheeling, heavily leveraged, high-stakes financial risk taking. Second, they want government to set more rules of the road for trading derivatives -- financial products that are often complex.

These are the very "fat cats" to whom Obama directed his trash talk in January: "If they want a fight, that's a fight I'm willing to have." Well, it looks like they don't really want a fight. It looks like they want more regulation. The question is: What's in it for Goldman?

If you take Blankfein and Cohn's word, stricter federal liquidity and capital requirements would amount to regulators doing Goldman's work for Goldman. They want Uncle Sam to mitigate "uncertainty about counterparties' balance sheets." That is, they want the government to reduce the risk that Goldman's debtors or insurers will run into trouble.

This is an odd function of government: Making Goldman Sachs feel safer in its business dealings. Blogger Ira Stoll, at his Web site The Future of Capitalism, put it well:

"It's one thing for some elderly retail depositor to ask the FDIC to protect her from risk by guaranteeing bank deposits. But the idea that the government needs to run around setting capital requirements to protect Blankfein and Cohn from the risk that their counterparties might go under or get in a liquidity crunch seems a bit odd. Let them protect themselves."

Also at play in Goldman's call for stricter capital requirements and standardization of derivatives: the confidence game. Much of America has lost some faith in the markets. Regular investors are still a bit scared of the stock market. Financial firms are lending less. Goldman thrives on free-flowing capital.

If Obama signs a financial "reform" and declares that it now safe to enter the waters of the stock market, that's good news for Goldman.
Restoring public confidence in the markets should be the job of those who profit from your investing in the market -- it should not be the job of the federal government.

Another pillar of Obama's financial reform is the "Volcker Rule," which would restrict the trading banks can do. Blankfein and Cohn, in their letter, indicate to shareholders that this rule will be no big deal for them.

The Volcker Rule would bar "proprietary trading" by Goldman (that is trading simply to benefit Goldman's bottom line) but would not restrict dealings "related to" serving the bank's clients. But even Goldman's most notorious financial dealings, transactions with failed insurance giant AIG, were client-related, Goldman told shareholders: "The net risk we were exposed to," Blankfein and Cohn wrote, "was consistent with our role as a market intermediary rather than a proprietary market participant."

In other words, almost any deal Goldman would make could be tied to a client, meaning the Volcker Rule couldn't touch Goldman, even if it cramps the style of smaller, less well-connected banks.

Goldman is lobbying hard on financial regulation, but that doesn't mean they're lobbying "against" regulation. And they certainly shouldn't be considered White House foes: Goldman was Obama's No. 1 corporate source of funds in 2008.

So when Obama triumphantly signs his "reform" later this year, forget the rhetoric and watch the smart money -- it'll be betting on Goldman.

 

[JSt0rm]

You know. If we took hands like they do in somalia for these kinds of crimes we probably wouldn't have many of these crimes.

 

[PJABBER]

You know. If we took hands like they do in somalia for these kinds of crimes we probably wouldn't have many of these crimes.

What crimes? Nobody is being charged with doing anything criminal.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Hopefully we can vote Levin out but thanks to Detroit it will probably never happen. Then again, Detroit is shrinking so maybe common sense can win out here in the land of the hand!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Wasn't Goldman-Sachs the second largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign?

Like George Soros and his connections to leftist governments, for every dollar that was paid out to Obama, these financial companies like Goldman have gotten thousands of dollars in return.

If this financial "reform" bill passes, the biggest companies, Obama supporters all, get the government to back their bets. After all, they are "too big to fail."

So far as I know, no private companies are backed up like this anywhere else in the world. This will give American financiers at this level a significant competitive edge.

The Street LOVES 80% of this bill. They may not like the derivatives part, but they can live with it for the rest. The people who are screaming about any curtailment of derivatives are those that need them to hedge their positions as good business practice. The financial companies will still make their money either way.

Thus we have the Obama continuing to pay off his largest donors with taxpayer money and the full faith and credit of the United States, so long as that lasts.

That has nothing to do with anything......your point?? Instead of being a idiot...

 

[Jiggz]

It was nothing but a "theatrical" show for his party. What else is new? Demonize an entity so you can push your agenda. Remember the health insurance demons to push the Health Care Reform? And how it's supposed to be a deficit neutral and reduce cost? Yeah, that agenda!

 

[tvarad]

A nice NYT op-ed about others who should be judged, including Congress. Guys like Charles Rangel who blatantly played the race card in the '90s regarding affordable mortgages should also be skewered in front of the public but will he be?

Excerpts:

"More important, it was Congress that sat by idly as consumer advocates warned that people were getting loans they’d never be able to pay back. It was Congress that refused to regulate derivatives, despite ample evidence dating back to 1994 of the dangers they posed. It was Congress that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banking, yet failed to update the fraying regulatory system.

It was Congress that spread the politically convenient gospel of home ownership, despite data and testimony showing that much of what was going on had little to do with putting people in homes. And it’s Congress that has been either unwilling or unable to put in place rules that have a shot at making things better. The financial crisis began almost three years ago and it’s still not clear if we’ll have meaningful new legislation. In fact, Senate Republicans on Monday voted to block floor debate on the latest attempt at a reform bill.

