Right-wing conspiracy theory: Obama admin. colluded with SEC on Goldman charges to gain support for financial reform
After the Security and Exchange Commission accused Goldman Sachs of fraud, numerous right-wing media figures have accused the Obama administration of attempting "to destroy Goldman Sachs" in order to "shift public opinion" in favor of financial reform. Simultaneously, conservative media have also falsely claimed that the financial reform legislation creates a "permanent bailout fund," which is "the payoff" Wall Street "has been waiting for."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media conspiracy theory: Obama administration coordinated SEC Goldman charges to gain support for reform
Erickson accuses
administration of "colluding to destroy Goldman Sachs." In an April
19 RedState.com blog post, titled, "Is the White House, SEC, and DNC Colluding
to Destroy Goldman Sachs to Pass Financial Reform?" CNN contributor Erick
Erickson claimed
there were "seriously troubling questions about the level of collusion between
the SEC, White House, and DNC to get Financial Reform passed." Erickson added:
"This is serious stuff. Just ask yourself what the reaction in the media would
be if the Bush White House had done this." Erickson summarized the "timeline" of
events and accused the Obama administration of "using the full arms of the
government, including quasi-independent government agencies, and outside
interest groups to create bad guys with which to pass ever creeping socialist
reforms that will continue to cripple innovation in this
country."
Varney: "The timing is
absolutely perfect. Wall Street looks very bad." On the April 19
edition of Fox News' Fox &
Friends, Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney said "the timing is
absolutely perfect. Wall Street looks very bad. It looks like Wall Street really
was responsible for the panic of '08, just days before the politicians attempt
to put a collar on Wall Street, reform it, root and branch, and really get it
under control. The timing is absolutely perfect. It has shifted public opinion
even more in favor of really solid reform of Wall Street and made Wall Street
even more unpopular than it was a week ago." Varney claimed it was "very likely"
that we would see other banks accused of wrongdoing to, "keep up the political
pressure." During the segment, Fox &
Friends aired on-screen text stating, "Charges a ploy for support of
reform?" and "Just a coincidence?: Goldman charged as WH pushes reform
bill."
Big Government: "The Obama
Administration, once again, is in need of a villain to serve as a political
piñata." On April 19, Big Government called
Goldman Sachs "Obama's newest villain." The post claimed: "The Obama
Administration, once again, is in need of a villain to serve as a political
piñata, and it is now clear that Goldman Sachs has been selected to fill the
villain void." Big Government also claimed, "[J]ust as Financial reform was
crawling on its belly, going off to die, the 'crisis' with Goldman Sachs
suddenly occurred. How remarkably convenient! Suddenly, the financial reform
legislation has new life, and a pitchfork campaign to further demonize Goldman
Sachs is in full gear."
New
York Post: "Wall Street
suspects Goldman charges 'not coincidental' to financial reform effort." On
April 16, the New York Post wrote
in a blog post, "Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of
today's charges by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman
Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk
mortgages securities it sold to clients. Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman
comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as 'a well-timed, and perhaps not
coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans'
to get tough on financial reform."
Drudge: "Wall St suspects GOLDMAN SACHS charges 'not
coincidental' to financial reform." The Drudge Report linked
to the New York Post article
under the headline "Wall
St suspects GOLDMAN SACHS charges 'not coincidental'
to financial reform effort":
Right-wing media also claims banks "would be enriched" and benefit from "permanent bailout fund" in financial reform
CEI blog:
"Obama-Dodd financial bill would further enrich Goldman Sachs."
On April 18, Drudge linked
to a post
on Openmarket.org-The Competitive Enterprise Institute's blog which is devoted to
"free markets & limited government"-- which claimed that financial reform
legislation would "further enrich Goldman Sachs." The article also claimed that
the "permanent bailout fund...would be used to frequently give creditors of this
firm a better deal than they would have in bankruptcy," and that "the fees for
the Dodd bill's resolution fund that would pay off a failing firm's creditors
would come not just from banks but from a broad array of Main Street businesses.
... This would raise prices and cost Main Street jobs."
Power Line: Financial reform "perhaps, is the payoff
the Street has been waiting for." On April 17, the right-wing Power
Line blog also called
the financial reform bill a "permanent bailout." The blog posted a memo
from economist Larry Lindsey which said Wall Street firms "will permanently
benefit from having lower borrowing costs thanks to these provisions." The post
went on to claim that "Wall Street has supported Democrats two-to-one over
Republicans in recent campaign cycles. This, perhaps, is the payoff the Street
has been waiting for."
In fact, rather than encouraging "bailouts" for failing financial firms, Dodd bill would establish authority to "liquidate" them
Wash. Post's Klein: "The Dodd bill makes bailouts less likely." Addressing "the Republican attack" that the financial regulation bill creates a "permanent bailout," The Washington Post's Klein wrote:
The Dodd bill makes bailouts less likely by empowering regulators and increasing transparency, raises a $50 billion fund from banks to pay for future too-big-to-fail bankruptcies, and then makes the outcome a predictable punishment rather than a chaotic rescue. That last is known as "resolution authority" -- as bloodless a word as one could possibly imagine -- and it wipes out both shareholders and management. It's all there in Section 206 of the bill: "Mandatory Terms and Conditions for All Orderly Liquidation Actions." What we call "resolution" would better be described as "execution."
Bill calls for orderly "liquidation" of failing financial companies, not bailout. Dodd's bill calls for the government to have the "necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk and minimizes moral hazard," including a $50 billion liquidation fund, paid for by industry assessments, to finance the orderly liquidation of large financial services firms. It further states that this authority:
[S]hall be exercised in the manner that best fulfills such purpose, with the strong presumption that --
(1) creditors and shareholders will bear the losses of the financial company;
(2) management responsible for the condition of the financial company will not be retained; and
(3) the Corporation and other appropriate agencies will take all steps necessary and appropriate to assure that all parties, including management and third parties, having responsibility for the condition of the financial company bear losses consistent with their responsibility, including actions for damages, restitution, and recoupment of compensation and other gains not compatible with such responsibility.
Sen. Warner: Companies taken over under bill's "resolution" authority would be "gone." In an interview with Klein, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) stated:
Resolution ... will be so painful for any company. No rational management team would ever choose resolution. It means shareholders wiped out. Management wiped out. Your firm is going away. At least in bankruptcy, there was some chance that some of your equity would've been retained and you could come out in some form on the other side of the process. The resolution that Corker and I have tried to create means the death of the company. The institution is gone.
VP Dick Cheney and his cohorts outed a CIA covert agent to further political efforts.
They forced lobbying firms to hire Republicans or be shut out from interacting with the Bush Administration.
They politicized the Justice Dept to an unprecedented degree, including using illegal means to screen potential employees.
I could go on and on. These rightwing fools think that the Obama Administration is behaving in the same dishonest way that the Bush guys did. There's no evidence of that, so it's just another example of a baseless conspiracy theory that the right is running with.
Somehow the fact that Obama's admin has talked to financial firms means they're in collusion with them. Despite the fact that Republicans have talked to financial firms and have been in collusion with big business for decades, and the Dems aren't and haven't been so closely tied to big business ever!
It's not the poor and middle class that Republicans care about - their biggest concern is taxes on the top 1% of Americans and the estate tax. So when one of their millionaire "friends" is in trouble they will stand by them no matter what they did and slander those who wish to do something about it.
Well, then isn't this interesting? No millionaires here.
That doesn't mean that the Democrats bend to the demands of the richest in this country the way that Republicans clearly do.
As Toombsie said,
Reflexively, the right-wing feels a strong need to support the millionaires who game the financial system. They want to protect their God given right to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else.
It's not the poor and middle class that Republicans care about - their biggest concern is taxes on the top 1% of Americans and the estate tax. So when one of their millionaire "friends" is in trouble they will stand by them no matter what they did and slander those who wish to do something about it.
And besides, he was not in power then, he was running for office - so your "The political party in power always gets lots of support from the powerful in this nation", makes no sense.
It's just typical phoniness from Democrats. They are always railing against the evil greedy corporate ba$tards just so they can patronize and placate their voters as they respond to it, while all the time they are as cozy and kissy with them as the Republicans are. But they pat their voters on the head and try to sell them something else.
And Dems WERE in power before Obama got into office, doofus. They controlled the House and the Senate and it was pretty clear which party was going to win in 2008 due to Bush's terrible judgments disabling and dishonoring the Republican brand.
You just can't make an honest argument, can you? It's like you're genetically unable to do that.
My god, you make the most insane statements. So Democrats don't care about who contributes to them? Why the hell do you think "rich people" contribute to them? Because they want their concerns "cared" about. Or do you think it's just because they have a cute smile?
The point is, which you won't admit, is that the Democrats roll around in bed with the "rich and evil" just as much as Republicans do.
Those of us with brains know that. As do those of us who can read a simple list of campaign contributors.
As I said, "That doesn't mean that the Democrats bend to the demands of the richest in this country the way that Republicans clearly do."
And Toombsie said "Reflexively, the right-wing feels a strong need to support the millionaires who game the financial system. They want to protect their God given right to increase their wealth at the expense of everyone else." The Dems DON'T behave the same way!
Your strawman arguments, that I said that the Dems don't care at all, is worse than useless. It's your typical behavior, parsing words to try to distort the meaning of what someone else said!
The Dems are NOT in bed with the wealthy in this nation to the same extent that the Republicans have been for the past few generations!
Those of us with brains and honesty are willing to admit to reality. Those like you push disinformation since REALITY is against your political philosophy at every turn.
Do you see how ignorant your illogical assertions are when they are actually repeated back to you?
For instance, democrats won't raise the top tax rate to 60% like I want them to, possibly because of those contributions, but they will let the Bush tax cuts expire. By contrast, McCain would have extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich while passing new tax cuts for the rich. Quite a bit of room there.
Some set of standards there that you apparently find appealing.
At least, in your opinion, Republicans are at least honest about who they support.
Uh, no. Stay with me.
I want democrats to do what I want. When democrats don't do what I want, I don't like it and wish they would do what I want.
When democrats do what I want up to a point, I would prefer that they do what I want all the way. Not just up to a point. Democrats doing all of what I want is better than democrats doing part of what I want. A party that does all of what I want would be better than the democratic party.
Here's where it gets really tricky, and this is probably where I lost you: when democrats do part of what I want and republicans do none of what I want, I prefer democrats to republicans.
That's not true that they ARE significantly influenced by stuff like that. But the evidence readily available is that Republicans DO help out the wealthiest and the best connected via campaign contributions a lot more!
I didn't make an ignorant, illogical assertion.
But YOU did. You tried to assert that campaign contributions make Dems behave like Republicans, and there's no evidence that it's true.
Look, I don't care if you are so damn naive and clueless that you think a big campaign contributor doesn't expect something in return just because they have a (D) by their name? It is so utterly stupid it's amazing.
Just answer me this, even you yourself said that rich people give to Democrats when they are in power - well why is that? If it isn't for influence, then why?
I go back to what I said before, it must be their cute smile then.
I'm not naive or clueless, nor could one come to that conclusion based upon my behavior here. That's just another one of your baseless personal attacks!
It's because they hope for as much influence as possible with each party.
They have great sway with Republicans. They have minimal sway with Dems, but if they don't contribute to the Dems, they have NO hope of ANY sway with Dems!
This is NOT rocket science.
He's probably posting as some other rightwing troll right now on another thread, otherwise, he doesn't get paid.
Meanwhile, it is natural for right-wing conservatives to support millionaires "reflexively" whenever they are under attack, even if doing so would directly cause harm to their lives or financial position. Look at Sean Hannity - just the other day his solution to the budget program is to "end entitlement programs." I don't have the breakdown in front of me, but I guarantee you that a large number of his viewers are older, white Americans who would directly benefit in the future (or are benefiting currently) with Social Security and Medicare. Anyone who is sensible would stop watching Hannity immediately once they heard him say that (because supporting his kind of radical solutions would directly harm them - obviously Hannity could care less because he has millions in the bank and will always have a comfortable lifestyle and access to health care no matter how long he lives in the future). But do they? No - his ratings only grow stronger and he only gains more of a following despite preaching policies that would only really benefit (or at least not harm) the upper 5% of Americans who are filthy rich.
This is reflexive conservative ideology - their never faltering believe, no matter what evidence to the contrary, that we should operate the government so that it most directly benefits the wealthy members of society. Thus the outcry and slander of the SEC and Obama administration from right-wing publications when the charges against Goldman were revealed. Rather than be happy that perhaps someone will be held accountable for blowing up the financial system and helping create a housing bubble that created 8 trillion dollars in imaginary housing wealth which then evaporated when the bubble burst [note - the Goldman lawsuit is not aimed at punishing them for aiding the creation of the accounting bubble, i'm sure that lawsuit is to follow], resulting in the delivery of millions to the unemployment lines (while these same banks that caused the bubble in the first place were then profiting immensely from downfall and chaos)... rather than be happy that someone is taking them on, they reflexively defended them and accused Obama of colluding with the SEC to give support for financial reform despite their being no evidence for that accusation.
*budget program should read budget problem
You can break down as an reason to excuse Democrats or blast Republicans if you wish, the fact is money greases the wheels and that is where their reflexes kick in.
But there are still good, uncompromising Democrats - Alan Grayson, Marcy Kaptur, Ted Kaufman (who is appointed and not running for re-election), Barney Frank, etc. Bob Corker is the only one I can think of on the Republican side who actually wants to do something about the financial sector and impose any meaningful regulation on them.
I think this is the problem with sites like Media Matters. They try to force people into agreeing completely with one side rather over the other in all cases. I think Democrats and Republicans are equally corrupt, and I only visit Media Matters to keep tabs on the propaganda machine that is right-wing media (Fox News and talk radio). I can't possibly, in good conscience, defend Obama on anything he's done because he's basically accepted and continued all the worst policies of the Bush administration and he's made them bi-partisan and no longer controversial. But I still can see the basic leanings of the Democratic and Republican parties, and while they are both corrupt, their basic philosophies still can be differentiated and discussed and defended even while simultaneously not being able to defend most of those who currently hold office.
What I do not understand is what the Republicans are trying to gain here. They are once again throwing all their eggs into the "stop Obama at all costs" basket. Even though this strategy blew up in their faces last time. They are really going to filibuster Wall Street regulation? I would think they would try to outflank the Dems on this and make stronger regulation and try to call out the Dems for not being strong enough against Wall Street. Isn't that what the teabaggers want? Maybe they don't even know what they want. But, is the Republican party really going to run on the platform of having STOPPPED Wall Street regulation if their filibuster works?
It's called HEDGING YOUR BETS. Something that Wall St. bankers know all too well. Just look at the Goldman Sachs fraud case, for an example. look at John McCain. He also got Money from Goldman Sachs. Just not as much, because he got his a$$ handed to him by President Obama
What I do not understand, once again, is why the Republican party would CHOOSE to align themselves with Wall Street in this argument. What are they possibly going to gain by threatening to filibuster a bill that brings more regulation to Wall Street? What in the world are they going to run on if they actually do filibuster a Wall Street regulation bill? It is as if the Republicans are willing to lose every moderate voter out there just to keep the nuts in their party with them.
Are they trying to enrich Goldman and then destroy it?
Or destroy it and then enrich it?
From interview w/ Dem congressman Sherman, member of the House Financial Services Committee:
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Brad_Sherman_5DAC0573-548C-4953-8FF3-5F771F55E323.html
BTW, who has the power to determine which companies "pose a significant risk to the financial stability" of the country? Any legislative or judicial oversight? Or do we give that power soley to the executive branch?