As of right now its he say she say.

You have provided nothing substantial to the facts that I presented. My aforementioned references are real and availble online. Your argument that I and WOW are illinformed is feeble and poorly constructed based on your repetiton of what James previously posted. In actuality your agreement is proving my point “Your only valid point is that the money helped Goldman it didn’t save it.” this reinforces what I stated and the funds aloted to GS helped to the point of bailing them out. Your choice of words are semantics.

The actions of GS and the US governemnt are akin to France advancing to the world cup vs. Ireland. For the fans watching the game they witnessed an illegal hand ball which won France the last spot for the world cup. After a replay it was clearly visible that the winning goal occured after an illigal hand ball. Nothing can be done because rules are rules and the referees decision is final within the game.

Same applies to GS, the government provided funds to GS which propelled the company to avoid collapse. While after the fact this is visible to everyone but nothing can really be done.

To reinforce my initial stance, GS did nothing wrong and the one responsible is the US consumer. Read here:
http://www.voicedup.com/index.php/us-consumernot-goldman-sachsthe-real-great-american-bubble/

Payouts should not be limited for any private company. Its the shameful timeline of events of the US governement that irks people.

Your only valid point is that the money helped Goldman it didn’t save it.

James,

There is substantial proof that GS needed all the funds it could get. Again you need to perform thorough research if you wish to be accurate on your reporting. The special inspector general of TARP conducted an audit of AIG’s counterparties last year, focusing primarily on GS. There were a few articles written on this….

“Had AIG collapsed, the default protection Goldman purchased from third parties would not have been worth the paper it was written on. Why? those third parties would have gone up in flames. Insurance is only as good as the insurer backing it.”

I also know you are an avid reader of the WSJ: WSJ clearly pointed out, “Goldman itself sold credit default swaps, too. Had AIG defaulted and markets imploded, it would have had to make payments to its counterparties as well….with not enough cash on hand.”

Goldman got bailed out. It’s a fact. If AIG had failed they would have failed. The fact that anyone can fail to see this is a clear sign that you don’t understand finance 101. I know this site is written by a college student, but come on. This is embarrassing stuff here.

Take your head out of the sand. It’s clear that you didn’t think this article thru before writing it.

These are the facts James. You need to do your homework.

Point proven by the WSJ, FT, and the Goldman Bankers themselves. GOLDMAN WAS NOT IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE REST!!!!

Ultimatly they had money on hand and were not as exposed due to the protection and the smart risks they took.

I imagine GS folk are taxpayers as well.

On a Thursday in October—the very day when the firm announced it had made $8.4 billion in profits so far this year—he speculates whether Goldman would have survived the financial conflagration in the fall of 2008 entirely on its own, without any kind of help, implicit or explicit, from the government. “I thought we would”

When I ask Gary Cohn, Goldman’s chief operating officer, and David Viniar, the firm’s chief financial officer, if, barring a financial Armageddon, Goldman would have survived without all the various forms of government intervention, Viniar says, “Yes!” almost before I can finish the question. “I think we would not have failed,” says Cohn. “We had cash.”

Why would these guys lie when Lloyd himself came out publicly and said they were at fault for other things?

There wouldn’t be any profits if not for the taxpayer. It has nothing to do with envy. They were handed money and you put them on some pedestal like they achieved something outstanding. That’s sheer ignorance.

The night before AIG received its 80+ billion bailout, GS was putting together their package to proceed with bankruptcy. Had AIG not been handed these funds GS today would be in the same place as Lehman and Bear. The only difference is a previous employee(s) of GS decided that AIG would cause financial cataclysm throughout the US economic system and therefore decided to bailout AIG knowing that this directly benefited GS. I am in no way shape or form against GS but the rules do not apply to all and certain people/companies receive benefits that are extraordinary and obvious to even the most average investor. You have posted numerous articles that too big too fail means you must fail therefore you must understand how this reflects on a company that is alive today due to a favor…. They were no better hedged than bear stearns or Lehman, they just had someone on their side, which is great to have dont get me wrong. If you get a chance to go back to last year and read up on the some articles and how much the hedge GS had with AIG was worth… this hedge should have failed which means they incorrectly assessed the risk tolerance of AIG which means they were wrong and should have failed along with LEH and BS…. its nice to have someone bailing you out isnt it?

Get into a better character when responding a disagreement. No use answering in a spastic way.

You clearly don’t understand the details behind the Goldman bailout. This firm would have failed if not for the taxpayer. You ask why we are outraged at Goldman and their “record profits” and record bonuses? BECAUSE THEIR RECORD BONUSES AND PROFITS WOULDN’T EVEN EXIST IF NOT FOR THE TAXPAYER.

Do your research before you write crap like this.