You've made enough money -- Obama

[~~whimsy~~]

Hmm, a country where the government decides how much money you make, despite Obama making 5 million give or take in 2009. I don't see a bright future for our young President if he keeps this up. Also who let him talk without a teleprompter again? He always starts letting things slip out when he's not having his hand held in his speeches.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/look-whos-talking-obamas-making-enough-money-too-92439904.html

 

[Hot Mega]

The "there"??

1.) That could be a reality no matter what you believe.

2.) Clip conveniently cuts out what follows.

3.) Stop fishing:o

 

[Jagger69]

A 31 second sound bite and a reference from the uber right-wing rag Washington Examiner? Wow whims, I thought you could do better than this.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

If people want more for whatever reason they can do their own searching and fine what exactly it is they want to see outside the main part I'm focusing on here.

Of course had I linked it from Fox News it would be immediately discredited. I guess a lot like WashingtonExaminer... find a website you are comfortable with, find the story, and read the same thing I put up there.

:hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

If people want more for whatever reason they can do their own searching and fine what exactly it is they want to see outside the main part I'm focusing on here.

Of course had I linked it from Fox News it would be immediately discredited. I guess a lot like WashingtonExaminer... find a website you are comfortable with, find the story, and read the same thing I put up there.

:hatsoff:

Why isn't the preceding statement just as (if not more) relevant.... doesn't "begrudge success that's fairly earned...":tongue:

 

[Hot Mega]

Thread details:

 

[sualcalay]

Got to give you all credits, americans don't tire easily.

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Why isn't the preceding statement just as (if not more) relevant.... doesn't "begrudge success that's fairly earned...":tongue:

Because Obama feels it's up to him to decide how much success a person is allowed before he will start begrudging them of any more. That's exactly the point.

After "a certain point", Obama thinks it's up to him to making people "spread it around" a little bit. That's NOT supposed to be the decision of the government. At least it's not supposed to be the decision of OUR government.

 

[Jagger69]

If people want more for whatever reason they can do their own searching and fine what exactly it is they want to see outside the main part I'm focusing on here.

Of course had I linked it from Fox News it would be immediately discredited. I guess a lot like WashingtonExaminer... find a website you are comfortable with, find the story, and read the same thing I put up there.

:hatsoff:

Thanks for the advice. He was referring to the Wall St. pirates. Here's the expanded quote:

"We're not pushing financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. Though I do think, at a certain point you've made enough money but part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product and providing a good service. But we don't want people to stop fulfilling their core responsibility to the financial system to help grow the economy"

Draw your own conclusions from the comment. If you think that Wall St. bankers should be able to make whatever they can no matter how ill-gotten the gains are, I guess you can think that Obama is a marxist or whatever. If you believe that there should be restraints on what has been going on in downtown NY, you'll think his remarks are appropriate.

Either way, the original sound bite was obviously taken out of context.

 

[Hot Mega]

Because Obama feels it's up to him to decide how much success a person is allowed before he will start begrudging them of any more. That's exactly the point.

After "a certain point", Obama thinks it's up to him to making people "spread it around" a little bit. That's NOT supposed to be the decision of the government. At least it's not supposed to be the decision of OUR government.

Well the g'ment decides the nations priorities..then decides the way it believes is best to fund it...pure and simple.

Some people believe people who earn the most should realized the least amount of taxation because they believe the ultimate aim of these people is to 'create jobs' with their wealth or it's some natural byproduct.

Others believe those who earn the most wealth have less of a strain contributing to the cost to fund the nations priorities (as decided by the party in power) than those who live off of their pay checks.

Two opposing but reasonable perspectives.

But you're not one of those people who actually believes the priority of wealth or business is hiring people as opposed to realizing more profits are you???

 

[Asianlov69]

he thinks that the poor has enough... I mean lets bailout more ceos that make 20 million a year....

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

Well the g'ment decides the nations priorities..then decides the way it believes is best to fund it...pure and simple.

