Wall Street's Bailout Hustle -- Matt Taibbi on Jew Scams and Crimes

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Wall Street's Bailout Hustle
Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy - they're re-creating the conditions for another crash

MATT TAIBBI   Posted Feb 17, 2010 5:57 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... out_hustle

On January 21st, Lloyd Blankfein left a peculiar voicemail message on the work phones of his employees at Goldman Sachs. Fast becoming America's pre-eminent Marvel Comics supervillain, the CEO used the call to deploy his secret weapon: a pair of giant, nuclear-powered testicles. In his message, Blankfein addressed his plan to pay out gigantic year-end bonuses amid widespread controversy over Goldman's role in precipitating the global financial crisis.

The bank had already set aside a tidy $16.2 billion for salaries and bonuses — meaning that Goldman employees were each set to take home an average of $498,246, a number roughly commensurate with what they received during the bubble years. Still, the troops were worried: There were rumors that Dr. Ballsachs, bowing to political pressure, might be forced to scale the number back. After all, the country was broke, 14.8 million Americans were stranded on the unemployment line, and Barack Obama and the Democrats were trying to recover the populist high ground after their bitch-whipping in Massachusetts by calling for a "bailout tax" on banks. Maybe this wasn't the right time for Goldman to be throwing its annual Roman bonus orgy.

Not to worry, Blankfein reassured employees. "In a year that proved to have no shortage of story lines," he said, "I believe very strongly that performance is the ultimate narrative."

Translation: We made a shitload of money last year because we're so amazing at our jobs, so fuck all those people who want us to reduce our bonuses.

Goldman wasn't alone. The nation's six largest banks — all committed to this balls-out, I drink your milkshake! strategy of flagrantly gorging themselves as America goes hungry — set aside a whopping $140 billion for executive compensation last year, a sum only slightly less than the $164 billion they paid themselves in the pre-crash year of 2007. In a gesture of self-sacrifice, Blankfein himself took a humiliatingly low bonus of $9 million, less than the 2009 pay of elephantine New York Knicks washout Eddy Curry. But in reality, not much had changed. "What is the state of our moral being when Lloyd Blankfein taking a $9 million bonus is viewed as this great act of contrition, when every penny of it was a direct transfer from the taxpayer?" asks Eliot Spitzer, who tried to hold Wall Street accountable during his own ill-fated stint as governor of New York.

Beyond a few such bleats of outrage, however, the huge payout was met, by and large, with a collective sigh of resignation. Because beneath America's populist veneer, on a more subtle strata of the national psyche, there remains a strong temptation to not really give a shit. The rich, after all, have always made way too much money; what's the difference if some fat cat in New York pockets $20 million instead of $10 million?

The only reason such apathy exists, however, is because there's still a widespread misunderstanding of how exactly Wall Street "earns" its money, with emphasis on the quotation marks around "earns." The question everyone should be asking, as one bailout recipient after another posts massive profits — Goldman reported $13.4 billion in profits last year, after paying out that $16.2 billion in bonuses and compensation — is this: In an economy as horrible as ours, with every factory town between New York and Los Angeles looking like those hollowed-out ghost ships we see on History Channel documentaries like Shipwrecks of the Great Lakes, where in the hell did Wall Street's eye-popping profits come from, exactly? Did Goldman go from bailout city to $13.4 billion in the black because, as Blankfein suggests, its "performance" was just that awesome? A year and a half after they were minutes away from bankruptcy, how are these assholes not only back on their feet again, but hauling in bonuses at the same rate they were during the bubble?

The answer to that question is basically twofold: They raped the taxpayer, and they raped their clients.
------------------------------------

dmrace | February 20, 2010 10:19 PM EST
This is brilliant stuff, Matt. Thanks. Pitchforks and torches, anyone?
catbrooks | February 20, 2010 9:14 PM EST
If you want to get really mad, read this real story of a family being taken advantage of a TARP recipient.http://momvssuntrust.blogspot.com/
chopkoski | February 20, 2010 5:08 PM EST
Wow! What a piss on it all moment! Could it be that Obama missed his Jackson (Andrew, not Michael) Point in History by turning our currency in his personal asswipe paper? He did not close/control the banks...which would have been the real change. Gee whiz!
Nice portralyal of a Scheme of Things that bodes no good for the future.
A note on others in the fray: Adam Haslett has an article in Seattle's "The Stranger" over Geithner's messy situation and Cantwell and McCain (The real Bete Noire-Curious visual via-a-vis Obama considering how the Zeitgeist titulations over that sort of object are taken...) are joined to try and control Geithner.
Shall we sing Yankee Doodle...the obscene lyrics?
Obviousman | February 20, 2010 4:51 AM EST
"They raped the taxpayer, and they raped their clients?"

Ever tried to rape the federal government? Can't be done. But if you're the right folks, the federal government has been known to drop on her back for you and spread 'em. And that "collective sigh of resignation" you hear originates in the knowledge that elections don't really decide anything, and the people in power in government are going to do what they want to do, not what's best for you.

I can decide whether or not to be raped as a GS client -- I just won't be their client. But I can't decide not to be raped as a taxpayer, because the government can compel my wealth from me by force. And THAT'S the obscenity here.
DeanTaylor | February 20, 2010 3:19 AM EST
II.

to the thirtieth floor to join the fold of the elect--i.e., the new mandarins--AND, THE SOON-TO-BE-REALIZED $498,246. Brooks Brothers attire to be donned later in the week--after being briefed and indoctrinated...

There's no misunderstanding as much as there inheres a conflicted, disparate aggregate of dreamy Sheeple...

http://empireglassdarkly.wordpress.com/

DeanTaylor | February 20, 2010 3:18 AM EST
"Beyond a few such bleats of outrage, however, the huge payout was met, by and large, with a collective sigh of resignation. Because beneath America's populist veneer, on a more subtle strata of the national psyche, there remains a strong temptation to not really give a s***. The rich, after all, have always made way too much money; what's the difference if some fat cat in New York pockets $20 million instead of $10 million?
"The only reason such apathy exists, however, is because there's still a widespread misunderstanding of how exactly Wall Street "earns" its money, with emphasis on the quotation marks around 'earns'."

Wrong.

The only reason such apathy exists is because there's still a widespread conviction among the rank and file in the "American Dream"--so-called-- i.e., the get-rich (quick or less-than quick--regardless) hope-against-hope in this 233-year- old Ponzi scheme called "America."

That is, it is not "apathy" via MISUNDERSTANDING which hinders massive collectivist action on the Mall, for example.

To illustrate, when there was on display a gathering storm of rage when the bubble burst--i.e., the cash-for-trash mobilization--the most vocal SUPPOSED "opponents" of Wall Street casino-ism were not necessarily against the idea of unbridled greed as a way of life--i.e., a late-capital RELIGION--as they were stuck-and-steaming for having been left out of the party. If, during the tensest moments of the Mobe G-Sax had sent "emissaries" throughout the crowd, apologetically inviting this or that "activist" to "come on upstairs and be a player," WHO would have demurred--WHO would have had the INTEGRITY--saying, "No! What you guys are about is essentially WRONGHEADED and hurtful to the vast majority of America's citizens. You're all money-obsessed PIGS!"

What would have happened is that Joe Activist would have put down his placard, brushed away a few ersatz tears ("I felt so WOUNDED at being denied access to the inner-sanctum!"), and headed up
DrJoe11 | February 20, 2010 1:48 AM EST
Matt Taibbi is the reason I still buy Rolling Stone.
StPete | February 20, 2010 12:32 AM EST
I'd like to see someone like John Mellencamp take the Democratic nomination for Senator to fill Bayh's seat. He's got an unimpeachable background, knows the score and even intellectuals like the editor of the Nation like him. He's got a nice life right now, so it wouldn't be any wonder if he stood down from the opportunity, but he would be a great antidote to the weenieish behaving Harry Reid and, (unfortunately) Barack Obama
StPete | February 20, 2010 12:26 AM EST
eagle3ski, It isn't the French we need to bring back, it's their fucking guillotines!

Unfortunately, although average American tax payers know they're getting reamed, they're also getting poisoned information about it from the likes of Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, so they're pissed at the Democrats who're trying to pull us out of the nose dive and at least give the public decent healthcare, instead of the real criminals... the GOP, Bush & Cheney and the lying liars at Fox News.

Far as I'm concerned, public people who knowingly mislead the public should be first in line for the big blade, preceded by a severe public butt kicking.
zcb | February 20, 2010 12:00 AM EST
Of course this is a beautifully written piece which should, in a perfect world, be read by every taxpayer. However, this not being a perfect world, very few will read it because they are far too busy watching their favorite TV shows or worrying about Tiger Woods'troubles.
As kypryan states above, we are helpless. We see the con and the con men but there is nothing we can do about it.