• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

while I wont argue that the times an actual crime is involved the SEC tends to come down lightly...... regardless of the money involved or the players

but seriously....... could you possibly have worse facts or a bigger strawman position to spout them from?

did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? in fact on the 2 days you seem to use as a basis they also released 6 other findings....... and in the decades prior to the 60 minutes hit piece they released kajillions of them...... several a day..... every day....... including the Friday before the 60 minutes piece (that makes them psychic or something I suppose)

did you also bother reading the 2 documents you posted? they have nothing to do with going after someone for fraud....... they are about overdue paperwork..... pretty big jump there dont ya think?

before reading from the talking points sheets...... try SEC.gov
 
copestag said:
while I wont argue that the times an actual crime is involved the SEC tends to come down lightly...... regardless of the money involved or the players

but seriously....... could you possibly have worse facts or a bigger strawman position to spout them from?

did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? in fact on the 2 days you seem to use as a basis they also released 6 other findings....... and in the decades prior to the 60 minutes hit piece they released kajillions of them...... several a day..... every day....... including the Friday before the 60 minutes piece (that makes them psychic or something I suppose)

did you also bother reading the 2 documents you posted? they have nothing to do with going after someone for fraud....... they are about overdue paperwork..... pretty big jump there dont ya think?

before reading from the talking points sheets...... try SEC.gov
Click to expand...

It's obvious you didn't read the title, much less the article. The two documents, support the authors case that the SEC pretends, i.e. "juking" to enforce serious security crimes.

​
"Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you​
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It's obvious you didn't read the title, much less the article. The two documents, support the authors case that the SEC pretends, i.e. "juking" to enforce serious security crimes.

​
"Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you​
Click to expand...
 
no its obvious the article is the only thing you read....... you didnt bother to read my post OR the 2 pieces of evidence cited in the article

the article is idiocy on its face.... title and throughout...... there is no mad rush at the end of the year...... there was no 'juking' "just days after"

as I CLEARLY stated to you........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV

yes Im sure the fact that they happened to release some a few days after the 60 minutes story (just as they did every day BEFORE the story.... for decades) it made it pretty easy to write a talking points article and find a couple of quick filings after the story as 'evidence'

as I said....... if youre using the fact that they DAILY release administrative findings against hundreds of small names as proof that they refuse to go after the big names in legal proceedings then you couldnt have worse evidence or a bigger strawman argument

youre comparing speeding tickets to murder charges and believing youre onto some massive coverup attempt

but Im sure it all smacks of logic in certain circles and among sheeple
 
copestag said:
no its obvious the article is the only thing you read....... you didnt bother to read my post OR the 2 pieces of evidence cited in the article

the article is idiocy on its face.... title and throughout...... there is no mad rush at the end of the year...... there was no 'juking' "just days after"

as I CLEARLY stated to you........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV

yes Im sure the fact that they happened to release some a few days after the 60 minutes story (just as they did every day BEFORE the story.... for decades) it made it pretty easy to write a talking points article and find a couple of quick filings after the story as 'evidence'

as I said....... if youre using the fact that they DAILY release administrative findings against hundreds of small names as proof that they refuse to go after the big names in legal proceedings then you couldnt have worse evidence or a bigger strawman argument

youre comparing speeding tickets to murder charges and believing youre onto some massive coverup attempt

but Im sure it all smacks of logic in certain circles and among sheeple
Click to expand...

Which part of the term "enforcement actions" don't you think the "sheeple" (Faux News audience ?) understand ?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Which part of the term "enforcement actions" don't you think the "sheeple" (Faux News audience ?) understand ?
Click to expand...

I think its the part where talking point experts cite strawman arguments as proof

16% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies

84% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies and other measures

sounds to me like 84% of the time they are enforcing through more extreme measures

or to take a page from the style of talking points......... since youve cited the 16% of the time they go after the small guy as proof

this means 84% of the time they go after the big players????

you really need a new sheet....... those are tired
 
copestag said:
I think its the part where talking point experts cite strawman arguments as proof

16% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies

84% of the "enforcement actions" they took involved enforcement of policies and other measures

sounds to me like 84% of the time they are enforcing through more extreme measures

or to take a page from the style of talking points......... since youve cited the 16% of the time they go after the small guy as proof

this means 84% of the time they go after the big players????

you really need a new sheet....... those are tired
Click to expand...

Which part of SEC Commissioner Gallagher's speech "focusing more attention on smaller entities..." don't you understand ? btw, your stats are meaningless, the author states "Therefore toward the end of every calendar year, you
 
copestag said:
........ they file those EVERY DAY........ I could easily list for you the hundreds of filings with thousands of targets that took place over 2011 alone...... I thought it would be easier to just give you the website that most people can easily filter through and find the answer for themselves....... SEC.GOV
Click to expand...

The author, not me, is citing the SEC database, SEC Administrative Proceedings Index 2011 Archive. This is THE statistical database that the SEC supplies to Congress on the 735 enforcements for 2011, which is overstated by 17% by including 12(j) revocations, i.e., "juking". It appears that your major objection to the article is the author only cited the relevant SEC database. I don't believe also citing SEC Public Relation bulletins would have added any value to the article.

copestag said:
... did you know EVERY business day the SEC releases findings? ...
Click to expand...

See above.

copestag said:
......... since youve cited the 16% of the time they go after the small guy as proof

this means 84% of the time they go after the big players???? ...
Click to expand...

See above.

copestag said:
and which part of english dont you understand......... I already said I agree they dont go after the big sharks.... scroll up and have someone read it to you......

.... the majority of their work and concentration efforts is certainly going to be on smaller players....... since they probably outnumber the big ones at a rate of (guesstimation) oh lets say a trillion to 1........ I suppose you think they should ignore all of the other work they do and only go after the 1 or 2 big problems we see every 5 or 6 years?
Click to expand...

As you do appear to have difficulty writing anything near a structured and/or complete English sentence, you may have confused yourself into thinking you had made such claim in this thread.

The S.E.C.
 
Some Goldman Sachs history.

The Great American Bubble Machine | Politics News | Rolling Stone

"The Great American Bubble Machine

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."
 
My what a small world some people live in, Goldman Sach, Bain & Co, and Koch brothers. These "financial things" blew up and the rest of us got the bill. Wonder what these yokels would do to non-kin. These characters want to run a country. Anybody who support the causes of these scoundrels need to take a breather and do a little research and concentrate on self preservation.

​
"They claim Charles and the company hid valuable assets from them and their blue-chip advisers, Goldman Sachs & Company and Bain & Company, and that the two brothers should have received double what they got."

​
""We have the desire and capability to be a bank," said William Hanna, Koch's president. "We don't just want to sell commodities; we want to handle the financing as well." Added Mr. Brooks, the company's senior vice president: "The industry is going to see Koch doing financial things in ways they have never seen before.""​
 
thats quite a hilarious post....... talk about construing your own context...... sheesh

so a greedy brother who tried to take over a company via coup was ousted and paid handsomely to leave

a brother who has a lawsuit which he has no intentions of winning based on facts...... instead he has taken to persuading the public he is a good person by throwing money at them

vs another brother who has done everything honestly and over generously....... according to every judge this and similar cases have been in front of (hence every previous case being thrown out)

yet somehow you have found a way to turn this story into 'republicans are bad'

I should say KUDOS to you sir....... you are dedicated to your cause...... no matter how misdirected or insanely ridiculous the tactic

lets expose those dirty Koch brothers ........ oops......... you seem to be defending the dirty ones

'The idea is to provide customers of its commodities with loans, hedging packages and other financial products -- not unlike the way that the General Electric Company or the General Motors Corporation got into financial services by making loans to buyers of refrigerators or cars.'

wait....... arent these 2 of your cause's heroes? did you not read that part for context or did you just conveniently forget to include it?

as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services

you are correct......... time for a breather.... and a reality check... emotions and talking points are rarely facts to be spewed
 
copestag said:
... as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are unaware of the ongoing economic collapse and taxpayer bailout which unregulated derivatives played a major role. The following is from a Koch mouthpiece published in 1994 which explains why said derivatives shouldn't be regulated.

Regulating Derivatives: The Current System and Proposed Changes
 
copestag said:
'The idea is to provide customers of its commodities with loans, hedging packages and other financial products -- not unlike the way that the General Electric Company or the General Motors Corporation got into financial services by making loans to buyers of refrigerators or cars.'
Click to expand...

let me requote that for you......... since you want to ignore it...... and ask

since you seem to (in every thread) be on a personal vendetta agains the koch brothers....... because youre afraid they may cost you money because of the things they would like to do in the future

and as the quote reminds us........ they just want to emulate your 2 heroes..... 2 of the biggest players in the mess you keep whining about

when are you going to start actively campaigning against your 2 hero companies?..... or is it OK as long as they donate to your cause?

I think the technical term for this is HYPOCRISY
 
copestag said:
let me requote that for you......... since you want to ignore it...... and ask ...
Click to expand...

You asked "as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services"

I answered, then you go off calling names again. You add nothing of value to any discussion. Fortunately this forum has tools to eliminate clutter.:ciao:
 
Lets see, a vulture capitalist bankrupts a company (And no I didn't say ALL companies, but ENOUGH companies), guts employee retirement accounts, and the displaced workers now have to go on unemployment and look forward to no money for their retirement.....Yeah they're not costing society while they gut companies... :rolleyes: .
 
TxGoat said:
Lets see, a vulture capitalist bankrupts a company (And no I didn't say ALL companies, but ENOUGH companies), guts employee retirement accounts, and the displaced workers now have to go on unemployment and look forward to no money for their retirement.....Yeah they're not costing society while they gut companies... :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...

youre very confused about what bain did with these companies...... Im guessing they dont have many facts on the talking points rags where you obviously formed your opinion

take some time to read and understand what actually occurred before you let peer pressure force you to condemn them for the sake of politics

OutofDate1980 said:
You asked "as for Koch or Bain blowing up and leaving you with some bill........ refresh my memory on those 2 facts please......... I dont recall (admittedly maybe Im just not aware).... where exactly these 2 companies cost YOU anything other than for their earned services"

I answered, then you go off calling names again. You add nothing of value to any discussion. Fortunately this forum has tools to eliminate clutter.:ciao:
Click to expand...

you answered by the usual method.... 'look at the mess we are in' which has nothing to do with anything THEY have done in the past or present

I asked what have they done...... you answered..... others have done it so lets blame them also?

I hope the talking points committee isnt reading this....... youll be in trouble ....... you forgot to add "its Bush's fault" in your garb

of course I add nothing of value to you.... because I refuse to let you continiously spread lies and talking points while going unchecked....... its not my fault you get butthurt when facts get in the way of your good stories
 
copestag said:
youre very confused about what bain did with these companies...... Im guessing they dont have many facts on the talking points rags where you obviously formed your opinion

take some time to read and understand what actually occurred before you let peer pressure force you to condemn them for the sake of politics
Click to expand...



 
yes..... in 6 out of 10 the companies performed better than ever and are still performing..... in 4 out of 10 they bought companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy..... sustained them for a few additional years...... profited for their troubles....... and ultimately the companies that were going to go bankrupt a few years earlier ended in bankruptcy

sounds to me like he saved some jobs for at least a few years....... and some jobs for a lot longer

at what point did they do something wrong here?

if your boss said to you...... 'look we can fire you today....... or we can let this guy buy us out and theres a chance you may never be fired..... but theres a chance you will be fired a few years from now' ..... who exactly would you blame for this? your boss or the guy who offers you at least a chance..... and at the very least a temporary reprieve

what part is confusing for you?
 
Ummm, yeah I don't remember K B Toy Store being in any real trouble before Bain got its hands on them. I still don't see facts, all I see are assumptions. How do you know that the 6 of 10 companies are performing "better than ever"? Do you even know the name of the 6 of 10 companies (without using google) in order to make that claim? I'm guessing not.
 
Another example of how some very successful people get to be very successful, I believe they call it taking personal responsibility and not being dependent on government handouts.

A Rare Look at Why The Government Won't Fight Wall Street | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

"Similarly, when Kaufman tried to advocate for rules that would have prevented naked short-selling, Connaughton was warned by a lobbyist that it would be "bad for my career" if he went after the issue and that "Ted and I looked like deranged conspiracy theorists" for asking if naked short-selling had played a role in the final collapse of Lehman Brothers. Naked short-selling is another controversial practice. Essentially, when you short a stock, you're supposed to locate shares of that stock before you go out and sell it short. But what hedge funds and banks have discovered is that the rules provide "leeway"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom