Quotes of the Day -- American Existence Edition

 Probably the most important thing and things you can read today.

Matt Taibbi: 

A Dangerous Moment for the Democratic Party

Just a few snippets for the quotes of the day. First from Paul Jay.

Trump may be a buffoon, but the forces behind him are serious. Trump may be gone, at least for now, but many developments are driving a section of the American elites towards a more overtly coercive and racist state.

This section of the elite has been ascendant because “liberal American capitalism” is out of solutions. Had it not been for the pandemic, Trump would likely be headed back to the White House. In spite of his criminal mishandling of the pandemic, he still received 70 million votes. Obama’s economic policies favored Wall Street and produced greater income inequality. Desperation and frustration created conditions for strengthening fascist and racist ideas in segments of the working class and rural poor. It tilled the soil for Trump.

People, especially in rural America, have lost faith in traditional post-war American institutions, and evangelical and conservative religions are gaining strength. At least 60 percent of the Trump vote came from very religious people. These people have lost their ideological moorings, as have people in most of the country, and demagogues from the right, from Trump to Tucker Carlson, are staking out the anti-elitist position. I think if progressives don’t learn how to talk to people of religious faith, they can’t win this battle.

The oligarchy is aghast at the success of the Sanders campaign and the wave of progressives elected to office. They fear increasing public support for socialized solutions like Medicare for All, publicly owned banks, community control of police, and a growing consciousness that some form of socialism is a viable alternative. If Biden continues Clinton/Obama-era pro-banker economic policies, he will set the table for a more dangerous version of Trump in 2024 or maybe Trump himself all over again.

The climate crisis makes all this even more urgent. We don’t have time for compromise and reach-across-the-aisle solutions. I said, vote for Biden without illusions, because it would be a better field of battle for progressive forces. Well, the next phase of the battle has begun.

Then from Matt Taibbi in the same column.

I think this is a dangerous moment for the Democrats because I think they’re going to take Biden’s victory as a validation of all of their strategy for the last two election cycles, whereas, in fact, you know, it’s really been disastrous. They lost to Trump in 2016, kind of inexplicably, and they nearly lost to him this time. And they suffered losses in the House, and they didn’t win the Senate.

You know, the Democrats have become essentially an upper-class, cosmopolitan party. People outside the cities just don’t vote Democratic. It’s a party of people who are college-educated and have professional jobs. People who are more working-class and rural, even though they may not have the class sensibility, they are much more much more likely to fall into the Trump camp. So, I think it’s a starkly divided electorate where at this point you can almost tell who’s going to vote for which candidate based on where you are in the country, and you know what that person’s background is. And that I think that’s a troubling sign for the Democrats, because I think they don’t realize it. But I think they’ve lost working-class people.

So the good news?

We voted out Trump.

The bad news?

We have a LOAD of work to do.

God help us. God help us all. God save the United States of America.

No exaggeration or overstatement.

Link--Another good, helpful, maybe even important read:

Is the United States a Democracy?

Something legal -- that shouldn't be

A study was just released proving still more that letting the wealthy and corporations offshore profits, first, shouldn't even ever been made legal and that it should, now, be reversed and made against our tax laws:

Exhaustive Study Finds Global Elite Hiding Up to $32 Trillion

A new report reveals how wealthy individuals and their families have between $21 and $32 trillion of hidden financial assets around the world in what are known as offshore accounts or tax havens. The actual sums could be higher because the study only deals with financial wealth deposited in bank and investment accounts, and not other assets such as property and yachts. The inquiry was commissioned by the Tax Justice Network and is being touted as the most comprehensive report ever on the "offshore economy." It also finds that private banks are deeply involved in running offshore havens, with UBS, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs handling the most assets.

And the crazy thing is, of course, that it is legal, and that we allow this, but to go back to the beginning of it all, what's really insane is that, because of "campaign contributions" to their--our--legislators, the laws were written for the wealthy in the first place, so they could get away with this kind of rather treasonous obscenity in the first place. 

And sure, the wealthy will always have the laws written for themselves first but let's not let it be THIS easy for them. Let's at least see to it this is rescinded and made illegal.  Let's at least do that. Then, after that, let's take away tax cuts for offshoring jobs in America.

It's difficult to believe we even have to say this.

Link:s  

Matt Taibbi Explains Wall Street’s "License to Steal," Offshore Tax Havens and Private Equity Firms

"Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History." (Spiegel & Grau, 2011)

Matt Taibbi & William Black on Bailout Secrets & How New Foreclosure Deal Spares Banks from Justice

Jan 11, 2013 | STORY

"Failure of Epic Proportions": Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy

Jan 11, 2013 | STORY

Matt Taibbi: After Laundering $800 Million in Drug Money, How Did HSBC Executives Avoid Jail?

The one article on our economy virtually all adult Americans should read

Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone magazine in his article The Mad Science of the National Debt

"What a crazy time we live in. 

Domestic politics have devolved into an ongoing hostage crisis in which the opposition party threatens to blow up the financial universe every six months or so, and the leading political minds in the country can't figure out how to keep this from being a permanent feature of our budgetary process. Meanwhile, global monetary policy is drifting in the direction of semipermanent stimulus, and no one has any idea how it all ends. It's two different runaway-freight-train action movies going on at the same time. God help us."

American financial scandals, then and now

"When Americans saw the scope of the savings an loan scandal in the 1980s, which today just seems like a bad day on the unregulated derivatives market, Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, put nearly a thousand bankers behind bars. In contrast, Eric H. Holder, Jr., can't seem to smell the stench of a fraud that cost millions of people their jobs or homes."

--Drew Weston in The New York Times today, in his article "America's Leftward Tilt?"

We need to push for banking reform, support of regulations and breaking up the "too big to fail."

Link: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/americas-leftward-tilt/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121104

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States!

"Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president."

Link to original article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz24z0AZGZs

What Americans don't know about their own economy

Bill Moyers, Matt Taibbi and Yves Smith discuss what the banks do and have done and why it's all so very criminal.
Things Americans aren't paying attention to and, it seems like, won't pay attention to, either.

The latest SEC and government scandal America needs to know

A story breaking this week but that, I think, is getting far too little press tells of the SEC doing some preliminary investigations of Wall Street firms, then shutting them down and--worst of all--destroying any evidence. And why would this happen, you might ask? Well, because those very same SEC employees then get cushy, high paying jobs with the very companies they're supposed to be overseeing and regulating. And it's been going on since 1993, at least, apparently, and repeatedly. Goldman Sachs, anyone? It reminds me, once again, of the quote by Tim McIlrath: "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention." Read about it here: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/18/139758303/sec-documents-destroyed-employee-tells-congress; http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817

Matt Taibbi gets it right yet again

From the latest Rolling Stone Magazine:

The People vs. Goldman Sachs

A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges

By Matt Taibbi,  May 11, 2011

They weren't murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it.

Thanks to an extraordinary investigative effort by a Senate subcommittee that unilaterally decided to take up the burden the criminal justice system has repeatedly refused to shoulder, we now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.

Then, additionally, there's this story about dirty Goldman Sachs, from a completely different source, showing still more at least questionable tactics, if not illegal, in an entirely different arena:

New Disclosures on Currency Swaps with Goldman to Hide Greek Debt; Tip of the Iceberg says Former Bond Trader "Dr. Evil"

Let's go get 'em, for pity's sake.


If even half of what Matt Taibbi documents is true--and it certainly looks as though it is--we should go after them, both because of what they did illegally, but also to ensure it isn't repeated.

Then, if we're lucky at all, it will get and keep G Sachs and all the people and companies like them out of the inner workings of the White House.

Let's hope.

And hope big.

Links: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/how-goldman-execs-screwed-their-clients-and-lied-to-congress-20110511
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-bailout-hustle-20100217

Why haven't we made "naked credit default swaps" illegal?

First, a definition:


Credit Default Swap:  A "swap" (trade) designed to transfer the credit exposure of fixed income products between parties.


Or there's this definition:


A specific kind of counterparty agreement which allows the transfer of third party credit risk from one party to the other. One party in the swap is a lender and faces credit riskfrom a third party, and the counterparty in the credit defaultswap agrees to insure this risk in exchange of regularperiodic payments (essentially an insurance premium). If the third party defaults, the party providing insurance will have to purchase from the insured party the defaulted asset. Inturn, the insurer pays the insured the remaining interest on the debt, as well as the principal.


Good luck with a definition of a credit default swap.  Trust me on this.  Google "credit default swap" and go through the list, see if you can understand it.  


Here's the best, simplest definition I could find:  The buyer of a credit swap receives credit protection, whereas the seller of the swap guarantees the credit worthiness of the product. By doing this, the risk of default is transferred from the holder of the fixed income security to the seller of the swap. 


What it boils down to is a giant ripoff, designed by JP Morgan and company:


The first CDS contract was introduced by JP Morgan in 1997 and by mid-2007, the value of the market had ballooned to an estimated $45 trillion, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association - over twice the size of the U.S. stock market.


And as anyone who has read anything by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine would know, these are a) not really, officially "insurance" at all and so b) are not regulated by the Federal Government.  The banking community created a $45 trillion dollar market and has kept it away from any regulation which would be fine but if this market crashes, as it nearly did in 2008, it could take down not just the US markets but the world's.


So here's what's been going on, and what a "naked credit default swap" is, as told by that same Matt Taibbi, on his blog (link below):  


In insurance...you can’t buy policies on someone else’s property. But in finance, you can buy credit default protection on anything, whether you own the underlying property or not. This is called a naked credit default swap. So if Bank of America is holding a billion dollars in mortgage-backed securities, Goldman Sachs can actually buy swaps on all of those MBS, even though it doesn’t own them. Your problem with this is that you don’t understand it because you think it doesn’t make sense, and that’s because it doesn’t make sense – a naked CDS is totally indistinguishable from gambling, but it’s legal. There was an ill-fated attempt by Byron Dorgan to outlaw naked CDS in the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill, but that attempt failed. 


So, other than the fact that Goldman Sachs is inside the White House and has been for at least decades and the fact that the banking industry virtually runs, if not owns our government, why have we not made "credit default swaps" and especially "naked credit default swaps" illegal?  It's a great question.  CDS's and the banking industry nearly wrecked our economy and they're still running the game.


Why are you not mad as hell?


And why aren't you raising hell with your Congressman about this?


(Well, other than the fact that we're all just trying to keep our jobs, not have our unions wrecked by the Republicans, keep up our payments on our homes and our outrageously-high health care, etc., etc.)


Final note:  If you want to get a great, enjoyable, even fun, if sick read that will also tell you where America has been economically for the last decade or so and where we likely still are, go get Matt Taibbi's
 book Griftopia:  Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America.  You'll be very glad you did.


Links:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-friedman-naked-swaps-and-madoff-20110228
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/08/cds.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-america-on-sale-from-matt-taibbis-griftopia-20101018
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780385529952.html

"This Was Never About the Little Guy" (guest post)

There were approximtely $1.4 trillion worth of subprime loans outstanding in the United States by the end of 2007. By the first quarter of 2009, there were forclosure filings against approximately 4.4 million properties. If it was only the subprime market's fault, $1.4 trillion would have covered the entire problem, right?

Yet the Federal Reserve, the treasury, and the FDIC forked out $13 trillion to fix the housing “correction”… With all that money, the government could have bought up every residential mortgage in the country – there were about $11.9 trillion  worth at the end of December 2008 – and still have had about a trillion left over to buy homes for every American who couldn’t afford them.

--Nomi Prin, former VP at Goldman Sachs from her book It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street  (with thanks for the reference to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine).  Ms. Prin "frequently makes the point that the bailouts were more about paying off bets than they were about stabilizing the economy."

We've been had as chumps.

Try to have a great weekend, y'all.

Links:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-friedman-naked-swaps-and-madoff-20110228

http://www.nomiprins.com/it-takes-a-pillage/

Quote of the day--on Speaker of the House John Boehner

John Boehner is the ultimate Beltway hack, a man whose unmatched and self-serving skill at political survival has made him, after two decades in Washington, the hairy blue mold on the American congressional sandwich. The biographer who somewhere down the line tackles the question of Boehner's legacy will do well to simply throw out any references to party affiliation, because the thing that has made Boehner who he is — the thing that has finally lifted him to the apex of legislative power in America — has almost nothing to do with his being a Republican.


The Democrats have plenty of creatures like Boehner. But in the new Speaker of the House, the Republicans own the perfect archetype — the quintessential example of the kind of glad-handing, double-talking, K Street toady who has dominated the politics of both parties for decades. In sports, we talk about athletes who are the "total package," and that term comes close to describing Boehner's talent for perpetuating our corrupt and debt-addled status quo: He's a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done.


--Matt Taibbi from his article "The Crying Shame of John Boehner", Rolling Stone Magazine


Link:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=1

Are you paying attention?

We really could fix this.

We need to get true campaign finance reform, folks, and pay for campaigns so corporations and their lobbyists and money don't, for starters.

We need to make money to any and all government representatives illegal.

Finally, we need to shorten the campaign season to 3 to 6 months, tops, for all.

Hard data on the US military and Dept. of Defense--and a challenge for America

"the Pentagon..." has "perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department..." "...most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses." That should make you feel good, right? "Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?" So here's the final question and challenge: "What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!" Link to original article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512

On the Catholic Priesthood--because more people need to see this

“Somewhere underneath all of this there is a root story that has to do with celibacy. The celibate status of its priests is basically the Catholic church’s last market advantage in the Christian religion racket, but human beings are not designed to be celibate and so problems naturally arise among the population of priests forced to live that terrible lifestyle. Just as it refuses to change its insane and criminal stance on birth control and condoms, the church refuses to change its horrifically cruel policy about priestly celibacy. That’s because it quite correctly perceives that should it begin to dispense with the irrational precepts of its belief system, it would lose its appeal as an ancient purveyor of magical-mystery bullshit and become just a bigger, better-financed, and infinitely more depressing version of a Tony Robbins self-help program.”

- Matt Taibbi

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/03/27/the-catholic-church-is-a-criminal-enterprise/

And yes, if you know local Kansas City blogs, I took this from Matt Payton's blog because, as I said above, more people need to see it. Thanks, Matt!

Link to original post here:
http://mattpayton.tumblr.com/post/484741619

Two big compromises

It seems the 2 big compromises this week--that of the Copenhagen Summit on global warming (or climate change or pollution or whatever you want to call it) and health care reform, here in the US, have a great deal in common.

Both of them have people for them. Both have people against them. Both have people, somewhere in the middle who say this is the best we could get and that they are improvements and that we need to wrap our arms around them and move on.

God, I hope they're right.

On the Copenhagen summit on climate change, it seems we made progress, this time, as the US was for some good, solid action. This in stark contrast to the Kyoto Protocol that the George W. Bush administration kept us out of. At least we made that better transition. We're in on this one. We don't have to be embarassed this time and we've had input on this.

As to who knows what's in this thing right now, who can say? Frankly, following the mess this week that has been the negotiations on health care in the Senate has been demanding enough.

First, as I noted here, the White House threw out the single-payer option we needed so desperately.

Then, they threw away the "public option" so the insurance companies could stay happy and we wouldn't give them any real competition.

That stunk.

But the fact is, now people are coming out on all sides, some saying we should throw it away; others that we should keep it and that it does do some good.

It's disappointing and the Democrats caved but apparently, according to what the Congressional Budget Office says, it will help us, as a nation, to have smaller budget deficits.

I just wish it had done a lot more for the average Joe on the streets--the "you and me" of the world. I wish the Democrats had been more for us instead of for the insurance companies.

But so it goes.

Let's hope it's all progress.

In both cases, this is what compromise looks like.

We need more of that here in the States.

Links to related stories:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/yes-it-is-the-end-of-the_b_397683.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/they-didnt-seal-the-deal_b_397765.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/cope-en-blame-em-today-fi_b_398006.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/health-bill-limits-aborti_b_398084.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-paul-g-kirk-jr/a-rebuttal-to-howard-dean_b_398218.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/that-gollum-like-feeling_b_398034.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-on-ed-it-is-absur_b_393480.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/18/taibi-kuttner-debate-heal_n_397757.html

No "opt out" clause

The insurance companies keep doing what they can to take care of themselves--but take advantage of us.

First, we should have had the "single-payer" option with this coming health care reform so we can reduce what waste we can in paperwork, at minimum, that courses through our health care system.

There are 1300 insurance companies in the US and each one has their own forms, as we all know.

That creates untold waste in paper, time, energy and so, money.

Unfortunately, according to Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama gave this $350 billion dollar a year savings tool away to the insurance industry and their lobbyists at the beginning of our negotiations for this reform.

That shouldn't have happened.

That wasn't in our best interests.

Second, we should have the "public option" for insurance, absolutely.

We are one of the only countries in the world that lets insurance companies make huge, ugly profits on health care insurance.

It's "blood money", for sure, let's be clear.

Government-run (yes, government-run) health insurance is the only thing that makes sense when it comes to being covered. Lots of other countries still have successful, private insurance companies and industries while, at the same time, having government-run health insurance, too. It can work. But we have to let it. (See any of the last 3 links below and/or do a Google search for "T R Reid Health Care").

We have to get the costs of health insurance down, that's all there is to it.

The ongoing annual increases are eating us alive--both businesses and citizens--you and me, out here in the real world.

Six to 8 to 13 percent increases (mine, this very minute, is an 8 to 13 percent increase option I have, depending on which deductible rate I accept), are devouring our economies. This inflation is unworkable, not just unacceptable.

And now we have the spineless, cowering Congress, kowtowing further for and to the insurance industry by throwing this ridiculous "opt out" clause in our negotiations.

The thought is, sure, if you must have this awful reform we don't want, then let's throw in the good-sounding "opt-out" idea, so if whole states don't want to go down this government-insurance way, they can choose to "opt out".

Except what it does is further guarantee insurance agencies their increases, at least for a few years, while strapping all the rest of us to ever-higher costs.

It's insane.

The insurance industry and their lobbyists are throwing millions of dollars at our representatives in an effort to get what they want and stiff the American public.

Don't fall for it, folks.

"Opt-out" is not in our best interests.

Far from it.

Now, today, Joe Lieberman says he will filibuster to keep the "public option" out of this bill.

(Bang head here)

Links:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/08/19/matt-taibbi-on-health-care-reform-sick-and-wrong/

http://www.rollingstone.com/videos/video/29735557
/matt_taibbi_on_healthcare_sick_and_wrong

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114209669

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112172939

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

http://fora.tv/2009/09/14/TR_Reid_The_Healing_of_America

Where we are with health care reform right now--by Matt Taibbi

If you haven't read the latest article by Matt Taibbi from The Rolling Stone on health care, you're missing an important covering of where we've come from and where things seem to be going.

Very informative.

Just a little bit of the article--

Opinion:
"Without a public option, any effort at health care reform will be as meaningful as a manicure for a gunshot victim."

Conjecture that seems true:
"Nearly a third of all health care costs in America are associated with wasteful administration. Fully $350 billion a year could be saved on paperwork alone if the U.S. went to a single-payer system — more than enough to pay for the whole goddamned thing, if anyone had the balls to stand up and say so."

Fact with great, fun analogy:
"'Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted that "private insurance will not be able to compete with a government option.' This is a little like complaining that Keanu Reeves was robbed of an Oscar just because he can't act."

It is 7 computer pages of material which isn't really that much and it is an excellent, important article.

Of particular attention is Senator Max Baucus' remarks, work and multi-million dollar contributions he gets from the health care industry. It is terrific reading.

The other thing that occurs to me is that Mr. Taibbi should write with just as much "anger" or energy and less expletives so more people can and would read his material.

We need to get this kind of thing out.

And the sooner the better.

Link to story:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/

Important article

I haven't thought about or read anything in, of or from Rolling Stone Magazine since, what? I was a in my late teens?

I've moved on.

Reading about "rock and roll" was absolutely NOT a priority in any way. Heck no.

But recently, this past week, I became aware of the cover story by Matt Taibbi about Goldman Sachs and I knew I just had to read it.

You should, too.

Everyone should read this thing.

If you don't know that Goldman Sachs and its employees have been running the financial side of our government for some time, then you don't know Hank Paulson.

You really owe it to yourself and, no kidding, your country, to go to the Rolling Stone Magazine's site and read this article. Besides being a bit like a civics lesson, it can be and is much more. It's fascinating, for sure.

Today, too, the RS article is even more topical and relevant since G-S announced a whopping $3.4 billion turn-around profit within the last 24 hours.

Check this out from the PBS online news source:

"The bank's rebound is likely to assuage concerns that Wall Street remains hobbled by the credit crunch. The better-than-expected earnings report may set the tone for other big banks' earnings reports due in the days to come, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo."

Here's the good part:

"But questions are also being raised about how Goldman was able to so quickly return to profits even as it enjoyed a multi-billion dollar cushion from the U.S. government. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Goldman executives sold nearly $700 million of stock during an eight-month period following the collapse of rival Lehman Brothers last September. Most of the sales, the newspaper reported, occurred during the period the bank had a $10 billion federal lifeline."

Questions indeed. But they'll never be asked or answered, let's not kid ourselves. This and the last administrations in Washington are far too complicit with Goldman to really do much about them.

One good, short, important quote from the R. Stones arcticle, I think: "organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy."

Translated: we're screwed.

But knowledge is power so let's get some more knowledge and then vote accordingly and not put up with certain crap that's been going on for too long.

You can find the article here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/1

Link to PBS article here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/july-dec09/goldmansachs_07-14.html