I watched that film, it was not long enough.

FR

surprise surprise surprise; dont do anything illegal and no charges are filed.

Was about to say, did they actually break a law? It's still legal (even encouraged) to be a scumbag on Wall Street and Congressional hearings are mostly political theater but were any actual laws broken?

afaik fraud and undisclosed self dealing are illegal

Wait a second, isn't Dominator 13th? Wasn't he a Ron Paul guy? What's he doing defending GS here.

You have me confused wtih someone else, apparently.... Though I have no love for the GS influence in DC, which is more interested in lining the pockets of their friends than focused on improving the US economy.

Thats why I lol at cries for more regulation over the finance industry, the foxes are guarding the henhouse, and the foxes are a helluva lot smarter than those who they are advising.

Top Contributors to Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign

1. University of California $1,648,685
2. Goldman Sachs $1,013,091

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

The Senator who wrote the initial report damning Goldman wanted perjury charges brought against senior people at the firm because they testified in front of the Senate that Goldman was not shorting the housing market, specifically that they were not net short. They were, in fact, not net short. The only reason Senator Levin felt that way is because all of his numbers were wrong (on purpose?). At one point his report mixed up revenues with profits while trying to numerically prove Goldman's profits off of the mortgage market. This is not an exaggeration, it literally happened.

Anyway, after extent of the goofs in this report became known Senator Levin backed off and the whole thing quietly went away. Andrew Ross Sorkin, the guy who wrote "Too Big To Fail," wrote a great critique of Levin's report back in 2011. You can read it here. Most of the case against Goldman flowed directly from this report and as you can see, at least when it comes to its numbers, it was pure amateur hour. Hardly surprising the Justice Dept doesn't think this warrants a massively expensive high profile string of prosecutions.

After Dodd-Frank Goldman (and most of Wall Street) has abandoned him and are now firmly backing Romney. All the motivation Obama needs to let them walk! He's not tough on the banks at all they love him!! That's why they're giving all their money to Romney!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...s-him-too.html

the appointment of ex goldman execs to top regulatory positions in government, the failure to punish Goldman for breaking the law, and the way too soft new regulations are three of the main reasons why I and many other liberals will not be voting for Obama this time around. Though these actions are historically standard for a U.S. president post FDR, we expected more after all the election rhetoric.

about the breaking the law point....I confess I am not a wall street lawyer. I have heard credible people say that you could make a very strong case against Goldman. And we all know that they were advising their clients toward investments that they were personally simultaneously dumping and and downgrading per their internal emails and memos. That has to be illegal. That has to be fraud by simple definition. The idea that every transaction that occurs on wall street is so complex that it is beyond legal scrutiny is an idea that I reject out of hand as a ridiculous and see-through lie. Obama is just another puppet trying to increase his own wealth and stature.

Really?

Like, really?

yeah man

really

I'm sure you were cheer leading the deregulation - repeal of glass steagall banking act in 1999 along with the rest of the republicans that lead us down the too big to fail bailout great recession path.

If more regulation over the finance industry is bad, how come countries like Canada who had more regulations, faired better during housing collapse, and didn't need to bailout their big banks? You can't explain that.

He got banned Cuban B.

why