Wayne Root: ‘The Obama/Goldman Sachs Small Business Scam’

Was Goldman Sachs Forced to Make a Half Billion Dollar Payoff to the Minority Community as a (legal) Bribe to Obama?

Small Business Faces an Economic Armageddon, While Obama Plays “the Race Card.”

By Wayne Allyn Root, Author
The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts

Did you see the announcement late last week that Goldman Sachs is giving a half billion dollars to small businesses. Or are they? Why are they suddenly concerned with small business? They’ve certainly never cared about small business before. Could this sudden interest by Goldman Sachs be because it pays to do favors for Obama’s friends? And for Obama everything- including business- is about race. You see Goldman claimed they are concerned with small business. But the reality is they are only concerned with one tiny segment of small business- MINORITY OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES. More specifically- minority businesses in minority neighborhoods. Even more specifically, those loans to minority businesses in minority neighborhoods will only be disbursed through “community organizations.” At least other businesses can get the form of help they desire for free from many other companies available out there, for example people such as Servium.com offer a service that offers IT support for them and their customers. But there are companies out there that will help you if you’re struggling, you just have to dig!

Do you speak in legal-ese designed by Obama administration lawyers? If not, you probably missed the bleeding heart liberal code words in this announcement by Goldman Sachs. They didn’t say the half billion dollars was for minority loans only. They said, “Goldman will spend $200 million on education and training programs, while funneling $300 million to so-called community-development financial institutions, which largely serve historically disadvantaged communities that have had trouble accessing capital.” Then they added in the announcement that the loans would be only for businesses in “underserved areas.”

Notice the code words used by liberals to cover up reverse racism- “historically disadvantaged communities,” “underserved areas,” “community-development financial institutions.” By the way- what the heck is a “community-development financial institution?” isn’t a financial institution, just a financial institution? Well obviously not in Obama’s race-charged world. Some institutions are better than others…more deserving than others…more “fair” than others in Obama’s world. Obviously Goldman Sachs has chosen to become part of Obama’s world.
Goldman Sachs has decided to play the “race card” to win favor (and perhaps avoid criminal prosecution for alleged crimes committed in their deep foray into the sub-prime mortgage market) from the Obama administration. That’s the kind of thing you do when you want to avoid criminal charges for selling securities short, while you dump those same securities on unsuspecting investors.

“Disadvantaged” and “underserved” and “community-development” are all code words in Obama’s community activist world for “minorities only need apply for government money.” It kind of reminds you of “Whites Only” signs outside playgrounds or water fountains in the 1950’s. Or job openings for “whites only.” Or schools segregated for “whites only.” Or how about this oldie: “Blacks ride in the back of the bus.” Do these descriptions sound ugly? Well they are. They represent one of the most embarrassing and troubling eras in American history. They were disgraceful, biased and racist then. And they still are today- except the roles have changed. My mother used to say that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Well racism that favors minorities and discriminates against whites, is no better than the other way around. And when this prejudice, bias and racism is perpetrated by government (or a Wall Street firm acting under pressure from government), it’s even more disgraceful.

Obama campaigned as a man who would end racism. He made it clear that race should no longer matter. But the opposite is true- under President Obama it matters more than ever. Under President Obama it’s fine to help people based on the color of their skin- as long as he chooses the color. It’s back of the bus time again- only this time it’s millions of small business owners who happened to be born white that get to ride in the back. Obama is telling small business owners who don’t happen to have the right color skin to pound sand.

We are not in a recession. We are in a depression. The worst since 1929- and getting worse every day. Everyone is in trouble. We are all in it together. We will all need to get out of it together too. But Obama cares nothing about small business- even though small business has created virtually every job in the USA since the Reagan economic miracle. No wonder there are no new jobs in this supposed recovery- only small business can lead us out of this mess. Jobs come from small business, not big government, big unions, or big business.

Yet Obama’s policies do nothing but punish small business with higher taxes, bigger penalties, more onerous rules and regulations. Small businesses continue to go out of business at a record pace. The expiration of the Bush income tax cuts will result in the biggest tax increase in history on small business. Add on universal healthcare taxes, cap & trade taxes, medicare tax increases for the wealthy, health surcharges for the wealthy, a raise in the FICA cap, a VAT tax, a raise in capital gains taxes, and the latest proposed tax- a Afghanistan war tax on the wealthy. It all adds up to Socialism…and a CATASTROPHE for small business owners.

Yet Obama’s only bone thrown to small business is forcing Goldman Sachs to give away $500 million to small businesses owned only by minorities, serving only minority neighborhoods, and with money doled out only by Obama’s friends (and campaign contributors) at community activist organizations like ACORN. According to Obama, the rest of us just don’t count. Get used to the new reality of America under Obama- where everything is based on race and the redistribution of income. And two wrongs obviously do make a right.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book is entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” For more of Wayne’s views, commentaries, or to watch his many national media appearances, please visit his web site at: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

31 thoughts on “Wayne Root: ‘The Obama/Goldman Sachs Small Business Scam’

  1. Tom Blanton

    There is so much wrong here it is hard to know where to start. I’ll begin with this:

    “That’s the kind of thing you do when you want to avoid criminal charges for selling securities short, while you dump those same securities on unsuspecting investors.”

    What Goldman Sachs actually did was involvement with naked short selling (selling securities it did not own and could not obtain) and buying credit default swaps through AIG on mortgage securities it had sold, knowing that these investments might go bad. It was the Bush bailout that gave AIG the funds to pay off Goldman Sachs.

    Goldman Sachs loans to minority-owned small businesses may have more to do with PR for Goldman Sachs and the fallout from huge executive bonuses that will be paid out soon. I doubt Root can point to any quid pro quo on the part of Obama – even if it exists.

    That said, charges of racism can backfire. Especially when the author of “Millionaire Republican” complains of the plight of the white man. It is worth noting that many conservatives decided that Glenn Beck was no longer a conservative, but rather a libertarian, after Beck asserted that Obama is a racist.

    Criticism of Obama’s relationship with Goldman Sachs is fair game. His continuance of the Bush/Paulson corporate welfare schemes is certainly fair game.

    To charge that Obama is forcing Goldman Sachs to do his bidding to further his socialist agenda is a bit bizarre. It might be easier to make the case that Goldman Sachs has bribed Obama through Wall Street campaign contributions to further their corporatist/fascist agenda.

    While Root is quick to point out liberal code words, he doesn’t seem to mind using quite a few right-wing code words. He apparently doesn’t know any libertarian code words.

    He couldn’t even resist invoking the dreaded “ACORN” when referring to community development organizations – which ACORN is not.

    The two-minute Obama hate routine that Root keeps falling back on might play well on radio shows targeting the underbelly of red-state fascism, but you would think libertarians would be a little tired of it by now considering how thin the substance is and how many valid criticisms go ignored.

  2. Solomon Drek

    “The two-minute Obama hate routine that Root keeps falling back on might play well on radio shows targeting the underbelly of red-state fascism, but you would think libertarians would be a little tired of it by now considering how thin the substance is and how many valid criticisms go ignored.”

    This is better than any analysis I might have posted. I couldn’t sum it up any better myself.

    Just to elaborate a bit, as I’ve stated elsewhere, if the LP wants to be taken seriously, at least by its own members, it needs to differentiate itself from both major parties. Parroting anti-Obama propaganda from rightwing talking heads and GOP politicians will only give potential supporters and voters the impression that the only difference between Libertarian and Republican candidates is that the latter actually have a chance to win elections.

  3. Frank Fitton

    The $500 million though is really a drop in the bucket compared to the kinds of numbers this company throws around. Its almost insulting in a way, but at this point we are the dog underneath the table and are willing to take whatever scrapes these people want to toss our way.

    So are we supposed to get excited about this? I wouldn’t exactly say that, but I wouldn’t completely scoff at it either. They didn’t have any reason or were mandated to do this in anyway. Of course its a blatant PR move, but its not a bad one. Its really in their best interest too for as the economy soars so do their profits. Its really just a win win situation for everyone involved. Some more money possibly in line with the kind of money they’ve been paying out in bonuses would have been nice, but who are we really to complain.

    I don’t really blame Goldman Sachs for the financial crisis, they were simply going about their businesses. Looking back at it, things could have been done differently of course, but hindsight is always 20-20. Its refreshing to see someone step up to the plate and admit that they didn’t handle things as well as they could have. Is it sincere? Probably not, but at this point its all we’re going to get and its better than nothing.

    Check out my blog on the Goldman Sach’s penance offering at…. http://www.thedebtgazette.com/2009/11/goldman-500-million-penance/

  4. Robert Capozzi

    tb: It is worth noting that many conservatives decided that Glenn Beck was no longer a conservative, but rather a libertarian, after Beck asserted that Obama is a racist.

    me: Please source this note, especially the timing.

    Still, that Beck himself is SAYING he’s a L and SAYING he now agrees with Ron Paul, why is this worth noting?

    It could be that conservatives want to distance themselves from Ls whom they consider extreme or somesuch. Of course, we walk into that one, since some Ls ARE extreme. Like Beck, many paleo Ls especially seem obsessed with subjects that could come across as racially-tinged.

  5. Tom Blanton

    OK Capozzi – I’ll give you this article about Beck and Joe Scarborough – read it ALL as there are further references there. If you want more, there is this new web thing called Google. Conservatives are distancing themselves from Beck for PR reasons, despite the fact that Beck is a conservative. This seems to be a poor reason for libertarians to embrace him.

    Now, how about sourcing where Beck says he now agrees with Ron Paul AND exactly what is he agreeing with him about. I really don’t think you are very familiar with Beck. I’ve heard the YouTube audio of Beck where Beck apologizes to libertarians for calling himself a libertarian. I’ve also heard the context from which this was edited from. Find something that actually says what Beck agrees with Ron Paul about. I doubt if you can find anything.

    The fact is that Beck supports a warfare state and this is in conflict with his claim that he supports small government.

    Since you think Beck is like many paleolibertarians, perhaps you can find just one source where a paleo is supporting Beck. Unlike many neolibertarians, raging moderates, and reformers, the paleos don’t embrace Beck.

    And since you claim Beck now agrees with Ron Paul, maybe you can explain why none of Beck’s rants appear on the Campaign for Liberty site. Beck has a reason for saying he agrees with Ron Paul without being specific and that has to do with co-opting the tea party movement. He wants to convince these people to wait 100 years before making any tough demands on government reform.

    This is Beck’s 100 year plan. This alone should be enough to convince most people that Beck is nothing but a shill for GOP statism.

    By the way, Ron Paul has said that Beck is a demagogue. That’s the only comment I’m aware of from Paul regarding Beck. You’ll find numerous sources regarding this if ou Google these words together:

    demagogue “ron paul” beck

  6. Tom Blanton

    So, Beck is getting a bit extremist? That’s a laugh. How about sourcing that, Capozzi. You could make a better case that Beck is becoming more like moderate libertarians such as yourself.

    To say that a shill for the GOP who has a 100-year plan for America is moving in any sort of libertarian direction is actually rather delusional.

    The article you have linked above merely notes that Beck is essentially against nation building. OK, so far he is with Ron Paul. What is not noted is that Beck believes America should just bomb his imaginary enemies back to the stone age. Destroy them and go home. To the best of my knowledge, Ron Paul is not a big advocate of that.

    Beck is on the radio for 3 hours a day, Capozzi. Before you rush to any sort of judgment about Beck, maybe you should spend some time actually listening to what this guy is saying. This would be good advice for all libertarians who get orgasmic any time someone merely says the word “libertarian”.

    Reality check: disgruntled Republicans that whine about RINOs while advocating tax cuts (but not spending cuts) and more wars against everything from Islam to certain drugs are NOT libertarians.

    Beck is a lunatic suffering from borderline multiple personality disorder. If you listen to him, you will hear him contradict himself constantly. But, you have to actually listen to him. Of course, I can see why moderate extremists and raging incrementalists would have a hard time resisting anyone advocating a 100-year plan.

    The Onion couldn’t make this shit up. Yet, you want to paint me as some sort of soapbox lunatic, Capozzi, while you pretend to be a reality based pragmatist. The foolishness never ends around here.

  7. Tom Blanton

    Oh yeah, to be sure the paleo crowd and Ron Paul haven’t embraced Beck (or Root) and there is a reason for this. Of course they wouldn’t embrace Beck any more than they would embrace Dick Cheney.

    What is truly bizarre is that the so-called moderate libertarians welcome Beck into some imaginary libertarian quadrant, in spite of all their common sense, pragmatism, and vast knowledge.

  8. Robert Capozzi

    tb, I’d say espousing a 100-year plan is extremist. But that’s my opinion, as there’s no objective standard for extremism.

    I’ve already shared with you that I am no Beck fan. I trust that fact will register with you THIS time.

  9. Tom Blanton

    Frank Fitton writes:

    “The $500 million though is really a drop in the bucket compared to the kinds of numbers this company throws around.”

    $500 million is a drop in the bucket even compared to just the bonuses Goldman Sachs passes out.

    It makes me wonder if Root would have been happier if Goldman Sachs threw the money at society’s real underdogs: White Millionaire Republicans.

    I think Goldman Sachs should buy Root a pair of size 86 shoes, an electric bowtie, and a big red nose.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    Thanks, TB. Yes, *a* conservative has taken Beck to task. Scarborough positions himself as a moderate conservative, so no big surprise here.

    Whether Scarborough’s views represent a trend is unclear.

  11. Just Asking

    His pandering and racist rhetoric aside, one can only wonder how Wayne Allyn Root would respond to the charge that a highly deregulated environment, similar to the kind of Laissez-faire, free-market economics advocated by Libertarians, led to this financial crisis in the first place.

    The vacuous Vegas handicapper-turned-right wing politician ought to be less concerned about the infinitesimally meager $500 million being provided to small businesses by Goldman Sachs over the next five years, and explain how his administration would have prevented the subprime mortgage crisis and the notorious credit defaults and other derivatives that led to this financial calamity.

    It’s much easier to flap one’s gums about racism than to deal with complexities.

  12. paulie Post author

    a highly deregulated environment, similar to the kind of Laissez-faire, free-market economics advocated by Libertarians, led to this financial crisis in the first place.

    Simple: no such deregulated environment existed. In fact, what happened was that the government repeatedly pushed institutions into offering credit to people they knew full well were bad risks, and then bailed them out when they predictably turned out that they were, thus reinforcing the bad decisionmaking.

  13. paulie Post author

    Yes, absolutely. After all, the people involved are just “too big to fail” and can be bailed out whenever they take a giant dump.

    If they were really risking everything, I doubt they would have been nearly so reckless.

  14. Just Asking

    But the point is they were reckless in an atmosphere void of real regulation and oversight. The “too big to fail” line is a Republican talking point…AIG, Goldman Sachs and the others had no idea they would be bailed out when they engaged is such reckless behavior. It was the free market at work in its purest form, driven by both greed and ever-larger rewards…

  15. paulie Post author

    The “too big to fail” line is a Republican talking point…

    Somebody forgot to tell the Obama administration.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091029/bs_nm/us_financial_regulation

    Or do a search on “too big to fail” obama

    AIG, Goldman Sachs and the others had no idea they would be bailed out when they engaged is such reckless behavior.

    Oh, I think they did. After all, this past year’s auto industry bailout was not the first one.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    Just, the point is that the recklessness was encouraged, rewarded and in some cases MANDATED by government. Freddie and Fannie are government creations. The Community Reinvestment Act basically forced the banks to amp up subprime lending from a very rare to a common thing. The Fed’s easy money policies created yet more perverse incentives.

    Government distorted the housing market BIG TIME. Wall St and the mortgage industry — enabled by Freddie and Fannie — distorted it further.

