Newt Gingrich: Romney Is The “George Soros-Approved” Candidate
While Romney spent his victory speech in Nevada last night doubling down on his ”
Obama is bad for the economy” message, Gingrich opted for a more low-key press conference where he dispelled any rumors of an imminent withdrawal and vowed: “We will go to Tampa.” The rest of his remarks, however, made it clear who his real opponent is, not Obama but Obamney. Not only has his campaign resurrected “Obamneycare” (which has got to have Romney seeing red and Tim Pawlenty kicking himself), but last night he debuted another attack-label for Mitt “the Massachusetts moderate” Romney: he is now also the “George Soros-approved candidate,” a reference to the liberal financier loathed by the right.
Gingrich was talking about an interview in Davos where George Soros made the following remarks:
If it’s between Obama and Romney there isn’t all that much different, except for the crowd that they bring with them. Romney would have to take Gingrich or Santorum as a vice president and probably have some pretty extreme candidates on the Supreme Court. So that’s the downside.
Imagine the hysterical glee when Gingrich (or one of his staffers) heard that gem coming out of George Soros’ mouth. Now he can really go all out on the I’m-the-only-true-conservative-up-against-the-mean-old-Establishment-and-all-that-money, which is exactly what he did last night.
So we stopped and said, alright, the entire Establishment will be against us, the scale of Wall Street money starting with Goldman Sachs will be amazing, and the campaign will be based on things that aren’t true, then how do you define the campaign for the average American so they get to choose do they want two George Soros-approved candidates in the general election or would they like a conservative versus one George Soros-approved candidate.
Looks like Gingrich is settling in for the long fight after all. He made clear at the press conference that he plans to wrest as many delegates out of Romney’s balled-up fists as he can (with special attention, it seems, being paid to Ohio and Arizona). And along the way, you can be sure he’ll trot out the “George Soros-approved candidate” line at least another 4,000 times.
By: Andre Tartar, Daily Intel, February 5, 2012
“Blind Trust Ruse”: Romney Does Not Dispute He Profited From Foreclosures In Florida
ThinkProgress reported Wednesday that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has profited from thousands of Florida foreclosures through a Goldman Sachs investment fund. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) blasted Romney on the trail today for those investments, and re-upped those attacks in tonight’s CNN debate.
Romney attempted to explain away the investments, saying he didn’t control them because they were part of a blind trust:
GINGRICH: Governor Romney has investments in Goldman Sachs, which is today foreclosing on Floridians. So maybe Governor Romney, in the spirit of openness, should tell us how much money he’s made off of how many households that have been foreclosed by his investments.
ROMNEY: First of all, my investments are not made by me. My investments for the last 10 years have been in a blind trust, managed by a trustee. Secondly, the investments they’ve made, we’ve learned about this as we made our financial disclosure, have been made in mutual funds and bonds. I don’t own stock in either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. There are bonds the investor has held through mutual funds. And Mr. Speaker, I know that sounds like an enormous revelation, but have you checked your own investments? You also have investments through mutual funds that also invest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Watch it: http://youtu.be/A8Dg4wpZNRo
Notably, Romney never denied the charge that he made money off of foreclosures. Later in the debate, Romney was asked about the $3 million he kept in a Swiss bank account before it was closed in 2010. Again, Romney attempted to brush aside the question, saying, “I have a trustee” who manages a blind trust.
Romney’s reliance on blind trusts is interesting, considering it was he who called them “a ruse” when running against former Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) in 1994. And as ABC News noted, the trusts are “not so blind,” since they have been noted on his financial disclosure forms. The trusts are also maintained by Romney’s personal lawyer and don’t meet federal standards for elected officials. Romney’s original investments into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, meanwhile, were never in a blind trust.
By: Travis Waldron, Think Progress, January 26, 2012
Mitt Romney: Goldman Sachs Guy
Mitt says he’s “not a Wall Street guy.” But in one key way, he’s pure Wall Street.
“I am not a Wall Street guy, classically defined,” said Mitt Romney in a December interview with the Huffington Post. Private equity firm Bain Capital, Romney’s longtime employer and the company that made him rich, he seemed to say, was a different breed from JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the other Wall Street financial titans. It was as if he was distancing himself from the unpopular Wall Streeters who helped cause the 2008 economic collapse.
But in one key way, Romney is pure Wall Street. A review of his personal financial disclosure records shows that a chunk of Romney’s wealth—he’s worth an estimated $190 million to $250 million—comes from investments in an array of Wall Street banks and investment houses, none more so than Goldman Sachs.
Romney and his wife, Ann, have investments in nearly three-dozen various Goldman funds together valued at between $17.7 million to $50.5 million, according to a financial disclosure form (PDF) filed in August 2011. Those investments appear in the blind trusts and individual retirement accounts belonging to the Romneys. Romney’s been a loyal Goldman Sachs client. His 2007 disclosure, filed before his first presidential run, showed Goldman investments valued at between $18.2 million and $51.5 million.
No other Republican presidential candidate comes to close to matching the size and breadth of Romney’s investment portfolio. Nor do any of the other candidates’ personal financial disclosures list any investments in Goldman-run funds. Romney’s big bet on Goldman’s financial wizardry could give more ammo to his critics who attack him as a out-of-touch corporate elite who profited by flipping companies and laying off workers, and who has little in common with average Americans. (A Romney spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.)
Goldman Sachs is considered by many one of the villains of the 2008 financial crisis. In 2010, Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi acidly described Goldman as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” After a lengthy investigation into the firm’s activities, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) accused Goldman last year of deceiving its clients by selling them complex investments that the firm’s own traders predicted would fail—a charge Goldman vehemently denied. Levin also accused Goldman brass of misleading Congress about its trading activities, referring the matter to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Goldman investments in Romney’s 2011 disclosure are spread across a variety of portfolios and investment funds. A private, Goldman-managed stock portfolio in Mitt Romney’s blind trust worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 contains stock holdings in 32 companies, including Bank of America, McDonald’s, Staples, and Occidental Petroleum. Another Goldman fund, also worth between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000, invests in (PDF) everything from junk bonds to US Treasuries, derivatives to futures, foreign currencies to the government housing corporation Fannie Mae.
Here’s a list of the Romneys’ most recent Goldman investments:
| Investment | Lowrange | Highrange | Holder | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GS Financial Square Federal Fund – FST Shares | $5,000,001 | $25,000,000 | Mitt | IRA |
| GS Private Client Portfolio | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Strategic Income Fund Class 1 | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Small Cap Value Class 1 | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Financial Square Federal Fund – FST Shares | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Linked to GP GSCI Agriculture, structured note | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Trust GS Inflation Protected Securities Funds – INSTL SHS | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Linked to MSCI EAFE Structured Note | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Local Emerging Mkts Debt FD Mutual Fund | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Strategic Income Fund CL 1 | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc Linked to DJIA Structured Note | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc Linked to DJIA Structured Note | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS 2002 Exchange Place Fund LP | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Capital Partners Fund 2000 LP | $500,001 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Global Opportunities Fund LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Partners LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund Partners II LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Trust GS Inflation Protected Securities Fund – INSTL SHS | $250,001 | $500,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc Linked to Russell 2000 Index Structured Note | $250,001 | $500,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Cash – GS Account | $100,001 | $250,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Cash – GS Account | $50,001 | $100,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund LLC | $50,001 | $100,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Capital Partners III LP | $15,001 | $50,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Financial Square Federal Fund – FST Shares | $1,001 | $15,000 | Ann | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Core Fixed-Inc Mutual Fund | $1,001 | $15,000 | Ann | IRA |
| The Goldman Sachs Group CMN (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Investment Grade Credit Fund – Inst (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Global Equity Partners I, LLC (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Cash – GS Account | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Ultra-Short Duration Government FD (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Short Duration Government FD (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | IRA |
Here’s a list of Goldman investments in Romney’s 2007 disclosure:
| Investment | Lowrange | Highrange | Holder | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs Financial Square (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Institutional LI (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Bank Deposit | $500,000 | $1,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Emerging Equity Fund | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Group, Inc | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Struct Intl Equity Fund | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Global Equity Partners | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc 0% 9/25/08 (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc 0% Due 12/11/2009 (Sold) | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| The Goldman Sachs Group Inc 0% Due 3/25/10 | $250,001 | $500,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| GS Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund, LLC | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Global Strategic Energy Fund, LLC | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs GTAA Fund, LCC | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Financial Square Federal Fund | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Intl Real Estate Secs Fund | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS 2002 Exchange Place Fund LP | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Global Opportunities, LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Direct Strategies Fund LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Hedge Fund Partners II LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Hedge Fund Partners LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Quant and Active Direct Strategies Fund, LLC | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Capital Partners Fund 2000, LP | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| GS Capital Partners III LP | $100,101 | $250,000 | Ann | Blind trust |
| Goldman Sachs Financial Square Federal Fund | $1,000,001 | $5,000,000 | Mitt | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Emerging Markets Equity Fund | $250,001 | $500,000 | Mitt | IRA |
| GS Structured US Equity Institutional | $100,101 | $250,000 | Mitt | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Japanese Equity Fund | $0 | $1,001 | Mitt | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Financial Square Federal Fund | $0 | $1,001 | Ann | IRA |
| Goldman Sachs Core Fixed-Inc I Mutual Fund | $1,001 | $15,000 | Ann | IRA |
Romney has grappled with accusations in both of his presidential bids that he’s a lifelong member of the wealthy elite who can’t relate to blue-collar Americans. Romney has recently compounded his 1-percent problem by claiming that $374,000 in speaking fees is “not very much,” betting Rick Perry $10,000 during a nationally televised debate, and revealing that he pays roughly 15 percent in taxes. (A typical middle class family pays closer to 25 percent.)
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, says that while Romney isn’t the first very wealthy man to run for president (think John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt), one of Romney’s basic problems is connecting with middle-class Americans. His many investments in Goldman could shape voters’ opinions of Romney. “The massive Goldman holdings would be another bit of the Romney mosaic,” Sabato says. “It’s another reason why Romney has to find ways to better connect with average people’s problems—because he doesn’t have any of the same problems on his plate.”
By: Andy Kroll, Mother Jones, January 23, 2012
Wall Street Is Still Playing Us For Suckers
As a mere youth, I bought a used car in New York to drive to California to be with the woman of my dreams. Inexplicably, she decided to rush back to New York, so I promptly took the car back to the dealer. He made a shockingly low offer. The car had been in an accident, he explained. The chassis was bent. I was flabbergasted. I had just bought the car from him. If the chassis was bent, it was bent when I bought it. The salesman offered me a take-it-or-leave-it shrug. He probably now works on Wall Street.
That the morality of the used car lot has been adopted by Wall Street is now abundantly clear. Citigroup recently settled a civil complaint in which it was accused of selling mortgage-related investments that it knew were dogs. It was so certain that the investments were the financial equivalent of my used car that it bet against them — heads I win, tails you lose — and even selected the investments themselves, choosing from a cupboard of depleted and exhausted financial instruments. An investment in the Brooklyn Bridge would have been safer.
These investments are known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and they consisted of the sort of mortgage securities that nearly sunk the U.S. financial system. According to federal regulators, they were sold with the full knowledge that they were careening toward worthlessness and that, by deduction, their buyers were patsies. The bank made substantial profits on them. But when the Securities and Exchange Commission decided to act, it got Citigroup to pony up a mere $285 million fine that, to presumed chuckles, will doubtlessly be taken out of petty cash. The bank last quarter reported a profit of $3.8 billion.
Mirth must have turned to guffaws when Citigroup read on. It did not even have to admit guilt — “without admitting or denying” is the language the SEC used — and no single executive was held culpable. The CDOs, apparently, were contrived by no one and sold by no one. There’s a Nobel Prize in something (maybe alchemy) for anyone who can explain how that happened.
The Citigroup settlement is being reviewed by a perplexed U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Among other things, he wants to know why he should authorize a settlement “in which the SEC alleges a serious securities fraud but the defendant neither admits nor denies wrongdoing.” This is a marvelous question that goes to the heart of the matter. The settlement is itself a CDO, a legal version of a black hole in which next to nothing is disclosed. Why no guilt? Why no guilty people? Why such a non-punishing punishment? The SEC will have to tell it to the judge.
I do not want to be excessively harsh on dear Citigroup. It was not the only one selling smoke. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan did something similar. In the words of Jesse Eisinger of the online journalistic group ProPublica, “This was the Wall Street business model.” And it was a model permitted and encouraged from the top, by people who became filthy rich from filthy practices and now take umbrage when President Obama calls out their industry for approbation. They should first spend a year in community service and then, if they still feel slighted, denounce Obama.
As for Obama’s government, it has been too gentle with these miscreants. Why not a single major banker has been cuffed and frog-marched to some Financial District Guantanamo is unclear. Why their firms have gotten off with modest fines and non-confession confessions is not clear, either. That, in itself, is a crime.
Somebody has to break this culture. In this sense, Wall Street is no different than the New York Police Department, where it apparently has been customary to fix traffic tickets for friends, family and — almost certainly — the odd person with some cash. When 16 of the alleged ticket-fixers were arraigned last week, hundreds of off-duty cops came to cheer them, denounce the DA and manhandle reporters. Their union took a firm position in defending this behavior. An appalled city awaits firm action by the mayor and police commissioner.
An appalled nation awaits a similar response to what went on in the financial sector. What we would like to see is some version of a public hanging, the appropriate reaction to the breathtaking fleecing of investors. In the end, those investors got their money back.
That’s more than we can say about our lost faith in justice.
By: Richard Cohen, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, October 31, 2011
Rep. Cantor: Bought And Paid For By Wall Street Investors
Why has Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) been “increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street,” while defending the Tea Party protests as an organic movement?” It’s all about the money.
Rep. Cantor’s campaign committee and leadership PAC have been bankrolled by Wall Street since he was elected in 2000. The financial industry has been his largest contributor, increasing donations to the congressman by 1,326% between the 2002 and 2010 election cycles.
So while Rep. Cantor may believe the Occupy Wall Street movement is “the pitting of Americans against Americans,” the reality is the movement is pitting Americans against his campaign contributors.
Then, of course, there is Rep. Cantor’s wife, Diana, a fixture on Wall Street. Ms. Cantor served as a VP at Goldman Sachs, a Managing Director at New York Private Bank & Trust, and currently is a partner at Alternative Investment Management, LLC – a firm that “invests mainly in hedge funds and private equity funds.”
According to Open Secrets
Thus far in the 2012 election cycle, Rep. Cantor is the second largest recipient of financial industry donations to House members.
In the 2010 election cycle, he was the third largest recipient of Wall Street cash. In fact, ever since his election to Congress, Rep. Cantor has been in the top 16 recipients of financial industry contributions.
Up to now in the 2012 election cycle, five of Rep. Cantor’s top 10 donors to his campaign committee and leadership PAC were in the financial industry.
Rep. Cantor is currently the second largest recipient of Securities and Investment contributions (which includes hedge funds, private equity and venture capital money).
During the 2010 election cycle, six of Rep. Cantor’s top 10 donors to his campaign committee and leadership PAC were from finance related industries.
During the 2010 election cycle he was the fourth largest recipient of Securities and Investment contributions.
By: PR Watch, Center for Media and Democracy, October 18, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