Some people believe people who earn the most should realized the least amount of taxation because they believe the ultimate aim of these people is to 'create jobs' with their wealth or it's some natural byproduct.

Others believe those who earn the most wealth have less of a strain contributing to the cost to fund the nations priorities (as decided by the party in power) than those who live off of their pay checks.

Two opposing but reasonable perspectives.

But you're not one of those people who actually believes the priority of wealth or business is hiring people as opposed to realizing more profits are you???:cool:

You are correct. I do not believe the priority of business is, or should be, to create jobs. Businesses are not started with the goal of creating jobs. They are started with the goal of creating a profit for the person(s) who took a financial risk in starting the business. Jobs are nothing more than a natural byproduct of running a successful company.

These are my beliefs, and I could write an entire book elaborating on their merits. Please realize, however, that I believe business does have responsibilities to the community in which it operates. These responsibilities include operating in such ways as to not trample on the freedom or rights of others. This encompasses many things, which I don't have the time or space to go into here.

Another thing I would like to say is that I have owned and operated two businesses in my adult life. One of those companies required that I hire a few employees. When I hired them, I paid them well and always treated them with respect.

My other company was one that I ran on my own. In spite of doing it all by myself, I still made a good living at it. During these years, I never once felt an obligation to grow my business to the point where I had to hire employees and "create jobs". As I operated this business, I paid taxes, spent my profits in the community, and provided a valuable service to my customers. In my opinion, I had no more responsibility to the community than that.

While I do not believe that business has a responsibility to create jobs, I do believe they have a responsibility to treat their employees once they hire them.

I am a proud capitalist. I am not a capitalist pig.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Hmm, a country where the government decides how much money you make, despite Obama making 5 million give or take in 2009. I don't see a bright future for our young President if he keeps this up. Also who let him talk without a teleprompter again? He always starts letting things slip out when he's not having his hand held in his speeches.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/look-whos-talking-obamas-making-enough-money-too-92439904.html

Obama's confused. He is trying to cradle both the left and the right. Another typical stiff-suit (politician). It will be interesting how his tenure endures when we come into '12.

 

[StanScratch]

If people want more for whatever reason they can do their own searching and fine what exactly it is they want to see outside the main part I'm focusing on here.

Of course had I linked it from Fox News it would be immediately discredited. I guess a lot like WashingtonExaminer... find a website you are comfortable with, find the story, and read the same thing I put up there.

:hatsoff:

Wrong. You create the battle lines, you do the research and you provide us with research. Otherwise, it is nothing more than useless political posturing.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

There is no battle in here. I showed what I wanted to show. Jagger showed another part of it, commented, and that is that.

I'm just not going to get baited into a political tennis match argument of back and forth, back and forth argument/opinions. I showed what I wanted to show and the rest lands according to how people respond to it.

If people do want to get into a debate, conversation, whatever, so what. I'm not. I showed what I wanted to within this thread. If others want to expand, show more, that is fine.

 

[Hot Mega]

You are correct. I do not believe the priority of business is, or should be, to create jobs. Businesses are not started with the goal of creating jobs. They are started with the goal of creating a profit for the person(s) who took a financial risk in starting the business. Jobs are nothing more than a natural byproduct of running a successful company.

These are my beliefs, and I could write an entire book elaborating on their merits. Please realize, however, that I believe business does have responsibilities to the community in which it operates. These responsibilities include operating in such ways as to not trample on the freedom or rights of others. This encompasses many things, which I don't have the time or space to go into here.

Another thing I would like to say is that I have owned and operated two businesses in my adult life. One of those companies required that I hire a few employees. When I hired them, I paid them well and always treated them with respect.

My other company was one that I ran on my own. In spite of doing it all by myself, I still made a good living at it. During these years, I never once felt an obligation to grow my business to the point where I had to hire employees and "create jobs". As I operated this business, I paid taxes, spent my profits in the community, and provided a valuable service to my customers. In my opinion, I had no more responsibility to the community than that.

While I do not believe that business has a responsibility to create jobs, I do believe they have a responsibility to treat their employees once they hire them.

I am a proud capitalist. I am not a capitalist pig.

Well, if the premise is Obama feels you make/made enough money as implied by the OP, to what end do you believe his aim is in affecting that?

All presidents support taxation as a means of funding the nation's priorities, ALL OF THEM...since that is the only way the nation's priorities get paid for.

The notion that any reasonable, ethical person wants to simply transfer the money of one to another as implied to even things out is pretty silly and childish IMO.

Obama's confused. He is trying to cradle both the left and the right. Another typical stiff-suit (politician). It will be interesting how his tenure endures when we come into '12.

One word, Economy. If the economy hasn't clearly rebounded Obama (nor anyone else) would be re-elected.

Of course there are other things...developments in Afghanistan, etc. but all presidential re-elections are economy driven. So for all those who hate Obama...keep your fingers crossed hoping the economy stays in the toilet and you remain un/underemployed.:o

Simply put..economy good..and you have money in your pants to keep you distracted- President good. Economy bad..you can't spend money on shit to keep you distracted...President bad.

 

[titsrock]

Obama's confused. He is trying to cradle both the left and the right. Another typical stiff-suit (politician). It will be interesting how his tenure endures when we come into '12.

Interesting for whom? Me? Maybe. You? I really don't think so. I don't think there is any circumstance that exists that you would ever vote for Obama '12. Just sayin.

There is no battle in here. I showed what I wanted to show. Jagger showed another part of it, commented, and that is that.

I'm just not going to get baited into a political tennis match argument of back and forth, back and forth argument/opinions. I showed what I wanted to show and the rest lands according to how people respond to it.

This sort sounds like a typical defense for the use of propaganda whimsy.

 

[CunningStunts]

It's ironic that the same people terrified of Federal power under Bush don't bat an eye when Obama says and does things that vastly expand the power of the Feds to do all kinds of things to citizens...

We are all losers in this debate.

 

[Hot Mega]

It's ironic that the same people terrified of Federal power under Bush don't bat an eye when Obama says and does things that vastly expand the power of the Feds to do all kinds of things to citizens...

We are all losers in this debate.

Such as (specifically). See...I find the reverse ironic.

People who routinely cited concepts as national ID cards and firearms registration as giving 'big bro' too much power easily excused the prospect of having their private conversations and electronic communications.

They hypocritically dismissed critics by saying if you're not doing anything wrong..why worry about it.

Well, wouldn't the same hold true of national IDs, census data, and firearms registration??? If you're not doing anything "wrong" why would you worry (rhetorical question)?

Can we get a little consistency here...or do I have it wrong?

 

[Rey C.]

If the shareholders of Bank of America were comfortable paying Ken Lewis $60 million in retirement, I'm OK with that. If the shareholders of Merrill Lynch were comfortable with John Thain buying an $87,000 toilet for his $1.25 million renovated office, and earning $87 million the year before his firm lost $15 billion (with a "b"!!!) and had to be sold to another company (that itself hooked onto the public teat) before it went under... I'm also OK with that. If the shareholders of Lehman were comfortable paying Dick Fuld $45 million in the year that he destroyed a 160 year old firm, and reportedly made $500 million over the course of a troubled 14 year career, I'm OK with that too. What I'm not OK with is when these rat bastards kill or cripple their firms, and the taxpayers wind up being on the hook for it because of the size of the firms.

As long as the GOP blocks any attempts at financial reform, "too big to fail" remains the song of the day. And the only people who should be comfortable (happy?) with that scenario are upper level executives and major bondholders with the money center banks. If you're not in that group, then you're a chicken worrying that Colonel Sanders might be getting a raw deal. I seriously doubt that anyone here does frequent business with Goldman Sachs. I know I don't. I'm just sayin'. :dunno: