wis.gator_old
[link=http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine]Link[/link]

Interesting read. Watch the videos too.

It's amazing to me how entrenched Goldman Sachs is in our government.
PSN: wisgator
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
Does anyone actually buy this?
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
coldfeet09 wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


Does anyone actually buy this?


You better believe it. If you don't, I ask you to take a drive down to Madison and drive around some local communities and keep count on the number of U-Haul trucks you see.


You're right because that would prove it wouldn't it.
Quote 0 0
jerry_old
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Does anyone actually buy this?


What part of it don't you buy?

It's democracy and the free market at its worst. Is it at all surprising that a group of highly successful investment bankers could fleece a bunch of government officials out of a lot of money? To get to the top of an investment bank you have to be a genius. No exceptions. You can get to the top of our government by being born into money and knowing the right people. Imagine how easy it would be to infiltrate the government and play the system to your favor when you're a genius with billions at your disposal. I'm thinking somewhere between taking candy from babies and winning a cakewalk.
Official member of the Curt Phillips fan club. There's always next year.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money."


Hmm, I wonder where this article is heading. I'm guessing not an unbiased report about Goldman Sachs.
A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
Alando really covered one side of it well, but I'd like to point out another viewpoint.

This article is unbelievably ridiculous, and is a sort of strange attitude people have towards their government. I hope this is read by anyone who runs accross this thread, because I feel like its one of the most important points I've made on here.

People act as though their government is just a group of money-hungry idiots that aren't working in the interest of the people. If you're one of the people who say things like "Oh they're all just a bunch of idiots" or "They don't really care about us" you need to take a quick second away from you conspiracy magazine and check out the real world.

All of us in Wisconsin have two Senators representing us in the government, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to the people. Look at what Kohl has done for the State--you've got the teacher Kohl scholarships, the student Kohl scholarships, the Kohl center. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to their people.

So who in the government don't you trust? Is it John McCain from Arizona, a man who served in the military for 20+ years and whose hair has been white since he was 30 from the terrible torture he underwent for his country? Is it Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who made her entire career helping people as a public servant? Is it Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who holds the Medal of Honor for incredible heroics in WWII (He was taking out gunners by throwing grenades with his right hand. When the Nazi's blew his right arm off with a grenade, he started throwing with his left hand)?

Look, I took my 4-month hiatus to work in the U.S. Senate. I wasn't allowed to talk about it while I was there or before I was there. But take it from me--any conspiracy based on the idea that the government doesn't care about the people is absolutely ludicrous. Why did the banks get bailed out? Because if the banks failed, hundreds of thousands of people, whether they did anything wrong or not, would have been crushed. The auto bailouts were to save jobs. The vast majority of politicians are doing what they do in order to help people, not to get in bed with lobbyists and special interest groups.

Now there are some members of our government that will be right on issues, and some who will be wrong. But don't question their motives. That this article even suggests that the government is under the hold of Goldman Sachs is completely ludicrous.
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
JimmyQ wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


jerry wrote:


I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


You're essentially saying you disagree with the government so you don't trust it. That's far different than the opinion in the article, which is that the government gets corrupted by money given to it. And that's a popular opinion.

But a lot of hate for the government comes from misinformation. First of all, why didn't Lehman Brothers get money while Goldman Sachs did? Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailout) occurred on October 3, 2008. With a Conservative holding the Presidency, there's a good chance that seeing the effects of one failed bank went a long way to convincing him action was needed and to sign TARP.

People's views on TARP are absolutely ludicrous to me. There are things to find fault with in the mismanagement of TARP, in that at first they didn't regulate how the money was spent. But the argument against it that "They took away the responsibility!" is shortsighted. What would you rather have? The banks taking full responsibility and millions of people getting destroyed while the company that holds their money collapses? The money was not given to the banks as a favor to the banks. It was given to the banks to help the people.

When people criticize the government, they forget who is in charge of the government. Its not the President, its not the big businesses, its not Goldman Sachs. Its the people. Every person in government is there because the people saw something great in them. Does that mean everyone's great? No. But most are. And the few idiots don't hold any pull in the House or Senate.


Yes. I'd take the dissolution of multiple banks and the financial destruction of a few million (not entirely innocent) people over the massive hole we've dug ourselves. I'm more worried about the future than I am about today.

We haven't even seen the worst yet. Wait until Medicare and SS hit the fan. We can't afford to rack up debt like we have.

Ugh I could go on but I'd rather not today...


I don't think you understand what I mean by millions of people. If the major banks failed, its not like the people working with the banks would lose their jobs. Everyone associated with a major bank would take a huge hit. And that's a massive part of the population. It would actually be completely innocent people who have simply decided to invest their money in big banks who would be most directly hurt.

The banks are all interconnected. For example, Lehman Brothers owed AIG some debts. When Lehman failed, it even more complicated matters for AIG, which was then in an even worse situation. The Fed has managed to keep the damage from Lehman limited, but if multiple big banks were to fail, all of the financial markets would be in chaos. As soon as a couple banks would fail, there would undoubtedly be a run on the banks, which would harm even more banks.

If the government didn't keep the big banks alive, its likely anyone who had put money into any sort of reputable major company would be in some way hurt. And many would be completely wiped out.

If you think a couple million people who partially deserved it would be the only ones hurt by a banking failure, you're totally mistaken. If the banks fail, you're probably looking at a failure of the government and a massive depression.
Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
jerry wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando really covered one side of it well, but I'd like to point out another viewpoint.

This article is unbelievably ridiculous, and is a sort of strange attitude people have towards their government. I hope this is read by anyone who runs accross this thread, because I feel like its one of the most important points I've made on here.

People act as though their government is just a group of money-hungry idiots that aren't working in the interest of the people. If you're one of the people who say things like "Oh they're all just a bunch of idiots" or "They don't really care about us" you need to take a quick second away from you conspiracy magazine and check out the real world.

All of us in Wisconsin have two Senators representing us in the government, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to the people. Look at what Kohl has done for the State--you've got the teacher Kohl scholarships, the student Kohl scholarships, the Kohl center. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to their people.

So who in the government don't you trust? Is it John McCain from Arizona, a man who served in the military for 20+ years and whose hair has been white since he was 30 from the terrible torture he underwent for his country? Is it Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who made her entire career helping people as a public servant? Is it Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who holds the Medal of Honor for incredible heroics in WWII (He was taking out gunners by throwing grenades with his right hand. When the Nazi's blew his right arm off with a grenade, he started throwing with his left hand)?

Look, I took my 4-month hiatus to work in the U.S. Senate. I wasn't allowed to talk about it while I was there or before I was there. But take it from me--any conspiracy based on the idea that the government doesn't care about the people is absolutely ludicrous. Why did the banks get bailed out? Because if the banks failed, hundreds of thousands of people, whether they did anything wrong or not, would have been crushed. The auto bailouts were to save jobs. The vast majority of politicians are doing what they do in order to help people, not to get in bed with lobbyists and special interest groups.

Now there are some members of our government that will be right on issues, and some who will be wrong. But don't question their motives. That this article even suggests that the government is under the hold of Goldman Sachs is completely ludicrous.

I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


I'm not a huge fan of the bailouts either. Something had to be done, but it was put together so fast and it just wasn't the right plan, and didn't have very much oversight. That is what happens when things are done quickly in Government. Everyone complains that the government works to slow, but that is how it is designed, to protect the country from things like that. Now they're trying to shove a healthcare plan down our throats without debating the issues and working unilaterally to find the best possible solution. But, that is getting off track.

Is there cronyism? We don't know. In the end Goldman Sachs played the game much better than Lehman and that is why they are still around. The bailouts of different banks I highly, highly doubt was based on their connection to Goldman though.

As to your other point, yes banks should not be giving out those loans, and I agree that they should've been left to lose on their mistakes. But, the banks were not the only ones to think about in this whole situation and I'm not entirely sold on the bailouts but that is what happened and we have to live with it. But, it is still the consumers job to live within his or her means. The consumer knows if he or she can afford something. Should tobacco companies sell cigarrettes? Maybe and maybe not, but it doesn't really matter because the consumer should be able to understand the health risks and make a choice.
A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
jimmyq1
Mr_mike527 wrote:


JimmyQ wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


jerry wrote:


I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


You're essentially saying you disagree with the government so you don't trust it. That's far different than the opinion in the article, which is that the government gets corrupted by money given to it. And that's a popular opinion.

