Goldman Sachs 'apologises' for role in financial cris

[financeguy]

FT.com / Companies / Banks - Goldman apologises for role in crisis

Goldman Sachs apologised for its role in the financial crisis on Tuesday and pledged $500m over five years – or about 2.3 per cent of its estimated bonus and salary pool for 2009 – to help 10,000 US small businesses recover from the recession.

That works out at an $30,000 investment for each of the 10,000 small firms. They probably will get that back on surcharges from the companies and more.

That $500mi will probably have a tax deductable scheme that benefits them or they will create a derivative out of thin air to cover themselves.

It is only 2% of the bonuses they are dishing out to their executives.

They are the scum of the earth.

 

[Knuckle]

When I read the title of your thread I instantly thought that any apology was just an effort to curb outrage at the likely gargantuan bonuses they were about to give themselves. Then I read your comment and realized you had beaten me to it.

They and their peers just keep finding new ways to stuff unimaginable amounts of money in their pockets while keeping the clueless voters distracted with such nonsense as outrage over gay rights, gun rights, etc. But then, raising any questions about this makes me a socialist, rendering my opinion poisonous and traitorous, doesn't it? We shouldn't question any of this because all Americans, no matter what our station in life, are raised to believe that we can be as rich as them if we just have the initiative to apply ourselves. Shame on us for not realizing our God-given potential.

 

[AliEnvy]

They are the scum of the earth.

The CEO is a real piece of work.

I'm doing 'God's work'. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs - Times Online


"Vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity" - Rolling Stone.

 

[AEON]

And they only gave a million to Obama...

 

[AliEnvy]

Which he promptly gave back several thousands of times over.

 

[AEON]

I'm not quite sure what the fix is - but we must stop the ability of corporations contributing to political campaigns. Everyone knows that Goldman was a huge beneficiary of the regulatory changes made over the last decade. And when new regulations come out, I’m sure they will benefit from those as well.

Of course, I don’t like the notion of only rich individuals influencing (err donating) either. The only was someone like Lincoln got elected was by train and speaking to the people directly – the point being it didn’t cost much. If television is too expensive, then don’t allow it. It doesn’t cost much to post adds on the Internet and take a bus to get your message out. Any of this is better than allowing huge corporations the ability to influence lawmaking.

 

[Se7en]

public financing with spending guidelines and a strict maximum would be one way to go. it would also level the playing field to some extent for those candidates who do not have access to millions of dollars from their own bank accounts or someone else's.

 

[AEON]

public financing with spending guidelines and a strict maximum would be one way to go. it would also level the playing field to some extent for those candidates who do not have access to millions of dollars from their own bank accounts or someone else's.

I would agree with public financing as long as it was a relatively small amount. I don't think it should go to pay for millions upon millions of dollars worth of tv ads. I think the only tv that should be allowed are the debates - and those are free (for the candidates).

Also, I read that the University of California and Harvard were also huge campaign contributors. What in the world is a college doing trying to influence lawmakers?

Our whole system is so corrupted we are one more "downturn" away from it all coming apart at the seams. When the people no longer trust in the system (any system) - history shows that the system will fail. We are just about at that point, if not already beyond it. The Goldman/Crisis connection may be the tipping point...