Goldman Sachs Bought Both Democrats and Republicans

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since 1989, Goldman's political action committee and its employees ranked second among corporate donors to AT&T Corp. in total campaign donations—$31.6 million.

Nearly two-thirds of the money has gone to Democrats, making Goldman the largest corporate source of campaign donations to Democrats. The firm is the fourth-largest donor among companies to Republicans. Goldman has also sent a stream of top executives to Washington, including Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

The National Republican Congressional Committee dubbed Goldman's political donations "Democrats' Goldman Parachute." Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger called Republicans the "Goldman-Owned Party," citing GOP opposition to Democrats' overhaul of financial regulation.

House Republican leaders said Monday that President Barack Obama "has raised more money from Goldman Sachs than any other human in the history of the United States of America." Mr. Obama collected nearly $1 million from Goldman employees during his 2008 presidential campaign. The next-biggest recipient of Goldman-related contributions was former Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton, with about $500,000 total.

Some senior House Republicans have also benefited from Goldman donations. Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, received the maximum $10,000 from Goldman's PAC, according to campaign records. A spokesman for Mr. Cantor declined to comment.

So far during the 2010 congressional elections, Democrats dominate the list of top recipients of donations from Goldman's PAC and employees. The top recipient is New York Democratic Rep. Michael McMahon, who has collected $51,000 from the company and its employees. Mr. McMahon, a first-term member, could face a difficult re-election fight. A spokesman for Mr. McMahon declined to comment.

Other leading recipients include Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby ($35,000), top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee; New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ($24,000); and New York Democratic Rep. Scott Murphy ($23,000). The lawmakers' offices didn't respond to requests for comment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703757504575194502882068296.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

[scandal 951]

Too bad for Goldman only Republicans stayed bought, and Democrats insisted on doing the people's will, not their paymasters. I suppose you find fault with Democrats for this too.

In the SEC:

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro sided with the two Democratic commissioners, Luis Aguilar and Elisse Walter, in deciding to pursue civil fraud charges against the Wall Street bank, the sources said. The two Republican commissioners, Troy Paredes and Kathleen Casey, dissented

In the Senate:

Senate Republicans say all 41 GOP members will vote against allowing debate on the current [Finance Reform] bill to begin, enough to mount an effective filibuster.

Next time Goldman should stop wasting its contributions on Democrats, and put it only on the party that supports big banks running away with our money - the Party of No.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Too bad for Goldman only Republicans stayed bought, and Democrats insisted on doing the people's will, not their paymasters. I suppose you find fault with Democrats for this too.

Next time Goldman should stop wasting its contributions on Democrats, and put it only on the party that supports big banks running away with our money - the Party of No.

Come on, you can't be that naive. Well, maybe you can, or at least that partisan.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yes...he...can!

[scandal 951]

Come on, you can't be that naive. Well, maybe you can, or at least that partisan.

I posted my evidence. Feel free to post your counter-evidence. I'm all ears. You do have some counter-evidence, right?

Yes...he...can!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I posted my evidence. Feel free to post your counter-evidence. I'm all ears. You do have some counter-evidence, right?

That's German, right? Is that good, or bad? And that is also the international symbol for "Warning"?

[Ban Hammer 12,840]

That's German, right? Is that good, or bad? And that is also the international symbol for "Warning"?

yes, it's german. and it means "attention"

and that is the symbol for danger too.

[scandal 951]

Quite right.

Caution. Warning. Danger lurks ahead. Known inflammatory posters are at large.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here in OT? No way!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I posted my evidence. Feel free to post your counter-evidence. I'm all ears. You do have some counter-evidence, right?

Wow, you really are that blind partisan! Ok, your loss for walking around with blinders on. BTW, I did post something but amazingly enough it went un-replied to. Imagine that!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252858-goldman-charge-looks-more-like-politics-than-fraud/

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Connecting the Dots: Does Wall St. Want Dodd Bill?

By Tom Bevan

After witnessing all the back room wheeling, dealing, political and media manipulation that was used to pass health care, it's no wonder people are questioning not only the method but the motives of the Democrats and the Obama administration when it comes to financial regulatory reform.

So let's walk through this step by step. First, the SEC files a lawsuit alleging fraud against Goldman Sachs, the timing of which simply reeks of politics.

Next, Chris Dodd (and other members of the administration), use the SEC suit to try to force through regulatory reform which they claim will end future bailouts but which critics say will actually institutionalize "too big to fail" by effectively turning big Wall Street banks into quasi-government backed entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And it's not just Republicans who think this. In an interview with Politico yesterday Democrat Brad Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, put it in blunt terms: "there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That's something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn't dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority."

This morning we learned another disturbing coincidence: that Barack Obama's former White House Counsel, Greg Craig, will represent Goldman Sachs in its lawsuit with the FEC.

We also know that, despite their tough on Wall Street rhetoric, Democrats were on the receiving end of $12.7 million in contributions from Wall Street in the most recent campaign cycle, nearly twice as much as Republicans. President Obama alone raised $3.4 million from Wall Street - including nearly a million from Goldman Sachs.

In fact, Dodd's bill appears to be riddled with "carve-outs" - provisions written into the bill to appease certain special interests. One Republican K Street lobbyist told the Huffington Post, "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd [D-Conn.] and Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] a sh*tload of money."

And the bill is now coming under fire from the left as well, with a coalition of former Democratic officials and regulators arguing in a letter to Harry Reid that Dodd's bill will do nothing to prevent a future crisis.

Yesterday afternoon Chris Dodd told a group of reporters that the issue of financial regulation boils down to a simple question: "Whose side are you on?" Dodd, of course, was suggesting anyone who disagrees with his bill is on the side of Wall Street, but the more dots you find to connect the easier it is to come to the conclusion that this is a bill that Wall Street would absolutely love to see pass.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/20/connecting_the_dots_does_wall_st_want_dodd_bill_105240.html

[scandal 951]

Wow, you really are that blind partisan! Ok, your loss for walking around with blinders on. BTW, I did post something but amazingly enough it went un-replied to. Imagine that!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252858-goldman-charge-looks-more-like-politics-than-fraud/

I saw your post. There's nothing amazing about it. Imagine that!

You posted an article which claims that the SEC's charges are flimsy and that Goldman is on pretty solid ground. From what I'm reading I don't think that's the case, but we shall see. The evidence and charges will either stick or they won't.

But that's not what THIS thread was about, or what I posted above, or what you still haven't offered a SHRED of evidence in refutation.

Namely: the title of this thread is Goldman Sachs Bought Both Democrats and Republicans . The OP lists all the campaign donations made by Goldman to members of both parties. I'm not disputing that. It's common knowledge that both parties are on the take in a big way, and the sleaze coming from K Street and the revolving doors leading to it is galling.

However, at least in this particular case, Goldman's money didn't buy them the influence they wanted from Democrats. The SEC panel voted 3 Democrats to 2 Republicans to file charges. At the very same time the Senate is trying to get a reform bill that will reign in these excesses, and we have 41 Republicans lined up to vote no while Democrats will need to hang onto every vote to pass a bill.

Since all are on the take, but for whatever reason only Republicans are voting the wishes of their paymasters while Democrats are not, I stand by my statement: the cashola going from Goldman to Democrats was wasted money. They'd be better off splurging more on Republicans next time.

I don't see how this is "blindly partisan". I'm sickened by the lobbying dollars, and I have no illusions that the usual pattern is that BOTH parties participate in "pay to play". I'm not naive- these guys don't kick out millions in graft without expecting favorable legislation and regulation in DC. My comments are directed at this one very specific instance. The SEC charges against Goldman are a shocker, if for no other reason than 3 Democrats stood up to the lobby.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I saw your post. There's nothing amazing about it. Imagine that!

You posted an article which claims that the SEC's charges are flimsy and that Goldman is on pretty solid ground. From what I'm reading I don't think that's the case, but we shall see. The evidence and charges will either stick or they won't.

But that's not what THIS thread was about, or what I posted above, or what you still haven't offered a SHRED of evidence in refutation.

Namely: the title of this thread is Goldman Sachs Bought Both Democrats and Republicans . The OP lists all the campaign donations made by Goldman to members of both parties. I'm not disputing that. It's common knowledge that both parties are on the take in a big way, and the sleaze coming from K Street and the revolving doors leading to it is galling.

However, at least in this particular case, Goldman's money didn't buy them the influence they wanted from Democrats. The SEC panel voted 3 Democrats to 2 Republicans to file charges. At the very same time the Senate is trying to get a reform bill that will reign in these excesses, and we have 41 Republicans lined up to vote no while Democrats will need to hang onto every vote to pass a bill.

Since all are on the take, but for whatever reason only Republicans are voting the wishes of their paymasters while Democrats are not, I stand by my statement: the cashola going from Goldman to Democrats was wasted money. They'd be better off splurging more on Republicans next time.

I don't see how this is "blindly partisan". I'm sickened by the lobbying dollars, and I have no illusions that the usual pattern is that BOTH parties participate in "pay to play". I'm not naive- these guys don't kick out millions in graft without expecting favorable legislation and regulation in DC. My comments are directed at this one very specific instance. The SEC charges against Goldman are a shocker, if for no other reason than 3 Democrats stood up to the lobby.

I guess you didn't really read what I posted. Yes they bought both sides but your implication that the Dems are cracking down despite the payoffs and the Reps are staying bought is naive in the extreme. I will highlight the pertinent area again since your blinders are getting in the way.

So let's walk through this step by step. First, the SEC files a lawsuit alleging fraud against Goldman Sachs, the timing of which simply reeks of politics.

Next, Chris Dodd (and other members of the administration), use the SEC suit to try to force through regulatory reform which they claim will end future bailouts but which critics say will actually institutionalize "too big to fail" by effectively turning big Wall Street banks into quasi-government backed entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And it's not just Republicans who think this. In an interview with Politico yesterday Democrat Brad Sherman, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, put it in blunt terms: "there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That's something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn't dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority."

But this seems to be something you just don't want to admit.

We also know that, despite their tough on Wall Street rhetoric, Democrats were on the receiving end of $12.7 million in contributions from Wall Street in the most recent campaign cycle, nearly twice as much as Republicans. President Obama alone raised $3.4 million from Wall Street - including nearly a million from Goldman Sachs.

In fact, Dodd's bill appears to be riddled with "carve-outs" - provisions written into the bill to appease certain special interests. One Republican K Street lobbyist told the Huffington Post, "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science. Just give Chairman Dodd [D-Conn.] and Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] a sh*tload of money."

And the bill is now coming under fire from the left as well, with a coalition of former Democratic officials and regulators arguing in a letter to Harry Reid that Dodd's bill will do nothing to prevent a future crisis.

Yesterday afternoon Chris Dodd told a group of reporters that the issue of financial regulation boils down to a simple question: "Whose side are you on?" Dodd, of course, was suggesting anyone who disagrees with his bill is on the side of Wall Street, but the more dots you find to connect the easier it is to come to the conclusion that this is a bill that Wall Street would absolutely love to see pass.

This is a gift to Wall Street paid for by Wall Street. Goldman is getting their monies worth.