[wrinklz]

Fact:

1) Your argument is baseless...

Because (Fact)

a) We (the taxpayers) were compelled to bail GS out to the tune of 12 billion dollars to prevent a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse.

b) GS has access to huge amounts of credit at zero percent interest from the Fed.

Conclusion

1) We the people don't require evidence of a "crime" to take further action to protect our interests going forward.

[bushido]

LMFAO! Where did you get this from: "GS has access to huge amounts of credit at zero percent interest from the Fed"?? whereas in fact: They had "10 billion" shoved down their throats in Oct-Nov 2008, in exchange of preferred stock, with the condition that they had to take the money, and had to keep it for six months.

Which they repaid in full in April-May 2009 along with 23% interest. 23%!!! thats more per annum than a sub prime individual with no security would pay!

Your interests in what exactly? You don't even know the facts of your own investments.. if at all you would like to call it that. i guess you meant interest as in the 23%!

Go dig up the archives for 14 Sep 2008 - 30 Nov 2008, since I dont remember the exact date for the statements "We dont want or need any funds from the TARP".

Why not, because in Sep 2008 they had already raised 10 Billion from buffet. Not to cover their asses etc. but to use the money to make more money.

Of course this also brings up the question whether the motive of force funding GS was to save them or just get a slice of an awesomely lucarative delicious pie! something you the taxpayer profited from!

But of course you could have easily missed that, due to a beautiful blame shifting concept called "dissonant discomfort/cognitive dissonance". google it.

Question: 1. Which we the people are you referring to, the ones who understand issues, or just carry a vote without any knowledge? 2. If everyone understands the issue, I am sure you realize that "don't require evidence of a 'crime'", is an unlawful non-democratic statement in every way. ..... and hence you could definitely not mean "we the people"? 3) Again, what interests exactly?

in conclusion: are you really under the illusion that you are going forward ? LMAO!

[hga]

Goldman was one of the 9 banks at that infamous meeting where Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (not to be confused with the selling short hedge fund counter party of this deal) said "Take this money or else".

Here's Judicial Watch's page on this meeting: http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-fo...

The talking points that were coughed up 3/4ths of a year later for Judaical Watch's FOIA request match the leaked substance of the meeting including these details:

"We don't believe it is tenable to opt out because doing so would leave you vulnerable and exposed.

"If a capital infusion is not appealing, you should be aware that your regulator will require it in any circumstance."

The leaks said that they were told they weren't leaving the room until they'd signed on the dotted line. This is the sort of thing you expect from the Mafia or in a Third World country, not the USA! Not to mention that the 23% interest they were charged was Mafia like.

Too many envy the successful, and in this case technical excellence was part of the story. Goldman developed their own computer language "Slang", and while it's not too hot today, their overall system for using it gives them a fantastic advantage. When their leadership wants to play "what if", or the world changes, they can use their system to query all their units and get an answer in something like a few hours at the most.

Other firms keep this embedded in a zillion different (and by definition often broken) spreadsheets and the like. Finding out which end is up is a largely manual and error prone process taking days (or so I read; whatever the time amounts, Goldman's system is going to be a lot faster and more accurate).

[hga]

Doesn't your argument boil down to "might makes right"?