These were Obama's words last week in a speech in Illinois.


What does this mean?? We all have our jobs we do, and get paid to do them. Is this share the wealth taken to far?? Would Obama ever tell Oprah you've made enough now, you need to spread your wealth?? Does He tell George Soros this??

"President Obama spoke the most revealing and clarifying 10 words of his control-freak administration this week: "I think at some point you have made enough money." Peddling financial regulatory reform at a rally in Quincy, Ill., Obama then ad-libbed peculiar definitions of what he called the "American way" and the profit motive: "(Y)ou can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don't want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/30/barack_obama_americas_selective_salary_policeman_105372.html

That's fine. When is he sending me a check from his account. I think he has made plenty of money from the Nobel Peace Prize and his book.

How much evidence that this guy is a moron do people need?

iclfan2 wrote: How much evidence that this guy is a moron do people need?

He's not a moron. That's the problem.

BCBulldog wrote: That's fine. When is he sending me a check from his account. I think he has made plenty of money from the Nobel Peace Prize and his book.

The money from the prize went to 10 charities. 10 good ones I might add.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0312/Obama-s-Nobel-Prize-money-education-groups-to-get-most-of-it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031104076.html

In the context of making money at the expense of others, I think the quote is alright. Also, I think he means that at a certain point, the people should give back more to charity and their time, just like Bill Gates and Oprah have done.

I don't think he is saying that people who earn a lot of money, earned a hard working, legal way should stop. But, that people should not earn their money in shady, illegal ways that exploit people (Wall Street CEOs) or should hoard all their money without helping their fellow man.

In that sense, I don't have beef with the quote.
Also, the article was written by Michelle Malkin, a right wing hack. She is pretty much like Rush, Hannity, and Levin. This is like a liberal posting an article from Rachel Maddow.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

BCBulldog wrote: That's fine. When is he sending me a check from his account. I think he has made plenty of money from the Nobel Peace Prize and his book.

The money from the prize went to 10 charities. 10 good ones I might add.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0312/Obama-s-Nobel-Prize-money-education-groups-to-get-most-of-it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/11/AR2010031104076.html

In the context of making money at the expense of others, I think the quote is alright. Also, I think he means that at a certain point, the people should give back more to charity and their time, just like Bill Gates and Oprah have done.

I don't think he is saying that people who earn a lot of money, earned a hard working, legal way should stop. But, that people should not earn their money in shady, illegal ways that exploit people (Wall Street CEOs) or should hoard all their money without helping their fellow man.

In that sense, I don't have beef with the quote.
Also, the article was written by Michelle Malkin, a right wing hack. She is pretty much like Rush, Hannity, and Levin. This is like a liberal posting an article from Rachel Maddow.

Forget the source. That means absolutely nothing. I could have used numerous, but this was the first one. He said it!!! Not the source.

Most people make money "at the expense of others". They pay for what I have to sell or my service to offer. Pretty lame response. And what happens when this admin begins limiting wages for cdertain sectors. What happens when your pay scale is lowered and maxed Ptown?? Will you be O'k with that??

Mr. 300 wrote:
Forget the source. That means absolutely nothing. I could have used numerous, but this was the first one. He said it!!! Not the source.

Most people make money "at the expense of others". They pay for what I have to sell or my service to offer. Pretty lame response. And what happens when this admin begins limiting wages for certain sectors. What happens when your pay scale is lowered and maxed Ptown?? Will you be O'k with that??

The source matters because of the context she put around it. She has an obvious agenda, to make the President look as bad as possible. So, she will try and twist the words to fit her agenda. She does that for a living. That is why it matters.

Most people do make money at the expense of others, but these Wall Street guys screwed over many, many people, ruining or setting back their lives. That is not acceptable in today's society. You can make money, yes. But, it should be legally, and not totally screw other people.

Also, all I've heard was capping CEO pays, and until I'm a CEO, I'm not going to sweat. I don't think capping CEO's pay is a bad thing anyways. They still would make millions.

After a certain point, there is really no difference between 2-7 million. You are still freaking rich.

Last time I checked, Obama's not much of an expert on private business. Never been in one, run one, met payroll, or balanced the monthly statement.

How can you believe it is ok to cap someone's pay? Unless the company received bailout money, what is it to you how much a company pays the man that is responsible for their profit?

ptown wrote>>>

"After a certain point, there is really no difference between 2-7 million. You are still freaking rich. "

Obama said>>>
""At a certain point, you've made enough money" .


Yeah I have a problem with those statements. What makes you right? What gives you the right to decide to decide that?
Damn elitists.....

There is a huge difference between $2million and $ 7million...it is called $5 million. Maybe that is the difference between a a $1million and a $100,000 donation to a worthy cause. The problem is not the amount but whether it was legally obtained. If it wasn't, then they should be prosecuted. If it was legal then they have every right to make and to decide what they should be able to do with THEIR money.
What's the difference between $ 2 and $7 million? Why don't you ask any working stiff ball player who left his adoring fans for a couple of million more.

I agree with HitsRus, the POTUS' words speak for themselves. Even if you take Ptown's explanation at face value and that Obama was talking about charitable contributions by the ultra-rich, and even if you agree with that sentiment, it isn't the POTUS' job to be the moral voice of the country and suggest (much less dictate) to others how they should spend their money. As to the question (?) of government capping the pay of anyone, what role is it of the government? Are we talking about executives of public traded companies? Or does that also apply to private companies, even very large private companies (e.g. Mars Corporation or Cargill)? Does it apply to professions that by nature aren't subject to public funding (law, private medicine)? Professional athletes? Entertainers?

Charitably I'd call defending Obama's comments as statist populism, or another sign of the times. Non-charitably, if Obama doesn't want to be called a "socialist" by commentators, even the right wing fringe, perhaps he should stop making comments that a socialist would make.

How about we cap the pay of the President and those in Congress? I bet they wouldn't go for that, but boy, those evil Wal Streeters, let's get them. The President and First Lady reported a combined income of $5,505,409 on their 2009 tax return. What's the difference between making 400,000 and having absolutely everything they need paid for by taxpayers, and making over 5 million? When is enough, enough? Perhaps Obama should take his own advice. The President of the United States has no business making anything over the exact amount of salary paid to him. After all, 400,000 is more than enough for any one person.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/15/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-tax-returns

ccrunner609 wrote: Just another example of how Obama thinks and what Obama wants.

Well, that may be the case, but IMO it is another example of Obama's lack of experience being in the public and critical eye as opposed to most of his political career when he simply had to "preach to the choir", and a fawning choir at that. That is, I'm not sure Obama really believes at some point someone has made too much money, but I'd bet he believes most of his followers (up to this point) on the South side of Chicago believe that, or at least believe certain members of society shouldn't make so much.

The media's lack of vetting him in the '08 election may end up hurting his presidency in the long run, if he truly thinks all he has to do is keep preaching to his choir to maintain his popularity (which I doubt he believes given he has to see how far his approval rating has fallen). He isn't campaigning anymore. He's the President of the country to all citizens, even those that didn't vote for him. These people, whether its the Foxnews people or the average joe, will point out comments like this.

Public Servant Socialist ..........wake up America

Context is very important here.

We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

There is the entire exchange in which the comment was made in case anyone was wondering the context around which it was said.

What's wrong with that?

It is true that at some point it really doesn't matter anymore. Not that you're a bad person if you decide you want to continue making said money but still. There's a time when it's like "what's the point?".

I Wear Pants wrote: What's wrong with that?

It is true that at some point it really doesn't matter anymore. Not that you're a bad person if you decide you want to continue making said money but still. There's a time when it's like "what's the point?".

So, what? People should work for free once they are millionaires? They shouldn't get paid for work they are doing? The government should take all money over a certain amount? Is that what we're heading towards in this country?

Good lord he is a terrible public speaker. I can't stand listening to him because of his horrible rhythm, but having to read it is just as bad.

Anyways, I see the point he is trying to make, but the way he is going about it is all wrong. What he is trying to say is that as long as you play within the rules you can make as much as you want. He just went about it ALL wrong and gave off the wrong impression. I would fire my speech writer for that point.

And yes, I am in favor of "rules to the game"

LJ wrote: Good lord he is a terrible public speaker. I can't stand listening to him because of his horrible rhythm, but having to read it is just as bad.

Anyways, I see the point he is trying to make, but the way he is going about it is all wrong. What he is trying to say is that as long as you play within the rules you can make as much as you want. He just went about it ALL wrong and gave off the wrong impression. I would fire my speech writer for that point.

And yes, I am in favor of "rules to the game"

What rules? I'm still confused here. Who exactly, besides criminals, are currently making money against the rules? Wal Street is against the rules? Is that what this is about? A scapegoat is needed, so let's all pound on the bankers now?

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: Good lord he is a terrible public speaker. I can't stand listening to him because of his horrible rhythm, but having to read it is just as bad.

Anyways, I see the point he is trying to make, but the way he is going about it is all wrong. What he is trying to say is that as long as you play within the rules you can make as much as you want. He just went about it ALL wrong and gave off the wrong impression. I would fire my speech writer for that point.

And yes, I am in favor of "rules to the game"

What rules? I'm still confused here. Who exactly, besides criminals, are currently making money against the rules? Wal Street is against the rules? Is that what this is about? A scapegoat is needed, so let's all pound on the bankers now?

I suggest you do some reading up on "monopolistic competition". The United States does not, and has not for a LONG LONG time (as long as huge corporations are around) had a perfect market. Therefore the market cannot regulate itself and every product eventually ends up in a "break even" situation. At that point it no longer becomes something that is viable, it's turnout out shit products (financial or real) in order to keep making a profit on the same thing. It's like MBS, they started out as nice prime packages until it hit the breakeven point, then SHIT was mixed in to "cut" the packages. When this happened they still had a good rating, causing a major shitstorm. Rules to the game

Then banks weren't making as much money as they were, so they were deregulated and allowed to play IB without knowing what they were getting into, over leveraging, and failing. Rules to the game.

Politics and economics do not go together. If you have ever taken a econometrics class, you will realize that politics are nothing but a hoax.

^^^

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: Good lord he is a terrible public speaker. I can't stand listening to him because of his horrible rhythm, but having to read it is just as bad.

Anyways, I see the point he is trying to make, but the way he is going about it is all wrong. What he is trying to say is that as long as you play within the rules you can make as much as you want. He just went about it ALL wrong and gave off the wrong impression. I would fire my speech writer for that point.

And yes, I am in favor of "rules to the game"

What rules? I'm still confused here. Who exactly, besides criminals, are currently making money against the rules? Wal Street is against the rules? Is that what this is about? A scapegoat is needed, so let's all pound on the bankers now?

I suggest you do some reading up on "monopolistic competition". The United States does not, and has not for a LONG LONG time (as long as huge corporations are around) had a perfect market. Therefore the market cannot regulate itself and every product eventually ends up in a "break even" situation. At that point it no longer becomes something that is viable, it's turnout out shit products (financial or real) in order to keep making a profit on the same thing. It's like MBS, they started out as nice prime packages until it hit the breakeven point, then SHIT was mixed in to "cut" the packages. When this happened they still had a good rating, causing a major shitstorm. Rules to the game

Then banks weren't making as much money as they were, so they were deregulated and allowed to play IB without knowing what they were getting into, over leveraging, and failing. Rules to the game.

Politics and economics do not go together. If you have ever taken a econometrics class, you will realize that politics are nothing but a hoax.

So, the solution to the politics and economics not going together is more regulation? That seems counter intuitive to me. All I've seen and read about are people, mainly liberals, whining about some group of people who make too much money. Yet, no one has suggested we cut back salaries for the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Hollywood, etc. etc. What intrinsic value do these positions give to our country that bankers and lenders and Wall Street doesn't?

What I'm getting from that extended quote from Obama is that he doesn't think Wall Street provides any value at all to the American people and that they are all liars and cheats who suck money straight from the public. Kind of reminds me of something else, doesn't it?

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote:

tk421 wrote:

LJ wrote: Good lord he is a terrible public speaker. I can't stand listening to him because of his horrible rhythm, but having to read it is just as bad.

Anyways, I see the point he is trying to make, but the way he is going about it is all wrong. What he is trying to say is that as long as you play within the rules you can make as much as you want. He just went about it ALL wrong and gave off the wrong impression. I would fire my speech writer for that point.

And yes, I am in favor of "rules to the game"

What rules? I'm still confused here. Who exactly, besides criminals, are currently making money against the rules? Wal Street is against the rules? Is that what this is about? A scapegoat is needed, so let's all pound on the bankers now?

I suggest you do some reading up on "monopolistic competition". The United States does not, and has not for a LONG LONG time (as long as huge corporations are around) had a perfect market. Therefore the market cannot regulate itself and every product eventually ends up in a "break even" situation. At that point it no longer becomes something that is viable, it's turnout out shit products (financial or real) in order to keep making a profit on the same thing. It's like MBS, they started out as nice prime packages until it hit the breakeven point, then SHIT was mixed in to "cut" the packages. When this happened they still had a good rating, causing a major shitstorm. Rules to the game

Then banks weren't making as much money as they were, so they were deregulated and allowed to play IB without knowing what they were getting into, over leveraging, and failing. Rules to the game.

Politics and economics do not go together. If you have ever taken a econometrics class, you will realize that politics are nothing but a hoax.

So, the solution to the politics and economics not going together is more regulation? That seems counter intuitive to me. All I've seen and read about are people, mainly liberals, whining about some group of people who make too much money. Yet, no one has suggested we cut back salaries for the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, Hollywood, etc. etc. What intrinsic value do these positions give to our country that bankers and lenders and Wall Street doesn't?

Where did I say to limit what people make? That won't do anything and that isn't what is meant by regulation. Regulation and oversight is akin to you getting out the monopoly board and reading the rules then having someone who isn't playing be the judge to make sure no one cheats when you turn your back.

If you would go back and re-read what I said, I said I know what he is TRYING to say, and it's not what people are spinning to be, hence why I started out by saying that I think Obama is a terrible public speaker and needs to fire that speech writer.

And Politics and Economics do not go together because people try to apply their political theory to economic theory when they will not, have not, and do not mesh up. The political theory of "the gov't needs to stay out of my life!" does not and will not work in the type of economy we have today, or we had 50 years ago. Hence why politics is nothing but a hoax.

tk421 wrote:
What I'm getting from that extended quote from Obama is that he doesn't think Wall Street provides any value at all to the American people and that they are all liars and cheats who suck money straight from the public. Kind of reminds me of something else, doesn't it?

Wall Street is a core part of our financial system isn't it?