“the Democratic National Committee has just rolled back essential restrictions on direct contributions from Wall Street and special interest lobbyists, opening the floodgates for even more money and influence from corporations and billionaires.” —The Other 98%
Democratic National Committee just rolled back essential restrictions on direct contributions from Wall Street and special interest lobbyists
13 Saturday Feb 2016
Posted in campaign finance, News
Occupy Ventura 
grant marcus said:
Please read my article explaining why Hillary Clinton is part of the Wall Street problem:
CLINTON’S TIES TO GOLDMAN SACHS AND STUDENT LOANS RUN DEEP –By Grant Marcus
“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that
I ever received,” Hillary Clinton told the audience during the New Hampshire debate. And Sanders, proving more competitive than pundits deemed possible, responded, “Oh,
I guess they’re [corporations are] just throwing around money for the fun of it.” The presidential dark horse then outlined indisputable ways money buys votes and policy
in Washington.
But Bernie Sanders, an outsider to the Democratic Party, had to mind his Ps and
Qs, and not attack Hillary Clinton, or the wealthy arm of the Party. He was strad-
dling the line between honesty and exposure of Hillary, without embarrassing her,
or diminishing her chances, when she wrestles with republicans for the presidency.
But there was definitely enough fodder for “Bernie” to fire more than a few shots at
the frontrunner, when it came to Goldman Sachs.
In all of the debates, Hillary Clinton has maintained that her vote cannot be
bought, but she has also failed to be transparent as to how deep her ties are to Gold-
man Sachs. These ties go back some 25 years, when she and her husband began
corporatizing the Democratic Party “in order to save it.” Democrats had lost badly
or were embarrassed with McGovern, Mondale, Hart, and Carter. And since Rea-
gan’s “free trade,” the Dem’s financial base, i.e. union membership, was fast dis- integrating. Dems had to get money from somewhere, but that somewhere would
force them to compete with republicans over corporate money; and that would mean
they would have to cater to the right, where the money was.
So the Clintons courted Goldman Sachs, via Robert Rubin and others in the
company. That bond brought the Clintons from the small Confederate State of Ar-
kansas into the White House. And when Bill became President, he moved Gold-
man Sachs into the White House with him. The GS men advised Clinton to end
Glass Steagall, which regulated banking and Wall Street. Together, with Clinton,
the bank snuck legislation past Congress, by tying it to an Omnibus bill that, if not passed, would have shutdown government for the first time in the nation’s history.
Contained inside the bill was the Financial Commodities Modernization Act, writ-
ten in part by Goldman Sachs’ top execs, Robert Rubin and Gary Gensler. Passed
in 2000, just before Clinton left office, the Act allowed banks to legally gamble on
Wall Street through derivatives and hedge funds, etc. And they could use the pub-
lic’s life savings to do it. Consequently, by 2007, just 7 years later, the U.S. had
its first Great Recession since the Crash of 1929. It was largely because of FCMA.
Things haven’t changed too much. According to Bloomberg Business, GS, ev-
en under the new Dodd-Frank regulations, still gambles with public funds, this
time on the wars in the Middle East. The bank has invested over $1 trillion in
oil, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The region
has also invested in Goldman Sachs. Meanwhile, The Clinton Foundation has
received $10 million from Saudi Arabia, $1-5 million from Qatar, and $1-5 million
from the United Arab Emirates, according to the LA Times and McClatchy. Oman
has also contributed between $1-5 million.
Hillary Clinton blasted Sanders for voting for FCMA legislation. (All 100 Sena-
tors voted for the bill to avoid government shutdown). And she reiterated Bernie’s comments, that FCMA “brought down the entire country.” However, Mrs. Clinton ne-
glected to be transparent with the American people. For instance, she didn’t tell the public, during the debates, that she voted for continuing FCMA as Senator. And she
also didn’t mention that Goldman Sachs is now monitoring the bundle money of her campaign. Her husband’s appointee, Gary Gensler of GS, who helped write FCMA, played an integral part in lobbying for its passage, and orchestrated the strategy to
sneak FCMA past the Senate in 1999, is now Hillary Clinton’s chief economic
advisor to her campaign. That’s right, the very man who helped write the bill
that “brought down the economy” is on Hillary Clinton’s staff as a major player.
And time wouldn’t allow Sanders to explain that when President Obama nomin-
ated Gensler to head the Treasury, this time Bernie knew who he was, and success-
fully filibustered his nomination.
Goldman Sachs was the bank which “betted against America,” made $50
billion off the recession, played a big part in the “housing bubble” and foreclos-
ures, and settled out of court, without a guilty plea for $5 billion, or a 1000%
profit. And no one from GS, or any other too-big-to-fail bank, went to jail.
Could it have anything to do with Washington politicians, who had been se-
duced and financed by the banks, and were now protecting banks from prose-
cution with their votes, and/or their inaction? Could it be those very politicians
clouding the facts during the debates?
The murky history of Goldman Sachs and the Clintons doesn’t stop there. The Clintons have received as much as $2.2 million dollars in speaking fees from the company, and GS has contributed a half million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
Over a period of 25 odd years of friendship between GS and the Clintons, GS is
said to have contributed a total of $2.9 million, if not more, to the Clinton family.
(The Clintons have been reluctant to reveal all donations to their Foundation,
although the Justice Department has asked them to do so).
The Clintons served as Goldman Sachs’ entrance into Washington. The
company’s CEOs/officers have served as Secretary of Treasury for last 24
years, under both Republican and Democrat administrations. This history all
began with Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton remains steadfast to the idea that her vote is still not influ-
enced by GS. But then, there’s the story of the Bankruptcy Bill: Hillary Clinton
got together with Elizabeth Warren, who lobbied her to vote against the bill
because it would bring permanent debt to students if it passed. Warren ex-
plained that the bill would not allow students to declare bankruptcy on student
loans, and Warren argued that students should have the right to declare bank-
ruptcy like any other individual or business. Warren says that Clinton “got it,”
and at first, agreed with Warren to vote against it, but at the last minute, Hil-
lary flip-flopped, changed her vote, and students ended up strapped to their
debt for the rest of their lives. Warren is still puzzled, if not angry by Clin-
ton’s change of heart.
But what does student debt have to do with Goldman Sachs? Well, shortly
after Hillary’s vote, GS bought out the College Education Management Cor-
poration, and is now averaging $3 billion a year off of student loans. Can any-
one claim Clinton had foresight into company acquisitions (Congress is al-
lowed insider trading) or prove that Clinton’s vote was changed because of her
decades-old friendship with GS? Maybe that should be a question for Gary
Gensler of GS, her campaign economic advisor, who is the leading candidate,
and next in line for the role of Secretary of Treasury, should there be yet an-
other eight years of Clinton. As GS expands its student loan operations, how
will their influence effect how Hillary Clinton helps students with loans?
Of course, if Clinton doesn’t win, Goldman Sachs made enough money
from public foreclosures, default swaps, and bailouts…to avoid having to
hedge their bets. That’s why they are busy financing Ted Cruz on the other
side of the campaign trail. I guess Hillary and Ted will toss a coin over who
gets the front door, and who gets the back. So much for a difference between
the two Parties. Regardless of the color of the door, or its where-abouts,
right or left, front or back, it will be the same crooked bank, and the same
rigged system.
Grant Marcus, RN, ME, who lives in Ventura, CA
grantpeacenurse726@gmail.com 805-259-9725