I cannot understand all the financial vibes being produced by the legislation and the suit against Goldman Sachs, but I know we have posters who do.

In reading around (and not understanding) there are two articles this morning that got my attention and perhaps some of you gurus can share with us...maybe I am the only one...but share with me then...

First of all, read this article that says that the government is turning our financial companies like Goldman into the old ATT's in that the rules that will be put into place will allow lots of government meddling into their business but give them in turn lots of government influence !

"The financial overhaul bill creeping toward law is more than a thousand pages, but it has a simple story line. President Barack Obama and the Democrats have decided to turn Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a few other financial giants into organizations that resemble ATT Corp. in the 1950s"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aATP..yenY9c

The second article details how the current legislation will empower the unions (public, which are the largest) .


"While Democrats are busy decrying the growing influence of corporations on politics, little is said about the growing influence of politics on corporations.

The Dodd bank bill won't shift the $130 billion coveted by the SEIU out of bank bonuses and into the raises of schoolteachers and bureaucrats, but it will make it possible for public employees to start pressuring the banks to change their practices from the inside out.

So when you see public employees and the refugees from ACORN out in the street this week decrying Wall Street greed, remember that they are not fighting to take power away from big banks, but to instead control that power themselves."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/po...-92054474.html

Now, the second is obviously an opinion piece but wondered what some of you folks who follow and understand this stuff actually think about it.

Seems to me, that as always, the devil is in the details !!!

Bucco, I am also interested in seeing how the financial gurus see these articles. I have never, never been into the conspriacy therories. Reading the two articles lead me to research and read more. Take a look at these articles if you get an opportunity. Makes me rethink conspriacy. Sorry to ramble.

Some of the scattered points I see:
1. The number of people directly involved with Andy Stern's (an outspoken self-proclaimed socialist and Progressive) Service Employees International Union sitting in important White House appointed seats is amazing.

2. SEIU is in terrible financial trouble. Andy Stern has said the White House owes him for the $85 million the union supplied to get Obama elected.

3. The SEIU owes Bank of America millions.

4. The unions greatly benefiteed in the overhaul of healthcare. The union healthcare plans are greatly underfunded.

5. SEIU's objective toward the US financial system, spelled out on their website, is nearly word for word what is being proposed now in Washington.

6. SEIU is pushing the Labor Free Choice Act (card check). It will greatly benefit unions.

7. In order to get total control, SEIU attempts to take over everything in their way.

8. Where will Andy Stern land now that he just suddenly announced his retirement with SEIU. He said he'll hold onto his position with Obama on the economic reform board.


"Purple may be the official color of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), but Andy Stern is leaving the union deep in the red. Last week, he surprised the labor community by announcing his resignation as president of SEIU. Mr. Stern has claimed victories in helping pass health care legislation and getting President Obama elected, but his impact within his own organization shows gaping budget deficits and massive underfunding of pensions.

"SEIU has seen its liabilities skyrocket during the past decade. The union's liabilities totaled $7,625,832 in 2000. By 2009, they had increased almost by a factor of 16, to $120,893,259. Meanwhile, SEIU's assets barely tripled, growing from $66,632,631 in 2000 to $187,664,763 in 2009. A significant portion of SEIU's current assets are from IOUs from hard-up locals.

"SEIU is $85 million in debt, down from its 2008 high of $102 million, and has been forced to lay off employees. Mr. Stern has led protests against Bank of America, calling for the firing of Chief Executive Ken Lewis. Yet the union owes $80 million to Bank of America and $5 million to Amalgamated Bank, which is owned by the rival union Unite-Here."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-sterns-debts/


http://www.nlpc.org/category/keyword...y-pension-fund


This article shows how greatly underfunded SEIU's pension plans are.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...-on-obama.html


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ensions/print/

A Wall Street Journal article about the unions being in trouble.

"The SEIU added to its debt burden last year with $25 million in new bank loans, including $15 million from Amalgamated Bank of New York. Amalgamated is the nation's only union-owned bank and its chairman is Bruce Raynor, who until recently was also general president of Unite-Here. Mr. Raynor has been fighting for control of that textile-hotel union, and he helped Mr. Stern conduct a raid on Unite-Here members before bolting to the SEIU.

"By the end of 2008, the SEIU also owed Bank of America nearly $88 million, including its headquarters loan and another $10 million for unspecified purposes. This is the same BofA that the union has spent the past months attacking as the face of Wall Street excess. The SEIU has protested outside of Bank of America offices and demanded the resignation of CEO Ken Lewis. We assume no one forced the SEIU to invest in real estate or borrow from a bank to finance it."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124458836591599769.html

"Institutional investors certainly have a responsibility to protect their pension funds, and no one faults anyone for doing so. But in SEIU’s case, there has often been a pattern of abusing that responsibility to achieve other goals. Over the years, SEIU has teamed up with a multitude of co-investors and pension fund activists to gain unionizing and pay control from inside these corporations. This activity is rampant in the private sector companies, and much of it is not in the best interest of the taxpayers or the workers at these companies.

"The financial reforms Obama has proposed of late match up nearly word for word with what’s been proposed by SEIU’s leaders. Much of what’s included in H.R 3126, The Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, also lines up with SEIU’s language. And in the midst of them all are the renewed calls to pass EFCA, the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act.

"And all the while, SEIU has continued on its mission to use the shareholder resolution as a weapon against nearly every business in which their Master Trust has been invested…that is, if that business opposes the Employee Free Forced Choice Act."


http://biggovernment.com/libertychic...er-resolution/

Seems like now that ACORN is dead a new goat has been anointed.

Originally Posted by Bucco

...read this article that says that the government is turning our financial companies like Goldman into the old ATT's in that the rules that will be put into place will allow lots of government meddling into their business but give them in turn lots of government influence...President Barack Obama and the Democrats have decided to turn Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and a few other financial giants into organizations that resemble ATT Corp. in the 1950s

The second article details how the current legislation will empower the unions (public, which are the largest)...The Dodd bank bill won't shift the $130 billion coveted by the SEIU out of bank bonuses and into the raises of schoolteachers and bureaucrats, but it will make it possible for public employees to start pressuring the banks to change their practices from the inside out.

So when you see public employees and the refugees from ACORN out in the street this week decrying Wall Street greed, remember that they are not fighting to take power away from big banks, but to instead control that power themselves....

I am completely lost by what these articles are attempting to say, Bucco. I normally think Bloomberg is a pretty good source. The Examiner is nothing more than a blog with a nifty-looking banner.

But after reading them...and reading them again...it's like the authors put a bunch of words and thoughts that would make good soundbites together in a couple of articles.

How an Goldman Sachs could be made into an AT&T and how the unions are supporting the regulations because they can get some of Goldman Sachs bonus money are ideas that are simply more convoluted than I can understand. I honestly can't figure out what the authors are trying to say.

Originally Posted by cologal

Seems like now that ACORN is dead a new goat has been anointed.

Acorn thrives bigger and bolder in many new organizations under goody two shoes new names. Democrats are doing damage to our Country by preaching otherwise.