Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[Coronita]

HA HA HA….

What a hypocrite…

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/109368/obama-to-keep-goldman-funds

It’s like getting free room and board and then going on a crusade to tell the world about how horrible your host is. No wonder there are so many folks living rent free. We have a roll model at the top for bad behavior.

Briansd, I’d like to to explain this one…

————————————

Obama to Keep Goldman Funds
by Brody Mullins and Jean Spencer
Thursday, April 22, 2010

President Barack Obama won’t return about $1 million that employees of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS – News) donated to his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

“We make these decisions on a case-by-case basis, and in this case we have not accepted contributions from specific individuals accused of wrongdoing, nor have we advocated for positions that big Wall Street banks generally favor,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan, speaking on behalf of Mr. Obama.

The development comes as fallout over the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Goldman continues to reverberate in political campaigns across the country.

The civil suit, which accuses the firm of deceiving investors, named Goldman and trader Fabrice Tourre, who is French.

U.S. law bars foreign nationals from making campaign contributions. Mr. Tourre hasn’t made any donations to Mr. Obama or other candidates in the last decade, according to election records.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday said the SEC never discussed the Goldman lawsuit with the White House. Mr. Obama is working with Democrats in Congress to pass new regulations on the financial services industry, and news of the fraud allegations against Goldman added momentum to that effort.

“The SEC is an entirely independent agency that we have no day-to-day control over,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CNBC. “And they never discussed with us anything with respect to the charge that will be brought.”

Mr. Obama said “categorically” that the White House did not get advance word of the suit, and noted that he had first called for new financial rules three years ago.

Mary Schapiro, chairman of the SEC, also said the agency’s lawsuit had no connection to the Senate debate on financial regulations. “We do not coordinate our enforcement actions with the White House, Congress or political committees,” she said Wednesday in a statement. “We do not time our cases around political events or the legislative calendar.”

Ms. Schapiro also said she was “disappointed by the rhetoric” from some critics challenging the agency’s independence.

Lawmakers in several states who received donations from Goldman are being challenged by political opponents to return the campaign funds.

In New York’s Senate race, primary challenger Jonathan Tasini called on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a fellow Democrat, to return donations from Goldman. Mrs. Gillibrand has accepted about $30,000 from Goldman’s political action committee and from employees so far in the 2010 election, making her the third-largest recipient of donations from the firm among candidates for Congress, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Mrs. Gillibrand will keep the Goldman money for now but will return donations from Goldman employees if they are later found guilty, according to her spokesman, Matt Canter.

Two Senate candidates — Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) and Rep. Paul Hodes (D., N.H.) — said they would consider returning their Goldman donations if guilty verdicts resulted from the government’s allegations.

Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.) faces a different political challenge. Mr. Himes has received $15,150 from Goldman — and is also a former employee of the company.

No one has received more Goldman donations this election cycle than Rep. Mike McMahon (D., N.Y.). On Wednesday, Republican candidate Michael Grimm called on him to return the $51,000 he has received.

“This is the time for all elected officials to stop dancing to Washington’s familiar go-along-to-get-along tune,” Mr. Grimm said. Mr. McMahon’s office declined to comment.

Mr. Himes’s Republican opponent, Dan Debicella, hasn’t yet called on Mr. Himes to return the money. “Ultimately, the ball is in Mr. Himes’s court to do the proper thing,” said Jason Perillo, a Debicella campaign manager.

Two Republican candidates in Illinois have already returned Goldman donations. Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who is running for Senate, said he would give back more than $20,000 in contributions from the company and its employees after his Democratic opponent tried to make a campaign issue of the donations.

Robert Dold, a Republican who is running for the House seat being vacated by Mr. Kirk, said he would return or give to charity the $7,000 he had received from the company.

Since 1989, no company has donated more to Democrats than Goldman. The company was the fourth-largest corporate source of campaign cash to Republicans during the same period.

Overall, Goldman has made $31.6 million in donations from its PAC and employees since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….

You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..

[patb]

Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man

[patb]

Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man

[patb]

Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man

[patb]

Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man

[patb]

Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….
[/quote]

It’s very simple. Obama wants to regulate Goldman despite the campaign donations he received from Goldman employees. Sounds like courage on the part of Obama.

It also explain why McConnell flew to New York to surreptitiously meet with Wall Street executives.

Don’t confuse employee donations to PAC donations. The PAC is controlled by the company’s executives.

Employees are people up and down the corporate hierarchy.

If you didn’t know, New Yorkers tend to be Democrats, and if they are Republicans, they aren’t the hardcore Republicans of the South.

[quote=flu]
You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..[/quote]

Yes, that would be very bad for sure.

That’s why it’s very courageous for the incumbent Democrats, ahead of the elections, to support regulation of Wall Street firms such as Goldman.

As I said before, the hardcore Republicans are not well-off New Yorkers. They are poorer folks in the Bible Belt and in rural areas.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….
[/quote]

It’s very simple. Obama wants to regulate Goldman despite the campaign donations he received from Goldman employees. Sounds like courage on the part of Obama.

It also explain why McConnell flew to New York to surreptitiously meet with Wall Street executives.

Don’t confuse employee donations to PAC donations. The PAC is controlled by the company’s executives.

Employees are people up and down the corporate hierarchy.

If you didn’t know, New Yorkers tend to be Democrats, and if they are Republicans, they aren’t the hardcore Republicans of the South.

[quote=flu]
You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..[/quote]

Yes, that would be very bad for sure.

That’s why it’s very courageous for the incumbent Democrats, ahead of the elections, to support regulation of Wall Street firms such as Goldman.

As I said before, the hardcore Republicans are not well-off New Yorkers. They are poorer folks in the Bible Belt and in rural areas.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….
[/quote]

It’s very simple. Obama wants to regulate Goldman despite the campaign donations he received from Goldman employees. Sounds like courage on the part of Obama.

It also explain why McConnell flew to New York to surreptitiously meet with Wall Street executives.

Don’t confuse employee donations to PAC donations. The PAC is controlled by the company’s executives.

Employees are people up and down the corporate hierarchy.

If you didn’t know, New Yorkers tend to be Democrats, and if they are Republicans, they aren’t the hardcore Republicans of the South.

[quote=flu]
You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..[/quote]

Yes, that would be very bad for sure.

That’s why it’s very courageous for the incumbent Democrats, ahead of the elections, to support regulation of Wall Street firms such as Goldman.

As I said before, the hardcore Republicans are not well-off New Yorkers. They are poorer folks in the Bible Belt and in rural areas.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….
[/quote]

It’s very simple. Obama wants to regulate Goldman despite the campaign donations he received from Goldman employees. Sounds like courage on the part of Obama.

It also explain why McConnell flew to New York to surreptitiously meet with Wall Street executives.

Don’t confuse employee donations to PAC donations. The PAC is controlled by the company’s executives.

Employees are people up and down the corporate hierarchy.

If you didn’t know, New Yorkers tend to be Democrats, and if they are Republicans, they aren’t the hardcore Republicans of the South.

[quote=flu]
You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..[/quote]

Yes, that would be very bad for sure.

That’s why it’s very courageous for the incumbent Democrats, ahead of the elections, to support regulation of Wall Street firms such as Goldman.

As I said before, the hardcore Republicans are not well-off New Yorkers. They are poorer folks in the Bible Belt and in rural areas.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]
But in the first three months of 2010, Goldman’s PAC has given a greater share of its donations to Republicans.

————

Regarding the last sentence…Gee, I wonder why….
[/quote]

It’s very simple. Obama wants to regulate Goldman despite the campaign donations he received from Goldman employees. Sounds like courage on the part of Obama.

It also explain why McConnell flew to New York to surreptitiously meet with Wall Street executives.

Don’t confuse employee donations to PAC donations. The PAC is controlled by the company’s executives.

Employees are people up and down the corporate hierarchy.

If you didn’t know, New Yorkers tend to be Democrats, and if they are Republicans, they aren’t the hardcore Republicans of the South.

[quote=flu]
You know. I can’t help but wonder when election time comes around if Wall Street is going to collude to make the economy feel a lot of pain….intentionally…You know, if everyone’s portfolio is down 20-30% and folks start getting RIF’ed because of a company’s street performance..that wouldn’t be good for the incumbents, would it….Hmmm…..[/quote]

Yes, that would be very bad for sure.

That’s why it’s very courageous for the incumbent Democrats, ahead of the elections, to support regulation of Wall Street firms such as Goldman.

As I said before, the hardcore Republicans are not well-off New Yorkers. They are poorer folks in the Bible Belt and in rural areas.

[briansd1]

[quote=patb]

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man[/quote]

It all depends on the outcomes of the lawsuits by the SEC, and inquiries by Britain and Germany.

It’s very hard to tell at this point because there so much unknown. We still don’t know who got what from the bailouts.

Note that Bloomberg News (Bloomberg is a Republican who supports Wall Street) is suing to get Federal Reserve information.

But don’t worry for Goldman, if they have to disband, they will do so. But they will reconstitute under another name.

[briansd1]

[quote=patb]

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man[/quote]

It all depends on the outcomes of the lawsuits by the SEC, and inquiries by Britain and Germany.

It’s very hard to tell at this point because there so much unknown. We still don’t know who got what from the bailouts.

Note that Bloomberg News (Bloomberg is a Republican who supports Wall Street) is suing to get Federal Reserve information.

But don’t worry for Goldman, if they have to disband, they will do so. But they will reconstitute under another name.

[briansd1]

[quote=patb]

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man[/quote]

It all depends on the outcomes of the lawsuits by the SEC, and inquiries by Britain and Germany.

It’s very hard to tell at this point because there so much unknown. We still don’t know who got what from the bailouts.

Note that Bloomberg News (Bloomberg is a Republican who supports Wall Street) is suing to get Federal Reserve information.

But don’t worry for Goldman, if they have to disband, they will do so. But they will reconstitute under another name.

[briansd1]

[quote=patb]

My original point was I think gold man has damaged their brand.

Who wanted to do business with Anderson????

Who wants to deal with gold man[/quote]

It all depends on the outcomes of the lawsuits by the SEC, and inquiries by Britain and Germany.

It’s very hard to tell at this point because there so much unknown. We still don’t know who got what from the bailouts.

Note that Bloomberg News (Bloomberg is a Republican who supports Wall Street) is suing to get Federal Reserve information.

But don’t worry for Goldman, if they have to disband, they will do so. But they will reconstitute under another name.

[Author]

Posts