He could have been much more direct (instead of beating around the bush) and said "I don't want Lloyd Blankfein making $68 million dollars a year (his 2007 bonus...same year as them peddling designed to fail crap like Timberwolf and Abacus among others) if it means peddling toxic synthetic shit into the system that serves no useful societal value all in the name of trying to increase his bonus size."

In the context of finreg, that is what he is trying to say in no uncertain terms. That the consistent drive to make more and more leads to the creation of those kind of instruments that are designed to increase the bottom line with no regard to any potential negative impact on the public or system as a whole.

Mind you this comment was made the same day if I'm not mistaken they had Goldman in front of Congress trying to answer why they were knowingly selling shit out into the public (I.E bundles of mortgages they knew were about to explode).

It is not coincidence that a comment like that was made in the context of the larger finreg debate, because there is a populist perception that enough can be enough if the drive to earn more and more on Wallstreet leads to the creation of products like synthetic cdo's (just one of many examples) that ultimately do little more than help destabilize the system and line bankers pockets.

I don't personally agree with the premise of the comment, but you can see there is alot of coded language in there that he is trying to use as a premise to hammer alot of Wallstreet's most profitable practices, which will then trickle down as smaller bonuses. He just made the mistake of openly admitting that was his goal to inadvertently cap incomes, and he will be killed for it in 527 ads around election time.

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?

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?

Do you not understand that wallstreet has been doing some very underhanded things lately?

What we mean by "regulation" is simply saying "you can't do that".

This isn't an attack on people making money. It's an attack on people making money by doing shady shit with investment products and schemes that aren't ethical.

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.

You didn't say anything about limiting salary, but Obama did. He did not misspeak either. He said exactly what he meant. It's not being taken out of context at all. I don't know how much more clear "I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money...you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service."

This says to me quite clearly that the federal government will be limiting salaries for companies that they think no longer "provide a good product or provide good service."

I Wear Pants wrote:

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?

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?

Do you not understand that wallstreet has been doing some very underhanded things lately?

What we mean by "regulation" is simply saying "you can't do that".

This isn't an attack on people making money. It's an attack on people making money by doing shady shit with investment products and schemes that aren't ethical.

unethical in the sense that it is cheating within the system. I don't think they need to crack down on the guy that makes his millions owning 1,000 low income apartments, but rather the instrument that is sold that they know is shit and is going to cause problems down the road.

I Wear Pants wrote:

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?

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?

Do you not understand that wallstreet has been doing some very underhanded things lately?

What we mean by "regulation" is simply saying "you can't do that".

This isn't an attack on people making money. It's an attack on people making money by doing shady shit with investment products and schemes that aren't ethical.

And Wall Street is currently the only place in America that does this? The entire financial sector is like this? How is that any different that the way our federal government operates? Pretty hypocritical.

tk421 wrote:

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.

You didn't say anything about limiting salary, but Obama did. He did not misspeak either. He said exactly what he meant. It's not being taken out of context at all. I don't know how much more clear "I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money...you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service."

This says to me quite clearly that the federal government will be limiting salaries for companies that they think no longer "provide a good product or provide good service."

We know that has been part of what he has said before, but I think it was out of context is what he was trying to say in general. I'm not denying that he wants that in some fashion, but I don't think that is what he was trying to say in this meeting.

tk421 wrote:

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.

You didn't say anything about limiting salary, but Obama did. He did not misspeak either. He said exactly what he meant. It's not being taken out of context at all. I don't know how much more clear "I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money...you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service."

This says to me quite clearly that the federal government will be limiting salaries for companies that they think no longer "provide a good product or provide good service."

How do you go from "at a certain point you've made enough money" to thinking that the government is now limiting salaries for every company it decides isn't providing a good product or service. That's a giant leap.

The real question is do you even believe there is a point in which you probably don't need any more money?

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't make more money (assuming you've been running a legal business it very well be more responsible to continue to do so) but that it's sort of a moot point.

Also, hilarious that most of you seriously think that wall street did no wrong.

How do you go from "at a certain point you've made enough money" to thinking that the government is now limiting salaries for every company it decides isn't providing a good product or service. That's a giant leap.

The real question is do you even believe there is a point in which you probably don't need any more money?

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't make more money (assuming you've been running a legal business it very well be more responsible to continue to do so) but that it's sort of a moot point.

Also, hilarious that most of you seriously think that wall street did no wrong.

I've never said anything about what wall street has or hasn't done. I'm not a banker and don't know hardly anything about the financial sector, but I do think it's very politically motivated, not to mention extremely hypocritical, that the government is going after them. The fact is most Americans don't really like wall street right now, whether or not they have a reason, so this gives the government the perfect opportunity to do what it does best, regulate and eventually screw things up. All of this coming from the one organization in the country that could give wall street a run for it's money in the corrupt department.

You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

I'd like to reach that point, whatever it is, then leave the country and make more.

I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

Perhaps not but asking Big Government to "fix" Wall Street through over-regulation is like asking Hugo Chavez to oversee al Qaeda activities.

The bottom-line here is the on-going conflict between Marxist/socialist thinking (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”) and capitalist thinking ("In hindsight it may even seem inevitable that a socialist society will starve when it runs out of capitalists.")

I'll be the first to admit Wall Street excess, but one thing is absolutely clear in my mind: Despite its abuses, capitalism has provided far more folks with economic opportunity and quality of life than socialism will ever hope to achieve.

Considering that he's The Smartest President Ever, he sure seems to say a lot of stupid shit.

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

Perhaps not but asking Big Government to "fix" Wall Street through over-regulation is like asking Hugo Chavez to oversee al Qaeda activities.

The bottom-line here is the on-going conflict between Marxist/socialist thinking (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”) and capitalist thinking ("In hindsight it may even seem inevitable that a socialist society will starve when it runs out of capitalists.")

I'll be the first to admit Wall Street excess, but one thing is absolutely clear in my mind: Despite its abuses, capitalism has provided far more folks with economic opportunity and quality of life than socialism will ever hope to achieve.

Regulating wall street isn't getting rid of capitalism or switching to socialism. It's just making rules that say "you can't sell bullshit toxic debt under the guise of a good investment". What is wrong with that?

I Wear Pants wrote:

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

Perhaps not but asking Big Government to "fix" Wall Street through over-regulation is like asking Hugo Chavez to oversee al Qaeda activities.

The bottom-line here is the on-going conflict between Marxist/socialist thinking (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”) and capitalist thinking ("In hindsight it may even seem inevitable that a socialist society will starve when it runs out of capitalists.")

I'll be the first to admit Wall Street excess, but one thing is absolutely clear in my mind: Despite its abuses, capitalism has provided far more folks with economic opportunity and quality of life than socialism will ever hope to achieve.

Regulating wall street isn't getting rid of capitalism or switching to socialism. It's just making rules that say "you can't sell bullshit toxic debt under the guise of a good investment". What is wrong with that?

That would be a great rule to apply to politics too.

Mr President, after making 5.5 million last year,(by the way, you and your boy Joe really stepped up charity wise as a percentage of your total compensation, I might add) I will be watching to see you defer all compensation in 2010. Please lead by example!

With all due respect Mr President,sir, your an ass!,... sir!


I can't (well actually I can) believe how some of you continue to make excuses for this idiot! How much of his water are you willing to carry?

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
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.

Unbelievable ..................... just simply unbelievable.

For any politician (the true leachers of society, who are the biggest liars and cheats out there) to call out someone elseon how they make their money is laughable.

ManO'War wrote: For any politician (the true leachers of society, who are the biggest liars and cheats out there) to call out someone elseon how they make their money is laughable.

I am CenterBHSFan, and I approve this message!

tk421 wrote: 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

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
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.

Unbelievable ..................... just simply unbelievable.

So would Ptown approve of the confiscation of $3.5Mil of Obama's wealth?

Where did Obama talk about "confiscation?"

I would kiss his socialist ass if I had to pay a million in taxes. And would thank him for the opportunity !

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

Perhaps not but asking Big Government to "fix" Wall Street through over-regulation is like asking Hugo Chavez to oversee al Qaeda activities.

The bottom-line here is the on-going conflict between Marxist/socialist thinking (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”) and capitalist thinking ("In hindsight it may even seem inevitable that a socialist society will starve when it runs out of capitalists.")

I'll be the first to admit Wall Street excess, but one thing is absolutely clear in my mind: Despite its abuses, capitalism has provided far more folks with economic opportunity and quality of life than socialism will ever hope to achieve.

Regulating wall street isn't getting rid of capitalism or switching to socialism. It's just making rules that say "you can't sell bullshit toxic debt under the guise of a good investment". What is wrong with that?

That would be a great rule to apply to politics too.

Touche.

cbus4life wrote: Where did Obama talk about "confiscation?"

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

believer wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: You realize that a decent amount of the current problem was because of deregulation in the financial sector right? Glass-Steagall being repealed in 1999 certainly didn't help much.

Perhaps not but asking Big Government to "fix" Wall Street through over-regulation is like asking Hugo Chavez to oversee al Qaeda activities.

The bottom-line here is the on-going conflict between Marxist/socialist thinking (“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”) and capitalist thinking ("In hindsight it may even seem inevitable that a socialist society will starve when it runs out of capitalists.")

I'll be the first to admit Wall Street excess, but one thing is absolutely clear in my mind: Despite its abuses, capitalism has provided far more folks with economic opportunity and quality of life than socialism will ever hope to achieve.

Regulating wall street isn't getting rid of capitalism or switching to socialism. It's just making rules that say "you can't sell bullshit toxic debt under the guise of a good investment". What is wrong with that?

That would be a great rule to apply to politics too.

Precisely! Incompetence monitoring greed fixes nothing.

So the answer is do nothing?