    The prime mover was government.

  17. Steve LaBianca

    Bob Capozzi said, “I simply noted that Beck is moving in their direction, and getting a bit extremist.” . . . and he said, “tb, I’d say espousing a 100-year plan is extremist.”

    Though Capozzi has been very careful NOT to say that Beck’s “extremism” is akin to “moving in the “paleo” direction, IMHO, he wants to paint a broad stroke about “extremism” and how all “extremism” kind of fits together. Nice try, but even though you’re smart, the rest of us aren’t dumb.

  18. Steve LaBianca

    With regard to W.A.R.’s rant here, it isn’t really about Goldman Sachs. It’s all about trashing Obama. It’s ALWAYS been about trashing Obama, ever since he (maybe before) he threw his hat into the LP presidential nominating ring.

    I’d imagine he’s dreamed it in lights on the Vegas strip . . . “Columbia University classmates square off for presidential bid”.

    What do you expect from a neo-con . . . rational positions based upon unalienable rights and liberty?

  19. Michael H. Wilson

    re @13 may I suggest that we do not have a free-market by any stretch of the imagination. The Federal Reserve runs the money supply. The Fed of course is a quasi government agency.

    Here’s a graph from the Fed’s St. Louis branch that shows the growth in the money supply over a number of years http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS.

    There is a lot more to this than meets the eye to say the least.

    People need to ask themselves “what if?” regarding this. There is a potential for big problems imho.

  20. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, you didn’t read the article I posted. Otherwise you would not have said “a” conservative. And you obviously haven’t done any other homework on conservatives distancing themselves from Beck.

    Then again, it is pretty obvious you don’t read a lot.

  21. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, I never said you were a Beck fan, did I? However, it is your mentor, Brainiac Holtz, that insists Beck is a libertarian.

    I believe you when you say that you think a 100-year plan is extremist. Of course, you don’t even know what this 100-year plan really is because Beck hasn’t told us yet. But, I am aware that reality never gets in the way of your bizarre beliefs.

  22. Tom Blanton

    Hey, maybe Root should develop a 200-year plan that entails a war against racism. This would be a global effort to make the world safe for rich white guys.

    We would have to put off any dreams of small government and increased freedom for 200 years, but we would leave a utopian world where rich white guys could finally relax, enjoying their cocktails and a fear-free game of golf.

  23. Michael H. Wilson

    Headlines you can use!

    “Columbia’s cavaliering candidate consciously contemplates convening campaign controversy; contends credible contest currently crippling.”

  24. Robert Capozzi

    tb 24, Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

    Having a 100-year plan is extremist in my book, because 100-year plans are grandiose. What his plan will be — you’re right — I dunno. I’ll probably like some of its sentiments.

    I actually would put Beck in the L quadrant as well, just as I would put Rockwell and Rothbard in the quadrant. I might even put Bob Wallace in the quadrant, too. They each call themselves L; they each take what I consider to be extreme positions; if a opinion poll were conducted on some of their opinions, I suspect majorities would agree with me.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Some of my epistemological-we’re-in-the-Matrix philosophical perspectives are as radical as it gets.

    It’s all good.

  25. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, there is a difference between grandiose and extremist. I would suggest that you develop a list of political pejoratives for your use.

    Your putdowns just don’t have enough zing when you overuse certain adjectives. For example, you have worn out “extremist”. That has to stop being your main adjective to marginalize others. You need to at least distinguish varying degrees of extremism. You could use the term “ultraXtreme” for those you really want to discredit. I think you may have also worn out the word “radical”.

    Hell, the radical acts of the federal government over the last decade make the most “radical” anarchists seem almost quaintly moderate. Even the most mild mannered conservative traditionalists are calling for radical departures from the status quo these days. The word “radical” is no longer a guaranteed knee-jerker.

    Like the word “libertarian”, the word “extremist” becomes meaningless when it is used to describe nearly everything.

    Tedious is a good pejorative. I would use that word to describe someone who is always the first to belittle others and the first to whine when others respond negatively.

  26. alex

    Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *