Whole Truth Coalition

Bernie Madoff showed us how it was done: you induce many investors to invest their money, promising steady above-market returns; and you deliver – at least on paper. When your clients check their accounts, they see that their investments have indeed increased by the promised amount. Anyone who opts to pull out of the game is paid promptly and in full. You can afford to pay because most players stay in, and new players are constantly coming in to replace those who drop out. The players who drop out are simply paid with the money coming in from new recruits.

 The scheme works until the market turns and many players want their money back at once. Then it’s game over: you have to admit that you don’t have the funds, and you are probably looking at jail time.

A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scheme in which earlier investors are paid with the money of later investors rather than from real profits. The perpetuation of the scheme requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep it going.

Charles Ponzi was an engaging Boston ex-convict who defrauded investors out of $6 million in the 1920s by promising them a 400 percent return on redeemed postal reply coupons. When he finally could not pay, the scam earned him ten years in jail; and Bernie Madoff is likely to wind up there as well.

Read more…

What is the definition of a Conspiracy Theory? Wikipedia definition here, Another definition of “Conspiracy Theory” from Webster’s Online Dictionary:
” A conspiracy theory is the belief that historical or current events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers or conspiracies.”

Where on Earth might one hear of such a paranoid idea? How about from President John F. Kennedy?

Or how about President Eisenhower? Watch this segment of the entire Eisenhower farewell below:

Read more…

The disinformation by the global financial dailies in the last twelve months as to the cause of the global financial tsunami, serve the same purpose as the global mass media when they perpetuated the lies that lulled the people to support the war criminals Bush, Blair and Howard to launch the barbaric war against Iraq and Afghanistan which resulted in the genocide of millions, the mutilation of hundreds of thousands, physically and psychologically, and the devastation of an entire nation.

The wars unleashed thus far, specifically the “War on Terror” was launched to preserve the shadow money-lenders’ political and military power.

This War on Terror is the greatest military sideshow that distracted the great American people from the financial rape and plunder of their economy and the destruction of their Constitution.

Since the summer of 2007, we have witnessed a concerted effort by the world’s central banks and global commercial and investment banks to preserve the shadow money-lenders’ financial power, one that is founded on fraud and structured in every detail as in the infamous Ponzi scheme.

In the last seven years, the Ponzi scheme was globalised by the Shadow Money-Lenders, siphoning hundreds of billions from so-called sophisticated investors and sovereign wealth funds. At its peak, the Ponzi scheme was estimated to be worth over $500 Trillion, with the Credit Default Swap (CDS) portion just under $60 Trillion! 

Hidden behind the headlines of the financial destruction that is sweeping across the globe, lies another story – a dark tale of men who orchestrated the crisis and have amassed enormous wealth and power at the expense of the millions who are now unemployed and whose homes have been foreclosed. This select group of men is in absolute control of the unfolding events.

Who are they?

Read more…

The American Dream, An Obituary - The American Revolution was an extraordinary event. The idea that freedom was an inherent right, that tyranny could be successfully opposed, that government could serve the people, not the few, was truly revolutionary in 1776—as it is today.

The American Revolution, however, has run its course; and unless resuscitated and given new life, the American dream and the dreams of America ’s founding fathers will soon be only a memory. Dreams rarely come to pass and those that do rarely last. The American dream is no exception.

What happened in 1776 has been subverted by the passage of time and the inconstancy of later generations. Those who rule America today have subverted the principles enumerated in the US Constitution; principles the Founding Father hoped would guide those who followed them through the crises yet to come.

The principles were not many, e.g. fiscal prudence, sound money, separation of church and state and a limited military and limited government. But even those few and clearly stated principles succumbed over the years to the imposition of policies that had given rise to the need to revolt in 1776.

Now, in 2008, tyranny and government excesses are again upon America , but this time it is by America ’s own hand. The policies of King George III were no more egregious than the policies of President George Bush II.— taxation without real representation, e.g. TARP (80 % Americans opposed), the imposition of policies contrary to the will of the people, e.g. US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (70 % opposed), and the loss of individual freedoms under the Patriot Act (60 % opposed).

The difference between 1776 and 2008 is that America is now tyrannized not by the King of England but by its own government. Today, the US government does not represent the will of the people. It represents instead the special interests that control the US government through the buying of votes— America is not for sale only because it has already been sold.

The difference between 1776 and 2008 is not only 232 years. It is the difference between the dream of the Founding Fathers and the shadow of that dream in whose increasing darkness Americans now exist.

Read more…

The government has been accused of trampling on individual liberties by proposing wide-ranging new powers for bailiffs to break into homes and to use “reasonable force” against householders who try to protect their valuables.

Under the regulations, bailiffs for private firms would for the first time be given permission to restrain or pin down householders. They would also be able to force their way into homes to seize property to pay off debts, such as unpaid credit card bills and loans.

The government, which wants to crack down on people who evade debts, says the new powers would be overseen by a robust industry watchdog. However, the laws are being criticised as the latest erosion of the rights of the householder in his own home.

“These laws strip away tried and tested protections that make a person’s home his castle, and which have stood for centuries,” said Paul Nicolson, chairman of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, a London-based welfare charity. “They could clearly lead to violent confrontations and undermine fundamental liberties.”

Read more…

Demonstrations against the killing were seen in cities across the continent with left-wing radicals and other sympathisers taking to the streets.

In Spain, 11 protesters were arrested and several police officers injured when clashes took place in Madrid and Barcelona.

In Copenhagen, 32 people were arrested when their protest in support of the Greek protests turned violent.

In neighbouring Turkey, about a dozen left-wing protesters daubed red paint over the front of the Greek consulate in Istanbul.

Around 150 people belonging to a Danish underground movement took to the streets, throwing bottles and paint bombs at buildings, police cars and officers. In Moscow and Rome, protesters threw petrol bombs at Greece’s embassies.

Journalists came under attack for the first time in the riots, with a Russian news crew assaulted by a mob of about 50 youths, some of them reportedly drunk.

Read more…

And in Britain one man send a strongly worded letter to his MP and then snoozed off again!

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, please realize that carbon trading is a scam.

A big red flag is that our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street pirates are buying heavily into carbon trading.

Since these firms contributed so heavily to Obama’s campaign, they will exert enormous pressure on Obama to push a huge carbon trading program. As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

That’s right. The same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

Moreover, even based on its stated goal of reducing carbon emissions, carbon trading might not work.

Carbon trading is a scam.

Global research

The Financial Times

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

gideon.rachman@ft.com

‘Thousands of Icelanders marked the 90th anniversary of their nation’s sovereignty with angry protest Monday, and several hundred stormed the central bank to demand the ouster of bankers they blame for the country’s spectacular economic meltdown.

Tiny Iceland has seen its banks and currency collapse in just a few weeks while prices and unemployment soar — leaving a country regarded as a model of Scandinavian prosperity in a state of shock.

“The government played roulette and the whole nation has lost,” writer Einar Mar Gudmundsson told a noisy but peaceful anti-government rally of several thousand people in downtown Reykjavik.

After the rally, hundreds of protesters stormed the headquarters of Sedlabanki, Iceland’s central bank, demanding the sacking of its chief, David Oddsson.

The demonstrators staged an hour-long standoff with shield-wielding riot police inside the bank’s lobby, singing songs and chanting “Out with David” and “Power to the People.” The protest ended peacefully when both police and demonstrators agreed to withdraw.’

Read more…

And what do the British sheeple do? Bleat and moan about how awful it all is then snooze off infront of the mind control box again !

Lord Mandelson was at the centre of a row last night over ’secret’ plans to ditch the pound after an explosive claim that Britain is ready to join the euro.

The European Commission president said the UK was ‘closer than ever before’ to signing up to the single currency.

Jose Manuel Barroso said he had held private conversations with ‘the people who count in Britain’ and knew that they were ready to move into the euro-zone.

That was widely seen as a reference to Lord Mandelson, who said at the weekend that ‘our aim’ should be to join the euro.

Lord Mandelson was the loudest cheerleader for the single currency during his stints in Tony Blair’s Cabinet and has just been recalled from Brussels, where he was Britain’s EU Commissioner.

But now he appears at odds with his new boss Gordon Brown.

Downing Street denied there had been any policy shift and said it had ‘no plans’ to ditch the pound. Sources said the suggestion that Britain was ready to enter was ‘wishful thinking’.

Mr Barroso’s remarks led to a backlash in Westminster. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague pledged that there were ‘no circumstances’ in which a Conservative government would propose joining the euro.

Read more…

All of us - countries, corporations and consumers - have neglected basic principles.

Ethics - we have lost sight of an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

Careful management - we have indulged our wants without the taxes or the prices or the cash to pay for them.

Oversight - public relations and spin have replaced disclosure and transparency; casual yet complex accounting and accommodating rating agencies left us blissfully unaware of the problems, and we revelled in our ignorance.

Hubris has replaced community responsibility as a requirement for executive positions.

American automobile executives and British bankers have been unable to form their lips into an apology.

Read more…

The collapse of the financial system has reinvigorated Gordon Brown. Just a few months ago, he was rapidly becoming a lame duck, hardly able to stay awake. Suddenly, he has been pushed forward as the Global Chancellor of the Exchequer. Getting drunk on the financial sorrow of millions, he has been throwing up the solutions to the crisis.

But Brown’s solutions will take us to hell if we allow them to continue. At the very time that in the real economy we face the spectre of deflation, the policies Brown is pushing will soon unleash a greater spectre - hyperinflation on a global basis, in the style of the Weimar Republic.

Henry Carey first published the following pamphlet in 1851, after compiling the series of articles he had written for the “Plough, Loom and Anvil,” a newspaper published by his associate William Skinner and intended largely for circulation in the South and West United States.

The selection that follows is from the last article of the series and served as a rallying cry for the restoration of the American System.

It reminds us of the stark contrast between the American System as it was envisaged, and the stench of the Anglo-Dutch liberal financial system, as represented by the City of London and its lackeys around the world.

Read more…

Please look at these words and take in the meanings for these are the words of slavery.

Constitution: The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform.

Statute; A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, an established law or rule, as of a corporation.

From neuter of Latin Status: Law the; legal character or condition of a person or thing:

Enforced by: Statutory instruments and using statutory penalties.

Society; In the civil law, by society is meant a partnership, a society is a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some ‘common purpose’.

Law; A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

Legislative; Of or relating to the enactment of laws.

Statutory: Created, defined, or relating to a statute; required by statute; conforming to a statute.

Instrument; a written legal document such as a contract, lease, deed, will or bond

Penalty; Something, especially a sum of money, required as a forfeit for an offense.

Forfeit; Something surrendered or subject to surrender as punishment for a breach of contract.

A statutory penalty, for example, is punishment in the form of a fine, prison sentence, or both, that is imposed against an offender for committing some statutory violation.

People of certain persuasion say that we must always live in a ‘society’ with a constitution written or un-written; persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some ‘common purpose’, a partnership that requires consent from all parties.

A partnership with a ‘common purpose’ for a ‘society’; the socially dominant members of a ‘community’.

The constitutional (statute) law of this country and the society that we have been forced to live in, has been created over hundreds of years with the manipulation of statute law. Simply to fool the people into giving their consent to law that is, specifically designed, to extract money from them to maintain the ‘rule makers’ social dominance. Their legal fictitious standing in a society they have created, that is only beneficial to that fictitious dominant element. A false partnership that only works one way built on a foundation of complete corruption, manipulation and deceit, and most importantly ‘slavery’.

Lets take council tax as an example; council tax is a statutory instrument that came into force on 1st April 93. The statute that created this was the Local Government Finance Act 1992. This is a created legal document; a contract, a monetary contract that needs your consent!

Have you consented to this and if you did where did you sign?

When you do not pay you suffer a penalty, a forfeit by way of money, your goods or your liberty, surrendered as punishment for breach of contract.

How can this apply if you did not consent? Or did you without realising it? (More on this later)

Historians and constitutional experts will tell you that parliament was devised to give the people a voice, the house’s of representation, where the members are the representatives of the people, enacting laws on behalf of the people, under the mandate of the people, asserted by a general election, to the overall majority party winning the election.

Please look at the word: Mandate

1.    An act by which one individual empowers another individual to conduct transactions for an individual in that person’s name.
2.    From the very term of the definition, that the parties, should voluntarily intend to enter into the contract.

This is what the historians have been employed to do, to hide the real truth.

The members of parliament are a corporation registered on Dunn and Bradstreet: as a ‘for profit’ organisation. When you vote in an election all you do is elect new directors to head up this corporation. Please do not take my word for this check it out for yourselves. MP’s are basically salesmen working for the corporation and the one simple golden rule of salesmanship is to make the person you are selling too, believe, they need what you have for sale. This is over seen by the corporation advocates (lawyers, Barristers) to make sure the contracts are fulfilled on behalf of the corporation using the judiciary. One of these advocates was Tony Blair who became prime minister. Mr Blair studied law at ‘oxford’ before becoming a lawyer. Some of the directors are employed purposely as opposition to maintain the illusion of representation to make you ‘think’ the government work for you.

Political parties were designed to achieve this offering the MP’s everything they required to allow them to maintain, they will be in the socially dominant part of society. This is done with great ease relying on a simple weaknesses of human kind; greed. By using the egotistic, materialistic world, with their illusion of betterment within this world.

Read more…

High Street banks have told Alistair Darling they will not pass on any further interest rate cuts to consumers and businesses.

The banks have warned the chancellor they are “not charities”. They said they could not afford further to reduce mortgage payments and interest rates to businesses if, as expected, the Bank of England continued to cut rates as the economy fell deeper into recession.

The tough line from the banks will anger taxpayers, coming just a month after the government injected £37 billion into Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), HBOS and Lloyds TSB to protect them from the credit crunch. Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley have already been rescued by the taxpayer.

Read more…

All crimes are commercial and have a commercial value to them. It makes you look at improvements to the freeways, cities and towns in a different light … especially when those improvements are funded by ‘municipal bonds.’ You’ll also understand why there’s no hurry to end the war in Iraq.

All criminal prosecution is for the purpose for raising revenue for the United States. Now you’ll have a better understanding of why people are in jail, why they are in prison, why they are on probation and why they are charged with everything from jaywalking on up through murder one.

An American soldier who dies in Afghanistan and Iraq probably carries a $10 million life insurance on him carried by the government. After all, every soldier, marine, or air force person is an asset to the United States. They have a huge investment in that particular soldier and his activity and it can explain why it is that the US is not so anxious to withdraw its troops from that area. It’s a money making activity and they don’t want to talk about the fact that they are making money on death and that they are making money from the incarceration and imprisonment of many otherwise good hearted people who have not necessarily committed otherwise serious crimes.

Read more…

Don’t think it is any different here in the Uk!!

Take a look at http://www.tpuc.org/

A Two part interview with Webster Tarpley describing who is behind Obama and pulling the strings on the president elect and the plans behind it for the future. A must watch with brilliant insight and analysis.

Part One

Part Two

Britain’s biggest mortgage lenders have ignored calls from the Government to pass on today’s cut in interest rates to struggling homeowners.

Only Lloyds TSB, the bank which is accepting around £5.5 billion in taxpayers cash to shore up its balance sheet, has promised to pass on the historic 1.5 percentage point reduction to borrowers on variable rate deals.

At midday, the Bank of England announced that the cost of borrowing would fall by 1.5 points to 3 per cent in an effort to shore up the economy and stave off a deep recession. The surprise cut took the base rate to its lowest level in more than half a century.

In a statement accompanying the announcement, the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee said: “There has been a very marked deterioration in the outlook for economic activity at home and abroad.”

Yvette Cooper, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has called on lenders to cut interest rates in line with Bank of England. Ms Cooper said: “The Government has stepped in to make the banking system safe, to support the banks. It is right now that the banks do their bit to support everybody else.”

However, no other lenders have committed to cutting their standard variable rates (SVR). HSBC, the biggest bank in the UK, said that its SVR was under review and that it may not announce whether it is passing on the 1.5 percentage point cut until next week. On Monday, a senior executive at HSBC warned that borrowers on its variable rates were unlikely to benefit from the full cut in interest rates.

Other lenders, including Royal Bank of Scotland, Nationwide, the biggest building society, and Abbey, the UK’s second biggest lender, have said their SVRs remain under review and insiders predict that they may not make an announcement today.

Instead of passing on the cut to homeowners, lenders have been scrambling to prevent hard-pressed borrowers from taking advantage of today’s announcement by pulling existing tracker deals that are pegged to the base rate.

Read more…

The three men sat, in a row, looking like a trio of naughty, if rather aged, schoolboys. They may, in reality, be the most powerful men in the land when it comes to the economy but, for their appearance before the Treasury committee, they had donned the careful blank faces of pupils caught red-handed. John McFall, the Labour committee chairman, effortlessly adopted the persona of the stern and humourless headmaster as he faced the guilty three: Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, and Whatshisname, the new guy at the Financial Services Authority. They did, actually, look furtive.

Beside Mr McFall was a stack of 5,000 e-mails with questions for the Guilty Three from the Great British Public. The trio gulped. Mr McFall read out the first question, from Ted W. “Where,” he demanded, “has all the money gone?”
The Chancellor began to burble about global situations. I don’t think Ted W. will be too impressed. The answer seemed to boil down to: “Somewhere else.”
Michael Fallon, a Tory, demanded to know who was really responsible. “We have this impression of See No Blame, Hear No Blame and Take No Blame,” he said. As he said this, See No Blame, Hear No Blame and Take No Blame didn’t move a facial muscle. Had they been behind the bikesheds taking group Botox?

Read more…

Another ominous sign comes to light as world shipping starts to grind to a halt.

The situation now is that for those shipping companies that can actually get letters of credit are now slowing down their ships to reduce fuel consumption, slashing crew numbers and leaving some of their tonnage in dock with the lights out.The problem with letters of credit, which are needed before a vessel leaves harbour, is that demands between banks are being denied as banks are not trusting each other. The Libor rate and the interbank lending figures are just another reinforcement of this catastrophic process.

Read more…

Gordon Brown’s tax raid on pension funds has snatched £17,000 from every worker’s retirement pot, research says today.

Yet the value of public sector schemes - funded by taxpayers - has soared to an astonishing £1trillion.

Opposition MPs, business chiefs and campaigners demanded an investigation into the growing ‘pensions apartheid’.

The report, The UK Pensions Crisis, is the work of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and Terry Arthur, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries.

It says Mr Brown’s decision in 1997, when he was Chancellor, to axe tax relief on dividends paid to pension funds has cost private occupational schemes £175billion.

This amounts to £16,600 for each of the 10.5million retirement pots of current workers. If the pensions being paid to retired staff are taken into account, it is still an average deficit of £6,000.

Mr Brown’s decision forced companies to make up massive shortfalls and began the decline of final salary schemes.

The number of members of private sector schemes has fallen from 6.1million in 1995 to 3.6million last year. At that rate, says the report, there will be no paying-in members of occupational schemes within 12 years.

The growing gulf between private and public sectors has become an increasing source of bitterness over recent years and this is particularly acute in the current economic crisis.

The average private sector worker retires with a pension pot worth £25,100  -  enough to pay them about £1,700 a year.  The average public sector worker will retire with a pot of £427,275 - worth £17,091 a year.

Read more… 

Throughout the history of mankind, the elite have always fought for world empire. Now, using secrecy and international banking systems, they are making their final push for world government. Only an educated and informed public can stop them in their tracks.

Goldman Sachs is on course to pay its top City bankers multimillion-pound bonuses - despite asking the U.S. government for an emergency bail-out.

The struggling Wall Street bank has set aside £7billion for salaries and 2008 year-end bonuses, it emerged yesterday.

Each of the firm’s 443 partners is on course to pocket an average Christmas bonus of more than £3million.

The size of the pay pool comfortably dwarfs the £6.1billion lifeline which the U.S. government is throwing to Goldman as part of its £430billion bail-out.

As Washington pours money into the bank, the cash will immediately be channelled to Goldman’s already well-heeled employees.

Read more…