Trump Defends the Criminal Goldman Sachs Members of his cabinet

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,952
31,496
146
buckshot24 said:
He wants successful people in his cabinet. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

"successful." in the Trumpian world, is a euphemism for thieving, incompetent jackass with a singular plan: "bully the fuck out of people until they shut the fuck up or sue me."

Ah yes, truly the classic conservative model for the glory of capitalism!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Azuma Hazuki
xthetenth

xthetenth

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2014
1,800
529
106
zinfamous said:
nobody has ever been more down to earth. believe me, OK? nobody.
Click to expand...

He's so far from down to earth that when he dies, his gold coffin won't actually be because he's tacky, it'll be the only thing that can weigh him down enough.
 
M

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,549
761
146
Phynaz said:
You dumbasses want a drive-up bank teller in charge of the US Treasury I suppose.
Click to expand...

It's not just a choice between a bank teller and a Goldman Sachs executive, idiot. This Gary Cohn guy is clueless and equates federal government with a household. Go to Russia if you think a person having tons of money means they have the right policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z, DarthKyrie and Azuma Hazuki
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,244
136
blackangst1 said:
Did anyone care that Obama, Bush, and Clinton had GS and other "institutional bankers" on their staff? Or that Obama’s 2008 campaign received $42 million — “more than any other candidate in history” — from “Wall Street bankers and financial insiders?"

No. I didnt think so. Next story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-goverment-jobs.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/obama-white-house-full-of-wall-street-executives/
Click to expand...

What were Obama's actual policies in relation to Wall Street?

In answer to your question, yes, I did care, at first. But then he signed Dodd Frank.

Trump's position relative to Wall Street is the opposite of Obama. His hiring of Wall Street execs is just a symptom. If his policies were otherwise, I wouldn't be so concerned about who he hired.
 
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,661
15,967
136
blackangst1 said:
Did anyone care that Obama, Bush, and Clinton had GS and other "institutional bankers" on their staff? Or that Obama’s 2008 campaign received $42 million — “more than any other candidate in history” — from “Wall Street bankers and financial insiders?"

No. I didnt think so. Next story?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/business/dealbook/goldman-sachs-goverment-jobs.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/obama-white-house-full-of-wall-street-executives/
Click to expand...

You mean this, from your links :

"After minting a small fortune as one of the youngest partners in Goldman’s history, Mr. Gensler was named assistant secretary for financial markets in 1997 in the Clinton administration. At the Treasury Department, he helped enact legislation exempting broad portions of derivatives trading from oversight.

Under the Obama administration, Mr. Gensler developed a reputation for cracking down on Wall Street during his time at the agency. The day in 2010 that the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul became final, he stayed past 4 a.m. to put the finishing touches on the law. His aggressive streak thrust the once-backwater agency into the front lines of reform. The push by Mr. Gensler clashed with the staid culture of an agency once known as the “watchdog that didn’t bark.”"

Yea f that guy.

And more specifically about the 42kk :

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-fund/american-future-fund-wall-street-obama/

"The American Future Fund’s ad says, "Obama’s flush with cash, returning to Wall Street for even more money. … Wall Street sure supports President Obama."

It is true that Obama has received millions of dollars from Wall Street this cycle. But the intention of the ad is to suggest that Obama is Wall Street’s preferred candidate, just like in 2008. In reality, the numbers don’t bare that out -- Romney is the preferred candidate, based on both campaign contributions and news coverage.

The fund’s ad relies on data from Center for Responsive Politics, but it uses the data in a misleading way. Whether we looked at the broader finance/insurance/real estate industry or the more narrow securities and investment sector, the Romney campaign is far ahead of the Obama campaign in dollars.

We rate the statement Mostly False."

I know a world where everything is not black or white is damn scary, but damnit, ima gonna try...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane, DarthKyrie and Azuma Hazuki
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
woolfe9998 said:
What were Obama's actual policies in relation to Wall Street?

In answer to your question, yes, I did care, at first. But then he signed Dodd Frank.

Trump's position relative to Wall Street is the opposite of Obama. His hiring of Wall Street execs is just a symptom. If his policies were otherwise, I wouldn't be so concerned about who he hired.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about his attitude towards Wall St or actual legislation thats passed? At least he's transparent about it....unlike Obama who, AFTER receiving the largest to date payday from Wall Street said “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” ~December 2009.

The difference is that when/if he passes legislation benefiting Wall St, NO ONE will be surprised. As much as a buffoon as he is, Id rather have an honest POTUS than one who talks out both sides of his mouth (well, thats not fair either, because they ALL do that...).

I just dont know why Democrats in the general population cant accept the fact that BOTH parties pockets are DEEPLY lined with Wall Street money. The GOP is just more transparent about it. Doesnt make it better or right, but it sure does make Dems look foolish complaining about it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-proves-democrats-anti-wall-street-rhetoric-a
The fact is that the fat cats love the Democratic Party. Under Obama, Wall Street got richer and the stock market tripled. Meanwhile, Main Street America floundered while good-paying manufacturing positions were lost to minimum wage jobs. Then in 2016, the fat cats at America’s private equity firms and hedge funds gave $48 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign — they only gave $19,000 to Trump.
Click to expand...

Even Hillary's leaked speeches show she snows manipulating and even lying to the public is a game that must be played, and one needs two faces to play:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cli...desta-goldman-sachs-trade-middle-class-509297
“I mean politics is like sausage being made,” she ad-libbed in another leaked speech from April 2013. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”
Click to expand...

The fact is, both sides need to quit whining about POTUS helping the rich, because every POTUS in recent history has, and will continue to do so. The only thing thats different is when a GOP is in office the GOP voters yell "but...but...what about <inset Democrat POTUS here>!" and vice-versa. Both sides do it, both sides are masters at it, and its not going to change.

We honestly have enough differences in this country, and this non-matter is just that.

edit: Let me say I certainly am not saying the issue of Wall Street influence in WADC isnt a small matter. Because it is. But until both parties change their focus, its not going to change. Arguing about it and finger pointing about it is a non-matter.
 
Last edited:
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
cytg111 said:
You mean this, from your links :
---snipped for space---.
Click to expand...

No, I dont mean that from my link. That link, which I clearly read and clearly shows, the GOP exaggerated Dem ties to GS, clearly states my point. Appreciate it the effort though :)
 
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Jhhnn said:
I do love it.

"Evil Hillary! Goldman Sachs! Boooo! Booooo! Lock her up!"

Six months later-

"Trump! Goldman Sachs! Wild applause & cheering! He's our Savior!"

Go figure.
Click to expand...

Who are you responding to? Or just making random posts again?
 
woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,244
136
blackangst1 said:
Are you talking about his attitude towards Wall St or actual legislation thats passed? At least he's transparent about it....unlike Obama who, AFTER receiving the largest to date payday from Wall Street said “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” ~December 2009.

The difference is that when/if he passes legislation benefiting Wall St, NO ONE will be surprised. As much as a buffoon as he is, Id rather have an honest POTUS than one who talks out both sides of his mouth (well, thats not fair either, because they ALL do that...).

I just dont know why Democrats in the general population cant accept the fact that BOTH parties pockets are DEEPLY lined with Wall Street money. The GOP is just more transparent about it. Doesnt make it better or right, but it sure does make Dems look foolish complaining about it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-proves-democrats-anti-wall-street-rhetoric-a


Even Hillary's leaked speeches show she snows manipulating and even lying to the public is a game that must be played, and one needs two faces to play:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cli...desta-goldman-sachs-trade-middle-class-509297


The fact is, both sides need to quit whining about POTUS helping the rich, because every POTUS in recent history has, and will continue to do so. The only thing thats different is when a GOP is in office the GOP voters yell "but...but...what about <inset Democrat POTUS here>!" and vice-versa. Both sides do it, both sides are masters at it, and its not going to change.

We honestly have enough differences in this country, and this non-matter is just that.
Click to expand...

Wall Street donates to everyone. Yet I thought I made it clear that I don't care who is hiring who, or even campaign contributions, so long as the policies pursued in office are aimed at keeping Wall Street in check. Obama ran on regulating Wall Street, and passed a bill to do just that. Trump said he was going to reign in Wall Street, but is now proposing to deregulate it. That is the problem. The rest is just window dressing.

Your linked editorial is total bunk. Example:

The fact is that the fat cats love the Democratic Party. Under Obama, Wall Street got richer and the stock market tripled. Meanwhile, Main Street America floundered while good-paying manufacturing positions were lost to minimum wage jobs.
Click to expand...

So the stock market went way up under Obama? You don't say! It was only in the toilet bowl when Obama took over, and essentially had nowhere to go but up. That much should be obvious to even one with no education in economics. How this can be taken as Obama favoring Wall Street is anyone's guess. The only way for the stock market to have not sharply risen during Obama's tenure would have been if he had purposefully tried to tank the economic recovery.

Then your author cherry picks employment data instead of discussing the total jobs picture. Then, since the article is all about optics over substance, fails to even mention Dodd Frank at all, or the fact that after Obama signed Dodd Frank, Wall Street decided to cut its donations by 80% from what they were in 2012 and donate 5x more to Mitt Romney. If Wall Street was so happy under Obama, why did they try to get him ousted in 2012?

Trump promised to break up big banks. He even ran an ad showing ominous photos of the New York Stock Exchange and the CEO of Goldman Sachs and proclaimed it was time to put an end to the political and business elites that have "bled our country dry."

I like how Obama keeps his campaign promise to regulate Wall Street and Trump breaks his promise to reign them in, but according to you, Trump is the transparent and honest one. What a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane and DarthKyrie
J.Wilkins

J.Wilkins

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,681
640
91
Dat swamp.

b04c0295aad7f490d75cbf373ac9fc52.jpg

url

url
 
blackangst1

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
woolfe9998 said:
Wall Street donates to everyone. Yet I thought I made it clear that I don't care who is hiring who, or even campaign contributions, so long as the policies pursued in office are aimed at keeping Wall Street in check. Obama ran on regulating Wall Street, and passed a bill to do just that. Trump said he was going to reign in Wall Street, but is now proposing to deregulate it. That is the problem. The rest is just window dressing.

Your linked editorial is total bunk. Example:



So the stock market went way up under Obama? You don't say! It was only in the toilet bowl when Obama took over, and essentially had nowhere to go but up. That much should be obvious to even one with no education in economics. How this can be taken as Obama favoring Wall Street is anyone's guess. The only way for the stock market to have not sharply risen during Obama's tenure would have been if he had purposefully tried to tank the economic recovery.

Then your author cherry picks employment data instead of discussing the total jobs picture. Then, since the article is all about optics over substance, fails to even mention Dodd Frank at all, or the fact that after Obama signed Dodd Frank, Wall Street decided to cut its donations by 80% from what they were in 2012 and donate 5x more to Mitt Romney. If Wall Street was so happy under Obama, why did they try to get him ousted in 2012?

Trump promised to break up big banks. He even ran an ad showing ominous photos of the New York Stock Exchange and the CEO of Goldman Sachs and proclaimed it was time to put an end to the political and business elites that have "bled our country dry."

I like how Obama keeps his campaign promise to regulate Wall Street and Trump breaks his promise to reign them in, but according to you, Trump is the transparent and honest one. What a joke.
Click to expand...


OK the majority of your comments are red herrings, and my point, which appears to have been missed by you, remains. BOTH GOP and Dems *SAY* things that may or may not actually happen (who has made campaign promises that were outright lies? All of them), that is true. My comments were directed mostly at the left in regards to the OP about how outrageous it is that Trump would defend, and even help his Wall Street buddies. The fact is, every POTUS has, on both sides of the aisle, and I dont understand the outrage. Yep Obama passed Wall Street reform. But thats only half of the story. Obamacare not only benefited many Americans, but REALLY benefited healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies...part of Wall Street. Healthcare (NOT insurance) and drug prices has skyrocketed because, as my personal pharmacist said to me, "With the ACA and more people covered, companies are guaranteed payment, so they charge more". Thats a fact. Who do those rising costs benifit? Thats right. Wall Street.

On things Trump has said, he has also commented he supports the Volcker Rule. So there you have it.

And Trump never promised to break up big banks. He said he's considering it (not that he actually could!). Big difference. edit source: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/trum...king-up-big-banks-but-he-wont-commentary.html

My point remains. Its useless to point-counterpoint ANYTHING that Trump says because...well...who knows what he'll say tomorrow. Lets see what legislation actually comes from what he wants. So far, its been nothing (in regards to Wall Street).
 
  • Like
Reactions: J.Wilkins
nickqt

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,231
9,282
136
disappoint said:
Most of the media does not have that narrative. Food for thought unless you want to continue living in denial: The Democrats had 8 years under Clinton and 8 years under Obama to right the wrongs of those oligarchs and paymasters you're ranting about. How'd that work out for you?
Click to expand...
Speaking of denial, Clinton and Obama both began to change things, but were thwarted by Republican majorities in Congress. Not that Clinton or Obama were economically left of center.

But thanks for the BothSidesDoIt™ version.

That said, the Democratic party, here in objective, observable reality, is economically centrist, and socially liberal.

But because we have to play the BothSidesDoIt™ game, reality gets thrown out the window.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki
disappoint

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Oh here come the excuses. Thanks for the Thwarted™ narrative. "We would have fixed everything if we weren't so damn Thwarted™!"
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
disappoint said:
Oh here come the excuses. Thanks for the Thwarted™ narrative. "We would have fixed everything if we weren't so damn Thwarted™!"
Click to expand...

Republicans provided America with the most obstructionist Congresses in History during Obama's tenure. Mere fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom