Fact #1:
Hank Paulson (former head of Goldman Sachs) is required by law to hold his
Goldman Sachs stock in escrow. He is unable to trade a single share, no
matter how much it drops while he is the Treasury Secretary.
Question:
Do you think that Hank Paulson might be alarmed to see his Goldman Sachs
stock dropping dramatically in value while he is NOT allowed to sell a
single share?
Corollary:
Is that the motivating factor behind Paulson’s decision to ban short selling
of financial equities, lest the former billionaire find most of his net
worth eradicated as the financial sector meltdown continues?
———–
Fact #2
The partners in the major Wall Street firms have provided themselves
bulti-billions of dollars in BONUS monies alone over the past decade, above
and beyond salaries, stock option grants, and other perks. For example, in
2006, some 200 Goldman Sachs partners paid themselves approximately 15
billion dollars in bonus monies alone. Now it is becoming very clear that
the Wall Street partners provided themselves gargantuan BONUSES for what
appears to have been “false prosperity.”
Question:
Do you think it makes sense to ask the taxpayer to pay increased taxes to
assist these Wall Street partners to maintain their luxurious lifestyles
(Southampton estates, private limos, private jets, etc) for their many
errors of judgment and/or corrupt collusion to conceal the many warts and
blemishes comprising their hedge-books?
Corollary:
Would it not make more sense to require Wall Street partners to disgorge the
BILLIONS of dollars of bonuses they paid themselves over the past decade –
an aggregate figure amounting to far more than 100 billion dollars — rather
than demand beleaguered taxpayers shoulder the financial burden?
————-
Fact #3
By converting Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley into banks (rather than
investment firms), Hank Paulson has declared that the two firms will fall
under increased scrutiny of the Federal Reserve.
Question:
Are most people aware that Goldman Sachs is a constituent owner of the
Federal Reserve?
Corollary:
How can Goldman Sachs, as a primary owner of the Federal Reserve, be in a
position to regulate itself in what has to be one of the most egregious
conflicts of interest ever seen in America?
————–
Fact #4
Many people decided that they REQUIRED houses during the past decade, even
as many millions determined it would be far more prudent to live in
apartments. Eventually, many homeowners found they could not meet interest
obligations on their mortgages — and that left mortgage providers in peril
and current homeowners facing a collapsing real estate market.
Question:
Should the apartment renter be required to bail-out the mortgage provider
who is in crisis, not to mention the homeowners who are on the verge of
losing their homes?
Corollary:
Would it not make more sense to guarantee ALL apartment renters EXEMPTIONS
from increased taxes resulting from the proposed emergency real estate
bail-out, rather than compel apartment renters to assist mortgage providers
and homeowners in distress?
———–
Fact #5
In what appears to be a collusive short attack aimed at the precious metals
sector, Wall Street firms and hedge funds slaughtered the gold/silver
equities during the month of August, with gold and silver seeing their worst
percentage drops in history.
Question:
Could the collusive attack upon the gold/silver sector have had anything to
do with the massive short positions in the precious metals held by Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase (both constituent owners of the Federal Reserve)?
Corollary:
Why did Hank Paulson fail to provide special protections against short sales
aimed against gold/silver mining companies during August, even as many
miners were facing virtual extinction resulting from the short attack upon
their equities — yet Paulson seems to have no qualms about offering
special protections, in the form of short sales prohibitions, on behalf of
his financial sector cronies on Wall Street?
