RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Jim Puzzanghera and Nathaniel Popper report: "After a two-year bipartisan probe, a Senate panel has concluded that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. profited from the financial crisis by betting billions against the subprime mortgage market, then deceived investors and Congress about the firm's conduct. Some of the findings in the report by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will be referred to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible criminal or civil action, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman."

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, testifying before the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations last April. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP)
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, testifying before the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations last April. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP)



Senate Panel: 'Goldman Sachs Profited From Financial Crisis'

By Jim Puzzanghera and Nathaniel Popper, Los Angeles Times

14 April 11

 

A two-year investigation says the investment bank deceived investors and Congress about its bets against the subprime mortgage market.

fter a two-year bipartisan probe, a Senate panel has concluded that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. profited from the financial crisis by betting billions against the subprime mortgage market, then deceived investors and Congress about the firm's conduct.

Some of the findings in the report by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will be referred to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible criminal or civil action, said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman.

"In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled the Congress," Levin told reporters before the report was made public late Wednesday.

Goldman said it disagreed with many of the subcommittee's conclusions and denied its executives misled Congress. The firm agreed last year to pay $550 million to settle a civil fraud case brought by the SEC regarding its actions in the market for mortgage securities. The latest allegations go beyond the conduct covered by the SEC suit.

The giant investment bank was just one focus of the subcommittee's probe into Wall Street's role in the financial crisis. The 639-page report - based on internal memos, emails and interviews with employees of financial firms and regulators - casts broad blame, saying the crisis was caused by "conflicts of interest, heedless risk-taking and failures of federal oversight."

"It shows without a doubt the lack of ethics in some of our financial institutions," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the subcommittee's top Republican, who approved the report along with Levin.

Among the culprits cited by the panel are Washington Mutual, a major mortgage lender that failed in 2008, as well as the Office of Thrift Supervision, a federal bank regulator, and credit rating firms. The report makes 19 recommendations about how to prevent a future crisis, many of which were adopted in last year's overhaul of financial rules.

The subcommittee's conclusions about the cause of the crisis are similar to those of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission created by Congress. But that body's findings were marred by an inability to reach bipartisan consensus.

Much of the report centers on Goldman, whose executives were called before the committee last year for an intensive grilling. Levin was one of the chief inquisitors at that hearing and has been outspoken about Goldman's role in the crisis.

"Goldman was, I think, the only major bank that did well during the recession. We tried to find out, 'How is it they did well?' " Levin said Wednesday. "The tactics that they used … were disgraceful. And sticking it to their own clients violates their own claim that the clients come first."

Asked if he was disappointed that no Wall Street figures had gone to jail in connection with the crisis, Levin responded, "There's still time."

The report could be damaging for Goldman, particularly if it results in fresh charges against the firm. But from a public relations point of view, it's unclear whether the latest allegations will be seen as significant revelations.

"Everyone already kind of has a feeling that whatever the report stipulates, that Goldman has already done that," said Morningstar Inc. bank analyst Michael Wong. "They've already been put through the wringer."

One of the report's main allegations against Goldman was that it deceived clients who bought its mortgage-related securities, failing to tell those investors the firm was betting against those investments at the same time.

The SEC suit that Goldman settled last year alleged that the firm had misled investors in a complex mortgage-related security known as Abacus. The Senate report cites three similar securities that it said Goldman betted against, or shorted, without informing its clients.

The report also says Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and other executives misled the subcommittee when they appeared before the subcommittee last April and testified that the investment bank had not consistently tilted its own investments heavily against the housing market - a position known as being "net short."

The subcommittee has estimated that in 2007 Goldman's bets against the mortgage markets more than balanced out the bank's mortgage losses and led to a $1.2-billion profit in the mortgage department alone that year.

Goldman was so focused on shorting the market it even tried a strategy called a "short squeeze" to drive down the price of obtaining short positions, the report said.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Goldman said that during the subcommittee's hearing last year, its executives "repeatedly and consistently acknowledged that we were intermittently net short during 2007. We did not have a massive net short position because our short positions were largely offset by our long positions, and our financial results clearly demonstrate this point."

But the subcommittee report says such denials by Goldman "are directly contradicted by its own financial records and internal communications."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+30 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-04-14 11:11
No dah! The crisis was actually planned to be worse than it was, believe it or not. In October of 2008, an 'insider' warned my friend, his mother, of a soon to occur 'bank holiday', a crash that would shut all banks down for a two week period, and not allow for use of checking, bank credit cards, etc. Of course, it goes without saying, the panic resulting would have allowed for even bigger profits for the villainiare rulers with resulting market crash, etc.

