CEO of Goldman Sachs threatening members of congress

So I'm not necessarily a leftist I'm more of a libertarian who believes in decentralized power both corporate and governmental. Corporations cannot have unlimited power and neither can our government. Both are dangerous.



So apparently the CEO of Goldman Sachs was threatening them on congress stating what is stated above. First off I have a problem with powerhouse bankers threatening our members of congress I don't care what side of the aisle I fall on and another thing I notice here is that it's the ultra crazy super scary commie liberals that are actually saying something about it.

So I decided to look at this ladies website.

Rashida for congress



Welp, she is an SJW of course which bugs the f**** out of me. However I can get behind education cost reform, unionization, ending corporate welfare , promoting homeownership and especially get behind ending citizens united.

This is confusing because I'm not a socialist or an SJW but I really dig someone telling us they are being threatened by Goldman Sachs. The state of politics are actually changing in this country and it's just really weird to only hear the far left leaning liberals calling people out while the right (and I'm very right leaning) does everything it can to defend the current system.

Very weird paradigm we are entering.

a reply to: toysforadults

On the other hand, I would still be cautious with this Goldman Sachs crowd. They have more slippery. underhanded schemes than you can shake a stick at.

a reply to: toysforadults

Man, I bet our masters find it so irritating to perform the constant 2-4 years cycle of breaking in the new recipients of the financial lobbyists. I mean, goldman is simply doing gods work.

I wonder if goldman is one of the prime owners of the federal reserve.

One of these days a revolution will happen and people will realize our current financial system is one of the greatest enslavement methods there is for us sheep.

hahahahahaha, sorry I just had to type that out to see how absurd it sounded .... REALIZING our financial system is corrupt to the core....hahahahahaha

a reply to: ClovenSky

Nah. Citigroup owns 30% last I checked may have changed because that data became harder to source.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: toysforadults

On the other hand, I would still be cautious with this Goldman Sachs crowd. They have more slippery. underhanded schemes than you can shake a stick at.

I bet.

a reply to: toysforadults
I don't care about none of that,I only know she is part of the party that is for Confiscating and banning all firearms forever. Therefore anybody representing that party is my arch nemesis forever, because that goal is always part of the agenda.

I have saId the before, I will say it again. Status quo or not, even if the GOP burns down the world, they will always have my vote because the destruction of the second amendment is not a core philosophy of theirs. Even if the farms start dying off because they switched to Brawndo instead of water, I will still vote for them because they make sure humans in this country will always have the modern equivalent of claws and fangs for defense and like livlyhood.

I don't even care if Democrats succeed in making college/University free, if it comes at the cost of our second amendment I will never vote donkey again!

Isn't it former CEO. That is meaningful.

edit:

Current CEO David M. Solomon

a reply to: roadgravel

good point, but I'm sure it still carries weight

Good Lord. He's not THREATENING new members of Congress. He's simply telling the SJW contingent how CLUELESS they are.

a reply to: toysforadults

Well she got his name wrong and your title is equally wrong. Cohn is no longer an executive at Sachs and they have nothing at all to do with this story?

That's an opinion not a threat. However what she posted is a threat.

I would imagine that the point was they don't have the power they seem to think they have. Socialists are a small group, even among Democrats. 1 vote out of 435 means individually they have no power to speak of and if they think the House will just go along with everything they want, they are in fact over their head.

Something more important than the back and forth and the media's delight in it is, how are they going to pay for what they promised. Cortez has already proven to be functionally illiterate on those issues, is Tlaib any better? Perhaps that played a part in Cohn's opinion?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Not sure I'm not a socialist nor do I believe in free stuff. You are asking the wrong person.

I sure do like it when people call out the big bankers though and you better believe I'm not going to rag on them when they do.

Anyone who's calling these people out will get my support when they do call them out. The rest of the armchair warrior's will do nothing but vote in the same exact people over and over again.

a reply to: toysforadults

That is interesting indeed, a very real threat and not a sensationalised title as well, thanks for the thread. It makes me wonder if this is a first, it's like a deliberate show of who's in control, maybe there is a power struggle within that minority of inbreds. Or maybe they are just showing us what they want us to see, i didn't notice was this reported on any major news outlets?

a reply to: toysforadults

I'm not a fan of the big bankers myself. I was just pointing out the obvious.

I think it's fair to have the opinion that these new people may think they have more power than they do or not understand how it works in the House.

As far as Sachs, They have nothing to do with this however since Cohn is no longer working for them.

a reply to: Blaine91555

nevermind

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ClovenSky

Nah. Citigroup owns 30% last I checked may have changed because that data became harder to source.

Easy to find the numbers if you filter it through Zacks earnings...

The issue is expected to be particularly notable at Citigroup , which is expected to take a $20 billion one-time charge when it reports Q4 results on January 16th. All of the other major banks and investment banks are expected to take big charges as well, though none of them are in the Citigroup league. JPMorgan , which reports Q4 results on January 12th, is expected to take a $2 billion charge while Bank of America , reporting on January 17th, is on track to take a $3 billion charge. Goldman Sachs is expected to take $5 billion in charges.

Linky

There is the majority holders of the privately-traded Federal Reserve, with roughly 20% or so still unknown since the 1980's.

So you are probably correct...



ETA, I would recommend a book by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. called "The Economic Pinch".

He fought the signing of the Federal Reserve Act and paid for it dearly.

A quote of his...

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

a reply to: toysforadults

And people like Ocasio are celebrated by the liberals, as she threatens to subpoena Donald Jr before she's even in office... abuse of power can go both ways. Unfortunately, the MSM likes to endorse some agendas and brush the evidence under the rug when it suits them.

I'm not defending the Goldman CEO, only pointing out how our own soon-to-be elected officials are already doing the same thing, and those individuals should be held to a higher standard since they are "our defenders of liberty and freedom" (supposedly)

Ocasio-Cortez warns Trump Jr. about subpoena power in response to meme

a reply to: Lumenari

Thanks for the info, appreciate it. I spent an hour trying to find it through traditional means however I couldn't source the info so I actually abandoned the thread.

Citigroup if I remember correctly is one of the major financial powerhouses and again, if I remember correctly they are based in Singapore.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I think it's fair to have the opinion that these new people may think they have more power than they do or not understand how it works in the House.

I agree with this. I just won't knock someone over this issue due to the fact that we need to find middle ground with everyone and one of those middle ground issue can and should be the banking empires control over our country.

That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for this person.

In France the right and left are currently working together to kick the plutocracy out of their country. We can learn lessons from this.

a reply to: toysforadults
You want to confront the power of the banking empire?? Stop making purchases through electronic funds transfer, it is their largest source of revenue by far.
And it is the one tool you actually have control over that takes their power away, by keeping it in your possession.

Everytime you purchase electronically , you give them the power to create money from thin air by their micro fees. Take that away from them, if it is not too inconvenient of course 😏

Or we can pretend to not be hypocrites and lament the frustrations of mild inconvenience as too much effort to "fight the power!"