But a lot of hate for the government comes from misinformation. First of all, why didn't Lehman Brothers get money while Goldman Sachs did? Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailout) occurred on October 3, 2008. With a Conservative holding the Presidency, there's a good chance that seeing the effects of one failed bank went a long way to convincing him action was needed and to sign TARP.

People's views on TARP are absolutely ludicrous to me. There are things to find fault with in the mismanagement of TARP, in that at first they didn't regulate how the money was spent. But the argument against it that "They took away the responsibility!" is shortsighted. What would you rather have? The banks taking full responsibility and millions of people getting destroyed while the company that holds their money collapses? The money was not given to the banks as a favor to the banks. It was given to the banks to help the people.

When people criticize the government, they forget who is in charge of the government. Its not the President, its not the big businesses, its not Goldman Sachs. Its the people. Every person in government is there because the people saw something great in them. Does that mean everyone's great? No. But most are. And the few idiots don't hold any pull in the House or Senate.


Yes. I'd take the dissolution of multiple banks and the financial destruction of a few million (not entirely innocent) people over the massive hole we've dug ourselves. I'm more worried about the future than I am about today.

We haven't even seen the worst yet. Wait until Medicare and SS hit the fan. We can't afford to rack up debt like we have.

Ugh I could go on but I'd rather not today...


I don't think you understand what I mean by millions of people. If the major banks failed, its not like the people working with the banks would lose their jobs. Everyone associated with a major bank would take a huge hit. And that's a massive part of the population. It would actually be completely innocent people who have simply decided to invest their money in big banks who would be most directly hurt.

The banks are all interconnected. For example, Lehman Brothers owed AIG some debts. When Lehman failed, it even more complicated matters for AIG, which was then in an even worse situation. The Fed has managed to keep the damage from Lehman limited, but if multiple big banks were to fail, all of the financial markets would be in chaos. As soon as a couple banks would fail, there would undoubtedly be a run on the banks, which would harm even more banks.

If the government didn't keep the big banks alive, its likely anyone who had put money into any sort of reputable major company would be in some way hurt. And many would be completely wiped out.

If you think a couple million people who partially deserved it would be the only ones hurt by a banking failure, you're totally mistaken. If the banks fail, you're probably looking at a failure of the government and a massive depression.


As if tens of millions of us weren't hurt by the bailout. We traded one problematic situation for another. You prefer one, I prefer another. I'm not naive regarding the ramifications of the situation I preferred.

Using a band-aid like we did to try and cover up some major bleeding doesn't seem like the solution to me. If it takes a depression to force some recognition of our major problems, so be it. We'll be better off once we actually fix our problems instead of doing nothing but passing the situation onto the next generation of Americans.

Quote 0 0
jerry_old
Mr_mike527 wrote:


Alando really covered one side of it well, but I'd like to point out another viewpoint.

This article is unbelievably ridiculous, and is a sort of strange attitude people have towards their government. I hope this is read by anyone who runs accross this thread, because I feel like its one of the most important points I've made on here.

People act as though their government is just a group of money-hungry idiots that aren't working in the interest of the people. If you're one of the people who say things like "Oh they're all just a bunch of idiots" or "They don't really care about us" you need to take a quick second away from you conspiracy magazine and check out the real world.

All of us in Wisconsin have two Senators representing us in the government, Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to the people. Look at what Kohl has done for the State--you've got the teacher Kohl scholarships, the student Kohl scholarships, the Kohl center. Both of these guys are incredibly dedicated to their people.

So who in the government don't you trust? Is it John McCain from Arizona, a man who served in the military for 20+ years and whose hair has been white since he was 30 from the terrible torture he underwent for his country? Is it Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who made her entire career helping people as a public servant? Is it Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who holds the Medal of Honor for incredible heroics in WWII (He was taking out gunners by throwing grenades with his right hand. When the Nazi's blew his right arm off with a grenade, he started throwing with his left hand)?

