The Goldman Sachs primary:

[think]

Bold added for emphasis:

The Goldman Sachs primary

It’s Bush vs. Clinton at Wall Street’s wealthiest bank.

By Ben White - 3/2/15 6:44 PM EDT - Updated 3/3/15 12:23 PM EDT


NEW YORK — Forget the Democratic and Republican primaries: The two biggest names in the 2016 presidential race are competing directly against each other in an elite forum, the halls of Goldman Sachs.

~Snip~

The battle for the hearts and wallets of Goldman Sachs titans goes right to the top. Goldman chief executive Lloyd Blankfein is close to Clinton and has held fundraisers for her. The former first lady, New York senator and secretary of state gave a well-paid speech to Goldman executives in 2013. She and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have both raised huge sums from Goldman and all across Wall Street for their campaigns and charitable foundation. But Blankfein has also made warm comments about some in the Republican field including Bush. Blankfein has indicated he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency.

~Snip~

Analysts say Goldman is hoping that either Clinton or Bush could help restore the reputation of an industry badly tattered by the financial crisis while pushing back against big tax hikes on capital gains and more stringent regulation of the financial industry. Both candidates are also viewed as defenders of the Federal Reserve, which has come under heavy criticism from both the far left and far right.

“The key for Goldman is to have its bets hedged both in its businesses and in politics,” said William Cohan, a journalist and former banker who wrote a history of Goldman. “And you can’t get any better for them than Jeb and Hillary, it’s a dream come true, they would win either way.”

~Snip~

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/jeb-bush-goldman-sachs-2016-election-115672.html#ixzz3XoVWmUOs

[House of Roberts]

1. GS will back Bush until the polls clearly favor Hillary.

Then the money will flow her way, like it did for Obama in 2008.

[think]

6. It's a win-win for the company whose actions were called "deceptive and immoral" by Senator Levin

Carl Levin: Goldman Sachs Decision Shows Either 'Weak Laws Or Weak Enforcement'

Reuters - Posted: 08/10/2012 2:32 pm EDT Updated: 10/10/2012 5:12 am EDT

* US Senator Levin asked for Goldman criminal probe in 2011

* Justice Department was 'thorough and impartial' -Goldman

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department's decision not to prosecute Goldman Sachs Group Inc for its subprime mortgage trades resulted from either "weak laws or weak enforcement," the senator who asked for a criminal investigation of the firm said on Friday.

A day after the department announced its decision, Democratic Senator Carl Levin reiterated in a written statement the criticisms he lodged against Goldman beginning more than two years ago. He called the firm's actions "deceptive and immoral."

~Snip~

"It misled investors by claiming its interests in those securities were 'aligned' with theirs while at the same time it was betting heavily against those same securities, and therefore against its own clients, to its own substantial profit," he said on Friday.

Goldman settled a related civil investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for $550 million in July 2010 without admitting wrongdoing...

~Snip~

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/carl-levin-goldman-sachs_n_1765408.html

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash

BY GREG GORDON
McClatchy NewspapersNovember 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

Goldman's sales and its clandestine wagers, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled the nation's premier investment bank to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.

Only later did investors discover that what Goldman had promoted as triple-A rated investments were closer to junk.

Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy investigation has found that Goldman's failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/11/01/77791/how-goldman-secretly-bet-on-the.html#storylink=cpy

[99th_Monkey]

2. Just in case anyone doubted that this was going on.

This should put to rest any questions about the advisability of continuing the Bush-Clinton Dynasty.

[tularetom]

3. That pretty much says it all

[woo me with science]

4. "Blankfein has indicated he would be fine with either a Bush or Clinton presidency."

Yeah, THERE's our populist and champion of the 99 percent!

[font size=4]“The key for Goldman is to have its bets hedged both in its businesses and in politics,” said William Cohan, a journalist and former banker who wrote a history of Goldman. “And you can’t get any better for them than Jeb and Hillary, it’s a dream come true, they would win either way.”

[/font size]

What utter, dripping contempt these corporate politicians have for the Americans they claim to want to represent. What a lying, manipulative sewer of corruption our political machines have become.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Hands down Hillary who will win the GS primary. Bye, Bye Bushie.

[Joe Turner]

7. She will make a great republican president

Wall Street loves her, the multinational corps love her. She will do good things for the fortunate 500. And like Obama for the American Workers...not so much.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Nothing new here, same RW talking points

[think]

23. When has anyone on the right wing ever called Hillary a republican?

It would seem that to do so would be highly counter productive.....

[eridani]

25. <crickets> But you expected that, right? n/t

[Jester Messiah]

30. The only one thing that makes Hillary preferable to the Repubs...

is that she's not some goddball theocrat shoving religious bigotry down our throats. Which, admittedly, is a huge advantage. It's enough to get her my vote in the general, probably. But in every other respect she's a moderate Republican.

[think]

8. Lloyd Blankfein wins either way. When asked who he would vote for president in 2012 he said this:

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, told CNBC, "I'm a registered Democrat and a Rockefeller Republican ... where that will get me, I'm not sure yet," when asked who he would vote for in the coming presidential election.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-told-cnbcnbspim-a-registered-democrat-and-a-rockefeller-republican--where-that-will-get-me--2012-4#ixzz3Xohldrw5

And this guy has personally campaigned for HRC.

DUers who complain about other DUers not committing to the Democratic candidate should be livid that a major donor and personal backer of another Democrat openly states he was uncommitted to voting for Obama in 2012.

[rhett o rick]

12. Yes it's a win-win for Goldman-Sachs and the Oligarchy. Bye, bye 99%. nm

[sabrina 1]

21. Congress and the Senate and most importantly, local elections is where the action will be.

The WH races are the least important as far as the voters are concerned. People are now aware of how poisonous all this Wall St money is to our electoral system. Thank YOU OWS, no wonder Wall St hated that movement so much. It revealed that the people WERE aware of the corruption of Wall St money on this country. And here they thought we didn't know.

Thankfully there are now tons of Liberal Organizations working to rebuild our Party from the bottom up.

Probably best to let them think we are still fooled by the whole mess and elect the Dem.

Why? Because they think we think there really is a two party system and so long as they think we think that, whoever wins gets to throw some crumbs to those who elected them. I would rather WE get the crumbs than the Right.

But the real action is going to be where the people still have a chance to have a voice, in Congress, the Senate and locally.

[Fumesucker]

9. More accurately termed the Vampire Squid primary...

[liberal_at_heart]

10. K&R

[sabrina 1]

11. Partisan politics is for the little people. Those in power are neither Republicans nor Democrats.

That is beneath them. The job of President will never be allowed to go to someone who actually works for the people. That is so plebian.

A multi Billion Dollar job application is what our presidential elections have become.

And it should be no surprise that GS doesn't really care which one gets the job. Their interests are protected either way.

So now what?

[rhett o rick]

13. I am amazed how naive the Clinton supporters are not to figure out that when their candidate

is sponsored by Goldman-Sachs, the worst of the worse, that she will not help the 99%. She might help with some social issues because it won't cost G-S a dime, but you can kiss the middle class goodbye.

[sabrina 1]

17. The good news is that more and more people ARE aware of the game that is being played.

So they win either way, we lose either way.

UNLESS we focus on where the people can still have some power.

I'm not really interested in the Multi Billion Dollar Race for the WH. Put it this way, probably best in the end to vote for the Dem. Why? Because they still want to keep the illusion of a two party system going. The reward for the winner is to allow them to give their supporter some crumbs. If the Repub wins, their supporters get the crumbs.

So we vote to get some crumbs.

However, our focus should be on Congress and the Senate. All effort and energy need to go to rid Congress of Republicans and Third Wayers and replace them with actual Democrats.

IF we have a good Progressive majority in Congress and the Senate, they can curtail the actions of the WH no matter who resides there.

[ND-Dem]

27. which is why we're being repeatedly told that concern about economics = lack of concern

over social issues.

or outright racism, sexism, homophobia.

as if there were some sharp demarcation between economic and social issues. as if they didn't intersect at multiple points.

[Dragonfli]

28. Yeah, that straw man has been making more appearances here than ED ads on FOX /nt

[ND-Dem]

29. thank you for noticing. i was thinking it was just me.

[think]

33. Seen it as well and was trying to find the words to express my dissapointment at such accusations

Thank you for stating it civilly & succinctly.

[think]

19. Ya, it's hard to get excited. Local elections and state ballot issues may be the big thing in 2016

That's where the real change could be IMO.

I certainly don't want to see the GOP in the Whitehouse but HRC just isn't going to be much different on many core issues.

If Bernie or another strong progressive candidate jumps in things could get interesting.

Regardless of whether someone like Sanders would win or lose we need a healthy discussion of the issues. Americans need to understand what is really happening in regards to income inequality, Wallstreet regulation, military spending, healthcare etc.

Americans might surprise the corporate/government machine and drive the agenda away from the hard right direction it's been going for so many years.

[JEB]

14. GS has already won the auction

that determines the election results.

[whereisjustice]

15. Hungry for needed change, voters looking forward to Bush vs. Clinton.

[Darb]

18. OH GOD DAMN THIS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

There is no way this will ever end, obviously.

SKINNER, SHUT DOWN THIS SITE!!!! IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EASY TARGET FOR TROLLS AND PONYBOY/GIRLS.

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!

[think]

20. Huh? /nt

[sabrina 1]

22. Okay, so what do you think about the FACTS in the OP?

[AtomicKitten]

24. GS is hedging their bet. They're good with Hillary or any Republican.

Which is precisely why many Democrats are looking elsewhere for a candidate to represent the rest of us, the 99%.

[Dragonfli]

26. .

[DirkGently]

31. THIS is who we need to beat in 2016. n/t

[hifiguy]

32. Damn tootin'!

And Lloyd Blankfein should be hanged for financial crimes against humanity.