Does Obama work for Goldman Sachs?

[Just_me_Mike]

The power and influence that Goldman wields at the nexus of politics and finance is no accident. Long regarded as the savviest and most admired firm among the ranks — now decimated — of Wall Street investment banks, it has a history and culture of encouraging its partners to take leadership roles in public service.

Full Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html

A little research shows that many of the economic team made by Obama, in fact are ex-Goldman Sachs. If not directly, they have very close ties and interests in Goldman.

Goldman was the biggest contributor to Obama as president, almost 1 million dollars.

Goldman single handedly collapsed all it's competition in Wall St, and then asked for a bailout. With that bailout money they bought all the assetts, like houses and so forth that were undervalued, because no other banks had any money. Now they own just about everything. Where did they get this money to do that? Our pocket. When they profited off buying all these assets, did the American people get any interest for loaning it to them? Nope. :no:

Obama not only allowed this to happen, he hired the guys to do it.

Anyone think Obama is innocent in all this?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rethink that logic. Just slow down a bit.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

OK so help me then rethink the logic...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK so help me then rethink the logic...

First of all, a million dollar campaign finance gift is nothing to Obama, who raised more money than any other candidate in history. He raised $103mil and spent $85mil.

Now, you say that Obama hired ex-Goldman Sachs executives, and then conclude: "Obama not only allowed this to happen, he hired the guys to do it."

Well, Obama hired the ex-Goldman Sachs folks to work for him, and NOT to destroy the American economy by working for Goldman Sachs.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

First of all, a million dollar campaign finance gift is nothing to Obama, who raised more money than any other candidate in history. He raised $103mil and spent $85mil.

Now, you say that Obama hired ex-Goldman Sachs executives, and then conclude: "Obama not only allowed this to happen, he hired the guys to do it."

Well, Obama hired the ex-Goldman Sachs folks to work for him, and NOT to destroy the American economy by working for Goldman Sachs.

Well what could be the only possible outcome when you hire a group of people that are notoriously greedy and selfish. Why not hire also people from other firms, oh wait, those firms collapsed because AIG and Goldman got all the bailout money,

How can the current administration look an American in the eye and say we believe these cronies from Goldman had the US homeowners and investors best interest at heart?

Obama is a freekin lawyer, he knew what was going to happen. BTW, that 1 million drop in the bucket is NOTHING compared to the other cabinet officials and what they have received from this bailout mess, either through public speaking supporting Goldman Sachs, or heading up their own investment companies.

Bottom line is they CONTINUE to profit from Goldman even while working for Obama.

I don't know Obama or really care to know him, but as more and more of this surfaces, it leaves little room for other explanations.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well what could be the only possible outcome when you hire a group of people that are notoriously greedy and selfish.

Well, in the business of making money, everyone fits this bill. And the executives and board of trustees, and CEOs move around in all the large firms.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, in the business of making money, everyone fits this bill. And the executives and board of trustees, and CEOs move around in all the large firms.

The presidency isn't suppose to be a large corporate firm.
So what is wrong with my logic? I don't get it. Seriously. How is this not obvious what is going on?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Bottom line is they CONTINUE to profit from Goldman even while working for Obama.

Perhaps, but I would like to see proof of this.

 

[Mr Cheese]

they were EX employees

EX....

get a grip

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The presidency isn't suppose to be a large corporate firm.
So what is wrong with my logic? I don't get it. Seriously. How is this not obvious what is going on?

Well, the Presidency is not a large corporate firm.

The corporate bail-out was in coperation with Congress, government analysists, and the private sector. It was a loan, and many banks have paid it back already.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, the Presidency is not a large corporate firm.

The corporate bail-out was in coperation with Congress, government analysists, and the private sector. It was a loan, and many banks have paid it back already.

Yes they paid it back, but you don't get what they did with the bail out money. They profited billions, and the American people got zilch! Just more foreclosures and less loans to keep businesses up.

When I first heard they paid back the loans I was like, Oh well that is pretty cool. Then I realized that when taking the money, what they did with it, and how that all effected the American people was fraud. Then paying back the money wasn't such a big deal.

Anyway, this isn't good for my blood pressure so, never mind.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Goldman was the biggest contributor to Obama as president, almost 1 million dollars.

Actually, the biggest contributor to Obama was the University of California at $1,591,395.
Goldman Sachs was second at $994,795
At a close third was Harvard University at $854,747
Then Microsoft at $833,617.

If you add the top four University contributions you come to $3,561,001.


Conversely, while Goldman Sachs only contributed only $230,095 to McCain, of the top 20 contributors, the majority were wall street investment companies (14 of the top 20).
No universities were in McCains top twenty contributors.


Aren't conspiracy theories fun?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Perhaps, but I would like to see proof of this.

This isn't hard to find, but if you are interested start with Mark Patterson.

You started by saying I need to rethink my logic, but you have given me no reason to do so.

Obama has surrounded himself with Goldman Sachs ex-employees only. Not Lehman Brothers, or Bear Sterns, or other groups, only Goldman. The treasury is filled with Goldman employees, the Fed is filled with them.


Yet, as Cheese so intelligently pointed out, they are ex! No conflict of interest there. Not important that Goldman is the only one left still standing, and they also have brothers running the government programs now.

All perfectly fine.

OK, guys and gals, I'll take my garbage theories and stop posting them about this stuff. Sorry to waste the space.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Actually, the biggest contributor to Obama was the University of California at $1,591,395.
Goldman Sachs was second at $994,795
At a close third was Harvard University at $854,747
Then Microsoft at $833,617.

If you add the top four University contributions you come to $3,561,001.


Conversely, while Goldman Sachs only contributed only $230,095 to McCain, of the top 20 contributors, the majority were wall street investment companies (14 of the top 20).
No universities were in McCains top twenty contributors.


Aren't conspiracy theories fun?

OK so they aren't the top contributor. Thanks for the correction.
The fact that our financial systems (Fed, Treasury, Economic advisers) are Goldman people, you call pointing that out a conspiracy? I don't get it?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Bottom line is something is seriously wrong with what is going on. I am just looking at information, and presenting it. If I am wrong on something so be it, point it out, and thank you. That doesn't diminish what is going on though.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Actually, the biggest contributor to Obama was the University of California at $1,591,395.
Goldman Sachs was second at $994,795
At a close third was Harvard University at $854,747
Then Microsoft at $833,617.

If you add the top four University contributions you come to $3,561,001.


Conversely, while Goldman Sachs only contributed only $230,095 to McCain, of the top 20 contributors, the majority were wall street investment companies (14 of the top 20).
No universities were in McCains top twenty contributors.


Aren't conspiracy theories fun?

Let's chew on this also for a minute. Goldman as a corporation gave that much, but are you aware of what the executive personally gave, and other upper management gave? Should be an interesting google. Also, what did Goldman give to the other people in his cabinet?

When compared to what Enron, and their employees gave to Bush, it is not hard to find Goldman trumped them with donations.

The question is why? Cause they thought they would win, and be nice to them?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes they paid it back, but you don't get what they did with the bail out money. They profited billions, and the American people got zilch! Just more foreclosures and less loans to keep businesses up.

When I first heard they paid back the loans I was like, Oh well that is pretty cool. Then I realized that when taking the money, what they did with it, and how that all effected the American people was fraud. Then paying back the money wasn't such a big deal.

Anyway, this isn't good for my blood pressure so, never mind.

Well, we did get interest on the loans...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Well, we did get interest on the loans...

You got a check? I better check my mail again. thanks!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Consider this (from about this time last year):

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html

So far, that experiment is more than paying off. The government has taken profits of about $1.4 billion on its investment in Goldman Sachs, $1.3 billion on Morgan Stanley and $414 million on American Express. The five other banks that repaid the government — Northern Trust, Bank of New York Mellon, State Street, U.S. Bancorp and BB&T — each brought in $100 million to $334 million in profit.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So the bailouts seemed to be a good investment for the country.