Things that make you go HMMMMM...

[CrusaderFrank]

1st rule of politics: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Henry Paulson is given the postion of Treasury Secretary by Bush, but Obama Keeps him when he gets in.

Paulson was the Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs.

When the government bailouts came about, Lehman Brothers, a major competitor of Goldman Sachs, was not given any money, and went under.

AIG was one of the first to be bailed out...and they were allowed to pay back all their debts to one company...guess who? Tada...Goldman Sachs, which it did in FULL, with the taxpayer bailout money.

When the time for TARP came about, Paulson placed another member of the executive board of Goldman Sachs, Stephen Friedman, in charge of the money.

However, it is illegal for an exec to hold stocks in that company while he holds the government position. Paulson, a former exec of Golman Sachs, issues him a waiver which allows him to keep his stocks. Not only did this exec keep his stocks, but he bought 52,000 more shares of it while holding his goverment position in charge of TARP.

The FED, responsible for TRILLIONS of dollars in bailout money, is protected by "Bankers Privildge" which grants them privacy and allows them to remain silent as to where the TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars have been spent, or who received the money.

Goldman Sachs was the 2nd higest contributor to Obama coming in at near $1 million.

Goldman Sachs revenue increased 64% from 2008-2009.

Is this what Obama was talking about when he spoke of a transparent government???

Hmmmm....

An educated society would have burned the Fed to the ground by now

 

[Neubarth]

As long as the policies are so ineffective, does it matter who was/is Treasury Secretary?

In this particular case, yes. There was already a huge conflict of interest in Paulson being a former CEO of Goldman, and in hindsight, Paulson's actions seem to have benefitted Goldman the most.

I guess we're supposed to close our eyes and forget all about that, because government is only here to HELP us, right?

Come on Neu, you're the one around here always blaming the gov for lying about statistics.

I don't disagree with you Paulie. The simple issue is that corruption is corruption and when we are dealing with corruption in high office on a regular basis, something is seriously wrong.

Perhaps we need a new system, one that shoots the criminals rather than send them off to resorts for two or three years to play on the nine hole golf course and swim every day in the Olympic size swimming pool?

 

[Paulie]

No, what we need to do is grow some damn balls as an electorate and vote out every fucking incumbent and also stiff their establishment opponents as well.

Vote 3rd party. Vote for the guy who doesn't have national party money. Vote for someone who the media doesn't want to cover.

And NEVER vote for someone you still don't like, just because you dislike him just a little bit less than the other choice.

Voters are fucking morons. We get fucked because of ourselves. When we finally realize it, we'll probably be living in conditions described by even Terral on this board.

 

[Neubarth]

No, what we need to do is grow some damn balls as an electorate and vote out every fucking incumbent and also stiff their establishment opponents as well.

Vote 3rd party. Vote for the guy who doesn't have national party money. Vote for someone who the media doesn't want to cover.

And NEVER vote for someone you still don't like, just because you dislike him just a little bit less than the other choice.

Voters are fucking morons. We get fucked because of ourselves. When we finally realize it, we'll probably be living in conditions described by even Terral on this board.

Great thought. Unfortunately those who replace the corrupt Republicans and Democrats will probably be just as corrupt. The only way you cut down on the corruption is like the Red Chinese do. You punish official corruption in draconian fashion. Shoot the sons of bitches and use their bodies for fertilizer. At least that way they come to some good.

 

[FactFinder]

As long as the policies are so ineffective, does it matter who was/is Treasury Secretary?

In this particular case, yes. There was already a huge conflict of interest in Paulson being a former CEO of Goldman, and in hindsight, Paulson's actions seem to have benefitted Goldman the most.

I guess we're supposed to close our eyes and forget all about that, because government is only here to HELP us, right?

Come on Neu, you're the one around here always blaming the gov for lying about statistics.

Lest we forget....Geitner is also from Goldman. As per the thread that especially pauses me to go hmmmmmmmmmm..

 

[FactFinder]

Fed Rejects Geithner Request for Study of Governance, Structure - Bloomberg.com

Some analysts said a Fed revision of the role of directors is overdue.

“Allowing local bankers to play a leading role in selecting reserve bank presidents is the most worrying aspect of the current system,” Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC, wrote to clients in July.

When They Call, Geithner Answers

 

[The Rabbi]

1st rule of politics: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Henry Paulson is given the postion of Treasury Secretary by Bush, but Obama Keeps him when he gets in.

What universe do you inhabit again?

Since leaving his role as Treasury Secretary, Paulson has joined the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University as a distinguished visiting fellow, and a fellow at the university's Bernard Schwartz Forum on Constructive Capitalism.[38]

FUCKING IDIOT!!

Why do you keep going on??

Paulson remained Treasury Sec. until Geithner was confirmed. Geithner was sworn in on 1/26, but Paulson remained acting Sec. until that point.

You actually LIKE looking like an idiot, don't you?

Jeus are you stupid or what? Every Bush Administration official remained until the new administration was sworn in. Obama didn't have anything to do with it. He certainly didnt "retain" Paulson. He did retain Gates at Defense, but that was it.
Maybe you should start your education with reading?

 

[Paulie]

What universe do you inhabit again?

FUCKING IDIOT!!

Why do you keep going on??

Paulson remained Treasury Sec. until Geithner was confirmed. Geithner was sworn in on 1/26, but Paulson remained acting Sec. until that point.

You actually LIKE looking like an idiot, don't you?

Jeus are you stupid or what? Every Bush Administration official remained until the new administration was sworn in. Obama didn't have anything to do with it. He certainly didnt "retain" Paulson. He did retain Gates at Defense, but that was it.
Maybe you should start your education with reading?

What the fuck are you even contending? Do you even know anymore?

Rather than address the conflict of interest that EVERYONE ELSE BUT YOU seems to have a problem with, you nitpick a formality that has nothing to do with what my OP even intended.

I thought Jews were the smarter ones of the species

What's the fucking difference if Paulson left after Obama swore in, or left days later? Either way, there was an enormous conflict of interest that you don't seem to give a fucking shit about.

Not only that, not a single thing in my OP was false.

You cherry picked something you could use to throw a proverbial rock at me on the playground. I'm starting to think you're homosexual. That doesn't go well with jewish. That's like total loss of human dignity.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right. I dont care about the rest of your post. But someone who can't get the concept of an administration being in power until the next one is sworn in can't be counted on to get much else right.
The stupidity of your personal attack just confirms my idea.

 

[Paulie]

You're right. I dont care about the rest of your post. But someone who can't get the concept of an administration being in power until the next one is sworn in can't be counted on to get much else right.
The stupidity of your personal attack just confirms my idea.

I'd love for you to show where in anything I posted here shows that I don't understand historic changeover of power.

The premise was that there was a conflict of interest between Paulson and the bailouts that benefitted GS.

Where did you even think you had any kind of relevant point in mentioning the nuance about Paulson and Obama? It was a true statement..."Paulson remained sec of treasury under Obama..."

That certainly didn't have any impact on the premise of the OP, in any way shape or form. What was your motivation for picking THAT, of all things to debate about it?

You don't debate. You haven't debated a single topic since I've first seen your name pop up around here. Your newbie ass came in and claimed to be the preeminent source of intelligence on all things econ from day fucking one by using nothing other than posts that say I'm right because you aren't.

Again, your stupid ass didn't even understand the shareholder structure in the Fed's regional banks, how the FOMC members are chosen, and the majority/minority stake they have in such.

You're not suited for this subforum, my man. Lucky for you it's just the internet and no one can literally point and laugh in your face.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right. I dont care about the rest of your post. But someone who can't get the concept of an administration being in power until the next one is sworn in can't be counted on to get much else right.
The stupidity of your personal attack just confirms my idea.

I'd love for you to show where in anything I posted here shows that I don't understand historic changeover of power.

You make it just too easy.

Henry Paulson is given the postion of Treasury Secretary by Bush, but Obama Keeps him when he gets in.

Obama of course did not keep him when he got in. Obama nominated Geithner for the role. Paulson left his position on 20 Jan, like every other Bush appointee.
The rest of your post is just unsubstantiated bullshit bordering on conspiracy theory.

 

[Care4all]

1st rule of politics: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Henry Paulson is given the postion of Treasury Secretary by Bush, but Obama Keeps him when he gets in.

Paulson was the Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs.

When the government bailouts came about, Lehman Brothers, a major competitor of Goldman Sachs, was not given any money, and went under.

AIG was one of the first to be bailed out...and they were allowed to pay back all their debts to one company...guess who? Tada...Goldman Sachs, which it did in FULL, with the taxpayer bailout money.

When the time for TARP came about, Paulson placed another member of the executive board of Goldman Sachs, Stephen Friedman, in charge of the money.

However, it is illegal for an exec to hold stocks in that company while he holds the government position. Paulson, a former exec of Golman Sachs, issues him a waiver which allows him to keep his stocks. Not only did this exec keep his stocks, but he bought 52,000 more shares of it while holding his goverment position in charge of TARP.

The FED, responsible for TRILLIONS of dollars in bailout money, is protected by "Bankers Privildge" which grants them privacy and allows them to remain silent as to where the TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars have been spent, or who received the money.

Goldman Sachs was the 2nd higest contributor to Obama coming in at near $1 million.

Goldman Sachs revenue increased 64% from 2008-2009.

Is this what Obama was talking about when he spoke of a transparent government???

Hmmmm....

WOW! forget Obama in this....it crossed administrations, it crossed party lines if all of that is correct!

Goldman Sachs is a cover, for the CIA maybe? I read somewhere that Enron was such, and the story went in to depth on the connection....I ignored it at the time...but as the years passed, a lot of what the conspirator said, made more sense...

I love Who done it mysteries, and you are right...follow the money....

It's bigger than Obama being given campaign money when you look at the whole picture...

Why keep Goldman Sachs and let lehmann fall in the manner that it did, which actually started the whole collapse? What was in it for Paulsen? Did he own stock as well? No, right? and as far as that other dude buying another 52000 shares, if that is true then that guy should be in jail for insider trading imo. what the heck is going on here?

Just the fact that Paulsen was kept is stranger than fiction....so either Obama was told HE HAD TO BE KEPT by whoever the powers to be are....or as some people say...there is no difference between parties, they divide us to keep us busy, so that we don't pay attention to what they really are doing....which is walking lock step with eachother...

I haven't read the rest of the thread, what are your thoughts of it being a NOC type place for the cia? makes sense as far as insiders in a firm as such can gather a great deal of pertinent intelligence around the world...?

Care

 

[Paulie]

You're right. I dont care about the rest of your post. But someone who can't get the concept of an administration being in power until the next one is sworn in can't be counted on to get much else right.
The stupidity of your personal attack just confirms my idea.

I'd love for you to show where in anything I posted here shows that I don't understand historic changeover of power.

You make it just too easy.

Henry Paulson is given the postion of Treasury Secretary by Bush, but Obama Keeps him when he gets in.

Obama of course did not keep him when he got in. Obama nominated Geithner for the role. Paulson left his position on 20 Jan, like every other Bush appointee.
The rest of your post is just unsubstantiated bullshit bordering on conspiracy theory.

Stuart Levey acted as Secretary until Geithner was confirmed. You're a fool if you don't think Paulson coaxed him along on the current details until Geithner was confirmed and took the job, especially considering Levey hadn't held a closely enough related position in the past. He was one of a very select few who was willing to diverge his financial interests to qualify for the spot. So in a literal sense, Paulson was not the official Secretary. You get to have that one, as fucking small and insignificant it is to the entire premise of the OP.

I'm still not sure what any of your other beef with the OP has to do with that.

The rest of my post was nothing but fact which lead to an opinion.

Stating conflicts of interest is not mutually inclusive with conspiracy theories.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only took you 24 hours to Google that one, eh?
If there were truly conflicts of interest the Dems would have been screaming about it.
So you are confusing qualified with conflict of interest. No surprise there.

You are about to join Rubberdickhead on iggy since I can't argue with someone whose knowledge base is so deficient. It's like an oncologist debating chemotherapy protocols with a witch doctor.

 

[Paulie]

Only took you 24 hours to Google that one, eh?
If there were truly conflicts of interest the Dems would have been screaming about it.
So you are confusing qualified with conflict of interest. No surprise there.

You are about to join Rubberdickhead on iggy since I can't argue with someone whose knowledge base is so deficient. It's like an oncologist debating chemotherapy protocols with a witch doctor.

Yeah, because both political parties scream "conflict of interest!" when they know that the conflict affects them both.

That's the reason why neither party challenges the Fed, and neither will ever get anywhere on it. Ron Paul is about as close as it's ever come to seeing congress actually challenge them, and even his large amount of co-sponsors is likely going to be accomplishing nothing on the matter.

The biggest players in the money game fund both parties so they can get what they want out of both. Those who somehow don't realize that yet are THE most mentally handicapped people on the face of the earth.

Why did Hillary get so much money from the Defense industry, for instance? I mean, the DEMS certainly don't go around invading entire countries if you've been glued to the TV screen during Bush's tenure...RIGHT?

Put me on the ignore list though. PLEASE. Only the weakest of pussies does such a thing.

It may just help with your embarrassment over not having a clue about the FOMC and the Fed shareholder interest.

Back in the day, we used to beat up dummies like you. Now we just let you establish your own reputations simply by existing and continuing to try and mingle with the rest of the population that can use an adequate portion of their brain.

 

[Paulie]

Just to make you look dumber though, here's just a few of the Democratic screams of conflict of interest over Paulson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/paulsons-conflicts-of-int_n_128476.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/22/paulson-goldman-bailout/

Rep. Alan Grayson: "Hank Paulson Had a $700M Conflict of Interest" - Democratic Underground

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SbISRwE2lfw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SbISRwE2lfw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2834001720080928

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right.
Your ignorance is as vast as it is impenetrable. Not even worth trying.
Ta-ta.

 

[Paulie]

You're right.
Your ignorance is as vast as it is impenetrable. Not even worth trying.
Ta-ta.

Translation: "I'm tired of looking dumb, so enjoy my ignore list".

Good riddance you fucking moron.