John Paulson of Goldman Sachs: Republican or Democrat?

[Procrustes Stretched]

John Paulson of Goldman Sachs: Republican or Democrat?

We know he gave to both parties, but what party do you think he belongs to?

The allegation, basically, is that John Paulson, a hedge fund mogul who wanted to place a billion-dollar-bet that the housing market would deflate, persuaded Goldman to round up patsies who would bet the other way. Then the transaction was allegedly rigged so that Paulson would almost surely win his wager, which he did. Goldman denies the allegations of fraud and says that, in any event, it lost money on the deal.

Leave aside for the moment whether Goldman's action fell just inside or just outside the line demarcating what was legal. What possible socially redeeming value did the transaction have? How did the concoction of a "synthetic collateralized debt obligation" benefit anyone except the lavishly compensated traders at Goldman and the outrageously compensated John Paulson? Is this a system the rest of us could possibly trust?

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week - Ben Smith: Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week
April 19, 2010

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week

Republicans Mitt Romney and Michael Steele headlined a Republican National Committee fundraiser six days ago at the home of the hedge fund titan at the center of the Security and Exchange Committee's fraud charges against Goldman Sachs.

A spokesman for the RNC confirmed the Tuesday evening event at the Manhattan home of John Paulson...

...The RNC spokesman declined to comment on the gathering and a Romney spokesman didn't respond to an email on the topic.

Republicans have by and large fought regulations on derivative trading that would dramatically impact the businesses of hedge fund managers like Paulson.

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

---

Paulson has also given thousands to Republicans and supported several GOP candidates for president in the 2008 election cycle.

...

Paulson has poured tens of thousands into Republican coffers.

He gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee in 2008, raising him to the level as major donor. He also gave $4,600 to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign, as well as separate $2,437 checks to the Republican Parties of Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado and Wisconsin.

These states were expected to be presidential battlegrounds when he made the contributions in the late spring of 2008.

...

Paulson also supported two other Republican candidates for president that cycle.

He gave $2,300 to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign and $2,300 to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2007.

He gave $5,000 to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) leadership PAC in 2009 and a $1,000 contribution to Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.) in 2008.

Hedge fund manager in Goldman Sachs case is major Democratic donor - The Hill's On The Money

He gave to both parties, is that cover enough for the GOP?

Are the Republicans "prepared to vote for Wall Street reform next week or not?"

Sen. Reid, is going to "proudly vote to protect consumers instead of the big banks."

Let us hope that the American people judge the Republicans by their effort or lack of one, to protect Wall Street.

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you force people to be honest through regulation?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How do you force people to be honest through regulation?

Punishment and rewards. But again, it depends on how one wants to define 'honest' and in what context.

I see following the rules as being honest---honest to the system. The market does not have an invisible hand that guides. The market is not self correcting, unless you call a boom and a bust corrections and I don't see that as rational.

When the head honchos were called before Congress after the S&L scandal broke, I'll never forget hearing a few say what was wrong was there was no guidance. They were saying the deregulation was too swift with little in the way of regulating deregulation.

Adam Smith and every other market person recognized the need for regulation. As with government and everything else in life, the debate centers around the quantity and quality.

 

[manu1959]

well....bush and the dem super majority killed off bear sterns and lehman leaving only goldman....thanks to meetings with timmy and hank ....both x goldman boys....btw

then the o man and the big c take a million five from goldman and hank and timmy keep their jobs and goldmans stock goes from 150 to 50 to 150....and a billion in profit.....

can you say new bos same as the olde boss.....

nah....it is change we can believe in.....

 

[Avatar4321]

How do you force people to be honest through regulation?

Punishment and rewards. But again, it depends on how one wants to define 'honest' and in what context.

I see following the rules as being honest---honest to the system. The market does not have an invisible hand that guides. The market is not self correcting, unless you call a boom and a bust corrections and I don't see that as rational.

When the head honchos were called before Congress after the S&L scandal broke, I'll never forget hearing a few say what was wrong was there was no guidance. They were saying the deregulation was too swift with little in the way of regulating deregulation.

Adam Smith and every other market person recognized the need for regulation. As with government and everything else in life, the debate centers around the quantity and quality.

you didnt really answer the question.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How do you force people to be honest through regulation?

Punishment and rewards. But again, it depends on how one wants to define 'honest' and in what context.

I see following the rules as being honest---honest to the system. The market does not have an invisible hand that guides. The market is not self correcting, unless you call a boom and a bust corrections and I don't see that as rational.

When the head honchos were called before Congress after the S&L scandal broke, I'll never forget hearing a few say what was wrong was there was no guidance. They were saying the deregulation was too swift with little in the way of regulating deregulation.

Adam Smith and every other market person recognized the need for regulation. As with government and everything else in life, the debate centers around the quantity and quality.

you didnt really answer the question.

Yes I did. Punishment for not following the rules. Real punishment. Punishment that hurts. Of course there will always be people who will break the rules. No rules or regulations equals anarchy or self regulation, which some of us see as far too similar.
Force by example. Punishment and rewards. The rewards? A market and profits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look at a regulated market vs an uninhibited market as bloggers vs newspaper reporters. One is guided by standards and regulations---regulations from above. The other s guided by self regulation lacking standards.

pretty simple

 

[uptownlivin90]

He's a dirty republicrat.

 

[eagleseven]

Perhaps we could ask his old pal, Timothy Geitner?

 

[editec]

John Paulson of Goldman Sachs: Republican or Democrat?

We know he gave to both parties, but what party do you think he belongs to?

the INSIDER PARTY.

You don't.

You NEVER will, either.

Wake up.

 

[California Girl]

John Paulson supports John Paulson. He's neither a Democrat or a Republican. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. He doesn't give a shit, like most of his counterparts. And that some of you don't get that is hysterically funny.

 

[Alpha1]

John Paulson of Goldman Sachs: Republican or Democrat?

We know he gave to both parties, but what party do you think he belongs to?

The allegation, basically, is that John Paulson, a hedge fund mogul who wanted to place a billion-dollar-bet that the housing market would deflate, persuaded Goldman to round up patsies who would bet the other way. Then the transaction was allegedly rigged so that Paulson would almost surely win his wager, which he did. Goldman denies the allegations of fraud and says that, in any event, it lost money on the deal.

Leave aside for the moment whether Goldman's action fell just inside or just outside the line demarcating what was legal. What possible socially redeeming value did the transaction have? How did the concoction of a "synthetic collateralized debt obligation" benefit anyone except the lavishly compensated traders at Goldman and the outrageously compensated John Paulson? Is this a system the rest of us could possibly trust?

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week - Ben Smith: Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week
April 19, 2010

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week

Republicans Mitt Romney and Michael Steele headlined a Republican National Committee fundraiser six days ago at the home of the hedge fund titan at the center of the Security and Exchange Committee's fraud charges against Goldman Sachs.

A spokesman for the RNC confirmed the Tuesday evening event at the Manhattan home of John Paulson...

...The RNC spokesman declined to comment on the gathering and a Romney spokesman didn't respond to an email on the topic.

Republicans have by and large fought regulations on derivative trading that would dramatically impact the businesses of hedge fund managers like Paulson.

Goldman figure Paulson hosted Romney, Steele last week - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

---

Paulson has also given thousands to Republicans and supported several GOP candidates for president in the 2008 election cycle.

...

Paulson has poured tens of thousands into Republican coffers.

He gave $28,500 to the Republican National Committee in 2008, raising him to the level as major donor. He also gave $4,600 to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) 2008 presidential campaign, as well as separate $2,437 checks to the Republican Parties of Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado and Wisconsin.

These states were expected to be presidential battlegrounds when he made the contributions in the late spring of 2008.

...

Paulson also supported two other Republican candidates for president that cycle.

He gave $2,300 to Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign and $2,300 to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2007.

He gave $5,000 to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) leadership PAC in 2009 and a $1,000 contribution to Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.) in 2008.

Hedge fund manager in Goldman Sachs case is major Democratic donor - The Hill's On The Money

He gave to both parties, is that cover enough for the GOP?

Are the Republicans "prepared to vote for Wall Street reform next week or not?"

Sen. Reid, is going to "proudly vote to protect consumers instead of the big banks."

Let us hope that the American people judge the Republicans by their effort or lack of one, to protect Wall Street.

You're obviously trying to imply this guy is a Republican for some of your own reasons...all you post is what he gave to R candidates....

What you conveniently fail to mention is that Goldman gave almost 1,000,000 dollars to Obama alone....is that irrelevant ?

 

[editec]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

 

[California Girl]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

I don't think the kool aiders can cope with common sense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

There are a lot of people out there who are easily herded. The OP certainly fits the bill.

 

[eagleseven]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

Willful ignorance is the only explanation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

Of course there are differences,. Huge differences.

You look at the donors and people seeking influence and mistake them for the power brokers within the parties. There are huge differences between the parties, but as long as Republicans and conservatives and some Dems support $$$$ as speech---campaign contributions with few limits---we will get money corrupting the system


Money is corrupting the system, yet the very same conservatives who support the SCOTUS decisions and conservative agenda that keeps tons of money in the system, scream about the system being broken.



the ideological blinders are on the wingnuts who keep following the leader when it comes to fixing the system

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My GOD what evidence does it take to show these partisans how they've been lied to?

Their blind faith is difficult for me to understand.

Anybody care to posit a theory about how a person can continue to buy into this Repoublic v Democrat myth after all that's happened that shows them that there's damned little difference between these parties?

I don't get how people can miss something this obvious.

Willful ignorance is the only explanation.

you're a perfect example that an educated person can be as stupid as a brick. too bad education doesn't equate intelligence. If it did your life would be a lot less frightening.

 

[eagleseven]

If you want to nitpick, Dante...

Is Goldman Obama's Enron? No, it's worse (Updated) | Washington Examiner

...Goldman Sachs gave Obama 7 times what Enron gave Bush.

Are you surprised that a Goldman Sachs employee is our Treasury Secretary?

---

There goes the narrative!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you want to nitpick, Dante...

Is Goldman Obama's Enron? No, it's worse (Updated) | Washington Examiner

...Goldman Sachs gave Obama 7 times what Enron gave Bush.

Are you surprised that a Goldman Sachs employee is our Treasury Secretary?

---

There goes the narrative!

Goldman Sachs gave Obama money? Or friends of the TS did?

and the amount of money given in the last campaign exceeded the wildest dreams of those the money was spent on---media.

So if you had a clue and any principles, you'd support campaign finance regulations and maybe public funding---something----some solution to what you complain is corrupting the system