former goldman employees?nk as i heard it everything sounds correct, but when you say concerns -- in my role look deeply into everything. what is going on in the hearing today is a fact-finding for you, but for every one also. i heard nothing today that makes me think anything went wrong, but i will not -- you raised transactions i have never heard of before. i will have people look deeply into them. >> on sunday, september 21 -- >> what date? >> 2008 -- about the goldman becoming a bank-holding company. he said the decision is based on a recognition that it provides full prudential supervision and access to permit liquidity in funding. we believe that goldman sachs under such supervision will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and greater diversity of funding sources. prior to september 2008 did you or anyone at goldman sachs have plans to convert the bank to bank-holding company? >> prior to september 1? yes. we did not resolve to do with it, but it was s

. >> you say you used -- you were a managing director of goldman sachs? >> yes >> what did you work on? >> i worked on the credit derivatives that the -- a portion of these toxic assets that blew up and blew out into the rest of the economy. when i worked on them i left in 2002, they were predominantly made up of high yield or junk bonds. they weren't made up of the subprime loans that they ultimately came to be. that's what wall street does it, takes a method -- it takes alike the crust of a pie and then it fills it with different kinds of fillings as those become available and makes money out of them. >> let's put up the numbers so we can get right to calls with nomi prin. also you can send us is tweet. if you have a question via tweet, twitter.com/booktv so you are twitter address. you mentioned cdo collateralized debt obligations. >> yes >> junk bonds. where did all this stuff come from? i mean, why are we talking about that and not talking about profits and econ 101. where does econ 101 fit in all this? >> well, that's a good question. the cdos are t

is there no implicit representation when goldman sachs sells these securities that goldman sachs does not have an intent to bet against them to, in effect -- >> um -- >> wait until the question's finished. >> sorry. >> wait until goldman sachs is, in effect, of a mind that these securities go down in value when you talk about a misrepresentation, how would you distinguish that kind of mens rea that the value's going to go down according to goldman sachs? isn't that really a misrepresentation? >> i think that's a great question, and i think it's very fact-specific. if the issue is what is being implicitly represented when somebody is a market maker, i think that people who deal with market makers implicitly understand, and i think this was, in fact, in the goldman disclosures that the market maker could be taking all sorts of different positions, that there could be people including goldman sachs that are thinking that it is, that is a foolish thing to be on one side of the deal versus the other. i think that is by definition the, what a market maker is. >> well, how about, how about t

>> it was pound the table defending goldman sachs. i mean, he has a big economic stake in goldman. he has a 50-year relationship with the company. so i certainly expected him to defend goldman. but it was even more full-throated than i expected. >> whitney, bruce berkowitz of fair home disclosing a large position in goldman sachs. can you get your arms around goldman sachs and get in the stock at this point? >> we haven't pulled the trigger. but i will tell you we and a lot of other smart people we know are looking hard at it. goldman's a premier company. extremely well managed. obviously, they've hit some hard times here. but it's trading just over book value. and generally, goldman at a slight premium to book's a pretty good buy. but you know, it requires a strong stomach given some of the uncertainties and variables out there. and we're trying to see if we can get comfortable with those. we haven't yet, but we might. >> last, we talked to you, whitney, was on the heels of hewlett-packard taking over palm. what did you do with your position? anything in the days that followed? >>

there is no one near the capability of goldman to take over goldman and read it. yet that is what we are writing into the bill. do you think that is a wise decision? >> i am not sure what the interaction is pierre >> the interaction is that we are going to give a federal bureaucracy with no experience the ability to come in and run a company like goldman sachs. they are going to write regulations that they are going to be able to do that if you become too big to fail or if you become a systemic risk to the rest of the financial institutions. do you embrace that? that is totally different than anything we have heard from the goldman sachs and business philosophy here today. >> again, i do not know how that interacts. i do not know the rules. i do not know how that would be applied in the details of the regulations, and the devil is in the details. >> but you rick -- but you embrace reform? >> i said we support the direction of the bill. i think it is very important for goldman sachs and for taxpayers that we take away the notion -- it would be a very big burden on

. >>> when we come back, goldman sach's ceo trying to reaffirm his clients. with questions be raised about blankfein's future, we'll see if he can survive this storm. >>> plus the ceo of freeport-mcmoran. we'll get his take on gold and copper prices. you're watching cnbc. >>> all right, folks, welcome back to "the call." everybody loves pizza, right? but when it comes to pizza stock, a real battle. take a look at dominos versus papa john's today. back-to-back earnings report. yesterday it was domino's and both companies beat, but the performance in the, mat today shows a big discrepancy. interestingly domino's ceo on with jim cramer and they're talking about sales online are a quarter of their business. papa john's with a beat, but a disappointed reaction in the marketplace. trish, over to you. >> hey, mr. nesto, thank you very much. >>> lloyd blankfein set to hold a 1:00 p.m. eastern conference call with the wealthiest clients in the fraud. powerful goldman alumni are discussing whether blankfein can survive the legal and pr firm he's facing right now. share

look at the strength goldman has had in really bad market action. that tells me goldman is a buy here. >> jared, what are you seeing in the options market? j one of the ways that options traders are taking advantage of this, the volatility we've seen, the ability to sell out of the money puts, catch secured puts. it gives you the obligation, to buy that stock. >> let's get straight to the markets here. because the markets pretty much hanging in here. let's get to our chart of the day. hilary, the charts there, what are you seeing? >> well, in terms of the s&p, it's looking much better now but it's at an 11.50 level. as long as we stay above that, we're still fine. >> jared, do you want to jump in there? >> i actually disagree. i like the 50-day moving average. some other things to talk about volatility, the vix at 24%. a move of about 1.5%. the thing is, i don't think the s&p maintains it, i'm a buy here of the s&p overall. >> looks like the risk trade is back on a lot of the mining and metal stocks, higher today. you have been vocally against some

we're still doing business with goldman sachs. on the other hand, we're interested in the development of these proceedings. and we await further evidence down the road. but at the moment, we're still a goldman sachs customer. >> okay. so still a customer. i know you did not quantify there. we'll just leave that an admission if you wish. bill, let me ask you why it is you think the rating agencies have gotten off the hook? it is interesting that last summer, summer of 2009, senator dodd said, hey, let's just get rid of these rating agencies altogether, make this a public function. we have other examples of that in this economy. it went absolutely nowhere. who's lobbying for that, the rating agencies or somebody else? >> you know, erin, i think there's a need for the rating agencies. back in 1977 -- '75, the s.e.c. basically legitimized the three rating services because banks and insurance companies and other entities that require regulation need a rating in order to prove the sanctity, so to speak, of their investments. but the rat

there's goldman sachs and company is authorized counterparty to act on behalf of goldman sachs asset management, l.p. isn't that wonderful? well, they probably know each other. well, those were good investments they made in this last election, and yet people still come to this floor and talk about how republicans are in the pocket of wall street even though the democrats received 4-1 over the amount that the republicans got. well, you know there are people in this body. it doesn't matter what kind of contributions they got. they're going to vote what is appropriate under their conscience. unfortunately, we got groups on wall street that are awfully powerful in their persuasiveness and convincing people that giving goldman sachs their biggest profit year in the nation's history, in their history is a thing that needs to be done. that's the kind of stuff that we're talking about. and republicans are getting blamed for this, for trying to stand in the way of more monopolies on wall street? and if you look at the bailout of the automotive industry with tarp funds, and the truth is i sign

i had seen it through one little lens of goldman sachs. this big market growth and a regulator looked at it. now when the crisis comes and investors are afraid, there were a number -- they are concerned about bear stearns. they lose confidence. then when you say it is a predatory, these people, if someone is afraid, and afraid about their own institution surviving, then they pull money out. or they do not roll over their secured lending. why? there are certain cash investors who do not know what to do with collateral if they got it. they're only looking at the underlying credit. so, this was a shadow market that was a very viable market, continues to be valuable, and just plain needs to be fixed. there were mistakes made by regulators, the system, sloppy practices by practitioners, and then the biggest sloppy practice of all were the banks and investment banks if they did not maintain liquidity cushions. everybody talks about capital, but to me the biggest lesson i learned out of all the crisis was the lack of focus by so many market parti

i'm not sure goldman wouldn't tell you that. the president stock on wall street, someone said the other day i know of no major financial sector or even major corporate ceo who has the same level of support for the president they had when they supported him in 2008. >> oh, i think the past year and a half has been a revelation for most of the people that i know on wall street about how they feel and how, in fact so, many of them feel they misjudged the president. absolutely. and i would not dissuade you from that view that the folks not only on wall street but in corporate america. i think fundamentally feel that he hasn't-- he hasn't lived up to the promise at least of what they thought he represented. and not necessarily on the laws and legislations themselves, but so of the tone. i think they're very frustrated with the tone that he has taken towards them and big business. and i think that has been-- . >> rose: steve, do you have a point on that? >> i don't other than to make the point that in the end of the day it's a choice

for example, goldman sachs.you are very familiar with what goldman sachs is like and what running it involved. do you think from your experience as the head of a big institution like goldman sachs that it is capable of an orderly wind down in case it gets into financial problems? >> i think that any institution can be wound down. it's complicated over a. of time. it cannot immediately -- in the middle of a crisis there is no institution the matter with the capitol says if you have to liquidate it right away there is no institution i think the assets will be worth more than the liabilities. so, and again, mauney view is that with any institution there has got to be a way that if they fail you know and the expectation is you will not be propped up under the surgeon forum. they will be broken up and changed and they will be liquidated in a way. and so i believe that can be done. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you for joining and i appreciate your testimony. i want to go back to this observation i

they were manipulated by goldman sachs. this is the kind of creativity on wall street that makes us proud. mr. garamendi: there certainly ought to be a law. we're going to spend a few moments talking about the law. but first, we'll turn to our colleague from the great state of ohio. please. >> i'm pleased to join my colleagues on the floor this evening, of course i work with congresswoman spears on the financial services committee and she very aptly and -- aptly talked about what was going on at goldman and the effect it's had on our economy. but -- this is not a case of one bad company. we unfortunately had a culture across wall street that allowed things like this to happen. recently, i asked chairman frank if we could look at some of the practices of lehman brothers. and we did. we had a hearing on lehman brothers. we both participated in that hearing because lehman brothers gambled with the hard-earned money, the pension funds, of countless americans. ms. kilroy: certainly people from ohio, people from california's pens

executives -- guest: it was before goldman. they brought in moody's and the three major ones. there were others that are more prominently known. he cross-examined the credit rating agency executives and said, what is going on? recent terrible signals into the economy. many bought these thinking they were buying gold plated investments. it was nothing more than junk. in 2007, 91% of these sub-prime investments dropped to junk status. almost overnight. host: on the goldman hearing that followed this, people heard about the credit rating agencies and the role they played with goldman and now this suit been filed against the firm. what is happening there? guest: there were a couple of competing theories that led to the meltdown. one is, it does not matter how much a person who gets a mortgage gets paid. the appreciating value of the house will skyrocket. that will form something where these mortgages will be paid off. there was no risk. the credit rating agencies were initially part of that. there was no risk. even if you cannot af

waters didn't bring up goldman sachs or jpmorgan so obviously it is on treasury's mind.s it not the case that in the week of september 15, hat the cash calls that the company could not meet were in the two lines of business in two lines of business only and but for the cash calls none of this would have been necessary and those two lines of business, and it depends, believe it or not but you can argue against the insurance state regulators. they certainly were they-- in may have been the securities lending and but for those two enterprises, none of this would have occurred. >> not so. >> are you seriously asserting that if you wipe those two pieces of business is off the book that aig was nonetheless insolvent? are you accusing the insurance commissioner of lying? i am astounded at the links you will go to defend something that may in fact be indefensible. >>ctually have sat through the entire hearing today. i have ard the testimony of all the expert witnesses and fact witnesses before you, and i have spent a year now with this company's balance sheet and understanding i

goldman sachs. goldman sachs said they like this bill. one of the offenders and they like it. that really encourages me that it's a good bill. i appreciate the senator from oregon giving the ages of some -- giving the examples of some things that are terrible in our economy. some of the credit card examples that he gave shouldn't happen in america. i don't think this bill fixes that. if our amendment is too open-ended, the democrat amendment raises the possibility of controlling every single thing for middle america, every single thing. and i'm going to explain how that wonchts i don't think it was what was intended, and that's why we go through an amendment process is to clierp problems liberi is to clear up s like that. i am going to talk about the consumer financial protection. when i talk about this protection, i'm talking about protecting consumers from bad actors. remain a talking about educating consumers. when i talk about consumer protection, i am not separating consumers' protection from t

goldman sachs shares higher by .7 today. for us on "fast money." >> we are following the market tick by tick as you are, melissa. still to come, euro's role in the debt cfears. that on "power lunch," plus a on whole lot more. >>> welcome to the second hour of "power lunch." i'm sue herera. eric holder is addressing reporters on the terrorism arrest in the u.s. in terms of that times square incident. he will be taking to the podium in a few moments. additional arrests have been made in pakistan and incidentally, that moment when the arrests were announced by pakistani officials that's when we saw the dow jones move to the lows of the dav3 we are monitoring the situation in washington and wall street and will bring you the relative headlines. >> i'm dennis kneale. the dow has the biggest one-day drop since february 4. nasdaq logs its biggest one-day tumble in april 20, 2009. >> i'm tyler mathisen. we are covering everything from chemical processing to anywhere? >> a small group of consumer stocks on the upside. wouldn't take m

for example, goldman sachs.very familiar with what goldman sachs is like, with wet running it involves. do you think from your experience as the head of a big institution like goldman sachs, that it is capable of an orderly wind down in case it did into financial problems? >> i think that any institution can be wound down. it's complicated over a period of time. you can't immediately -- you know in the middle of a crisis, there is no institution, no matter what their capital says, if you have two liquidate it right away, there's no institution i think the assets will be worth more than the liabilities. and again, my view is that with any institution there's got to be away that if they fail, that you know and the expectation is there's not going to be propped up under current form, that they'll be broken up, though be changed in some way, though be liquidated in a way. and so, i believe they can be done. >> thank you. >> vester holz egan. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. i want to go back this observ

executives -- guest: it was before goldman. they brought in moody's and the three major ones. there were others that are more prominently known. he cross-examined the credit rating agency executives and said, what is going on? recent terrible signals into the economy. many bought these thinking they were buying gold plated investments. it was nothing more than junk. in 2007, 91% of these sub-prime investments dropped to junk status. almost overnight. host: on the goldman hearing that followed this, people heard about the credit rating agencies and the role they played with goldman and now this suit been filed against the firm. what is happening there? guest: there were a couple of competing theories that led to the meltdown. one is, it does not matter how much a person who gets a mortgage gets paid. the appreciating value of the house will skyrocket. that will form something where these mortgages will be paid off. there was no risk. the credit rating agencies were initially part of that. there was no risk. even if you cannot af

goldman sachs. so it rises above party. we have to stand up for what's right for america and we have to unwind these private interests that have vaused -- that have caused such harm to our country. mr. garamendi: thank you very much. that history is not a good chapter in america and these men that were involved in all of this, to whom do they owe their alenals? i've said many times, it's about the fundamental american values. i know in my community, a small community in california of farmers and hardworking men and women, that they go to work every day and they expect to be paid a fair wage, but they don't expect to make that wage by cheating somebody, by playing a financial game. they expect to make it by working hard and caring -- carrying on for their family. mr. driehaus, if you would share with us some of the additional experiences that you had on the financial services committee. . mr. driehaus: i would just share with you and share with everyone here that the reality is is that from a legislative standpoint, nothing

in goldman stock, which, because of goldman's new status as a bankholding company, was a violation of federal reserve policy. the new york fed asked for a waiver which, after about 2 1/2 months, the fed granted. while it was weighing the requests, mr. friedman bought 37,300 more goldman shares in december. they have since rise risen $1.7 million in value. mr. friedman, who once ran goldman, said none of these events involved any conflicts." end of quote, "wall street journal", may 9, 2009. well, you know, maybe mr. friedman is right. maybe there's not a conflict of interest. it seems to me like there's a very apparent conflict of interest. that's an issue that maybe a g.a.o. audit might want to look at. madam president, it is a -- as a result of the bailout of bear stearns and a.i.g., the fed now owns -- this is pretty amazing -- now owns credit default swaps betting -- credit default swaps betting that california, nevada, and florida will default on their debt. let me repeat that. the senators from california, nevada, and florida might be interested in this. as a result of the bailou

this goldman sachs issue is a big issue. she has massive investments in goldman sachs.e made huge amounts of money from the collapse of the housing market. then, when it was time for goldman sachs to get bailed out by taxpayers, meg whitman campaign for taxpayer funded bailout to save goldman sachs. my question is, did she inform people that she had this massive conflict of interest? the $10 billion that went into goldman sachs from taxpayers, did she let people know that your investment portfolio would be saved at the same time? a lot of people got damaged because of goldman sachs. she is in the middle of that. that is a factor >> let's move to the next question. if you will indulge us and hold your applause. now to the panel. a question from carla marinucci. >> mr. steve poizner, the new arizona immigration law is the toughest in the country. you said you'd watch closely how it is implemented and whether it has a positive result. even a few minutes ago, you came out in support of that law. why the shift? what about the charges that this law encourages racial profiling

first the kind of focus on wall street and goldman sachs, that didn't play well. but then the arizona immigration law hit and that made it a big national issue and i think especially in republican primary here in california, that issue is probably the most potent issue in this campaign. >> there a big debate going on right now. >> ifill: poizner says he would revive proposition 187, an anti-immigration initiative overturned by the courts in 1998. telling his audiences the arizona law simply makes it illegal to be illegal. >> i'm going to be the truth teller in this campaign. as governor i'm going to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the state of california. (applause) >> let me just be clear about arizona. i totally support what they are doing. good for the people in the state of arizona. (applause) >> ifill: whitman has hesitated to embrace arizona's approach. >> i have tremendous empathy for the people of arizona. i understand that they rose up in many ways to, because of the abject failure of the federal government to secure the border. but i have a bett

some of you may know that emma goldman is buried the forest home cemetery in chicago illinois at the end of the blue line south of the blue line get off the train walked two blocks south through the marble archways and its rot iron past the gypsy graves. take a left on the path and when you get to the haymarket monument you will see the haymarket tabare. look to your left about three rows back there are tombstones and you will see emma goldman's tombstone that looks a little dingy these days. much rusty year than the last time i visited. i wrote a book about the people buried in forest home some years ago. by capitalism on the american left. actually i call it the u.s. left but my publisher decided everybody is american. there are 72 radicals mostly communists and anarchist's buried in this plant around the haymarket monument and some heavy names in both the amicus and communist movement exactly like three tombstones from emma goldman is buried foster like the dictator of the communist party for years and years he was like the main ideologue and i'm interested in communist actually t

everybody wants to hold goldman sachs responsible.hey are nothing compared to what the federal reserve has. you wonder why the money is not on main street. it is because it is that the federal reserve which is where they are stealing it from. guest: we are a government corporation. we are financed through the health insurance premiums that we assess on the industry. any losses we have -- we are governed by the tax payers and are very cognizant of that. we have insisted that the banks pay enough in premium income to us so we do not have to borrow from treasury. host: a big front-page story here. are you concerned about the stresses on the gulf coast economy caused by this? guest: this is an area that we are watching and we have ongoing concerns. in situations like this, it is impossible for banks to have compassion for their customers whose businesses have been impacted by this terrible situation bo. we encourage banks to show flexibility. at this point, i do not think it would have a huge damage on the economic recovery. it is hard to

goldman had a report saying it's going 200. and the next stop was 32. i think it's very important to look for that integrity in any market, and look for that fundamental strength, and the funmental backdrop of the story. if taste too -- if it's too good to be true, it probably is and we all need to take individual responsibility to look at something realistically. >> in the book there are probably 100 different people you have covered. but jack welch. the quote, sounds like jack. when you talked to him about mentors and you asked him about finding a mentor. he said, looking for a mentor is the dumbest idea in the world. what you want is 100 mentors. we talk to us about your approach on mentors? and then i want to open it up for questions with the audience before we get you to your next appointment. >> okay. i think that it was a great point, and i had never looked at it that way. i always thought, who is my mentor? and i would think of one or two people. he is saying don't attach your star to one person who comes with baggage and necessarily do everythi

an authorized counterparty with whom goldman sachs asset management can cut a deal, as goldman sachs asset management l.p. sees fit. on behalf of the federal reserve bank of new york. isn't that special? isn't that convenient? those are the kind of things we're talking about, i guess, when someone here on the floor or the president talks about these cozy relationships between his administration and others that are not good for america. because that sure doesn't sound good for america. but, you know, there was a time in america when people had consciouses -- consciences. there was something in america called morality. and when morality was such an important thing in this country, if someone was greedy, they breed neglect, ran their car off in a ditch and even though it was their own fault, their own greed, thank got them in trouble, if their neighbors came out and helped them get their car out of a ditch, there's this conscience, this still small voice that spoke within the greedy person to say, gee, i am so sorry. i am so sorry i will never be able to thank you enough for helping me

goldman sachs -- you were the ceo of ebay. goldman sachs started the new these sweetheart deals.ou did not think anything was wrong until you got caught. the s.e.c. immediately declared what you did in legal. the shareholders investigated what you did and they sue you for a huge conflict of interest -- sued you for a huge, but interest. only reason you pay back any money is because you had to pay back a lawsuit -- for a huge conflict of interest. the only reason you pay back any money is because you have to pay back the lawsuit. you made millions from it and that is just wrong. >> but move on to our next question for steve poizner. >> when you're running for the 21st assembly district, you said, i am republican. you're in support of raising taxes. now you are different. a few years ago, you were totally different. >> thank you for asking. i have always been conservative. i will tell you this -- i have gotten more conservative since i have been the insurance commissioner. i have been insurance commissioner for three and a half years. i have seen the culture of corruption. i have s

executives -- guest: it was before goldman.ey brought in moody's and the three major ones. there were others that are more prominently known. he cross-examined the credit rating agency executives and said, what is going on? recent terrible signals into the economy. many bought these thinking they were buying gold plated investments. it was nothing more than junk. in 2007, 91% of these sub-prime investments dropped to junk status. almost overnight. host: on the goldman hearing that followed this, people heard about the credit rating agencies and the role they played with goldman and now this suit been filed against the firm. what is happening there? guest: there were a couple of competing theories that led to the meltdown. one is, it does not matter how much a person who gets a mortgage gets paid. the appreciating value of the house will skyrocket. that will form something where these mortgages will be paid off. there was no risk. the credit rating agencies were initially part of that. there was no risk. even if you cannot affor

goldman sachs also participated in the financial stock rally. tonight, the wall street journal reports there is no settlement deal between goldman and the securities and exchange commission over civil fraud charges. the stock was up at much as 5% today on speculation about a possible settlement. a couple of exchanges were among the financial winners. the c.m.e. group and the intercontinental exchange are seen as the probable winners if the derivative reform effort is successful as the differences between the senate and house bills get worked out. the senate proposal would force banks to put up cash at third party clearinghouses such as the c.m.e. and intercontinental exchange. the c.m.e. focuses more on a broad range of derivatives while ice has made significant in- roads with credit default swaps, which are effectively insurance bets on a borrower's ability to repay their debt. both stocks moved up more than 5% today. holding back technology today was dell. we reported last night that its first quarter saw profits, sales and shipments gain, but

all this leads me to a question which i really think there's more on your experience at goldman sachsnd on the street that the treasury. -- than at the treasury. how could such a motion be implemented in light of the different responsibilities that investment banks have in at least three of their roles? one is as an underwriter in which they undertake to have a fiduciary duty to investors and represent the security that they are saddling is not just selling a but represent that it will perform. as a market maker which is essentially what mr. lloyd blankfein was suggesting is that people last four positions and they offer their clients the opportunity to invest long or short or hedge their positions in various respects? >> and as proprietary traders investing in their own account. i would like your thoughts in this regard. if people required to hold those securities, how would you and forced them holding them and saying long on and and not hedging and is that realistic in light of the different obligations of these investment banks? >> that is a very good question. many people have rec

goldman will pay $450,000, but admits no wrongdoing.-- brewing up profits as molson coors posts strong profits. we look at how mergers are driving the beer market. >> susie: progress today on efforts to contain that massive oil spill in the gulf of mexico. b.p. is sending a containment dome that will try to scoop up the oil. it should be in place on thursday. but today, talk of paying for the disaster topped the agenda in washington. stephanie dhue reports. >> reporter: when it comes to cleaning up the massive gulf spill, the oil pollution act puts b.p. on the hook for all cleanup costs. that law was passed after the 1989 "exxon valdez" spill. it puts a $75 million limit on what companies are required to pay for economic damages. with the potential for huge economic costs in the gulf, new jersey senator robert menendez wants that cap pushed to $10 billion. >> i don't think $75 million is going to help the shrimp fisherman in louisiana. i don't think it's going to help the commercial fishermen. i don't think it's going to help the touris

i particularly got burned because i had my money with goldman sachs and goldman. now that is not anti-sem ethic. i just shouldn't be putting my money with my relatives i never trust my relatives. tavis: what is going to with this financial reform they are talking about? is it going to work? is it tough enough? >> you know how i feel about this, which is you know, the only change that is going to happen is -- help me with this. is the only change that matters is going to come from within. we can only blame ourselves for creating this culture that is a fiasco. the culture is built on get what you can until you get caught. that's what the culture is. so it doesn't go back to bush or clinton. it goes way back. we all have to take -- what i'm trying to say is it is my fault. [laughter] it is your fault. the crew's fault. it is my fault. tavis: why are you blaming me? i had nothing to do with this? >> well, you probably started protesting pretty early. i did too. you know, all of us who -- people who are looking to blame somebody else had best look at themselves first i

goldman sachs, $10 billion, and of course the list goes on. so this high-risk investing does not belong in our lending depository institutions. a bank that has access to the discount window of the fed, a bank that has access to insured deposits, deposits insured by uncle sam, that bank should not be diverting those funds into the temptation of high-risk investing, and similarly they should not be proceeding to allow the high-risk investing to blow up the lending side of a financial organization. you know, the risk of an investment house going down is certainly higher during a recession, and it's very high in a severe recession. that is just the time that you need banks to be able to continue lending, to not let lending seize up. i can tell you back home in oregon, business after business comes forward and says, you know, our credit line was cut in half or we went to refinance a commercial loan and the bank said we won't do it because the value has dropped or we can't make any more loans in that sector, or perhaps we can't make any more loans a

they bust them into goldman sachs. it's funny, yesterday in arizona, like a bus them in a few days ago but yesterday in arizona their only about 1000 people down at the capital. wouldn't you think this is a state that should have 50,000? >> host: carol, let's leave it there. >> guest: there's no doubt the demonstration in wall street against goldman sachs, and i can count myself as a credit against goldman sachs. they are organized programs, they bring all the people in, they bussed them in. the rows that were held yesterday, the demonstrations for citizenship or amnesty or against the arizona law were much smaller nationwide than predicted. i think they say 50,000 in los angeles. they're expecting 100,000. 50,000 is a good crowd but it is not the five of thousands. but your larger point is this, this vendetta against arizona is unjust. comparing it to nokia's in, keep wearing it to stalinism. it is wrong as it can be. the idea of boycotting arizona. i can remember when i was very young they're going to boycott dallas

goldman sachs and aig could gamble with people's savings -- i am respectful of financial reform. not have had a senator the voted for a corporation that invested in a foreign factory to get a tax credit. we should give tax credits to small businesses. that is where the majority of pennsylvania is work. my proposal is for 15% tax cuts for every job -- >> congressman, that is your time. senator? >> i was waiting to hear his mistakes. he went off -- that was your question. he went off on another tangent of attack. when he talks about the law, with respect to commercial and investment banks, president clinton signed the law and said that was not responsible for the loss. what am i doing? congressman sestak was one of eight democratic senators out of about 300 -- congressmaen to voe against giving the secretary of the treasury authority to get back excessive bonus payments made. on the issue of wall street, i have taken steps -- having a hearing next tuesday to move toward criminal penalties for the fraud which goldman sachs is alleged to have committed. i do not believe that the s.e.

what happened in that goldman situation? there's a lot of way to describe it, but one way to look at it is this way. that goldman sold investors a product, in this case a derivatives product and its value was tied to the peformance of a big portfolio of subprime mortgages. so that's where it starts. but it appears that goldman worked both sides of the deal. they'd sell these products to investors, on the one hand, while also plotting with a hedge fund manager who is betting against the pr-frpbs of the very -- peformance of the very same mortgages. it gives conflict of interest new meaning, and it's a disturbing, a large image, i think, for a lot of americans. selling on one side and then going over to the other side and plotting and scheming to make money and not worrying about what's down when, what's downstream, the horrific consequences, like a wrecking ball to a building, and just kind of hrafrg all the way to the -- kind of laughing all the way to the bank. i know it's over time. i'll wrap up. i'll be coming back with a

fed was approving goldman's application to become a bank holding company. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look into this. the new sanders amendment requires the fed to investigate whether conflicts of interest existed in these types of financial deals. madam president, some 35 members of the fed's board of directors are executives at banks which received over $120 billion in tarp money. i want to know, and i think the american people want to know, how much these financial institutions received from the fed and if this represents a conflict of interest. my original amendment would have allowed the g.a.o. to look at this. the new sanders amendment requires the g.a.o. to take a look at those potential conflicts of interest. madam president, what is important to point out is that in terms of transparency, i am not the only person of the members of the senate -- the members of the senate are not the only people who are demanding that the fed tell us whom they lent money to. i would point out that bloomberg news has gone to court and it's,

you are very familiar with what goldman sachs is like. and what is involved. do you think from your experience, as the leader of a major institution like goldman sachs, that this is capable of an orderly winding down in case they go into financial problems? >> i think that any institution can be brought down -- and this is complicated -- over time. in the middle of a crisis, there is no institution, no matter what the capital says, you have to liquidate this right away. and again, my understanding is that with any institution, there has to be a way that, if they fail, the expectation is that they will not be propped up in the current form. they will be changed and liquidated. and i think that this can be done. >> thank you. >> thank you. and thank you for joining us today, mr. chairman. i want to go back to the idea that this was inevitable. if there was no housing crisis, this would not have happened? >> this history in this country, as it stands, and certainly in modern times, this is every six or two years. there has been some crisis. we could go into the s

we'll discuss if blankfein can survive goldman's problems. this is "the call." cnbc. >>> it's been another volatile day on wall street. greece is the reason why. stocks opening lower protest the austerity plan. and stocks came off their lows. the adp employer services report and that monthly job's report showed a better than expected gain of 32,000 jobs. right now take a look at how things are stacking up. we have the s&p moving considerably off its lows there. again, you can see that story, i was just telling you how it dipped so severely early in the session only to get the adp news and rally back up towards the flat line and same story on the dow jones industrial average. but a significant improvement over earlier in the session. meanwhile, over on the tech-heavy nasdaq we're down 14. again, a big rally towards the flat line anyway. crude oil continue to float lower. down $2.29. a loss of almost 3% at $80.45 a barrel.

waters didn't bring up goldman sachs or jpmorgan so obviously it is on treasury's mind.s it not the case that in the week of september 15, that the cash calls that the company could not meet were in the two lines of business in two lines of business only and but for those cash calls none of this would have been necessary and those two lines of business, and it depends, believe it or not but you can argue against the insurance ate regulators. they certainly were they-- in may have been the securities lending and but for those two enterprises, none of this would have occurred. >> not so. >> are you seriously asserting that if you wipe those two pieces of business is off the book that aig was nonetheless insolvent? are you accusing the insurance commissioner of lying? i am astounded at the links you will go to defend somethg that may in fact be indefensible. >> actually have sat through the entire hearing today. i have heard the testimony of all the expert witnesses and fact witnesses before you, and i have spent a year now with this company's balance sheet and understandin

as an activity for hedge fund activity -- >> 33,000 to 1 at goldman sachs. >> you get 33,000 to 1 byyour banking base, taking derivatives which allow you to sell products at a huge, huge, risky leveraged position. and you're always guaranteed, because the american public is insuring those activities. that's what glass-stegall stopped. our ancestors understood that and they brought down that wall and let them run amuck with derivatives. the worst part of what the white house is facing are the lobbyists are seeking to preempt to stop attorney generals from being able to enforce the laws as they did so extremely well over the last eight or ten years. >> so basically you avoid eliot spitzer from ever doing that again. >> you would avoid eliot spitzer, andrew cuomo, ag blumenth blumenthal, all of those who steppeded into the vacuum and protected policy-holders, because washington was completely asleep. those very people would be preempted if the lobbyists get this loophole that the white house is concerned about. >> in the face of millions of jobs lost, deprived pension earnings for years