The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Realizing some of you find fault with this lady...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default Realizing some of you find fault with this lady...

    ...but her topic is spot on! And the hypocrisy displayed by Obama is about as blatent as you'll find.

    Having said that, the regular 'wounded' enablers are bound to find a way to defend their messiah's actions.

    Read it and weep, especially the last paragraph...twice!

    UB

    Obama's Owned -- You Can Bank On It
    by Ann Coulter

    02/10/2010


    The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal are bristling with the news that Republicans have decided now is the time to suck up to Wall Street. As the saying goes, there is no truer friend than a Wall Street arbitrageur -- they are the salt-of-the-earth, the most loyal men who ever drew a breath!

    What are Republicans thinking? While not every money-manipulator on Wall Street deserves to be treated like a heroin dealer, lots do. Could the Republicans be a little more discriminating in picking up the Democrats' old friends?

    The Democrats are acting as if they want to punish everyone in the financial services industry, including the innocent, while the Republicans seem to want to protect everyone on Wall Street, including the guilty.



    How about just punishing the guilty? The Democrats can't do that because the list of Wall Street's biggest offenders may turn out to be eerily similar to the list of Obama's biggest campaign contributors.

    Employees from Goldman Sachs gave more to the Obama campaign than any other organization except the University of California -- with Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase quickly following in sixth and seventh place.

    Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won't punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn't begrudge them their bonuses, saying, "I know both those guys."

    Obama seems to be hoping that his vague bluster about "obscene profits" will lure Republicans into embracing Wall Street welfare recipients -- thereby losing Americans forever.

    Never bet against Republicans being outwitted.

    Risk-taking and speculation are good. But the Democrats' crony capitalism is the worst of both worlds: risk-taking without any real risk for the risk-takers. It's like gambling with your rich daddy's money, except we're the rich daddy.

    Obama, like the rest of his party, is an ideologue who doesn't understand or particularly like the free market. He fundamentally believes in the efficacy of the welfare state, whether the beneficiary is a layabout single mother or a rich Wall Street banker.

    As Peter Schweizer describes in his magnificent book "Architects of Ruin," the Democrats have been bailing out investment houses from their bad bets since the Clinton administration. The bankers got all the profits when their risky bonds were paying -- and then gave massive donations to their Democratic benefactors. But once the bets went bad, it was the taxpayers' problem.

    Heavily leveraged securities packages put together by Goldman Sachs and others were the HIV virus that killed the American economy. And the reason investment firms piled leverage on leverage on leverage was that they knew the government would bail them out if their house of cards collapsed.

    On one hand, Goldman put together toxic securities packages for their clients, but on the other hand, Goldman knew the mortgage securities being sold on the market were crap, so they also took out lots of insurance with AIG on crappy products being traded on the market.

    It would be as if, anticipating a major earthquake, Goldman bought massive insurance policies on every house on the San Andreas fault line.

    There's nothing wrong with taking risks and making bets, provided that if you bet wrong or if you bankrupt your betting partner with wild gambles: You lose.

    The problem was that Goldman and AIG, among many others, knew they wouldn't lose. Twenty years of Democratic bailouts have led them to understand that when their bets go bad, the taxpayer will save them.

    Which is exactly what happened.

    When the earthquake hit toxic securities, the insurer, AIG, couldn't pay up. Normally, that would result in the insurer going bankrupt, an orderly proceeding in bankruptcy court to distribute AIG's assets, and Goldman recovering only a portion of the insurance payout on the crappy products.

    But instead of AIG going bankrupt and Goldman taking a hit, the U.S. taxpayer made good on AIG's securities insurance. In a deal arranged by former Goldman CEO and current Obama BFF, Hank Paulson, Goldman ended up being paid -- by you -- an astonishing 100 cents on the dollar.

    So Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein's boast that his firm didn't want TARP money and has paid it all back is completely irrelevant. Goldman took billions of dollars -- that's millions with a "b" -- of the AIG bailout money. How about paying that back?

    It took The New York Times a year and a half to figure out Goldman's jackpot winnings from the AIG bailout -- $12.9 billion, according to the Times -- so the first thing Republicans ought to do is hold hearings to determine who benefited from the Democrats' crony capitalism, and not take their bluster as fact.

    The next step should be to get all the bailout money back.

    When the government steps in to save the very financial institutions that poisoned the nation's financial system with contaminated securities and derivatives -- all while the bankers get to keep the fees and bonuses on their bad bets -- we are not talking about a free market.

    We're talking about regular Americans being forced to foot the bill for the gambling habits of left-wing multimillionaires by buying the malefactors more chips every time they lose.

    Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times.
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,940

    Default

    Henry IV posted this link last week which is a much more indepth expose' of the theives known as Goldman Sachs and thier ownership of Clinton, Bush and Obama.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...bble_machine/4

    P S

    The Rolling Stone article is being credited with spearheading the death of Cap and Tax which Goldman Sachs was set to accomodate.
    Last edited by Franco; 02-13-2010 at 08:58 AM.
    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge



  3. #3
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    As usual, Coulter's take on the "facts" is carefully filtered. I have no links to Goldman, but there is little doubt that it has thrived over the last several decades by being better than its competitors under every economic condition it has faced.

    With respect to Coulter's efforts to single Goldman out:
    Goldman is a major contributor to Democrats: Absolutely true. It is also a major contributor to Republicans. In 2008, 75% of its contributions went to Democrats. However, during the Bush years, Republicans received almost 40% of Goldman contributions and prior to that they received about 45%. Goldman alumni served in significant positions under both Democrat and Republican administrations and, on concluding their political careers, often returned to Goldman again.

    With respect to bailout money:
    Goldman was one of nine banks "invited" to Paulson's meeting in October and told that they must accept government funds whether they believed they needed them or not. As is evident from the Treasurer's "talking points" memo for the meeting (see http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/d...kingPoints.pdf), no bank was permitted to refuse the funds no matyer what its financial condition. Of those banks forced to accept the funds, Goldman was the first to apply to be able to return the money as soon as Obama took office, and was the first to pay back all funds received. The second area in which Goldman benefited from the bailout was through funds its received from AIG after AIG itself was bailed out. That amount totaled $12.9 billion as noted by Coulter. What she fails to point out was that AIG received a total of $182 billion in bailout funds that were used to cover AIG's insured liabilities. Goldman's "share" of this was not particularly large relative to the total pot.

    The fact is that Goldman was not one of the companies that was severely affected by the mortgage collapse. They never claimed any great brilliance in having avoided the disaster faced by other banks. In fact, they noted that they had simply been late to recognize the potential profits involved and were therefore, fortunately, late to the party. I suspect that Goldman's relatively mild losses were actually much more the result of its assessment of risks than the company itself maintains. They have a long history of being similarly "lucky".

    Coulter says, "Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times." That is great logic. However, it seems to me that some allowance has to be made when the government, in its regulatory capacity, forces a company to accept funds pending a complete review of its capital condition, and then allows the company to repay the funds, with interest, when that review shows that they are financially sound. That is what happened to Goldman, which puts it in a very different boat from, say, Bank of America and Citigroup, both of which have contributed 50% or more of their political funds to Republicans in the majority of election cycles since 1990 (See http://www.opensecrets.org/).

  4. #4
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    As usual, Coulter's take on the "facts" is carefully filtered. I have no links to Goldman, but there is little doubt that it has thrived over the last several decades by being better than its competitors under every economic condition it has faced.

    With respect to Coulter's efforts to single Goldman out:
    Goldman is a major contributor to Democrats: Absolutely true. It is also a major contributor to Republicans. In 2008, 75% of its contributions went to Democrats. However, during the Bush years, Republicans received almost 40% of Goldman contributions and prior to that they received about 45%. Goldman alumni served in significant positions under both Democrat and Republican administrations and, on concluding their political careers, often returned to Goldman again.

    With respect to bailout money:
    Goldman was one of nine banks "invited" to Paulson's meeting in October and told that they must accept government funds whether they believed they needed them or not. As is evident from the Treasurer's "talking points" memo for the meeting (see http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/d...kingPoints.pdf), no bank was permitted to refuse the funds no matyer what its financial condition. Of those banks forced to accept the funds, Goldman was the first to apply to be able to return the money as soon as Obama took office, and was the first to pay back all funds received. The second area in which Goldman benefited from the bailout was through funds its received from AIG after AIG itself was bailed out. That amount totaled $12.9 billion as noted by Coulter. What she fails to point out was that AIG received a total of $182 billion in bailout funds that were used to cover AIG's insured liabilities. Goldman's "share" of this was not particularly large relative to the total pot.

    The fact is that Goldman was not one of the companies that was severely affected by the mortgage collapse. They never claimed any great brilliance in having avoided the disaster faced by other banks. In fact, they noted that they had simply been late to recognize the potential profits involved and were therefore, fortunately, late to the party. I suspect that Goldman's relatively mild losses were actually much more the result of its assessment of risks than the company itself maintains. They have a long history of being similarly "lucky".

    Coulter says, "Republicans should defend any investment houses that never benefited from a government bailout. But anyone who took huge gambles, lost and got bailed out with taxpayer money should be tortured and then shot, miraculously brought back to life, tortured some more, then shot a few more times." That is great logic. However, it seems to me that some allowance has to be made when the government, in its regulatory capacity, forces a company to accept funds pending a complete review of its capital condition, and then allows the company to repay the funds, with interest, when that review shows that they are financially sound. That is what happened to Goldman, which puts it in a very different boat from, say, Bank of America and Citigroup, both of which have contributed 50% or more of their political funds to Republicans in the majority of election cycles since 1990 (See http://www.opensecrets.org/).


    Once again, missing the salient point of the BHO hypocrisy:

    "Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won't punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn't begrudge them their bonuses, saying, "I know both those guys."

    Regardless of your deft attempt at hiding the 'problem', I think the public "gets it". Your emporer is naked!

    But as you are want to do, continue blowing smoke up everyones skirt...baffle 'em with bull$hitt.

    Would you believe that 'stock' in your constant attempts at enabling your messiah are dropping. Understandably, you are one of the ships rats that will go down with the vessel...but I hope you realize BHO won't. You will eventually become 'collateral damage'.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  5. #5
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    Once again, missing the salient point of the BHO hypocrisy:

    "Whatever Obama has in mind for punishing the financial industry, I promise you, he won't punish his friends. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon took a $17 million bonus this week, and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein got a $9 million bonus, Obama said he didn't begrudge them their bonuses, saying, "I know both those guys."

    Regardless of your deft attempt at hiding the 'problem', I think the public "gets it". Your emporer is naked!

    But as you are want to do, continue blowing smoke up everyones skirt...baffle 'em with bull$hitt.

    Would you believe that 'stock' in your constant attempts at enabling your messiah are dropping. Understandably, you are one of the ships rats that will go down with the vessel...but I hope you realize BHO won't. You will eventually become 'collateral damage'.

    UB
    So Goldman's CEO received a $9 million bonus in the form of five year deferred stock based on net profits of almost $14 billion, and on top of a zero bonus in 2008 when the company had a net profit of amost $7 billion, and you are upset because the President didn't criticize the amounts involved? I can only assume that you must be truly outraged at the salary and bons payments earned in the oil/energy indistry. Goldman's CEO runs the most consstently successful company in the entire financial services indutry, but never ranks among the top CEO's in compensation. Those slots are reserved almost exclusively by energy companies. At some point one has to look at what is actually going on instead of searching for sound bytes. When you do, you might conclude that Goldman may actually be the model for how banks should be run rather than the enemy that Mistress Coulter suggests.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,417

    Default

    UB, Not a bad article - I had just finished reading one in the New Yorker -9-21-09, page 59-81 - titled Eight Days by James B Stewart. Maybe someone can post the link but this is it in a nutshell.

    There are some awful smart people out there who shied away from any dealings with Lehman Brothers (30-1 leverage) & AIG with there CDS's. They recommended that both companies sell themselves or declare bankruptcy.

    Paulson & Bernanke are qualified for what they do by virtue of their training, how much so is a ??????. But Geithner, the Tax Cheeeeeeat, & at the time head of the NY Fed, has as his undergraduate training a degree in Asian Studies & government (note the small g) from Dartmouth & a graduate degree in East Asian Studies & international economics from John Hopkins School of International Studies. He lacked a PHD, an MBA & any Wall Street experience. My question - With that kind of preparation how did he get a job originally at Treasury & end up as Head of the NY Fed?

    But those 3 guys agreed to interviews for the article & for better or for worse are responsible for the Bailout .

    Maybe someone can post the link !
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,916

    Default

    Here's your link Marvin:

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_stewart

    The link is to the abstract. I have not posted to the "Sources" thread yet, but "The New Yorker" is a big favorite of mine. The articles are always very in-depth.

    You need a subscription to see the entire article. You can't copy and paste from their reader...
    Last edited by Buzz; 02-13-2010 at 07:37 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  8. #8
    Senior Member sinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    312

    Default

    While you rank and rave how about bonuses to the health insurance CEOs.

  9. #9
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sinner View Post
    While you rank and rave how about bonuses to the health insurance CEOs.
    The most recent survey data I've found ifs for 2009, published in October 2009 in the WSJ (http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/php/CEOPAY09.html).

    The evil CEO from Goldman, which managed to net $13 billion for the year but took taxpayer money when forced to by Paulson and the Bush administration, was paid a total of $600,000 in salary and bonus.

    Others in the list include:

    Occidental (Oil/Gas) - $51,778,000
    Apache (Oil/Gas) - $39,148,500
    Citigroup (Financial) - $38,237,400
    Exxon Mobil (Oil/Gas) - $23,474,000
    Anadarko Petroleum (Oil/Gas) - $21,620,500
    Hess (Oil/Gas) - $21,332,700
    JPMorgan Chase (Financial) - $20,868,000
    Wellcare Health Plans (Health Care) - $20,744,700
    XTO Industries (Oil/Gas) - $19,349,000
    Thermo Fisher Scientific (health care) - $18,564,500
    Abbott Labs (Health Care) - $18,048,000
    Blackrock (Financial) - $17,649,500
    News Corp (Communication/FOX) - $17,585,000
    Johnson & Johnson (Health care) - $17,551,400
    Merck (Health care) - $17,247,300
    Bristol-Myers Squibb (Health care) - $17,193,000
    Pfizer (Health care) - $16,600,000
    Halliburton (Oil/Gas) - $11,820,000
    Health Net (Health care) - $8,380,600
    Bank of America (Financial) - $8,380,600
    Morgan Stanley (Financial) - $800,000
    Goldman Sachs (Financial) - $600,000
    Berkshire Hathaway (Financial) - $100,000
    AIG (Financial) - $0
    Capital One (Financial) - $0

    With respect to Coulter's lament, it would be interesting to check out historic political donations to Republicans and Democrats against this list.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •