Goldman Sachs

[muppet]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

[J70]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

Who should we support stew?

Who is NOT a corporate whore? Bernie probably, but with him you'll then be whining about tax increases and regulations.

[seafoid]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

Thatcher was also a woman. Nominally. Hillary would be a disaster.

[ashman]

Hillary will be good for Ireland .  Hope she gets in .

[omaghjoe]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

Now theres an appeal to Novelty if i ever seen it.

[omaghjoe]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

Who should we support stew?

Who is NOT a corporate whore? Bernie probably, but with him you'll then be whining about tax increases and regulations.

Sanders says more money in your pocket because the healthcare will paid for without insurance, hosiptals etc lumping in their margin to your premiums

[stew]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

I have nothing against them, I  simply think they should pick a side, nothing wrong with that muppet.

And after a transgender president maybe we could have a parrot as president, maybe you would like to see that muppet, after all some of them talk more sense than that skank Killory!

[stew]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

Who should we support stew?

Who is NOT a corporate whore? Bernie probably, but with him you'll then be whining about tax increases and regulations.

You answered your own question, the liberals on here make me sick, they stick behind Killory even though they know she is a lying, corporate killer of human beings and yet they stand behind her when they have a viable alternative, feck me, how do you lot sleep at night?

[foxcommander]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

Now theres an appeal to Novelty if i ever seen it.

Obama?

[omaghjoe]

Killory refuses to release her speeches were she fawns over these f**kers, in 60 speeches she gave, 30 companies landed giant government contracts when she held office, this aul rich bitch is as corrupt but the sheep among you still support this corporate whose, disgraceful really but to be expected

It is great to see progress though.

Firstly, a Black President of the US. A great step forward.

Next up the First Woman President. Brilliant.

How do you follow that?

The First Transgender President? I hope I live long enough to see Stew and the boys post on THAT Election campaign.

Now theres an appeal to Novelty if i ever seen it.

Obama?

Not Obama per se but the notion that him being black is some sort of step forward. Or that Hillary being a woman president would be great for equality.

Pure BS as it is irrelevant to the post being held. Only thing that really matters is their policies and how they carry them out.

[Corner Forward]

Lowlifes.

Part of the problem is this stuff is so arcane and abstract that most people don't know what the f**k is going on. Murder, terrorism etc. are clear, black and white acts, whereas most of us wouldn't even know what the hell a derivative is.

I was reading a book about this whose name escapes me. But essentially they were bundling up crap mortgages and AIG were insuring these for 0.5%, which was utterly ridiculous. Now you or I might not have a clue, but the likes of AIG were well able to hire someone with a clue, and only gross negligence meant that they did not do so.

Book may have been 'the world's greatest trade'. It was based on John Paulson. Describes in detail how he was able to bundle up bad debts, give them triple A ratings even though they were worthless and sell them on. Then able to take out insurance on them failing even though he no longer owned them. Example the book gave was like selling someone a dodgy car and then taking out insurance on it to crash.

At uni read a number of papers on the finanical crisis. Problem with these banks and hedge funds is they are often big backers to Presidential campaigns.  White house isnt going to bite the hand that feeds it.

[seafoid]

Banks and HFs have been big backers of presidential campaigns but the shtick of getting poor people to vote for  the interests of the rich like low capital gains taxes etc is dead in the water with the GOP evangelicals gone .
And they are not going back.

Clinton is hopelessly corrupt as well

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/
In a February 25 editorial, The New York Times argued that Clinton's "stonewalling" on the Goldman transcripts "plays into the hands of those who say she's not trustworthy and makes her own rules" and "most important, is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she'd run an accountable and transparent White House." But the Times editorial did not get to the heart of the matter. The larger question is, Why was she giving these speeches at all—and accepting such hefty payments for them—given Goldman Sachs's record during the Great Recession of 2007–2008?

The Clintons' connections to Goldman Sachs can be traced back to their beginnings in national politics, in December 1991, when Robert Rubin, then co-chair co-senior partner of the bank, met Bill Clinton at a Manhattan dinner party and was so impressed by him that he signed on as an economic adviser to Clinton's campaign for the 1992 Democratic nomination. According to a November 2015 survey of Clinton donors by The Washington Post, Rubin and other Goldman partners "mobilized their networks to raise money for the upstart candidate."

As Bill Clinton's secretary of the treasury from January 1995 until July 1999, Rubin was an architect of the financial deregulation that left financial derivatives such as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) largely free of controls. This paved the way for the large-scale, unregulated speculation in financial derivatives by Wall Street banks beginning in the early 2000s. (Goldman itself continued to enjoy special access to Washington during the George W. Bush administration, with former Goldman chief executive Hank Paulson serving as Treasury Secretary from 2006 to 2009.)

These long-running ties with Goldman have paid off for the Clintons. According to a July 2014 analysis in the Wall Street Journal, from 1992 to the present Goldman has been the Clintons' number one Wall Street contributor, based on speaking fees, charitable donations, and campaign contributions, the three pillars of what I've called the Clinton System. As early as 2000, Goldman was the second most generous funder—after Citigroup—of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, with a contribution of $711,000. In the early 2000s, Bill Clinton was also a Goldman beneficiary, receiving $650,000 from Goldman for four speeches delivered between December 2004 and June 2005. (The transcripts of these speeches do not appear to be currently available.)

[muppet]

Banks and HFs have been big backers of presidential campaigns but the shtick of getting poor people to vote for  the interests of the rich like low capital gains taxes etc is dead in the water with the GOP evangelicals gone .
And they are not going back.

Clinton is hopelessly corrupt as well

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/04/12/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-why-it-matters/
In a February 25 editorial, The New York Times argued that Clinton's "stonewalling" on the Goldman transcripts "plays into the hands of those who say she's not trustworthy and makes her own rules" and "most important, is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she'd run an accountable and transparent White House." But the Times editorial did not get to the heart of the matter. The larger question is, Why was she giving these speeches at all—and accepting such hefty payments for them—given Goldman Sachs's record during the Great Recession of 2007–2008?

The Clintons' connections to Goldman Sachs can be traced back to their beginnings in national politics, in December 1991, when Robert Rubin, then co-chair co-senior partner of the bank, met Bill Clinton at a Manhattan dinner party and was so impressed by him that he signed on as an economic adviser to Clinton's campaign for the 1992 Democratic nomination. According to a November 2015 survey of Clinton donors by The Washington Post, Rubin and other Goldman partners "mobilized their networks to raise money for the upstart candidate."

As Bill Clinton's secretary of the treasury from January 1995 until July 1999, Rubin was an architect of the financial deregulation that left financial derivatives such as Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) largely free of controls. This paved the way for the large-scale, unregulated speculation in financial derivatives by Wall Street banks beginning in the early 2000s. (Goldman itself continued to enjoy special access to Washington during the George W. Bush administration, with former Goldman chief executive Hank Paulson serving as Treasury Secretary from 2006 to 2009.)

These long-running ties with Goldman have paid off for the Clintons. According to a July 2014 analysis in the Wall Street Journal, from 1992 to the present Goldman has been the Clintons' number one Wall Street contributor, based on speaking fees, charitable donations, and campaign contributions, the three pillars of what I've called the Clinton System. As early as 2000, Goldman was the second most generous funder—after Citigroup—of Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, with a contribution of $711,000. In the early 2000s, Bill Clinton was also a Goldman beneficiary, receiving $650,000 from Goldman for four speeches delivered between December 2004 and June 2005. (The transcripts of these speeches do not appear to be currently available.)

This is playing with the truth. Firstly a CDO is not a derivative and that makes the sentences in bold complete nonsense.

In the 1990s CDOs were simply next generation of Junk Bond market which had boomed and then collapsed (especially with the notorious LBO fad) in the 1970s & 1980s, all without any Clintons.

Wall St covers all the bases. Anyone who thinks Sanders would sort it out is delusional. But I admit I would enjoy watching him, or anyone, try.

[seafoid]

I dunno Muppet. Power collapses are different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSRnZbEHYJg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSEej3Aau8Y

The US rich have surrendered to the people 4 times in the last 200 years
1830s when Andrew Jackson attacked corporations and their ties to wealth
1890s Gilded Age when opposition to monopolies peaked
1930s New Deal
1960s when the 1% share of income fell to 9%

The collapse of the Republican party is serious shit.   
It may be time for No. 5.

[muppet]

I dunno Muppet. Power collapses are different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSRnZbEHYJg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSEej3Aau8Y

The US rich have surrendered to the people 4 times in the last 200 years
1830s when Andrew Jackson attacked corporations and their ties to wealth
1890s Gilded Age when opposition to monopolies peaked
1930s New Deal
1960s when the 1% share of income fell to 9%

The collapse of the Republican party is serious shit.   
It may be time for No. 5.

Your list is of collapses, but looking at it another way, it also is a list punctuating the 1% recovering each time. Merely 5 temporary blips for them.

While I would like to see the super wealthy have to join normal society and pay proper taxes, I don't see it happening at least not for long.

Personally I think we are fixated with politicians (my predictive text keeps putting in the word 'pelicans' for some reason) when the real power is held by corporations. We have no control over who they are or how they behave. We never had. That is what the world needs to address.

Back to the politicians.

We seem to elect three types of politicians in most countries:

a) Those who talk lots of good talk, but always pander to the corporations;
b) Those who try to be a force for good but also try to lease with the real power - the Corporations - with varying degrees of success;
c) The spoofers who rant and protest on issues such as water charges, bin charges, but stay well, well clear of tackling the corporations despite their rhetoric.

I see Sanders as a contender for c) but I may be wrong. None of the Republicans are anything other than a).