Look, I took my 4-month hiatus to work in the U.S. Senate. I wasn't allowed to talk about it while I was there or before I was there. But take it from me--any conspiracy based on the idea that the government doesn't care about the people is absolutely ludicrous. Why did the banks get bailed out? Because if the banks failed, hundreds of thousands of people, whether they did anything wrong or not, would have been crushed. The auto bailouts were to save jobs. The vast majority of politicians are doing what they do in order to help people, not to get in bed with lobbyists and special interest groups.

Now there are some members of our government that will be right on issues, and some who will be wrong. But don't question their motives. That this article even suggests that the government is under the hold of Goldman Sachs is completely ludicrous.

I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?
Official member of the Curt Phillips fan club. There's always next year.
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
jerry wrote:


I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


You're essentially saying you disagree with the government so you don't trust it. That's far different than the opinion in the article, which is that the government gets corrupted by money given to it. And that's a popular opinion.

But a lot of hate for the government comes from misinformation. First of all, why didn't Lehman Brothers get money while Goldman Sachs did? Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailout) occurred on October 3, 2008. With a Conservative holding the Presidency, there's a good chance that seeing the effects of one failed bank went a long way to convincing him action was needed and to sign TARP.

People's views on TARP are absolutely ludicrous to me. There are things to find fault with in the mismanagement of TARP, in that at first they didn't regulate how the money was spent. But the argument against it that "They took away the responsibility!" is shortsighted. What would you rather have? The banks taking full responsibility and millions of people getting destroyed while the company that holds their money collapses? The money was not given to the banks as a favor to the banks. It was given to the banks to help the people.

When people criticize the government, they forget who is in charge of the government. Its not the President, its not the big businesses, its not Goldman Sachs. Its the people. Every person in government is there because the people saw something great in them. Does that mean everyone's great? No. But most are. And the few idiots don't hold any pull in the House or Senate.
Quote 0 0
jimmyq1
Mr_mike527 wrote:


jerry wrote:


I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


You're essentially saying you disagree with the government so you don't trust it. That's far different than the opinion in the article, which is that the government gets corrupted by money given to it. And that's a popular opinion.

But a lot of hate for the government comes from misinformation. First of all, why didn't Lehman Brothers get money while Goldman Sachs did? Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailout) occurred on October 3, 2008. With a Conservative holding the Presidency, there's a good chance that seeing the effects of one failed bank went a long way to convincing him action was needed and to sign TARP.

People's views on TARP are absolutely ludicrous to me. There are things to find fault with in the mismanagement of TARP, in that at first they didn't regulate how the money was spent. But the argument against it that "They took away the responsibility!" is shortsighted. What would you rather have? The banks taking full responsibility and millions of people getting destroyed while the company that holds their money collapses? The money was not given to the banks as a favor to the banks. It was given to the banks to help the people.

When people criticize the government, they forget who is in charge of the government. Its not the President, its not the big businesses, its not Goldman Sachs. Its the people. Every person in government is there because the people saw something great in them. Does that mean everyone's great? No. But most are. And the few idiots don't hold any pull in the House or Senate.


Yes. I'd take the dissolution of multiple banks and the financial destruction of a few million (not entirely innocent) people over the massive hole we've dug ourselves. I'm more worried about the future than I am about today.

We haven't even seen the worst yet. Wait until Medicare and SS hit the fan. We can't afford to rack up debt like we have.

Ugh I could go on but I'd rather not today...


Quote 0 0
alandoamazing
This guy is a moron, btw.

Quote from and actual financial journalist Heidi Moore: "For the record, I don't think any article that contains the line 'vampire squid sucking the face of humanity' is real journalism."

Why is it so surprising the former Goldman employees end up in important government financial positions? These people succeeded because they're financial geniuses in most cases (which Taibbi is not, in fact he most likely understands nothing about the financial world).

Goldman is good at what it does, and what it does is make money. It doesn't Fabricate bubbles, but it does see them as an opportunity to make money. But, why is that surprising? That is what companies, in whatever business, are supposed to do. That's like saying a company is evil because it is making a huge profit margin on its product. No, its not evil, the consumer is retarded.

Guess how this whole bubble/economic downturn/recession could have been avoided. No, it does not involve Goldman. The answer? All it would've taken is dumbass consumers buying things that they could actually afford. But, no, because people who cannot afford it want to have a bigger and fancier ****ing house we're in this mess. Not because of Goldman Sachs.

Call Goldman Sachs greedy all you want, maybe it'll make you feel better Matt Taibi, but I don't see you reporting this steaming pile of crap you call journalism for free for the "benefit" of society. I hope for his sake that it is only out of headline grabbing greed that he reports this crap, because if he believes it I really feel sorry for him. The greed of Goldman Sachs didn't have anything to do with this mess, the greed of the American consumer had everything to do with it. It is that simple.


A pessimist is always alone. An optimist is always just two people away from a threesome.
Quote 0 0
jerry_old
JimmyQ wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


jerry wrote:


I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. The view of the real world is a heck of a lot better from where I am than in the senate, I can assure you. There are undoubtedly some great and upstanding people in our government, and you named a few. But they aren't all good, and it doesn't take many bad ones to make a mess of everything. Also, good intentions are not a substitute for competence. Our national debt and the bailout plan is pretty good evidence that our government as a whole is not very good at handling money.

The mortgage crisis cannot be blamed entirely (or much at all, in my opinion) on the average American. Yes, a lot of people took on houses that they couldn't afford, but the banks were the ones giving them the loans, and they should have known better. They probably did know better, but the temptation of that easy money grab was just too strong.

So when all of these banks failed as a result of their own greed, in came the government on its white horse with bags of money to fix everything with a bailout. Here's the problem with the bailout: It takes the responsibility out of failure. If a bank or automaker becomes big enough, and their stake in the economy is large, then the government will not allow them to fail, and there is no incentive to perform well. This is where the government's good intentions give way to incompetence. The only way to fix the economy is to let losers lose; the winners will rise to the top to fill that void, and the economy will recover. Times would have been hard for the people who worked at GM or any of the other failures, but other companies would have grown to fill the production void and hired them eventually.

I will agree that it's ridiculous to say that Goldman Sachs is responsible for every bubble since the great depression. But it's as clear as day to me that there is some serious cronyism in the bailout plan, and the finger points to them. How is it that Lehman brothers was left to die, but banks that owed Goldman Sachs money got bailed out?


You're essentially saying you disagree with the government so you don't trust it. That's far different than the opinion in the article, which is that the government gets corrupted by money given to it. And that's a popular opinion.

But a lot of hate for the government comes from misinformation. First of all, why didn't Lehman Brothers get money while Goldman Sachs did? Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailout) occurred on October 3, 2008. With a Conservative holding the Presidency, there's a good chance that seeing the effects of one failed bank went a long way to convincing him action was needed and to sign TARP.

People's views on TARP are absolutely ludicrous to me. There are things to find fault with in the mismanagement of TARP, in that at first they didn't regulate how the money was spent. But the argument against it that "They took away the responsibility!" is shortsighted. What would you rather have? The banks taking full responsibility and millions of people getting destroyed while the company that holds their money collapses? The money was not given to the banks as a favor to the banks. It was given to the banks to help the people.

When people criticize the government, they forget who is in charge of the government. Its not the President, its not the big businesses, its not Goldman Sachs. Its the people. Every person in government is there because the people saw something great in them. Does that mean everyone's great? No. But most are. And the few idiots don't hold any pull in the House or Senate.


Yes. I'd take the dissolution of multiple banks and the financial destruction of a few million (not entirely innocent) people over the massive hole we've dug ourselves. I'm more worried about the future than I am about today.

We haven't even seen the worst yet. Wait until Medicare and SS hit the fan. We can't afford to rack up debt like we have.

Ugh I could go on but I'd rather not today...


Agreed. We've set ourselves up for a whole lot of hurt because we won't take our medicine now.
Official member of the Curt Phillips fan club. There's always next year.
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje