Has Goldman fatally damaged their Franchise?

[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.

[Arraya]

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/goldman-sachs-eats-its-young/
This whole scandal couldn’t come at a better time for Goldman Sachs’ choice for President, Barrack Obama. He and the Democratic Party are reeling from public outcry against his sell out to the health insurance industry and the never ending bail-outs to their friends on Wall Street. This fiasco will help push through a regulatory bill that will actually concentrate more power to the FED (Goldman Sachs Alumni) and will only serve to make smaller firms vulnerable to absorption by the likes of Goldman Sachs and other giants. Obama will shake his fist, yell at Republicans who come to Wall Street’s defence, and come out looking like a maverick who took on those nasty ‘special interests’ that he loves to claim he’s a crusader against.

This is also an opportunity for the SEC to come out looking tough after their disgraceful conduct in the Bernie Madoff affair. Taking on Goldman Sachs will be a great boost to their image. But that could only happen under unusual circumstances like these. Right now, Goldman Sachs actually wants to be made to look like they’re no different from anybody else. They need to convince the American people that they are just as vulnerable and subject to public scrutiny as any other legitimate business. In other words, Goldman Sachs has given the SEC permission to take them on. Otherwise, the SEC would be just as ineffective and bias as they have always been.

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.

[Arraya]

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/goldman-sachs-eats-its-young/
This whole scandal couldn’t come at a better time for Goldman Sachs’ choice for President, Barrack Obama. He and the Democratic Party are reeling from public outcry against his sell out to the health insurance industry and the never ending bail-outs to their friends on Wall Street. This fiasco will help push through a regulatory bill that will actually concentrate more power to the FED (Goldman Sachs Alumni) and will only serve to make smaller firms vulnerable to absorption by the likes of Goldman Sachs and other giants. Obama will shake his fist, yell at Republicans who come to Wall Street’s defence, and come out looking like a maverick who took on those nasty ‘special interests’ that he loves to claim he’s a crusader against.

This is also an opportunity for the SEC to come out looking tough after their disgraceful conduct in the Bernie Madoff affair. Taking on Goldman Sachs will be a great boost to their image. But that could only happen under unusual circumstances like these. Right now, Goldman Sachs actually wants to be made to look like they’re no different from anybody else. They need to convince the American people that they are just as vulnerable and subject to public scrutiny as any other legitimate business. In other words, Goldman Sachs has given the SEC permission to take them on. Otherwise, the SEC would be just as ineffective and bias as they have always been.

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.

[Arraya]

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/goldman-sachs-eats-its-young/
This whole scandal couldn’t come at a better time for Goldman Sachs’ choice for President, Barrack Obama. He and the Democratic Party are reeling from public outcry against his sell out to the health insurance industry and the never ending bail-outs to their friends on Wall Street. This fiasco will help push through a regulatory bill that will actually concentrate more power to the FED (Goldman Sachs Alumni) and will only serve to make smaller firms vulnerable to absorption by the likes of Goldman Sachs and other giants. Obama will shake his fist, yell at Republicans who come to Wall Street’s defence, and come out looking like a maverick who took on those nasty ‘special interests’ that he loves to claim he’s a crusader against.

This is also an opportunity for the SEC to come out looking tough after their disgraceful conduct in the Bernie Madoff affair. Taking on Goldman Sachs will be a great boost to their image. But that could only happen under unusual circumstances like these. Right now, Goldman Sachs actually wants to be made to look like they’re no different from anybody else. They need to convince the American people that they are just as vulnerable and subject to public scrutiny as any other legitimate business. In other words, Goldman Sachs has given the SEC permission to take them on. Otherwise, the SEC would be just as ineffective and bias as they have always been.

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.

[Arraya]

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/goldman-sachs-eats-its-young/
This whole scandal couldn’t come at a better time for Goldman Sachs’ choice for President, Barrack Obama. He and the Democratic Party are reeling from public outcry against his sell out to the health insurance industry and the never ending bail-outs to their friends on Wall Street. This fiasco will help push through a regulatory bill that will actually concentrate more power to the FED (Goldman Sachs Alumni) and will only serve to make smaller firms vulnerable to absorption by the likes of Goldman Sachs and other giants. Obama will shake his fist, yell at Republicans who come to Wall Street’s defence, and come out looking like a maverick who took on those nasty ‘special interests’ that he loves to claim he’s a crusader against.

This is also an opportunity for the SEC to come out looking tough after their disgraceful conduct in the Bernie Madoff affair. Taking on Goldman Sachs will be a great boost to their image. But that could only happen under unusual circumstances like these. Right now, Goldman Sachs actually wants to be made to look like they’re no different from anybody else. They need to convince the American people that they are just as vulnerable and subject to public scrutiny as any other legitimate business. In other words, Goldman Sachs has given the SEC permission to take them on. Otherwise, the SEC would be just as ineffective and bias as they have always been.

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.

[Arraya]

http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/goldman-sachs-eats-its-young/
This whole scandal couldn’t come at a better time for Goldman Sachs’ choice for President, Barrack Obama. He and the Democratic Party are reeling from public outcry against his sell out to the health insurance industry and the never ending bail-outs to their friends on Wall Street. This fiasco will help push through a regulatory bill that will actually concentrate more power to the FED (Goldman Sachs Alumni) and will only serve to make smaller firms vulnerable to absorption by the likes of Goldman Sachs and other giants. Obama will shake his fist, yell at Republicans who come to Wall Street’s defence, and come out looking like a maverick who took on those nasty ‘special interests’ that he loves to claim he’s a crusader against.

This is also an opportunity for the SEC to come out looking tough after their disgraceful conduct in the Bernie Madoff affair. Taking on Goldman Sachs will be a great boost to their image. But that could only happen under unusual circumstances like these. Right now, Goldman Sachs actually wants to be made to look like they’re no different from anybody else. They need to convince the American people that they are just as vulnerable and subject to public scrutiny as any other legitimate business. In other words, Goldman Sachs has given the SEC permission to take them on. Otherwise, the SEC would be just as ineffective and bias as they have always been.

The SEC is actually a public relations device for the FED. They go after the little guys to look like they’re doing something while turning a blind eye to the big investment firms that their agents hope to someday work for.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

[/quote]

And yet Obama didn’t. Curious, no? I remember him thundering on about Wall Street versus Main Street and all of the horrible abuses and then… Nothing.

Well, not nothing. He continued to shovel money out the door to these very same Wall Street hooligans.

Then the Democrats got real tough and instituted some of the most sweeping financial reform since FDR and that completely remade Wall Street. Oh, wait a minute. No. No, they didn’t. Instead, we’re looking at this toothless joke from Dodd.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: ITS a duck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

[/quote]

And yet Obama didn’t. Curious, no? I remember him thundering on about Wall Street versus Main Street and all of the horrible abuses and then… Nothing.

Well, not nothing. He continued to shovel money out the door to these very same Wall Street hooligans.

Then the Democrats got real tough and instituted some of the most sweeping financial reform since FDR and that completely remade Wall Street. Oh, wait a minute. No. No, they didn’t. Instead, we’re looking at this toothless joke from Dodd.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: ITS a duck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

[/quote]

And yet Obama didn’t. Curious, no? I remember him thundering on about Wall Street versus Main Street and all of the horrible abuses and then… Nothing.

Well, not nothing. He continued to shovel money out the door to these very same Wall Street hooligans.

Then the Democrats got real tough and instituted some of the most sweeping financial reform since FDR and that completely remade Wall Street. Oh, wait a minute. No. No, they didn’t. Instead, we’re looking at this toothless joke from Dodd.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: ITS a duck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

[/quote]

And yet Obama didn’t. Curious, no? I remember him thundering on about Wall Street versus Main Street and all of the horrible abuses and then… Nothing.

Well, not nothing. He continued to shovel money out the door to these very same Wall Street hooligans.

Then the Democrats got real tough and instituted some of the most sweeping financial reform since FDR and that completely remade Wall Street. Oh, wait a minute. No. No, they didn’t. Instead, we’re looking at this toothless joke from Dodd.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: ITS a duck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=patb]Obama should have screwed these guys a year ago.

If he had done that , he would be sitting pretty

[/quote]

And yet Obama didn’t. Curious, no? I remember him thundering on about Wall Street versus Main Street and all of the horrible abuses and then… Nothing.

Well, not nothing. He continued to shovel money out the door to these very same Wall Street hooligans.

Then the Democrats got real tough and instituted some of the most sweeping financial reform since FDR and that completely remade Wall Street. Oh, wait a minute. No. No, they didn’t. Instead, we’re looking at this toothless joke from Dodd.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck: ITS a duck.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
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.

[/quote]

Brian: Dude, you should start your own comedy show. Seriously. Unless, of course, you’re saying this crap with a straight face and really believe it.

I thought you were “morally flexible”? You know, like Obama.

He wants to regulate Wall Street? Really? Then why in God’s name hasn’t he?

Are you talking about the Dodd legislation? Or, does Obama have something more serious and real in mind? I mean, if you have the inside track on something, do tell.

You don’t think the Dems do cronyism like the Republicans? Are you that much of a naif? Wake up and smell the graft, Brian. The fix is in, but apparently you didn’t get the memo.

“Meet the old boss, same as the new boss”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
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.

[/quote]

Brian: Dude, you should start your own comedy show. Seriously. Unless, of course, you’re saying this crap with a straight face and really believe it.

I thought you were “morally flexible”? You know, like Obama.

He wants to regulate Wall Street? Really? Then why in God’s name hasn’t he?

Are you talking about the Dodd legislation? Or, does Obama have something more serious and real in mind? I mean, if you have the inside track on something, do tell.

You don’t think the Dems do cronyism like the Republicans? Are you that much of a naif? Wake up and smell the graft, Brian. The fix is in, but apparently you didn’t get the memo.

“Meet the old boss, same as the new boss”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
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.

[/quote]

Brian: Dude, you should start your own comedy show. Seriously. Unless, of course, you’re saying this crap with a straight face and really believe it.

I thought you were “morally flexible”? You know, like Obama.

He wants to regulate Wall Street? Really? Then why in God’s name hasn’t he?

Are you talking about the Dodd legislation? Or, does Obama have something more serious and real in mind? I mean, if you have the inside track on something, do tell.

You don’t think the Dems do cronyism like the Republicans? Are you that much of a naif? Wake up and smell the graft, Brian. The fix is in, but apparently you didn’t get the memo.

“Meet the old boss, same as the new boss”.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
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.

[/quote]

Brian: Dude, you should start your own comedy show. Seriously. Unless, of course, you’re saying this crap with a straight face and really believe it.

I thought you were “morally flexible”? You know, like Obama.

He wants to regulate Wall Street? Really? Then why in God’s name hasn’t he?

Are you talking about the Dodd legislation? Or, does Obama have something more serious and real in mind? I mean, if you have the inside track on something, do tell.

You don’t think the Dems do cronyism like the Republicans? Are you that much of a naif? Wake up and smell the graft, Brian. The fix is in, but apparently you didn’t get the memo.

“Meet the old boss, same as the new boss”.

[Author]

Posts