37 Comments - Anon - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:28 pm: Godman Sachs? I know they call it the almighty dollar, but has it come to this? - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:29 pm: lol. Fixed - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:37 pm: Was there anyone raising the issue of Kirk getting so much Goldman Sachs money before Ellen did? - well - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:41 pm: I look forward to President Obama’s announcement that he’ll be returning the $700k plus he’s received from Goldman employees. - Abe Froman - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:45 pm: Smart move by Kirk. It is so much fun seeing Alexi pontificate on morals when his entire career is built on a fraudulent lie. It’s great to hear Alexi continue to posture about donations. He simply defines anyone Kirk gets money from as evil, while the piles of money he gets from trial lawyers, unions, and the Dem Party (much of it from those exact corporate interests he attacks) is pure as the driven snow. - shore - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:45 pm: It’s actually 1,000,000 from obama and 27,000 from durbin. - Brennan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 2:46 pm: Has Alexi donated the $115,000 from the Giannis family to charity yet? - Obamarama - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 3:00 pm: ===I look forward to President Obama’s announcement that he’ll be returning the $700k plus he’s received from Goldman employees.=== And returning the Goldman employees he gave jobs to? Dream on, brother. - OneMan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 3:41 pm: Waiting for Durbin to announce he is returning money he got for Goldman (oh yeah, just like the PAC stuff that’s different)… - bored now - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 3:47 pm: well, the difference between wall street mark kirk (or, perhaps, more conventionally, mark kirk (R-Wall Street) and the democrats is that kirk has made every effort to support the interests of wall street, while the president (for example) has certainly done yeoman’s work taking on wall street. you see, we can trust president obama to act independently of wall street if he thinks that’s in the best interests of the country. but you can’t trust mark kirk, so he had to return the money. in truth, i’d bet goldman sachs contributed more to democrats than republicans recently, but it’s the democrats that are looking to regulate and reform wall street. mark kirk just wants to bail them out if they get in trouble… - VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 3:47 pm: I remember when Goldman Sachs was considered respectable. I have a dirty coffee cup on my desk back from those days… - OneMan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 3:56 pm: == well, the difference between wall street mark kirk (or, perhaps, more conventionally, mark kirk (R-Wall Street) and the democrats is that kirk has made every effort to support the interests of wall street, while the president (for example) has certainly done yeoman’s work taking on wall street. == Well then Goldman must be filled with idiots because according to open secrets they give more to Democrats then Republicans http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085 Back to 1990, funny how they would give to entities that are doing ‘ yeomans’s work taking on wall street’ - fed up in chicago - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:26 pm: The contract cut is strictly voluntary. The mayor is relying on companies that do business with the city to match the pay cut city employees are enduring by taking an unprecedented number of furlough days. And what happens to companies that refuse to reduce their prices? Will they be kicked off the City Hall gravy train? “No. You’re not gonna threaten them,” Daley said. “We’re trying to keep government going. … We don’t have a well with money sitting here. … We’re trying to keep contracts going and everything else and them getting paid. That’s what you’re trying to do.” Although $13 million is a drop in the bucket of the city’s $6.1 billion budget, Daley said every dollar helps to restore public confidence in government so shaken, the Tea Party movement is rightfully gaining steam. “No one else is doing anything like this. … Not many mayors are taking 29 days off. My cabinet and deputies are taking 24 days. … That’s a lot of time off,” Daley said. “There isn’t one state employee or federal employee taking any time off. You wonder, why not? Don’t they realize that this is a national recession? Don’t they realize that people are suffering? There’s where the disgruntled attitude is — that they don’t get it. … They’re living in the Washington or Springfield bubble.” - bored now - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:41 pm: oneman: so you think people who make $1B or $700M are idiots? one can only imagine what you think of the poor slobs who are making less than $60K. are they like the super-idiots? let me make this really, really clear: we can trust barack obama to go after goldman sachs if/when goldman sachs does something wrong. but you can be damned sure that mark kirk (R-Wall Street) will defend them no matter what — even after he’s returned their money. kirk will do whatever mitch mcconnell tells him (or allows him). it’s always been obvious that barack obama has his own mind… - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:46 pm: Don’t cry for Goldman. They’ve all taken money off the table many times. Flogging an investment that your insiders are shorting is way low. The rest of Wall Street is whistling past the graveyard. - AnonToo - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:46 pm: bored now: seriously? That’s just pure hackery… - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:48 pm: Let’s try to leave the DC talking points out of this, please. - OneMan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 4:51 pm: bored now… One would think that employees would give money to polticical candidate who would do things that would be in some way advantagious to them and/or improve their status in life. So if you buy that idea and perhaps you don’t then it would seem that folks associated with Goldman would feel that Democrats are going to be more likely to provide them with some advantage. Very few give politically to folks who will provide them with a personal disadvantage. It just kind of defies logic. But if you want to push Alexi’s idea of the day, you go ahead with that. Still waiting for someone to explain why it’s ok for Durbin to keep the money. - Adam Smith - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 5:07 pm: It has become glaringly apparent that Bored is incapable of rational or original thought and can only parrot the non-sensical and illogical contortions of the Giannoulias “brain trust.” It might be time for those who enjoy commenting on politics and sharing thoughtful (though often partisan) observations, to stop wasting time cataloging his/her serial vapidity or responding at all. - bored now - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 5:17 pm: oneman: i’m familiar with this argument. democrats like george lakoff argue that rural voters who give higher priority to social issues than their economic interests have the same thought process as you. i think you’re both wrong. politics doesn’t have to be rational or even logical. and more often than not, it’s not (rational or logical). i assume that you think that there should be a quid pro quo for one’s contribution. this is illinois, after all, and we’re conditioned to believe that illinois is different. so perhaps you do believe this. but i seriously doubt that too many of the goldman sachs donors had anything like this in mind. more than likely — and, yes, since i worked on wall street, perhaps i have insider information — most of the goldman donors made their contribution based upon the fact that a partner or other trusted source asked them to do so. more than likely, most of these contributions were given with ne’er a thought about the person who would be the final recipient of their dollars. the people i worked with at first boston would have been much more concerned about whether they’d get invited to a summer party in the hamptons than whether the “polticical candidate [who] would do things that would be in some way advantagious to them and/or improve their status in life.” the reason that mark kirk is smart to return the money from goldman sachs is that the public already perceives republicans as close to big banks and big business. dick durbin, otoh, doesn’t face the same perception problems. well, at least not with the same political forces. durbin would have to be more cautious about receiving money from a crooked union leader. big banks are the albatross around republicans, not democrats… - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 5:43 pm: Adam Smith concerning Bored Now. +1. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 5:49 pm: +2 - bored now - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 6:20 pm: anybody know where i can get a copy of alexi’s talking points, so i can conform to the expectation that others would like to have? is there a super-secret alexi cabal that is passing them out? (i don’t get to be part of any of the *fun* stuff!) i can only laugh (or maybe that’s cry) at adam smith’s inference that if you think mark kirk walks on water, then you are “capable of rational or original thought.” that’s just funny… - vibes - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 7:13 pm: Mark can donate the 50k to the Better Government Association. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 7:31 pm: I second the idea of Kirk donating the money to the BGA. - Ellen Beth Gill - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 7:55 pm: It’s astounding that this move by Kirk is seen as a positive. All he’s doing by giving back the money is funding Goldman’s legal defense fund. He’s their hero. - Steve - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 8:11 pm: Can Alexi convince Obama to give back all that Goldman money? Can Obama convince Alexi to give back all that Chicago Mob money? - well - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 8:22 pm: =It’s astounding that this move by Kirk is seen as a positive. All he’s doing by giving back the money is funding Goldman’s legal defense fund. He’s their hero. = Good ‘ol Ellen Beth Shrill. Kirk could announce he’s dropping out of the Senate race and donating his campaign fund to charity and she’d complain about the charities he picked. - Ellen Beth Gill - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 8:57 pm: More important than giving Goldman back their money now that they really need it, is whether Mark Kirk will support Obama’s quest to regulate derivatives. Giannoulias has already said he’s support derivative regulation. Kirk’s been silent even though I’ve explained what derivatives and specifically CDS are on my blog in case he doesn’t understand them. Mitch McConnell says he’s against derivative regulation because other countries will still offer them if we don’t. However, derivatives include those credit default swaps that encouraged the making of bad loans. It should be against public policy to bet on bad loans and encourage the creation of bad loans to increase the value of the CDS. So, Kirk needs to answer the question, will he support legislation that regulates derivatives or won’t he? - The REAL Anonymous...fka Anonymous - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 9:30 pm: === It’s astounding that this move by Kirk is seen as a positive. === First, Ellen’s complaining that Kirk took the money and won’t give it back. Now that he’s giving it back, she’s complaining that he’s still doing something wrong because it’s not going to the right place. Seems very “controlling”. === Kirk’s been silent even though I’ve explained what derivatives and specifically CDS are on my blog in case he doesn’t understand them. === And, Ellen also seems to be under the impression that Kirk reads her blog. Do you believe Kirk posts on your blog, too, Ellen? - The REAL Anonymous...fka Anonymous - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 9:39 pm: === Kirk could announce he’s dropping out of the Senate race and donating his campaign fund to charity and she’d complain about the charities he picked. === Or, that he didn’t read her blog to find out whether she thought he should drop out, or not–and if so, when. lol - OneMan - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 10:07 pm: On January 13, 2010, Kirk blew off four votes to attend a Wall Street fundraiser, raising more than $150,000 from Wall Street contributors. [FEC; HJRes 64, Vote 2, 1/13/10; HJRes 1002, Vote 3, 1/13/10; HRes 860, Vote 4, 1/13/10; HR 3892, Vote 5, 1/13/10] Lets look at those votes shall we.. Via the Thomas website Well HJres 64 — This was to override a presidential veto. So they are complaining that he wasn’t around to try and override a veto by President Obama. (The override failed btw) A search of HJRes 1002 — A search of HJRes 1002 and just 1002 turns up nothing. However there is a HRes 1002 Thomas website. “Honoring the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and encouraging the continued commitment to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as a national day of service”. So I am guessing that is what they are talking about (it was the next vote that day) I find that passed 379-0, btw it appears Louis Gutierrez missed that vote as well. (Look at the link) H.RES.860 — Supporting the initiatives of Chicago Wilderness and the Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights. It passed 369-1, a major piece of legislation that was missed there. (The only person voting against it was Ron Paul) Finally HR 3892 — To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, as the “E.V. Wilkins Post Office” That passed 356-1 again with Ron Paul voting no. Please note that all of these votes took place within about 40 minutes starting a 3:35 PM and ending at 4:15 PM. The horror of Congressman Kirk missing a vote on naming a post office. Wonder how often Alexi is in the office these days. - Peggy SO-IL - Monday, Apr 19, 10 @ 10:57 pm: OpenSecrets.org has GS as the 2nd highest contributor to federal elections–not sure what cycle. In 2008, about 75% went to Dems. This cycle, about 69% to Dems, while contributing so far just over 10% of the money contributed in 08. I recall GS was tight with Obama and the Clintons. It is predominantly a Dem firm. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085 *** O received just under $1M, about 4x what McVain received from GS in 08. The charges brought against GS would seem to indicate that no new law is needed. The SEC has authority. One theory (WJS I think I saw it in) is it’s all staged and will only hurt GS a bit, but GS’ll benefit well from the new Dodd law. Kirk is the 6th largest recipient from GS this year. They must have confidence in his likely win. I’m no fan of GS, but I don’t see any reason for a GOPer to send back the money. It’s about time GS gets balanced between the parties. - Logical Thinker - Tuesday, Apr 20, 10 @ 8:44 am: I’m waiting for Alexi to call on Obama to return his $1M in campaign contributions from GS. Alexi? Hello? Are you there? - Dino - Tuesday, Apr 20, 10 @ 1:30 pm: So when is Kirk going to return the $10000+ that he’s received from Natixis subsidiary Harris Associates? He said Lexi was wrong to do business with Natixis because of Natixis’ Iran ties. How bout it Mark? - M Malone - Saturday, Apr 24, 10 @ 9:21 am: I was under the impression that a certain liberal commenter/blogger above is an attorney in the mortgage business, if so it strikes as likely that this financial mess involves her and her professional cohorts more than it involves most other commenters here. After all, the toxic tranches that have left banks essentially bankrupt hold toxic mortgages that were approved by numerous attorneys plus Democratic love-children Fannie and Freddy. Having read her blog I also find it hysterical that the commenter/blogger believes she has a grasp of the various risk transfer mechanisms available in the world of derivatives. - M Malone - Saturday, Apr 24, 10 @ 9:24 am: When will Alexi give back the money he helped “Jaws” steal from that Grandmother west of Greektown? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.