This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Here Is The Only Thing You Need To Know As Goldman's|New York Fed's Bill Dudley Testifies To The Senate
As everyone listens in silence as Goldman's New York Fed's Bill Dudley gets emotional during his Senate Banking Committee testimony, and his only response to why there is Goldman capture of the NY Fed being that $3 trillion in Fed excess reserves have made banks "stable", yet why absolutely nothing will change, there is only one thing everyone needs to see to understand just how the system works.
Presenting the total donations by Goldman Sachs to members of Congress in 2014 alone via OpenSecrets.
Q.E.D.
And yes, it cost Goldman only $1.8 million to purchase Congress for one more year.
- 12384 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -








We Sachs'ed some folks
Who owns the Fed?
Isn't that a trick question?
I wish the money helicopter would pass over my humble abode.
Oh, wait....I've no influence to sell.
Certainly a lot less than what they spend on hookers and blow.
cheap bastards!
What! No donations to Rand Paul? Serously though in NY District 1 we just had Lee Zeldin beat Tim Bishop ($2,500 -2014). I was glad to see that Lee's name wasn't on that List. I went to the open secrets website to check 2012 and I saw Bishops ($5,000- 2012) prevous opponent at the Top of the List with about $44,938 2012 his name was Randy Altschuler, total, slim ball go figure that Goldman gave him a huge donation.
Who owns the Fed?
The same folks who own U.S.A. Inc.
And the owned serve their owners.
Under this arrangement, concepts such as the "Will of the People", or the "Consent of the Governed" have no meaning.
Want to change the arrangement?
Declare these incorporated entities insolvent (which they are), and institute a government which respects the principle: 0+0=0.
The 0+0=0 principle is the assertion that any government or group composed of individuals, each of which have zero authority to compel any other individual into involuntary servitude, result in a government or group which has exactly the same authority. Zero, or none.
Learn more at: Twitter Karen Hudes ABA discussion.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/khudes/sovereign+citizens.pdf
It doesn't even take that much $$$ to buy off Congress... Cheap fuckers should have held out for the big bux before selling out our economy...
Like NoDebt said below, this is only the money we see.
What money won't buy, blackmail will. NSA, keeping me safe.
What did they gain? A car, a house, spoiled rotten wives and kids.
They could have explored a galaxy, a universe is out there and is forever out of reach.
Credit has distroyed the potential of so many possibilities, if they only knew what they had done. What could have been, what would have been if given the chance.
Without freedom what did they all gain, nothing but poision and fear.
I don't believe those numbers anymore than I believe anything a banker says. I'm certain that's just the tip of the iceburg. I'm sure the big money gets shoveled into "this account here..." The only thing more laughable is the stated budgets for the Servailance Ministries, because you know they're gaming the markets like mofos.
In prostitution there is a chasm of a difference between a $10k / night call girl and a $25 / blow job pregnant hooker you pick up on the streets.
Draw your own conclusion about which end of this spectrum applies to Congress.
talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!! That list demands a citizens grand jury!!
Sure wouldn't hurt to know this either:
http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2014/11/10/qe-isnt-dying-its-morphing.html
Did he start crying yet?
Gotta tell ya' "Praise the Lloyd" is in some pretty tough fucking shape what with Schumer way down the list.
Naughty naughty Lloyd. You're shirking God's work, son!
Goldman sluts..... ugh, so sick of this crap....
In all fairness, Mitch McConnell's contribution probably includes the cost for columbian marching powder...
So, the helicopters have been at the US Congress and White House for years now, eh?
...Between deployments to the TBTF and TBTJ banks?
Shocking!
Did they ask him if he thought the regualtions were too tough or just about right yet? I know they asked Jamie Dimon when they were "grilling" him.
HA HA. Chuck Shumer behind 2 Black Guys......yeah right !!!
Doing God's racist work. Chuck's a member of the Tribe, no?
that or he's been in NYC way too fucking long... who cares anymore
Bullish.
"And yes, it cost Goldman only $1.8 million to purchase Congress for one more year."
You're fooling yourself if you believe that. This is the overt cost. The full cost involves a lot more than what some Chinese oligarch's kid spent on his gold-plated Ferrari. And the numbers get a lot bigger.
yep, jobs for them and all their friends and relatives for life. it isn't as cheap as just campaign finance cost but very well worth it. pay out millions, rake in beellions.
Business overhead.... They just write it off on their taxes, though bribing congress critters probably gets them a tax credit instead.
I'll send that. There is alwasy the back door bribes were selected family members get high salary consulting jobs, for which they never have to show up or do any work. There are the sweet are loan deals that end up being forgiven, business investments in family business, and so on.
Still even if the totals near $100 Millions, GS and other crony business make 10 to 50 fold ROI making Billions and getting away with high treason
What's the nearest Goldman branch that all these Congressman can go to, for all their deposits and banking needs ????
They offer free home delivery to their preferred customers....
Any of the TBTFs - all incestuously intertwined.
Never Forget it was Neel Kashkari and Hank Paulson who made Goldman a Bank so they could get cheap bucks at the discount window during the bailouts.
Neel Kaskari who engineered it all is now in California running for office. Hank and Neel both from Goldman. Puke City
Neel Kash n Carry
Fixed it for you.
Chucky on the losing team, LOL.
Damn those sneaky bitches at GS are good. They must be using Godview for the elections. Or buying them.
Money well spent from GS' point of view.
Listen.
Incentivizing at it's finest. There are a bunch on the list that need to tighten up their game.
"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" on QE infinity!
Same as it ever was. Only with bankers that have no limits and nuclear warheads this time!
Those are only the direct contributions. There are others passed through committees and PACs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/senate-democrats-louisiana_n_61...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/07/senate-gop-campaign-almost-16...
The connected are employed.
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/04/27/a-list-of-goldman-sachs-p...
This just begins to count the control and connections.
Roll 'em, Dano!
The best government that money from nothing can corrupt!
Testi-lie.
Channeling Nicky Santoro! "What a wonderful World this would be"!!!
I'd like to see a list of who they didn't bribe, as it's far easier to track.
these posts are silly.. you can't buy influence with $75,000.. $2m isn't even a rounding error.. its not even the value of corporate artwork on one floor at headquarters.
True, but these figures are only on the surface. What lies hidden is much more influential.
Yeah, this list is just the ante.
Ya cant outbid fiat for a stick of gum.
You know your ' made ' when you start climbing from the bottom of that league table.
This is the self reported amounts. I think we should multiply by 10 to determine the actual "in-kind" payments be it cash, flights, rental villas, dinners, etc.
Translation: "I [we the Squid] are doing God's work; now STFU and leave us alone. Any questions? Good, I'm outta here".
www.traderzoo.mobi
<<< Goldman Sachs
<<< Mohamed Atta
We all know the moral of the story: Shameless politician-prostitutes can be bought very cheaply.
how much did the other banks contribute? as much as they've got their alumni infiltrating the high ranks of gov, there must be similar contributions from other indispensible <sarc> banking institutions ?
"Here Is The Only Thing You Need To Know As Goldman's|New York Fed's Bill Dudley Testifies To The Senate"
Jonathan Gruber
know this too.
."
Mike Silva: And when I realized that nobody had any idea how to respond to
that, I went into the bathroom and threw up. Because I realized this is it, it’s just
this small group of people, and right now at this moment we have no clue. I never
want to get close to that moment again.
.
Jake Bernstein: Silva told his staff that this was a very powerful experience that still
influenced his thinking. And you could hear that in the recordings after the unusual deal
came down late that Friday afternoon involving the overseas bank, Banco Santander.
What upset Mike Silva about it was that it seemed like the entire purpose of the
transaction was for Goldman Sachs to help Banco Santander appear healthier than it
actually was.
All banks have to keep some capital on hand. The more deals and loans they do, the more
capital they have to keep around, as a safety cushion, in case things go bad. Santander
was under pressure from its own regulators back in Europe to hold more capital. And this
deal with Goldman Sachs helped solve the problem for Santander. Not by giving
Santander more capital, but by taking stuff off their books, and putting it onto Goldman’s
books. Having less stuff meant Santander needed less capital. Mission accomplished.
One Fed employee likened it to Goldman getting paid to hold onto a briefcase. And as
best as they could tell, Goldman was paid a lot: at least $40 million with the potential to
make hundreds of millions in the end. Mike Silva referred to the deal this way.
.
Mike Silva: It’s pretty apparent when you think this thing through that it’s
basically window dressing that’s designed to help Banco Santander artificially
enhance its capital.
.
Jake Bernstein: To be clear, the deal appeared to be perfectly legal. Silva knew that. But
still, he wondered, did they want banks doing these sorts of transactions in the future? If
this kind of deal took off and became more popular, could it be a problem?
And in a sense, this is what you’d hope a Fed manager would be doing in the aftermath of
the financial crisis. Mike Silva learned about this new kind of deal that had come into the
world –one with potential risks that they didn’t fully understand yet. And he set his team
to work scrutinizing it.
Carmen and the others began to pore over documents for this complex transaction, which
had tentacles in Brazil, Spain, the US and the Middle East. And one of the things that
caught Carmen’s eye was a short paragraph that the banks had written into the agreement.
It said that Goldman had to notify the Fed about the Santander deal and obtain a, quote,
“no objection.” In other words, it looked like Goldman was required to get the Fed to
officially sign off on the deal, before it could close. Maybe because Goldman and
Santander worried that regulators might find this new kind of transaction hard to
swallow. But now the two banks had closed the deal. Did Goldman satisfy that part of the
contract? Here’s what Mike Silva had to say about it.
...
..
.
Brian Reed: I mean the obvious question from what you’re describing is: is that
regulatory capture?
.
Carmen Segarra: You know, if that isn’t I don’t know what is." ....
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/sites/default/files/TAL536_transcript.pdf
.
and then there is political and monetary capture, oh boy .....