See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

   Let’s not waste our resources pretending that GS is the boogeyman.

   Agreed. They are not the boogeymen. They are, more correctly, the recipients of government largess at the expense of the taxpayers.

2. #102
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, Southpaw said:

   So, um, Corkie, you seem immensely determined to divert attention from the original topic of this thread.

   Who should I believe, you, or my own lying eyes.

   Happy Bastille Day.

3. #103
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, MarcoPolo said:

   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

   Agreed. (GS) are not the boogeymen. They are, more correctly, the recipients of government largess at the expense of the taxpayers.

   There are too many high ranking government officials who are also GS alumni to think they are not the boogeyman.

   To think they’re not profiting from insider knowledge, if not flat out market manipulation, requires an amazing amount of trust and innocence.

   Personally, I bought shares GS and AIG, because I can’t beat them.

4. #104
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, corkie said:

   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, MarcoPolo said:

   To think they’re not profiting from insider knowledge, if not flat out market manipulation, requires an amazing amount of trust and innocence.

   No it doesn’t. It merely requires a scant amount of understanding of the industry.

5. #105
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm, corkie said:

   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm, Southpaw said:

   you seem immensely determined to divert attention from the original topic of this thread.

   Not at all. Check comment #5. I asked MM to clarify her beef with GS.

6. #106
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm, corkie said:

   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

   They are, more correctly, the recipients of government largess at the expense of the taxpayers.

   Can you be specific about the largess they’ve received (that they haven’t repaid)?

7. #107
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm, Southpaw said:

   The term boogeyman is too often used as a dismissive. Matt Taibbis description is so much more colorful:

   “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.”

8. #108
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:24 pm, chapoutier said:

   Just because he had unkind words for Michelle Malkin, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything worthwhile to say. We may be Malkinites, but we’re not sheeple.

   Maybe you should read some of the comments in that thread. I thought the concensus of the board was that he was a POS that wasn’t worthy of the time it takes to click on a link to one of his articles.

   In fact you yourself said:

   -Matt Taibbi? Never heard of him. No need wasting time entering into the database. Probably a one hit wonder.

   Amazing how people gain or lose credibility in one’s eyes based solely on whether or not they conform to one’s opinion.

9. #109
   On July 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

   Can you be specific about the largess they’ve received (that they haven’t repaid)?

   If you are in a failing business and you, but not your peers in similar businesses, get to keep your high paying jobs at tax payer expense I call that government largess. Perhaps I need to use a thesarus to find a more sinster word.

10. #110
    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:35 pm, Southpaw said:

    Amazing how people gain or lose credibility in one’s eyes based solely on whether or not they conform to one’s opinion.

    Not so. Since my only knowledge of him was through that MM thread, then there was no incencitive to check his credibility. Now that he comes across the radar again, worthy of more notice.

    Look, when Matt Taibbi, Michael Moore, Michael Savage and Michelle Malkin all have Goldmann Sachs in their crosshairs, something is definitely up.

11. #111
    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, Southpaw said:

    Maybe time for a little disclosure. Anyone defending GS around here have a vested financial interest in them? Marco Polos comments were straight up.

12. #112
    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, Flyoverman said:

    If you want to understand the depth of the stench on this one, check out Glenn Beck. The Obama Administration is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate.

13. #113
    On July 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pm, genso said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, Southpaw said:

    Maybe time for a little disclosure. Anyone defending GS around here have a vested financial interest in them? Marco Polos comments were straight up.

    I own GS….I’m still appalled. I don’t hang out here much, mostly at HA, and I don’t know where corkie is coming from, but he/she doth protest too much, IMHO

14. #114
    On July 14th, 2009 at 8:17 pm, swede said:

    I’m just wondering how GS turns a 33% quarterly gain during one of the worst markets in history…on “blowout trading”???

    Sounds like somebody’s cooking the books to jack the index for bonuses and dividends.

15. #115
    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm, corkie said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    If you are in a failing business and you, but not your peers in similar businesses, get to keep your high paying jobs at tax payer expense I call that government largess.

    Did you see their earnings release today? It’s hardly a failing business. In fact, wasn’t that the point of MM’s post?

    They were merely experiencing liquidity risks because of the meltdown that was occurring. Do you understand the difference between profitability and liquidity?

16. #116
    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:26 pm, corkie said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 5:38 pm, Southpaw said:

    Maybe time for a little disclosure. Anyone defending GS around here have a vested financial interest in them?

    I have absolutely no financial exposure to GS. I don’t work for GS nor am I related to anyone that does.

    I don’t even like GS that much. They’re mostly egotistical snobs, but they’re not the boogeyman. And they certainly don’t have the power to pull-off the bubble creation that Rolling Stone is selling.

17. #117
    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm, corkie said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 6:17 pm, genso said:

    I don’t know where corkie is coming from

    You don’t know where I’m coming from? Don’t you understand anything I’ve stated?

18. #118
    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:39 pm, corkie said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 8:17 pm, swede said:

    I’m just wondering how GS turns a 33% quarterly gain during one of the worst markets in history…on “blowout trading”???

    Um, it wasn’t a 33% gain. It was a 33% growth in earnings. If they earned $0.03 during the last earnings period and $0.04 during this earnings period, then they’ve grown earnings by 33%. Shocker!

    But that’s nothing. Get ready for this. If they were barely profitable last period – with $0.000001 of earnings. And they earn $0.01 this period, then they grew earnings 10,000%!!! CRAZY!

    Ready for this one, if they lost $0.01 last period and earned $0.01 this period. Then one can’t even calculate the percentage gain! It’s greater than infinity!

    Sounds like somebody’s cooking the books to jack the index for bonuses and dividends.

    Well, you seem adequately qualified to scrutinize their earnings.

19. #119
    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    God I love corkie smackdowns. Even if I am the recipient of them every once in a while.

20. #120
    On July 14th, 2009 at 10:22 pm, chapoutier said:

    That last comment came off more homoerotic than I was expecting.

21. #121
    On July 14th, 2009 at 10:34 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    They were merely experiencing liquidity risks because of the meltdown that was occurring. Do you understand the difference between profitability and liquidity?

    I believe I used the term failing, not unprofitable. And it was failing at the time that the government raided our present and future paychecks to prop them up.

22. #122
    On July 14th, 2009 at 11:38 pm, corkie said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 10:34 pm, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    And it was failing at the time that the government raided our present and future paychecks to prop them up.

    No, no, no. It was AT RISK OF failing. As we all know, perceived risk of failure can cause a bank to fail (unlike other types of businesses).

    Paulson wanted all the banks to take capital in order to remove the perceived risk.

    This is the same mechanism by which FDIC helps prevent bank runs.

    Was I the only one paying attention to what was actually happening at the time?

23. #123
    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:00 am, genso said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm, corkie said:

    As far as I can tell you come from the same place as a braying jackass….full of yourself and derisive of anything that doesn’t agree with your world-view. Beyond that, I don’t really care what you have stated.

    Now….are there any rational opinions here about GS?

24. #124
    On July 15th, 2009 at 2:30 am, pgtips said:

    Now….are there any rational opinions here about GS?

    To be absolutely honest, corkie’s opinions are the most rational in this thread. He (could be a she) understands what makes banks and financial markets tick and all he’s said has merit.

    Now if you disagree with any part of his analysis, kindly state what you disagree with. Ad hominem attacks are for the KOS crowd, let’s keep MM classy.

25. #125
    On July 15th, 2009 at 6:29 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    No, no, no. It was AT RISK OF failing. As we all know, perceived risk of failure can cause a bank to fail (unlike other types of businesses).

    I WAS paying attention. The government labled certain businesses as AT RISK (by whose definition?) of failure. They forced mergers and then proped some up with dollars raided from the taxpayers. The government chose the winners and losers. Not the market. And the winners chosen were very politically connected.

    BTW, preceived risk of failure can kill any business. Note how much lower GM and Chrysler sales are relative to previous years than Ford sales.

26. #126
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:26 am, chapoutier said:

    BTW, preceived risk of failure can kill any business. Note how much lower GM and Chrysler sales are relative to previous years than Ford sales.

    Huh? If the sales are so much lower, I would say that risk of failure is moving away from perception and into reality.

27. #127
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:32 am, flenser said:

    On July 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm, corkie said:

    Your financial institution must also have liquidity!

    I think what you meant to say was “The government has to ensure that I, corkie, have liquidity.”

    The people on “the right” defending the government bailout of the rich and incompetent (viz. themselves) disgust me.

28. #128
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:37 am, flenser said:

    To be absolutely honest, corkie’s opinions are the most rational in this thread. He (could be a she) understands what makes banks and financial markets tick and all he’s said has merit.

    Now if you disagree with any part of his analysis, kindly state what you disagree with.

    Please elaborate on the “analysis” you think you saw from corkie.

    what makes banks and financial markets tick

    Golly! Whatever could that be? Bubblegum? Marshmellows? Pet rocks?

29. #129
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am, flenser said:

    Was I the only one paying attention to what was actually happening at the time?

    No, but unlike you the rest of us understood what was actually happening – the treasury was being looted. By people like you, it would seem.

30. #130
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:45 am, chapoutier said:

    No, but unlike you the rest of us understood what was actually happening – the treasury was being looted. By people like you, it would seem.

    Let me ask a question. Do you think that AIG and Goldman Sachs were objectively on the verge of collapse at the end of last year?

31. #131
    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:59 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    Huh? If the sales are so much lower, I would say that risk of failure is moving away from perception and into reality.

    chap, I was responding to the following part of corkie’s post that implied other business are immune from perception of risk. Corkie may understand banking but he/she completely fails to see the bigger picture — including the rape of the taxpayer.

    No, no, no. It was AT RISK OF failing. As we all know, perceived risk of failure can cause a bank to fail (unlike other types of businesses).

32. #132
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am, lionking said:

    Goldman Sachs and their cronies are corrupt. I talk about it on my blog and the history of them creating bubbles is well documented.

    How we let them get away with this is beyond my comprehension.

33. #133
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:20 am, chapoutier said:

    chap, I was responding to the following part of corkie’s post that implied other business are immune from perception of risk.

    Ok, but your example didn’t seem to fit your statement.

    Corkie may understand banking but he/she completely fails to see the bigger picture — including the rape of the taxpayer.

    This is why I ask if people here really think that AIG and the other banks that got TARP money were objectively on the verge of collapse. I am getting confused as to whether or not you all think that there was simply some sort of banking/government collusion to cook up the perception of their imminent failure so that they could get TARP money. And if this is so, how does one explain these bank’s desire to shed themselves of that TARP money, along with all the strings attached, as quickly as possible? I mean most people that rob the piggy bank aren’t returning 5 months later practically begging to give the money back.

    The other alternative is that you really do think that these institutions were about to fail (their own fault) and feel we should not have bailed them out in any case. That is all fine and dandy. And the Kos kids certainly agreed with you.

    But it is certainly not unreasonable to think that the failure of these behemoths would have been absolutely disastrous for the economy. And I don’t think unreasonable to feel you have to do whatever is necessary to prevent it from happening.

    Someone commented before that when Malkin, Savage, Taibbi and Moore all have you in your crosshairs, something is up. I would say that this bed of strange fellows is entirely predictable. They are paid to be ideologues. They rarely have to concern themselves with the direct, practical implications of their ideology.

34. #134
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:23 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 6:29 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    The government labled certain businesses as AT RISK (by whose definition?) of failure.

    Um, the government labeled ALL the banks at risk. Then they backstopped some acquisitions and provided a financial commitment to others. They considered saving Lehman Brothers, but the company and their plan were train wrecks. Which other large non-FDIC bank was allowed to fail?

    And the winners chosen were very politically connected.

    I don’t think this is accurate.

    Look, I completely disagree with excessive government intervention in the private sector. However, Paulson had some very difficult decisions to make regarding a meltdown he believed was imminent. I happen to agree that it was imminent. (I also have friends that were taking duffle bags to their banks to withdrawal large amounts of cash – they believed it was imminent, too. BTW, banks can’t handle much of those type of cash withdrawals.) You’re welcome to disagree that a meltdown was imminent and/or you’re welcome to believe Paulson should have allowed a meltdown to occur, but please don’t start making baseless accusations about favoritism or conspiracy theories about market manipulations.

    Also, don’t forget that he was battling the short attacks (something I abhor – I abhor short attacks not reasonable short positions – we need the uptick rule reinstated!). The attacking shorts were exacerbating the troubled perception and making it difficult for any of the banks to raise equity capital. Paulson needed to provide overwhelming confidence in these institutions in order to create the incentive for a short squeeze. You might also remember that a temporary no-short rule was put in place for financial institutions. Did you disagree with that move?

    Here’s a disclosure for everyone. I made money shorting Bear Stearns at $119.

35. #135
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:27 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:32 am, flenser said:

    I think what you meant to say was “The government has to ensure that I, corkie, have liquidity.”

    I didn’t personally benefit from it any more than you did.

    The people on “the right” defending the government bailout of the rich and incompetent (viz. themselves) disgust me.

    Please explain how the rich were bailed out. Or is this just your form of class envy?

36. #136
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:30 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am, flenser said:

    By people like you, it would seem.

    Bad assumption. Your analytical abilities are obviously bad, and you’ve discredited yourself.

    Do you actually believe that I’m only speaking out in favor of Paulson’s actions because I benefited from them? You might be that shallow, but I’m not.

37. #137
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 8:59 am, Last Massachusetts Conservative said:

    Corkie may understand banking but he/she completely fails to see the bigger picture — including the rape of the taxpayer.

    I completely understand the rape of the taxpayer. I’ve spoken out against any capital going to GM. I railed against the stimulus.

    However, I honestly don’t think that the bank bailout is going to end up costing the taxpayer as much as everyone thinks. I was VERY clear about this here at the time. I also think that the bank bailout will have saved the taxpayer more than it cost them.

38. #138
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am, lionking said:

    Goldman Sachs and their cronies are corrupt. I talk about it on my blog and the history of them creating bubbles is well documented.

    Does your blog talk about the faked moon landing and the inside job of 9/11, too? Do you at least mention the JFK assassination?

39. #139
    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am, chapoutier said:

    Do you at least mention the JFK assassination?

    I have it on good word that Sidney Weinberg was the man on the grassy knoll.

40. #140
    On July 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am, GraniteMan said:

    What happened to the poor people this bailout & TARP stuff was supposed to help? Practice the battle cry of the 1930′s. “Hey Buddy can you spare a dime?”

41. #141
    On July 15th, 2009 at 10:54 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 9:44 am, chapoutier said:

    I have it on good word that Sidney Weinberg was the man on the grassy knoll.

    I’m sure someone can find a link if the research long enough, then we can really kick this Goldman Sachs conspiracy theory into high gear.

    Someone can probably claim that Goldman Sachs pressured DARPPA to facilitate commercialization of the internet just so they could create the tech bubble.

42. #142
    On July 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:00 am, genso said:

    …derisive of anything that doesn’t agree with your world-view.

    No. I’m derisive of poorly developed accusations.

43. #143
    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am, NBF said:

    These profits SHOULD have been made by the many firms that didn’t get involved in reckless business practices.

    Instead, their prize has been effectively snatched away by the gov’t and given to GS.

44. #144
    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am, NBF said:

    What reckless business practices?

    Goldman’s liquidity concerns weren’t a result of any reckless business practices. It was a result of an acute, worldwide financial meltdown.

45. #145
    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am, lionking said:

    Corkie,
    you need to get some knowledge of the history. Goldman’s cronies have been going in and out of the government jobs for years. Lining up their pockets in the meantime. This is well documented. This is not about conspiracy, it’s about greed. If you can’t see that, then you are blind. The American public is being robbed right before their very eyes.

    Please get some education.

46. #146
    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am, chapoutier said:

    Come on corkie.

    Goldman Sachs is the Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, Free Masons, and Zionist Occupation Government all wrapped up into one!

    Open your eyes!

47. #147
    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:44 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am, lionking said:

    Please get some education.

    Don’t make me laugh.

    Goldman’s cronies have been going in and out of the government jobs for years. Lining up their pockets in the meantime.

    Are you definitely saying that these cronies have been skewing the playing field in favor of Goldman Sachs? If so, then state your accusation definitely. Don’t hide behind a squishy correlation which offers NO causality!

    If the cronies were skewing the playing field, then it’s very, very, very strange that I haven’t heard any complaints from the other investment banks over the years.

48. #148
    On July 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, lionking said:

    If the cronies were skewing the playing field, then it’s very, very, very strange that I haven’t heard any complaints from the other investment banks over the years.

    Why would they complain. They are all getting the residual business.
    Remember Goldman and Morgan Stanley pushing the oil to 147, while the demand was actually going down. Or are you that blind?

49. #149
    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 12:06 pm, lionking said:

    Why would they complain. They are all getting the residual business.

    I was hoping this would be your answer. I’m glad I was able to back you into this corner. So, now you’re claiming that the government laws and rules allow investment banks to make money unfairly! Well, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble pointing to such laws and rules. I can’t wait to learn.

    Remember Goldman and Morgan Stanley pushing the oil to 147, while the demand was actually going down.

    Oil? Lucky you. One of my favorite topics.

    1. Demand was going down???? Horrors? Sell! Sell! Sell! Sell!….Wait!….what about…you know…. supply?….you know…the other half of the equation….what about supply projections….what about this peak oil theory….

    2. I was very bearish on oil at those prices. I knew it was a bubble. But I can tell you that MS and GS weren’t the only ones bullish on it. Even IF some of the asset managers at those places weren’t bullish, nobody was criticizing the analysts’ forecasts. I didn’t hear you pushing a ‘short oil’ investment strategy. That’s ok, tell us. How much $$$ you made shorting oil >$140?

    Or are you that blind?

    I’m not blind. I was watching it. I’d really like to know where the heck you were at the time.

50. #150
    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, lionking said:

    If you’re really that naive to believe that oil is traded on actual oil supply and demand and not the maket controlled by GS, MS, JPM, etc… then I can’t help you. This has already been well documented in investigative reporting.

    nobody was criticizing the analysts’ forecasts.

    See what I mean by being blind!! There were all kinds of flags being raised at that time. Whistle blowers were being ridiculed at that time. Congressional hearings were held, but poo pooed by the wall street cronies. GS and MS lied about controlling the market. This is well documented. Even the drive-by media has reported on it (60 minutes ring a bell?)

    Good luck in your fantasy world. Meanwhile Rome is burning.

51. #151
    On July 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm, Southpaw said:

    Someone commented before that when Malkin, Savage, Taibbi and Moore all have you in your crosshairs, something is up. I would say that this bed of strange fellows is entirely predictable. They are paid to be ideologues. They rarely have to concern themselves with the direct, practical implications of their ideology.

    Ben Stein
    Bill O’Reilly
    Alan Sloan
    Lawyershop
    Mass. Attorney General Martha Coakley
    Richard Cummings
    John Crudele
    State of Utah

    I could go on, but I have reached the conclusion tha GS hardly reeks of sweetness and primrose.

    My belief is that Goldman Sachs is so rife with corruption, theft and greed that it should be shut down entirely. The college football equivalent of the death penalty.

52. #152
    On July 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, lionking said:

    If you’re really that naive to believe that oil is traded on actual oil supply and demand and not the maket controlled by GS, MS, JPM, etc… then I can’t help you.

    You definitely can’t help me.

    I never stated that oil was only traded on actual oil supply and demand. Oil is also traded also on projected, foretasted, believed, perceived, etc. demand and projected, foretasted, believed, perceived, etc. supply.

    What market share of NYMEX (and other such exchange) trades are brokered through GS, MS, and JPM? Interesting that you even included JPM. I bet their market share is tiny.

    There were all kinds of flags being raised at that time.

    Reread what I stated. I stated;

    nobody was criticizing the analysts’ forecasts.

    I didn’t say that nobody was questioning the price! I stated that nobody was criticizing the forecasts! I was specifically referencing the supply forecasts.

    People questioned housing prices, too. Was GS responsible for all those people trying to flip houses?

    This has already been well documented in investigative reporting…This is well documented.

    No. It hasn’t. No. It isn’t.

    60 minutes ring a bell?

    Like I said, it wasn’t well documented. I’ve seen those type of garbage pieces (including 60 Minutes’). As a conservative you really don’t want to give 60 Minutes any credibility. They’re not much better than Michael Moore.

    Now, you’re not going to escape these:

    What laws and rules did the I-banks use to make unfair profits????

    How much $$$ you made shorting oil >$140?

53. #153
    On July 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, lionking said:

    Good luck in your fantasy world. Meanwhile Rome is burning.

    Thanks, Chicken Little. I live in a fantasy world because I don’t believe the sky is falling, i.e. I don’t believe that GS is pulling all the economic levers of the word. Wait! You included Morgan Stanley and JPM in that. Are they colluding? Or did they agree to divide up the world prior to their lever pulling? I’m confused – please explain the mechanics of this conspiracy.

54. #154
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, Southpaw said:

    My opinion is that Goldman Sachs has demonstrated a sustained pattern of cronyism, corruption, fraud and greed, a poster child for RICO enforcement. For malicious and repeated damage to the investors, the American economy and the American people, I would recommend that the comany be shut down, put out of business, given the equivalent of the death penalty in college football. Former employees now in government positions should resign.
    My opinion.

55. #155
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:31 pm, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, Southpaw said:

    …a poster child for RICO enforcement.

    Well, such enforcement usually requires…you know…actual evidence.

    My opinion.

    Based on what?

    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, Southpaw said:

    Goldman Sachs has demonstrated a sustained pattern of …greed

    Is greed illegal? Can you even describe what is and isn’t greed? (And I’m not asking you to cut-and-paste a definition).

56. #156
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, Southpaw said:

    From MSN:

    In the fourth and first quarters, Bear-issued trusts sold 29 properties in Fulton County, which includes much of the city of Atlanta, for a total of $3.5 million. That was 60% of the combined original loan amounts of $5.8 million

    .

    In comparison, Countrywide Financial, now owned by Bank of America (BAC, news, msgs), completed the sale of 23 properties in Fulton for $3.7 million, or 86% of the original loan amount during the same time period, the real-estate records analyzed by Data Intelligence show

    .

    In March, the mortgage-processing firm that works on behalf of a Goldman Sachs mortgage trust sold a house in southwest Atlanta for $17,000 — a markdown of 87% from the original loan value. A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment.

57. #157
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:40 pm, Southpaw said:

    You might need to explain this comment. Are those B’s? Because they look like M’s.

    What the heck was the point?

58. #158
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:56 pm, corkie said:

    Upon further review, I understand the comment even less.

    The first appears to describe a foreclosure sale by trusts which were originally issued by Bear.

    The second appears to describe a foreclosure sale by BofA.

    The third appears to describe a foreclosure sale by a Goldman trust.

    Um, so?

59. #159
    On July 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm, Southpaw said:

    If you live in the Atlanta area and you own a $100,000 home here’s what is happening:
    BofA Countrywide, struggling to servive, will sell your neighbors home for $86,000.
    Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, struggling to survive, will sell your neighbors home for $69,000.
    Goldman Sachs, earning record profits and handing out record bonuses, will sell your neighbors house for $13,000.

    Nice guys, huh?

60. #160
    On July 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm, corkie said:

    If you live in the Atlanta area and you own a $100,000 home here’s what is happening:

    Who says the it’s a “$100,000 home?”

    You do understand asset valuation, right?

    Nice guys, huh?

    Are you faulting them for executing foreclosure sales? Do you support Obama’s attempts to restrict foreclosures?

    You certainly have a strange perspective of the capital markets.

61. #161
    On July 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm, corkie said:

    Surely your beef with GS and other I-Banks isn’t limited to a few foreclosure sales, right?

62. #162
    On July 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm, Southpaw said:

    To paraphrase Stuart Smalley: “Doggone it, I just don’t like them.”

    If it’s good enough for a U.S. Senator, it’s good enough for me.

    Sometimes I just make this stuff up to get people all riled up. I think I need a 12 step program for BSers Anonymous.

63. #163
    On July 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    Glenn Beck did a “bubble web” presentation on today’s show (7/15/09) showing the players and their ties to former Goldman Sachs execs…the vid should turn up on youtube fairly quickly I’d think…they are neck deep in tarp and the AIG bailout…corruption is a mild word for this….

64. #164
    On July 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm, corkie said:

    Thanks, I’ll be on the lookout for it.

    I hope Beck did a better job with his video that Stone did with JFK.

65. #165
    On July 16th, 2009 at 2:53 am, corkie said:

    On July 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm, tiredofit08 said:

    OK, Just youtubed Glenn Beck. LOW POWER. His main source was….yes….you guessed it….ROLLNG STONE and RON PAUL. In other words – nothing.

    Puleeze, people! Get a grip and get a clue.

66. #166
    On July 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am, tiredofit08 said:

    ok boys and girls…here’s a link to the Glenn Beck vid from yesterday’s show on Goldman Sachs…enjoy nor be really scared and disgusted…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khGZ3a4zTNU

67. #167
    On July 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am, tiredofit08 said:

    nor or….

68. #168
    On July 16th, 2009 at 9:01 am, corkie said:

    On July 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am, tiredofit08 said:

    Just youtubed the 2nd piece.

    First, Beck should be ashamed of himself.

    Second, too much of what he states is inaccurate!

    Lehman Brothers wasn’t the biggest competitor of GS. Morgan Stanley is/was. Bear Stearns was acquired – not allowed to fail. (BTW, maybe there were good reasons for both). NO mention of Merryl Lynch. What’s wrong Beck? Didn’t mention of it fit your trumped up narrative?

    Third, Beck uses the Tim Geithner placard as if he’s from GS, but later admits that “he’s not really a Goldman man” in order to justify why a Goldman Sachs employee was supposedly brought into Treasury as Geithner’s chief of staff.

    He faults Treasury for allowing someone to purchase Goldman Sachs stock! You can’t have it both ways, Glenn! Either you’re against the cash being handed out to these guys or you don’t want them buying stock – you must pick one or the other! Warren Buffet purchased Goldman stock, but that didn’t fit Beck’s narrative either. WE were encouraging people to purchase bank equity during that period!

    All the I-Banks transitioned to banks from a regulatory perspective – NOT just GS. He’s inaccurate about the transition affecting SEC purview!

    So what if Goldman purchased a mere 10% in a CO2 trading business? Treasury’s not pushing Cap-and-Trade on Congress.

    Fourth, like them or not, many of the best and the brightest finance people work or worked for Goldman Sachs. It’s not surprising that they get tapped for prestigious government appointments. Remember, I don’t even like Goldman Sachs, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not willing to be honest about them.

    Lastly, would somebody please tell me how Goldman Sachs or any investment bank is receiving favorable business operating parameters from a regulatory perspective? I’m not seeing the unfair advantage they are supposedly granting themselves.

69. #169
    On July 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am, Southpaw said:

    I made that up about making stuff up. I never make stuff up.

    Leonidas: “Immortals Too Big To Fails. We’ll put their name to the test.”
    “300″

70. #170
    On July 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm, corkie said:

    Then explain it.

71. #171
    On July 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm, Southpaw said:

    Mr. Banks: Just a moment, Mary Poppins. What is the meaning of this outrage?
    Mary Poppins: I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Banks: Will you be good enough to explain all this?
    Mary Poppins: First of all I would like to make one thing perfectly clear.
    Mr. Banks: Yes?
    Mary Poppins: I never explain anything.

72. #172
    On July 16th, 2009 at 9:19 pm, corkie said:

    I guess that’s why nobody ever respected Mary Poppins’ blog comments.