Come to think about it, shouldn’t Congress have its turn on the hot seat as well? Seeing Goldman executives get their comeuppance may make us all feel better in the short term. But today’s spectacle shouldn’t provide our government with a convenient way to deflect the blame it so richly deserves."

 

[WHAMPOM]

Shame how a device to insure farmers' profits on crop prices turned into a sure way to debt and trigger a world wide depression. Greed is good, right? Just as legal for a car salesman to sell you a car he knows will blow up as soon as you get home in your driveway. What you say no! Lemon laws will protect you? Well not in this case, too big to fail, too big to go to jail!

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Well, Righties, it was what you wanted and worked towards for 30 years- Free Market Self Regulated International Banking. To be realistic, it was *doomed to crash" because that's what it does, how that works for as long as there have been banks. Derivatives, aka "implements of mass financial destruction", per Warren Buffet, are just a new implement in the toolkit.

We had a choice when it all fell down- we could re-live 1931, we could bailout the banks, or we could nationalize them. With the Bush Admin in charge, only the second option was going to fly anywhere, so that's what happened. It's the way your team made it, regardless of any obfuscations that might be employed to conceal that fact.

Bankers and everybody else gave more money to Dems this time around, mostly because Repubs might as well have had "LOSER!" tatooed on their foreheads, given the the fact that they left anybody who wasn't already rich chained to the oars of the economy when they ran it aground.

And it hasn't been quite like the "Pay to Play" methodology of Repubs when they were in power- just because Bank Execs made campaign contributions doesn't mean they'll get what they want... well, unless their repub friends manage to stonewall reform. Bankers and other bigtime wheeler-dealers like it just the way it is- Too big to fail, and too reckless to do anything else... Like these guys, paying 15% capital gains tax for gambling with OPM...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th

Shitty? Depends on who's on the winning end of the con game, that's all...

You are so far left that you failed to understand what we actually want to happen.

We wanted free market, yes. Did we ever see it? Not since the 30's.

We had a choice between bailing them out and nationalizing them?! No, actually we had a choice between government intervention and no government intervention. Government intervention was chosen for us. Regulation is like the government stabbing banks, bailouts are like shoving cash in wounds to pretend they're not bleeding.

 

[WHAMPOM]

A nice NYT op-ed about others who should be judged, including Congress. Guys like Charles Rangel who blatantly played the race card in the '90s regarding affordable mortgages should also be skewered in front of the public but will he be?

Excerpts:

"More important, it was Congress that sat by idly as consumer advocates warned that people were getting loans they’d never be able to pay back. It was Congress that refused to regulate derivatives, despite ample evidence dating back to 1994 of the dangers they posed. It was Congress that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banking, yet failed to update the fraying regulatory system.

It was Congress that spread the politically convenient gospel of home ownership, despite data and testimony showing that much of what was going on had little to do with putting people in homes. And it’s Congress that has been either unwilling or unable to put in place rules that have a shot at making things better. The financial crisis began almost three years ago and it’s still not clear if we’ll have meaningful new legislation. In fact, Senate Republicans on Monday voted to block floor debate on the latest attempt at a reform bill.

Come to think about it, shouldn’t Congress have its turn on the hot seat as well? Seeing Goldman executives get their comeuppance may make us all feel better in the short term. But today’s spectacle shouldn’t provide our government with a convenient way to deflect the blame it so richly deserves."

Conservatives' faith based free market system? Thirty years of deregulation and we are back in the boom and bust 1800's. WOW!!! Get used to it and stop whining. An engine running on a self/feedback system, keeps reving up til it blows, must be why the governor was invented, to regulate it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are so far left that you failed to understand what we actually want to happen.

We wanted free market, yes. Did we ever see it? Not since the 30's.

We had a choice between bailing them out and nationalizing them?! No, actually we had a choice between government intervention and no government intervention. Government intervention was chosen for us. Regulation is like the government stabbing banks, bailouts are like shoving cash in wounds to pretend they're not bleeding.

And you're lost in the weeds of ideology. What you "want" is immaterial- what the Right promoted and allowed to happen is reality. It's the same thing that happened in 1929-1932 and in earlier banking crises, the natural and inevitable result of free market capitalism left to its own devices. Boom/bust.

On a political rather than an economic level, we'd be better off if the economy had been allowed to crash completely- Righties wouldn't be able to engage in the kind of denial and obfuscation you've offered.

Yeh, I know, it's now time to cue up the revisionist history version of the Depression, the one where Roosevelt made it worse- Hogwash. It was the relentless and ongoing process of dismantling the New Deal that put us where we are today, with a banking/investment system and distribution of income much like the 1920's, and all the concommitant consequences of it.

 

[sportage]

Look at it this way...
You are scheduled for an operation in the hospital.
Your surgeon sits outside betting with friends that you will NOT survive the operation.
Then he enters the operating room to do surgery on you.
That is exactly the get rich quick game goldman sachs was and is still playing.
BTW... thank you Ronald Reagan. RIP. So much for free market values.. Ronnie.