Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Geithner and Goldman, Thick as Thieves
What was Timothy Geithner thinking back in 2008 when, as president of the New York Fed, he decided to give Goldman Sachs a $30 billion interest-free loan as part of an $80 billion secret float to favored banks? The sordid details of that program were finally made public this week in response to a court order for a Freedom of Information Act release, thanks to a Bloomberg News lawsuit. Sorry, my bad: It wasn’t an interest-free loan; make that .01 percent that Goldman paid to borrow taxpayer money when ordinary folks who missed a few credit card payments in order to finance their mortgages were being slapped with interest rates of more than 25 percent.
One wonders if Barack Obama was fully aware of Geithner’s deceitful performance at the New York Fed when he appointed him treasury secretary in the incoming administration. The president was probably ignorant of this particular giveaway, as were key members of Congress. “I wasn’t aware of this program until now,” Barney Frank, D-Mass., who at the time chaired the House Financial Services Committee, admitted in referring to Geithner’s “single-tranche open-market operations” program. And there was no language in the Dodd-Frank law supposedly reining in the banks that compelled the Fed to reveal the existence of this program.
It was merely one small part of that reckless policy of throwing mad money at the banks while ignoring the plight of homeowners whom the banks had swindled, a plan pursued by both the Bush and the Obama administrations that set the stage for the current slide into a double-dip recession. On Tuesday it was reported that home values have continued an eight-month decline back to their lowest point since the recession began. With housing in deep trouble there can be no rebound of consumer confidence or job creation, and the first-quarter growth rate was an anemic 1.8 percent even as Wall Street profits and bonuses flourished. Wages are stagnant, unemployment claims have recently risen and, as The Wall Street Journal headlined on Tuesday, “Economists Downgrade Prospects for Growth.” That same edition of the Journal reported that 44.6 million Americans now survive on food stamps, an 11 percent increase in that misery index over the past year, while Geithner’s friends at Goldman are doing quite well.
Actually, Goldman wasn’t even a bank and was therefore ineligible for those massive government handouts until Geithner helped gain approval for the instant conversion of Goldman from an investment house to a commercial bank. Goldman was granted that status, and with it access to the Fed’s lending, soon after the privilege had been denied to the fellow investment bank Lehman Brothers (the $30 billion mentioned above was in addition to the $43.5 billion Goldman borrowed from other Fed programs). Although Lehman was allowed to go belly up, Geithner engineered the massive bailout of AIG, a move that turned out to be a cover for passing money to AIG’s clients, including the aforementioned Goldman Sachs. The man’s intentions were clear, even if all the secret details were not, when Obama picked him to be his point man in salvaging an economy that Geithner had done much to wreck.
Geithner’s priorities were all too obvious from his days in the Clinton administration’s Treasury Department when he worked first under former Goldman honcho Robert Rubin and then Lawrence Summers, who took six-figure speaking fees from Goldman and other banks while he was an adviser to candidate Obama. It was the recommendation of Rubin and Summers that landed Geithner the job as president of the New York Fed, where he faithfully followed the policy lead of Goldman-CEO-turned-Treasury-Secretary Henry Paulson.
It was back then and is now accurate to speak, as a New York Times headline once put it, of U.S. politics dominated by “The Guys From ‘Government Sachs’ ”—but on an international scale. From the crisis in Greece, where Goldman manufactured toxic tax-based derivatives with abandon, to its betting against the success of the mortgage-based derivatives that Goldman designed and sold to others, the company was nothing short of a massive wrecking ball in the international economy.
Oh yes, what did Goldman do with that taxpayer money it borrowed back in 2008? It needed the money to cover the lousy bets of its Fixed Income, Currencies and Commodities trading unit, which had lost $320 million. Typical of the Goldman dealings in that arena was the $1.3 billion solicited from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya sovereign wealth fund, which according to a report in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal lost 98 percent of its value and almost cost some Goldman executives doing business in Tripoli their lives.
But they survived, as the guys from Goldman always do. With the general “no banker left behind” program pursued by Geithner under both George W. Bush and Obama, the theory was that saving the banks would save the country. The first part worked out brilliantly, but the second act never occurred.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
44 Comments so far
Show AllThanks, Jill, for clear thinking.
I'd add that Barney Frank's Chief of Staff left in Sept 2008 to become a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs. Also, I saw an article in early 2009 in which BF said "Who could have known 5 years ago that there would be a problem?" That statement was followed by a quote from Ron Paul, who was on the same finance committee as BF. The quote was from 2004 and it included a warning about what was coming 5-10 years down the road if they didn't do something with Fannie and Freddie then.
I think the real Barney Frank stood up quite clearly--doesn't know/doesn't care but good at pretending.
Well said, Jill. But even if Obama should fire Geithner, he'd only hire some clone exactly like him, another Wall Street prankster, or "savvy businessman" that Obama so publicly admires. Why doesn't he fire Bernanke, who is just as responsible as Geithner, Summers and similar Wall St. con men, for the economic collapse? Come to think of it, why doesn't Obama admit his own central role in the ongoing debacle and resign? And why don't pigs fly to the moon?
JILL: I think you're smart and catch a lot. However, it seems to me that you frequently take an "absolutist" stance. That's why I react to your posts the way I do. By lumping certain obviously CENTRIST groups and authors into the Left camp, you reinforce the idea that the Left is unable to see or act on the larger truths of our time.
Once again, as someone who's done TV, radio, and publishing, I can tell you that nothing, unless you are a super-star, and even then, there's a price to pay, gets into print or aired unless it conforms to the media entity's "standards." And those standards are getting more and more conservative and controlled with time.
No one on the TRUE Left, which is say LEFT of Liberal, speaks honestly about 911 in any open media channel. It has obviously been defined as the 3rd rail.
Do you reall think the mainstream media has any spokespersons who TRULY reflect the Left? It has some token liberals, that's all. And to equate these token liberals with bona fide positions on the left is to buy into the same erroneous tragedy of errors that's reinforced by all the right wing media channels.
The few pretenders hardly represent the interests or positions of the Left. Therefore to use them in arguments to suggest that the left is misguided, is to reinforce something that's not true to begin with. (The anti-war reference might be an exception. I don't know much about them... but if it's well-funded, there's a good chance something else is operating to influence its agenda.)
If Obama self-identifies as being a Progressive, does that make it true? Are ANY of his positions remotely tied to any Left perspective on ANYTHING? If Rachel Maddow calls herself a voice on the Left, does that make it so? These are TOKEN liberals. The best commentary we get, are in fact ALLOWED to get, comes from a few glib comedians, and even they only skirt the key explosive issues of our times.
I am not thrilled that Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges don't come out and spill the beans about 911. But it's quite possible their careers would be ruined. Then rather than alerting the public to 75% of what's going on, and strategically deciding to leave the other 25% in the dark, they need not forfeit ALL access. I can understand that deal with the devil. And that's why I think it is disturbing when some in this forum make it a HABIT to pick on highly principled persons who have dedicated their lives to social justice issues, anti-war positions, and ecologically wise alternatives. Finding the ONE thing that makes them less credible, these posters seem to be intent upon discrediting their work altogether. That is a mistake! If not a paid and/or calculated one.
We are all human. We are all imperfect. We all have ghosts in our closets. We all hold some principled positions, and maybe miss the mark in others. To focus ONLY on the quest for perfection means that far too much good stuff gets thrown out in the process.
IF there were a GENUINE LEFT that had media access, and through that access was able to effectively inform citizens about the various and sundry goings on (both here and abroad), in particular, those policies being done in their names, and after such a vivid exposure we still witnessed the phenomenon you concisely relate... that of "The Left" going along with Obama... then your argument would hold water.
Just as the elections leave the public with two piss-poor choices and some in the forum blame the public for that limited choice-pool, I think it's unfair to blame the left for things that have been co-opted by the big money interests.
If the nation's center is ENGINEERED (by think tanks and those who control the media) to veer to the right, then anyone who is slightly less conservative is lumped into the category of being liberal--or Left.
Even Chris Hedges falls into this trap. In that humanitarian era reflected in the mores and ideals of the l960's & l970's, universities WERE liberal institutions, as was much of media. Since Reagan ushered in the ownership society, and everything began to run on the basis of its highest paying donors' interests, any trace of liberal inclinations was forced out of the equation.
Hedges calls the churches a liberal institution. Maybe the Unitarian Church fits that designation, but the far more populated Southern Baptists give the Taliban a run for the money when it comes to supporting repressive ideas and legislation.
I think confusion is inevitable, when we get lost in names and qualifiers that no longer fit their intended targets.
I offer these observations to promote honest debate.
Good observations, Siouxrose.
Helpful review of contemporary US political scene.
Bill in Dubuque
Nicely stated Sioux, but "honest debate" on CD has taken a backslide into censorship recently. In the recent Hedges piece they deleted two of my posts which provided a similar bent on the various personalities who negatively critique Hedges while pretending they are left leaning visionaries: when in point of fact, they are representing the Dem apologetic wing, i.e, people like Lefty and his many sock puppet identies, and others of his ilk. (I have also noticed an increase in censored content via deletings on other posts.) Nevertheless, keep the fire alive: you are one of a handful of writers/thinkers worth reading on the site.
Greetings Siouxrose -
I was curious about your comments concerning 9/11 as I can't remember reading anything about that from you before. It would appear that to the great majority of Americans it is a dead issue or is now just a rallying issue such as when Bin Laden was murdered by U.S. Navy Seals wearing skeleton masks and many of these "patriots" gathered at the 9/11 site and whooped it up by yelling "USA! USA!" Interesting sense of "justice".
I would like to hear a summary of your views re 9/11. I have always had a deep suspicion of the official story of that day and came to regard the government report as the "9/11 Omission Report". One glaring example is the fact that the commission came to no conclusion as to how WTC 7 came down but said that they would examine that later. However, they never did.
Jill,
I think there's actually two things at play here that help serve to answer your question about the "left".
First, we no longer have a large left in this in this country. 40+ years of conservative attacks - many viscous and personally destructive have virtually destroyed what used to be a vibrant left. Not that the left was all that large to begin with.
Think back to the sixties and seventies. The civil rights movement, the Vietnam anti-war movement, the women's equality movement, and the environmental movement. Each of these was pretty much a single issue movement and even leaders like Martin Luther King Jr had a hard time linking them together.
Conservative attacks on organizations such as ACORN, Planned Parenthood, The ACLU, etc. are all designed to destroy the left. When people like Phil Donahue get fired for very publicly showing the truth about the Bush administration's rush to war, its much more than silencing a critic - its sending a message to others about what's clearly not permissible if you want to keep your job.
Its not just the left they go after either. Remember the Army General who was forced to retire because he actually told the truth to Congress about how many ground troops would be required to invade Iraq. The lesson was learned well, as from that point on, none of the other military officers spoke up.
For what its worth, and I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with our very own troll, Horace (or whatever he's calling himself nowadays), the people of our country are far to the right of what was considered moderate or even conservative positions in the seventies.
There ARE thousands of voices shouting out the truth about not only what's going on, but about the Democratic Party's active participation., but this brings us to the second point. These voices of truth, reason, and sanity either have nowhere to go for wide circulation or simply get drowned out by those with the money and media. One news story tells the truth and is immediately countered by dozens which rely on supposition, distortion, distraction, or outright lies. Think.about how many people in this country truly don't believe in climate change. Then stop and ask yourself why? Those who truly don't believe have two things in common - they are overwhelmingly Republican - and they overwhelmingly listen to conservative talk radio and watch Fox News.
The truth is out there. Or at least enough to fight back. The problem is that you actually have to search for it. The lies and deceit on the other hand are piped 24/7 into our nation's homes. Even here on CD, to really get anything out of it, one has to first read the comments - and then actually engage in dialog.
Thanks KrazyKat.
"Let's assume at least some of the commentariat are not paid hacks." That is a fair assumption, since I know many people who STILL express hopes for Obama. I think that psychologically it is like the belief that you will see your Mom in heaven, a strong, appealing alternative to the truth.
Not everyone lives life based on evidence, but also on hopes and desires, on being able to find some kind of comfort. So when we present evidence, as difficult as it is, we should also try to present some suggestions for changing the political and economic scene. That is not so easy, since we are living in the middle of the biggest, most aggressive, most kleptocratic, cleverest and most deceitful empire in the history of the world. And hardly anybody will take the time to listen unless there is some likely tangible benefit for them.
Hmmm
"Throwing mad money at banks" It would now appear quite clearly that nothing about the activities in 20080-2009 between the FED and Goldman were either random or hapenstance. It would seem as they say, they we the people have been had. All evidence suggests a well timed and orchestrated take down of the markets designed to provide cover for what in the end was a realitively simple crime of theft. Though draped in confusing derivatives and "complex" trade vehicles in reality it wasn't complex at all.
First the FED and a small group of insider corporations collapsed the markets. Then just as the markets hit its 2008 lows and evryone was selling (just who do you think was buying) and virtually the entire lenght and breath of the market was ripe for the plucking.....The FED starts handing out trillions of our tax dollars. Dollars that only went to that same small group of insiders. (funny how desperate they were to keep it all secret) And what did they do with those trillions? Obviously they bought into the length and breath of the entire world equities markets.
And what has the FED been doing with more of our tax trillions since 2008? Basically the ONLY thing the FED has been doing (other than trying to hide from federal and Congressional investigators and destroying the dollar) is PUMPING UP THE WORLD EQUITIES MARKETS! Remember don't believe all the evidence and your lying eyes! Just keep believing Goldman Sachs, the FED and of course Timothy Geithner. After all over the last 30 months these same mouth pieces have only been caught lying dozens of times. But go ahead keep believing. Good grief there should be hundreds of people rotting in Jail right now. Oh and in case everyone has forgotten, lying to a Congressional panel is a FEDERAL FELONY rap! Let alone rigging the entire market.
Geithner's history and deep-seated character were obvious from the start. He was Obama's choice. Obama's endorsement of Ben Bernacke and Larry Summers rounds out the picture, lest one think Geithner was a singular naive error.
I do not understand why otherwise good and intelligent people make excuses for moves like this. These were deliberate moves in a well-thought out plan to transfer the national wealth into the hands of Goldman-Sachs and the banks. Period.
As Jill says, let's see what happens next.
"One wonders if Barack Obama was fully aware of Geithner’s deceitful performance at the New York Fed when he appointed him treasury secretary in the incoming administration."
Seriously?!! I mean really.
With "events" ALWAYS seemingly working out just fine and dandy for the elite psychopaths in our society, you have to either be a freaking idiot or a paid shill to actually type the above statement, Mr. Scheer.
Although I enjoyed the article for it rhetorical questioning I must agree with your reaction. LOL
Both the Bush and the Obama administrations set the stage for the current slide into a double-dip recession? Double-dip recession is not what's hapening. It's called World Depression II. Just as the Great War became World War I, the Great Depression will soon be referred to as World Depression I.
See:
The 30-year Reaganomics Revolution will be over soon. Like the Roaring Twenties, ending in the game changing crash.
- By Paul B. Farrell , MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/rip-reaganomics-revolution-1981-2011-2011-05-31
There is a common thread running from Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and lessor henchmen to Bush, Paulson, Obama, Hillary Clinton. Just too pat for mere coincidence. Nothing will change as long as the two major political parties have a stranglehold on this country. There is not just a pressing need for a third political party; there is an urgent need. We don't need any more slickers that are stooges for Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, the Military/Industrial Complex, etc. We need real leaders, with integrity and a genuine will to resstore government to the people. It may seem like a tall order, but we have done it in the past and we can damned well do it again.
As a beginning, let's clean out the jail cells and take these bastards out of circulation by whatever legitimate means we have at our disposal.
PIO: Right on!
""As a beginning, let's clean out the jail cells and take these bastards out of circulation by whatever legitimate means we have at our disposal.""
*************************************
This is the problem when trying to end the rule and disasters of the ONE party system. Doing it legitimately. I believe things have been left to rot and fester for so long that what has been done, without compunction, to 'us' are the dirty tricks and misdeeds and skillduggery that 'these bastards' do to us, the only way to rid them, is to become just as virulent as they are. Part of their free wheeling ways is because they know the 'others' won't go out of our way to strenuously object and do something such as fighting back, they just comfortably sit back and don't expect it.
We just about have too because what is law enforcement and the judiciary but paid hacks of those trying to enrich themselves. I see very little help from that direction. Making laws? Hell, all the laws made these days make criminals and terrorists out of people just trying to protest be it the government, the military, the corporations. Now the activists are terrorists if they protest and object. So, unfortunately, to cure the problem, it will take radical treatment, the same we get everyday and it is means becoming like them and standing up to them, then it is fast coming time to do so.
Dangerous situations require radical treatment.
Sounds to me like "organized crime". Maybe the real Mafia should start breaking kneecaps etc. Or are they a part of the picture. Oh yea, they're fighting the war on drugs.
This crime scene has become very specialized. The government takes care of the white collar part and the illegal wars and the Mafia's, takes care of the rest and they all share on the take.
Too bad they don't put their energy into running the country (and in this case the world economy) instead of their ciminal conduct. Or, on second thought, do we want them to?
The great writer and anti-imperialist Mark Twain called Congress "the only distinctly native American criminal class." It was true in the Age of Robber Barons and it is even more true now. The Limousine Class has triumphed under Barry the Liar and his carefully selected whores. And, no, they will never be held accountable. Remember that the excellent documentary "Inside Job" concluded by stating that not one of the many economic gangsters that were responsible for the Great Recession was ever indicted much less prosecuted for their heinous crimes. Another thing about that loathsome Timothy Geithner - he is strongly opposed to Elizabeth Warren being the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because she will actually do her job in that capacity and that is a threat to the excessive profits that are generated by the very financial institutions that Timmy really works for.
With no lack of respect for Scheer’s reporting, when I read articles such as this, I feel like it’s been recycled day in and day out…same thing, 27th verse!
But, one disconcerting aspect is that supposedly our elected officials are not aware of programs that dole our $30 billion in taxpayer dollars? Come on! One little unelected prick like Geithner can hand over $30 billion dollars to his cronies and it’s a surprise?!
No, it’s called turning a blind eye and then, when caught, claiming they knew nothing about it.
Geithner serves at the pleasure of the president — if the president does nothing about this, he doesn’t deserve the Oval Office. Period.
I really don’t care who’s the next president because they all march to the same drummer.
Americans should wise up. Accepting the lesser of two evils will not get us out of this mess. Burn. Come back from the ashes. We need a new start.
What do you suggest we can realistically accomplish that addresses the urgency of the times and makes our situation better in social and material terms right now, without pie in the sky, or making things worse?
Direct democracy
It is funny if not ludicrous to have Obama, Holder, Emanuel turn the blind eye to this Geithner character with his $30 billion dole, as they turn the screws in court on their old friend and ally, Rod Blago, who'd held the congressional seat before Emanuel, before moving on to the governorship. What in the world could Blago have done to warrant their vengeance?
Bill in Dubuque
"One wonders if Barack Obama was fully aware of Geithner’s deceitful performance at the New York Fed when he appointed him treasury secretary in the incoming administration."
__________________
One wonders if Scheer is wondering strictly for rhetorical purposes. Obama never met a bankster he didn't like, and the more bankstery the better.
Scheer isn't actually excusing or apologizing for Obama here. But, as preceding commenters have noted, this speculation distantly implies, "If the Tsar only knew of the wicked and scurrilous acts perpetrated by his ministers, surely he would set things to rights!"
I appreciate that it's speculative and intellectually perilous to psychologize presidents. But given that disclaimer, and with a pinch of salt, it may be that Obama's alienated, turbulent youth imparted to him an overweening unconditional positive regard for professional authority and expertise.
That is, when Obama enters a room filled with military or financial authorities and "experts", or high-powered business executives, he seems to reflexively defer to them.
This doesn't exclude the explanation that his deference actually arises from simple willful collusion-- that Obama's a kindred spirit glad to enthusiastically traffic with the most scurrilous banksters and warmongers.
In any case, Obama obviously thinks highly of these depraved weasels and jackals-- they're his kind of people.
Politicians like Obama and Frank are exemplars of the devolution of Amerikan Elected Misrepresentatives from public servant (however problematic) to political mogul, i.e. a technocratic executive who is both lord of their own individual fiefdom and a senior partner in the para-corporate service delivery system of the federal government.
These glorified racketeers may occasionally publicly deplore and distance themselves from particularly outrageous or suspect practices, but I'm certain that they applaud and admire even the sharpest and most devious business practices-- as long as the perpetrator(s) have gotten away with them.
Probity and ethical principle is vestigial and a matter of rhetorical affectation for such amoral actors as Obama and his allies and minions; they're incapable of being shocked, much less personally offended, by heinous deceit and mendacity in the course of doing business.
Terrific post.
Such a great analogy to the peasants and their appeals to the tsar. Peasants stay loyal to the tsar just as teabaggers are loyal to their corporate masters like the Koch Brothers. The teabaggers are like the peasants in so many other ways: narrow in their understanding,, provincial in their outlook and of course when it comes to even having a hint of what is happening to them in the currents of history-- missing what should be their target-- not a blessed clue.
Goldman Sachs is also a major factors in high food prices. More crimes against humanity.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,0
How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis
BY FREDERICK KAUFMAN | APRIL 27, 2011
Don't blame American appetites, rising oil prices, or genetically modified crops for rising food prices. Wall Street's at fault for the spiraling cost of food.
Excerpt:
"Demand and supply certainly matter. But there's another reason why food across the world has become so expensive: Wall Street greed.
It took the brilliant minds of Goldman Sachs to realize the simple truth that nothing is more valuable than our daily bread. And where there's value, there's money to be made. In 1991, Goldman bankers, led by their prescient president Gary Cohn, came up with a new kind of investment product, a derivative that tracked 24 raw materials, from precious metals and energy to coffee, cocoa, cattle, corn, hogs, soy, and wheat. They weighted the investment value of each element, blended and commingled the parts into sums, then reduced what had been a complicated collection of real things into a mathematical formula that could be expressed as a single manifestation, to be known henceforth as the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI)."
And this testimony has some great charts.
Testimony of Michael W. Masters Managing Member / Portfolio Manager Masters Capital Management, LLC before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United ...
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf
This whole mess is so corrupt it gives corruption a bad name.
Could it be that Geithner has stock or investments with Goldman ?
That should be investigated and prosecuted if that is the case.
Am currently reading "The Creature From Jekyll Island". It contains many first hand accounts of the formation of the banking cartel that became the Federal Reserve system. The cartel, as is the purpose of all cartels, joins otherwise competitors into a monopoly.. and in this case, the financial controllers of the USA. Their purpose is to expand and then diminish the money supply in order to create booms and busts. The booms extend loans by them, and the busts generate government bailouts to them. The entire reason for the Fed. and the cabal of Goldman Sucks, etc., is to transfer all wealth to them. That is it. They seek total power, total control over a world of their debt slaves. This is not an exaggeration. The banks and Congress work completely hand in hand to guide the public into insolvency. If 90% of Congress and 99% of the bankers went to the guillotine, it would be an act of justice. But in order to get there, we have to reclaim our country legally. Watch this to get the idea of how we can, and sooner than you might have ever imagined.. Do not despair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vXgUBxqBQI&feature=player_embedded
"One wonders if Barack Obama was fully aware of Geithner’s deceitful performance at the New York Fed when he appointed him treasury secretary in the incoming administration. The president was probably ignorant of this particular giveaway"
================
There Scheer goes again: poor Obama just doesn't know who he's mixed up with ... Puhleeze, Obama knows exactly who he's dealing with, he's not stupid, he's smart. Why does Scheer always cover for this bastard?
Some decisions are just too important to place in the hands of liars and criminals.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Obama is the mascot of the Fed cartel.
J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch - by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229404-The-Federal-Reserve-Cartel-The-Eight-Families
Rescend the charter for both the Fed and Goldman Sachs.
Rescend 'personhood' for corporations while we're at it.
The way these crooks are looting our treasury there will be
another October Revolution - Boycott November's Elections.
The more I learn about Goldman Suchs and the Fed, I believe that they believe that under contract, they own the USA. We are legally completely beholden to them for financing the US through our various wars (which they helped instigate).
There are rumblings of mutiny down in the hold of the ship, and I suspect that a strategic false flag will occur just in time to, for security reasons, cancel the 2012 election. For me, that will be like the astroid hitting, and the death of the dinosaur, and not the other way around. We are locked into the subservient position of a tiny mammal under the tonnage of the established financial/governmental system. I hope for its destruction so that the resulting freedom to innovate will allow a new life form to emerge; one that is smarter, smaller, warmer, and cuddly. :-)
As long as we're pretending to being wistful to know the true Obama, as seems the case with this Robert Scheer article, I'd like to call to mind Goldman Sach's $1 million contribution to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign. Well, it was perfectly legal, even though it may seem like graft. Got a problem with that?
And it must also be some kind of coincidence that no Goldman Sachs exec has gone to prison, even after the company created fraudulent AAA-rated collateral debt obligation investments tied to bad housing loans. (Obama actually said at one time after he met with the banksters during the 2008 economic meltdown that nothing illegal was done.)
It's also pure happenstance that former Goldman Sachs executives fill Obama's top economic presidential cabinet posts. They make those hard decisions, like handing over taxpayer money, interest free, to Goldman Sachs. Yeah, right.
This is a who-done-it with no mystery, but I guess they think we're a bunch of dopes. Failed states continue for years, even with open criminality. It looks like it's up to us to make the change, but it's no Egypt here in terms of people's understanding of this corruption, I think. Sad to say.
As thick piranha and still swimming.