Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama deception on Goldman Sachs
Everyone in the media is asking the typical questions and feeding the public with a masterful deception of ignorance or of an orchestrated sleigh of hand.
The media question on the timing of the SEC crackdown:
Did the White House know of the impending crackdown ahead of the story and if so use the information to further their legislative goal of taking over Wall Street banks in the guise of outrage and need to regulate?
There were also a couple of news items that have generated from this question and subsequent follow up to the original question, like:
1) The campaign contributions that Goldman Sachs gave to Obama totaling $994,000.
2) Greg Craig (former White House Counsel for Obama) landing at Goldman Sachs and his upcoming role in Goldman’s defense to the corruption charges.
3) Obama’s broken campaign promises of not allowing anyone who works in the Administration from working for firms for 2 years after they leave, which is exactly what Greg Craig has done by going to Goldman Sachs.
Before I divulge the question that we should be focusing on a little history lesson is needed on another recent “financial sector” crisis that has costs us taxpayers so much money and against our collective outcry’s. I am talking about the AIG bailout. Again, during that crisis we were quickly herded like cattle, by the media by the wrong questions being asked when the Obama Administration told us we need to act NOW. Once the billions flooded into their coffers (AIG) the media was focusing our attention on two distinct news items/questions that ensued:
1) How much of the bailout money that went to AIG was going to foreign banks?
2) How much of the bailout money was earmarked for executive bonuses?
Both of these questions fueled the further rage against big business that the Obama Administration was telling us were too big to fail and as such, confiscated them - took them over like they did with GM.
Not one media outlet was concerned about how much of the bailout was being funneled from AIG into domestic banks. Not one media outlet was concerned about one of these domestic banks that was called “Goldman Sachs”. Goldman Sachs received the most money from the bailout funds to AIG, from AIG.
This AIG bailout looks like a backdoor payment to Goldman Sachs.
The questions we should be asking is this:
1) Did the Obama Administration tip off Goldman Sachs that a crackdown was coming and if so, when?
2) Did the Obama Administration ensure that Goldman Sachs receive a hefty payment (disguised as an AIG payment) to absorb the oncoming criticism to allow the Administration the political ammunition needed to take Wall Street banks over?
3) Did Greg Craig leave the White House early in order to land at Goldman in order to protect their backsides (both White House and Goldman’s) against any possible connections linking the two together?
There have been calls to investigate Goldman Sachs and I for one am all for that. Let’s pick them apart for details. I am not talking about the details of the misdirected questions coming from the media and the fluffy misdirection coming out of the White House, but serious questions that take forensic accountants through the “looking glass” at every transaction, phone call, email and political contribution that got us here. I know this sounds cliché, but, follow the money.
I like many other conservatives are outraged against the largess, greed and corruption of Wall Street but in all this anger being hurled in their direction there is anger that should be directed at Government. You can take every single instance of corporate rip offs and corruption (i.e., Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Jack Abramoff, Stanford etc) and combine the money stolen and defrauded against shareholders and it would pale in comparison to that which our own Government is stealing from us to cover up their “gross and negligent” oversight failures. They (lawmakers) look to write new legislation to appease the masses that they are acting on this outrage of Wall Street when in fact all they need to do is enforce current legislative oversight without the creation of new government oversight agencies with fancy new names.