Yes indeed, the coup is complete, with constant warmode reinforced and upped by Oh Bomb Ah and wife, civil/worker/hu man rights in the toilet, loss of rule of law, non-enforcement of regs., an 'every child left behin' education system, a real McCoy free and investigating press gone bye bye, untampered with elections a thing of the past...the tragic list goes on and on.

Time to wake up and take off the MSD (manipulated, spun, distracted) blinders, and fight like hell, Wisconsin style, to.....

UNDO THE COUP!!!
 
 
+16 # Observer 47 2011-04-14 12:11
There's a former CIA insider who contends that the coup actually happened when JFK was assassinated. It was at that point that the CIA and the military-indust rial complex asserted complete control of the government---ne ver again would a President be allowed to thwart them. Now, of course, the big banks are an integral part of that operation, because they provide the outgoing cash and launder the incoming cash (can you say, "WaMu"?). Non-military corporations can play, too, if they pony up enough cash.

So, while I agree with you that the coup is complete, I think it was complete nearly 5 decades ago, and undoing it will be much harder than almost anyone imagines. Unless the torches and pitchforks are wielded on a truly massive scale, and people everywhere are willing to sacrifice everything for a new revolution, we as a country are toast.
 
 
+7 # janeto 2011-04-14 12:48
On that note, take a look at these reports on Libya, I'd say amazing but what surprises us anymore?? The Titles tell it all.

Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking?
Wednesday 13 April 2011
by: Ellen Brown, Truthout
http://www.truth-out.org/libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking/1302678000

Kucinich: President Had Time to Consult with International Community, Not Congress?
Coincidental Timing of French, British War Games Points to Critical Lack of Information

Washington, Mar 29, 2011-
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=231106
 
 
+4 # CL38 2011-04-14 16:03
Observer 47, you are so on the money.

If you haven't already read it (you probably have), "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass is a remarkable book. It reveals the truth about the coup and the price we've paid for what happened and the cover-up. It came out in 2008.
 
 
+4 # karenvista 2011-04-14 23:49
Quoting CL38:
"JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters" by James W. Douglass is a remarkable book. It reveals the truth about the coup and the price we've paid for what happened and the cover-up. It came out in 2008.
.

I absolutely agree. It's a great book and names a bunch of insiders who shaped our foreign and domestic policy, some even still doing so today. I believe that we did have the coup then that created the narrow confines our presidents have been forced to work within ever since. Don't you ever wonder why every president serves the same corporate elite once they are in office no matter what they say when they are running for office? I think they are either already aware of what happens if they step outside the box as president, or are told that their wives will be widows and their children orphans. I don't know why anyone would take the job unless they are willing to die.
 
 
-17 # forparity 2011-04-14 12:33
Was your friend, Glenn Beck? Beck was on a rampage, bringing in one expert after another, desperately trying to warn us of the coming disaster.

Personally, I stared warning friends in the early 2000's. The housing bubble that HUD created - as it expanded and everyone jumped on - had to end even worse than the dot.com (Enron) bubble crash of March 2000. 1.) The housing bubble, itself, was dangerous to all of us (what powers up.. will crash) 2.) Fannie/Freddie were out of control (doing what HUD regulated that they do), and all of these $trillions in GSE's that they were pawing off to Wall Street was creating a whole new dangerous environment.

Was a no-brainer.
 
 
+11 # Ken Hall 2011-04-14 16:08
The idea the Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubble is ludicrous. The big surge in sub primes came after 2003, the result of Bushco dedication to free markets (i.e., total lack of gov't supervision and regulation) and Bush approval of "everyone being invested in the system", to paraphrase him. MERS was invented on Wall St and subprimes and Liar's Mortgages (William Black's description) aggressively pushed by the large banks and brokerage houses.
 
 
-5 # forparity 2011-04-14 17:21
HUD caused it.. by ordering lowered lending standards, and by:

Oct. 2000 - HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html

Pushing (w/ help of community activists enrolling them) tens of millions of new home buyers into the housing economy (even during a dot.com crash) created a huge distortion (a shortage - a massive new demand) in supply/demand economics. This drives prices up. That, in turns lures investors. Fed's lower interest rate policy (to pull us out of the collapsed economy Bush inherited) added much more fuel to the fire. Equity out re-fi's, remodels, car purchases, upgrades added more fuel.

Real estate agents went on a tear.. imagine telling a 1/2 employed couple making $35,000 that this was their last chance to buy a house - can't loose - He'll get the financing for them. 2007 - 850 SF house in LA. Cost $825,000. True story in LATimes. They've now been thru 2 FC's/, TAMP and a short sell.

Obama is on record in explaining how the whole thing started - he said it seemed like a good idea, but it got out of hand. I disagree - it never was a good idea. And as anyone can imagine, in the end, it hurt those it sought to help more than anyone else.
 
 
-2 # forparity 2011-04-14 17:28
MERS - I think was created back in the early 1990's??

Been out there for some time:

December 1999 marked a milestone in the brief history of MERS, as the company passed the 1 million mark in mortgage loan registrations on its national...

Has nothing to do with the housing bubble -- is an issue, only because of legal issues with proper process of mortgage acquisitions - raised as a part of the foreclosure crisis caused by the housing bubble and ultimate no-brainer collapse.
 
 
+4 # Ken Hall 2011-04-14 19:41
Sorry but no, HUD did not cause all those mortgagers to issue subprime and liars' loans, and there is plenty of information out there to consult if you want to learn what really happened. I don't expect to inform you of anything, forparity, you are too deep into your version of reality, which suspiciously coincides with right wing cant. I just want people to know that you are blowing smoke. When William Black writes an article called (I may have the title a little wrong) "A Small Number of Subprimes and a Large Crisis", in which he mentions Fannie and Freddie only once, and only as repositories of information that may help investigators figure out how much toxic debt the major banks are sitting on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the the FMs had little to do with bubble.
 
 
-2 # forparity 2011-04-14 21:08
Ken. I did not say that HUD caused all of those mortgagers to issue subprime - I state that HUD lowered the standards and caused the housing bubble. Everyone else piled on and caused the crisis. (actually HUD ordered a lot more)

HUD ordered Fannie/Freddie to do what they did. Goodness knows, their horrific criminal activity is of the public record, in how they conducted business.

Black left out mention of Freddie and Fannie (and HUD) because he's not interested in addressing the problem - he's a partisan. Plenty of Partisan's out there.. read Wallison's "Slaughter of the Innocents." He's a partisan too - was on the Financial Reform Commission as well. And here, he simply addresses one sliver of the massive issue. Everyone is involved - but it started with HUD's historic regulations, and Clinton's deregulation (to a lessor extent). It's econ 101.

I didn't offer a defense of the banks, Bush, Wall St.

Under your analysis, Clinton is sole responsible for the dot.com bubble and crash and fallout (inc the return to massive deficits) - But that crazy - had Bush been president then, the same damn thing would have happened. Had Gore been president in 2001 - both the housing bubble would have continued-perha ps even more (Bush was very concerned about it) and debt would have been larger - and would Gore have overturned Clinton's deregulation?
 
 
+2 # Ken Hall 2011-04-15 02:02
Sorry, still don't buy it, the chronology is off, among other things. According to your theory, HUD's influence should have been felt in the mid to late 90's, during Clinton's administration, whereas liars' loans spiked 2005~2006. I'm very surprised to hear Black is partisan, except partisan for upholding law and order. He was directly involved during the Reagan (i.e., conservative Republican) administration in bringing criminal bankers to justice. And if you do a little research you'll find that W. Black is VERY interested in addressing the problem, he thinks that criminal charges should be filed against the current crop of criminal bankers that have flouted the law. Subprimes were invented by the big banks and aggressively marketed by them, the FMs got into the market late to try and win back market share.
 
 
+3 # Ken Hall 2011-04-15 07:24
Black, who worked on the S&L crisis during a Repub administration, is partisan? If so, he is a partisan for law and order. He advocates pursuing criminal behavior in the financial industries, as was done in the 80's when around a thousand bankers went to jail. That number could be significantly higher this time around, and prosecution would very much address the issues of fraud and chicanery that were an important part of the housing bubble. The bubble itself was allowed to happen by free marketeers, led by Alan Greenspan, who could have bumped up interest rates and throttled housing inflation. But no, the market is always right, and Bushco agreed whole-heartedly . The idea the HUD caused the bubble just doesn't hold water.
 
 
+4 # Ken Hall 2011-04-15 07:09
MERS, contrary to your dismissal of its importance, had a lot to do with the housing bubble. With MERS in place, mortgages, even subprimes, could be sliced and diced into CDOs and still be given AAA ratings. Trouble is, nobody would know which mortgages would fail until they started to fail, at which time the higher rated tranches would be assigned to the higher rated securities. MERS was a way to bypass usual practice so subprimes could be disguised and sold on Wall St. That's significant, and I will spell it out for you, because mortgagors then didn't need to sell them to the FMs. Housing bubble: 2001-2007. The FMs ill-advised leap into the subprimes? 2004, late in the game. The FMs jumped into the subprime market in an attempt to win back market share, which had been around 50% until Wall St St started eroding the FMs position. Chicanery was what caused the housing bubble, not Fannie of Freddie.
 
 
-2 # forparity 2011-04-15 09:44
ken. Take a look at Shiller's History of Home values:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.large.gif

In 2000 (by 2000) the bubble - boom - was well in place; values were already above the channel.. it was time for serious pull back.

HUD's orders -- do you understand "orders?" to lower lending standards, combined with this, which Cuomo issued plans for in 1999, then ordered in Oct. 2000:

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html (one of many such additional targets)

.. and yes, combined with many other factors, inc:

"Changes in the reserve requirements of U.S. banks, and the creation in 1994 of special “sweep” accounts, which link commercial checking and investment accounts, allowed banks greater liquidity—which meant that they could offer more credit. This was the formative stage of the bubble."

.. and Greenspan's lowering of the interest rates (but they were focused on stimulus for the economy which had crashed in March of 2000..

.. so many players. Even Clinton's/Rubin 's/Summers/Geit hner's/ Gramm.. plays a role in the ultimate game. .but not in creating the housing bubble.

.. but pushing tens of millions of people into buying in a housing market comprised of 170 million units - and with HUD's easy credit rules - created the bubble.
 
 
+1 # forparity 2011-04-15 09:51
It's a 1 -2 -3 punch Ken.

The bubble was dangerous by Bush's 1st day in office - he didn't fix it either.

I think Wallison sums it up rather nicely in the mentioned piece - Slaughter of the innocents:

"The housing bubble that finally burst in 2007 was driven
by a U.S. government social policy that was intended to
increase homeownership in the United States and was thus not subject to the usual limits on the length and size of asset bubbles. As such, it was far larger and lasted far longer than any other bubble in modern times, and, when it deflated, the vast number of poor-quality mortgages it contained defaulted at unprecedented rates. This drove down U.S. housing values and caused the weakening of financial institutions around the world that we know as the financial crisis.
Market participants were certainly taking risks as the
bubble grew, and it may well be, as Baily and Elliott posit,
that this private risk taking was greater than in the past.
But the facts show that the bubble was inflated by a government social policy that created a vast number of subprime and Alt-A mortgages that would not otherwise have existed. And the risks associated with this policy—which could produce losses of more than $400 billion at Fannie and Freddie alone—were being taken by only one unwitting group: the taxpayers."
 
 
+3 # Ken Hall 2011-04-15 15:48
You are free to believe what Wallison says, 4parity, and he is partly correct. The bubble was the result of gov't policy, of laissez faire politics and free market economics. The free marketeers were in power and to them the market is always right. For gov't to establish sensible regulations that would have protected so many peoples' investments would have been an outrage to the Friedmanites. Black has a long history in bank criminality and regulation, as I look around at the mess we're in, it's his words that resonate. He doesn't name the FMs. I will look into Wallison but I do have a very sensitive baloney filter.
 
 
-3 # forparity 2011-04-15 17:28
Well, I sense that we are "progressing."

Once again the creation of the housing bubble was one thing - it was created, funded by, and empowered by the federal government - wanting and pushing tens of millions of people into getting into the housing market.

Many other issues helped it along (including real estate agents - BIG player - complete lack of fiduciary ethics here) - to grow, to get out of hand.. Some of the issues, you've brought up (of which I'm quite familiar) added the sheen to the process. What Wall Street (includes the process of Fannie/Freddie - lenders (including the left's right hand man from the beginning, Countrywide Financial) - appraisers - banks - traders - Goldman Sachs - etc.) added to it, and after the bubble crashed (because it had been overvalued since 2000 (See Schiller - we all knew it went over value then) exactly what many, including ole Glenn Beck, had warned about (in Beck's case - shrilled about) happened - it crashed and it trickled down all over the world.

Without HUD creating the housing bubble - Wall Street would have had to have found something else to play with - perhaps a green bubble .. like the Dot.Com bubble - the Enron bubble?

In the end, all of Black's targets, Barney Frank, Johnson, Summers, Rubin, should all be dragged in front of the people and held accountable.
 
 
+3 # rf 2011-04-15 06:19
The housing bubble was used to give George an economy, without which he would have ruled his entire term in a recession.
 
 
0 # forparity 2011-04-15 10:14
I've long argued that indeed, had Bush not inherited the housing bubble, we never would have had much of any economic growth following the crash that he inherited and the added pressure from 9/11.

Of course - that would have been good, you see - as we would have had to deal from a much stronger position (without this historic crash with unbearable baggage) with the fact that the US did not have much of a viable economy when bubbles (dot.com, dollar, housing) are taken out of the picture.

Likewise - from this point forward - what? Sure, we are in a bit of a cyclic recovery - although it's completely being pushed by creating $trillions in debt and the Fed's printing of $Trillions of dollars, but what is next? There's no plan.

I thought.. OK I predicted in late 1999, that the Dow would fall to 7800 within a few years (took longer because of the housing bubble) and that unemployment was going to get to 20%. That was because the collapse of the dot.com bubble was inevitable - and I didn't see the housing bubble continuing past the usual boom bust cycle - oops, wrong by 6-7 years.

Of course, now it looks much bleaker.
 
 
+11 # Judy Kennedy 2011-04-14 13:04
I think you should turn the clock back a little more and stop blaming Obama for things that happened during the glowing Bush years when all that unnecessary and annoying SEC oversight was gutted. We're going to have to change the expression from pulling a Pete Rose to taking the whole system down ala Goldman-Sachs.
 
 
-10 # forparity 2011-04-14 15:49
Without defending Bush for what he did not do to avert the crisis (any more than I would defend Clinton for doing nothing to divert the dot.com bubble crisis before it crashed in March of 2000), it is intelligent to remember that the deregulation which many blame (and there is much debate about to what extent) for allowing the several top layers of the mortgage credit crisis/ensuing Wall Street -Banking crisis to occur, occurred during the Clinton administration, and was led by Clinton, Rubin, Summers and Geither (and a few R's as well).

However, the root cause of the fuel that fed this fire - the housing bubble itself, the lowered lending standards, and the marching orders to peddle all of the bad debt (Fannie/Freddie /Ginnie) in the form of GSE's off to wall street to be played with, occurred during the Clinton era as well and that was played out (regulated) by HUD.

Once again, Bush did not end the madness - and for that he holds the last burnt charcoal (though Clinton should be seen with even more responsibility for his role in both bubbles & collapses). Bush did make some noise - proposing historic (NYT's reported in 2003) regulations to get it under control. He was soundly shut up by the left, however.. all the friends of Countrywide, Fannie/Freddie, etc. Fannie/Freddie still expected to cost us around $400 billion - will not be repaid, like TARP.
 
 
-2 # wantrealdemocracy 2011-04-14 19:06
Oh no1 Are you still a Democrat and want us to vote for Obama again! Maybe we can't blame him for stuff that happened before we got washed away with hope and change---but since the seamless transition from the Bush II administration to the Obama administration we surely have learned not to think his beautiful speech has any hope of being reflected in any thing he will do for the corporations in the rest of this term, or God help us, in his second term. We must not vote for either corporate party---not for the Democraps or the Repukelicans.
 
 
+33 # granny 2011-04-14 12:05
Well, finally! Anyone notice how quickly Egypt moved to investigate and possibly punish the Mubarak dynasty for their illegal dealings? Anyone wonder why the US has yet to investigate and possibly punish the Bush/Cheney dynasty for its illegal dealings?
 
 
+1 # Judy Kennedy 2011-04-14 13:05
Yep, only 42 years later for the poor of the country while he was worth 74 billion. How is that quick?
 
 
-18 # Martintfre 2011-04-14 12:16
Thank God Democrats in House & Senate gave them our money, else we would have to blame it all on Bush.
 
 
+16 # janeto 2011-04-14 13:02
The bailout happened on Bush's watch by Hank Paulson, did you forget so easily?
 
 
+21 # angelfish 2011-04-14 12:16
...and the penalty that they will assume? Another slap on the wrist! Poor dears. If Washington doesn't stand up to these rapists we are TRULY doomed! These are the ones that need to assume their responsibility for tanking our Economy! These are the ones who should be MADE to Pay for their CRIMES against our Country and it's people! WHERE is Justice?
 
 
-5 # in deo veritas 2011-04-14 15:47
Justice will come when these scum finally leave this world and are cast into outer darkness by the oner true judge, Almighty God. Since lawyers cannot get past thje "pearly gates", the varmints are doomed. In any civilized country they would already be decorating telephone poles.
 
 
+10 # LeeBlack 2011-04-14 13:05
My primary concern is that investigations continue and that there should be criminal indictments. There should also be a recognition that regulation is necessary. When there is so much money to be made ethics seem to go by the wayside, we can't depend on the ethics of the executives.
 
 
+5 # in deo veritas 2011-04-14 15:55
I remember the saying many years ago that some are so low they would steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes. This is the kind of criminals we are dealing with on Wall Street.
 
 
+13 # jon 2011-04-14 13:06
Pull your money out of commercial banks and put it into a local credit union.

This is something we can all do and the National Guard won't tear-gas us for doing it.
 
 
+1 # in deo veritas 2011-04-14 15:51
The day they start in on demonstrators like we have seen in the Middle East, the days of this country will be numbered. The American people are not as docile as some believe. Hope fully we will not have to see anything of the sort. Of course the Wall Street fascists have their private armies of rent-a-cops who are not bound by the same rules as real police. Everyone watch your backs.
 
 
+3 # in deo veritas 2011-04-14 15:54
These bastards need to be indicted and not allowed bail before they can flee the country. Maybe the CIA should get them and send them to some of the folks overseas that do the "information-ga thering" services for us.
 
 
+3 # in deo veritas 2011-04-14 15:59
Also paying credit cards down to zero balance or sending them back to their makers in pieces is also good for the wallet and self-respect. Only works if the cards haven't been run up totally without thought. Isn't it cool when people runaround all over the place, wasting gas to use coupons or shop for bargains and then pay with a credit card! And the dummies don't understand why you are laughing at them!
 
 
+5 # Peggy Sapphire 2011-04-14 15:10
This is bigger than but surely includes Goldman Sachs, there are many more criminals on the loose on the streets of Wall & Broad. See INSIDE JOB to become fully informed. Insist on criminal indictments be brought also against the DC cohorts/accompl ices, i.e. Timothy Geithner who refused to be interviewed for INSIDE JOB.
 
 
+5 # HowardMH 2011-04-14 18:43
We are loosing our house and these !#@#$!$*% Bastards get Billions in bonuses. Where are the rest of the Six Million that will loose their house this year and when do we meet in DC at the capital with baseball bats and more??
 
 
0 # sharag 2011-04-14 21:07
Beam me up Scotty, it's time to get out of here.
 
 
-2 # david robert 2011-04-14 21:40
well boys and girls you better go back to 1913 to Jekyll Island and move forward from there, divide and concur is working well for you democrats and republican types. Morons, while you’re fighting in the sand-box the Rothschild Cartel is stealing your dumb asses blind. Go watch another episode of American Idol and go back to sleep.
 
 
+1 # rf 2011-04-15 06:11
'will be referred to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible criminal or civil action'

Good luck with that! Justice is being run by a man with no balls and the SEC are all trying to get cushy jobs in the industry...henc e kiss butt. We need to burn Goldman to the ground...with all of the rats in there.
 
 
+1 # Oliver 2011-04-15 09:01
Somebody's surprised? A poisonous snake injects poison. A pig oinks. God's chosen swindlers swindle. Normal behavior.
 
 
+4 # fredboy 2011-04-15 09:05
OF COURSE Goldman Sachs profited from the financial meltdown! Don't admit it took the dunces in Congress two years to figure that out.

Goldman Sachs is the ultimate leech, sucking profit from everything and playing all sides to make sure of it. But that's what they do--they make, manufacture, and control money, and own everyone who may in any way influence this process.

Don't share appall, amazement, or other fake reactions to this. Or act astounded. We all know these vampires thirst, and that thirst must the satisfied. And we, the lemmings, willingly sacrifice and even accept ruination to make it possible.

This is no longer America. It's an endless, rewinding out-of-control Lucy skit.
 
 
+1 # Oliver 2011-04-15 15:31
There is only one thing that would be shocking ... if these thieves DIDN'T profit from the economic meltdown.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN