You've made enough money -- Obama

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
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:

VERY well said. :thumbsup:
 
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:

It's not just the GOP, both parties and government at all levels have been tainted by money from these companies, including the "saint" Obama. This is unfortunately a dog and pony show used to score points by the current administration.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
It's not just the GOP, both parties and government at all levels have been tainted by money from these companies, including the "saint" Obama. This is unfortunately a dog and pony show used to score points by the current administration.


I don't disagree at all that both parties have been tainted by corporate bribes.... I mean, campaign donations. And I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. But what I'm having a very hard time understanding is why the Republicans haven't wanted the financial reform bill to even be debated. :confused: You're right: Obama and the Dems have taken Wall Street money too. But seemingly, they've thanked the Wall Street crowd by kicking them in the balls (thank you, sir... may I have another?). I'm not suggesting that I agree with everything the Dems have proposed in this bill. But I am very much in favor of moving the discussion forward, so that when a large financial firm fails, it can be unwound in an orderly fashion (just as the FDIC does with regional and community banks), and not cause the economy to be at risk or the taxpayers to have to pay to support that firm, while the upper execs and bondholders walk away with hundreds of millions, if not billions. As long as the discussion is stalled (by whomever), "too big to fail" remains in place - and it's actually gotten worse since the crisis, not better. That's just a fact.

If the SEC had not fallen on Goldman like a wall of bricks a week or so ago, the GOP would still be screaming, "Just Say No!" like a bunch of petulant children. And I say, shame on them. It's been a busy time, but I'm going to make the effort to read more about the GOP's position on this over the weekend - I do want to understand this better. But right now, it just looks (at least on the surface) as if they're taking care of their pals on Wall Street... not Main Street.
 
It's not just the GOP, both parties and government at all levels have been tainted by money from these companies, including the "saint" Obama. This is unfortunately a dog and pony show used to score points by the current administration.

There is nothing wrong with receiving legal donations..especially if you receive them but then enact the necessary policies anyway.
 
There is nothing wrong with receiving legal donations..especially if you receive them but then enact the necessary policies anyway.

But if cash is corrupting the system, logically the only way to deal with that source is to get the money out of said system, no? :dunno:
 
Just want you to ponder this one as we head toward the weekend...

In our economy, who decides how much money you should be allowed to make? Is it your employer? If you are working for someone else, clearly your employer sets the salary. But that is not necessarily your full earning potential. If you want to earn more money you can find more jobs or engage in some other entrepreneurial activities to increase the amount of money you are earning. So, no, your bosses decision on your salary does not limit what you can earn. So what are you limited by? In a capitalist, free-enterprise economy, you are limited by only two things: your abilities and your work ethic. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing whatever it was that made them rich. Ditto for the poor. YOU decide how hard you want to work. YOU decide how many jobs you want to have. YOU decide how much money you want to make.

But what about in the world according to Barack Obama? Would you like to live in a country where the GOVERNMENT decides how much money you get to make? Would you like to live in a country where politicians get to opine over what kind of money you should make?

Well this is what Barack Obama had to say to a crowd in Illinois, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

According to whom, Mr. President?? What business do you have even expressing an opinion as to how much anyone not working for you should or should not make? If I'm not mistaking, didn't you pull down a cool $5 million last year? I guest we can all assume then that you don't think that $5 million is too much. Well, at least we have that.

Don't you see the inherent danger in a president of the United States who gets out there and tells you that there is a certain point where you've made "enough" money? OK, well let's define that "point." Is it when you make an 8-hour day? Is it when I make a million dollars a year? What the hell business is it of his?

What this comment displays is the true character of Barack Obama. This comment, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money" was unscripted .. it was off teleprompter. It was not pre-approved by the ObamaDrones. His dogwashers didn't scrub that comment down, making sure that every word is carefully chosen and crafted to be politically correct and safe. But I guess they can only contain him so much. A true wealth redistributor, a true lover-of-government, can only hide for so long before he is caught with his pants down.

Now to let the blows land.....
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Just want you to ponder this one as we head toward the weekend...

In our economy, who decides how much money you should be allowed to make? Is it your employer? If you are working for someone else, clearly your employer sets the salary. But that is not necessarily your full earning potential. If you want to earn more money you can find more jobs or engage in some other entrepreneurial activities to increase the amount of money you are earning. So, no, your bosses decision on your salary does not limit what you can earn. So what are you limited by? In a capitalist, free-enterprise economy, you are limited by only two things: your abilities and your work ethic. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing whatever it was that made them rich. Ditto for the poor. YOU decide how hard you want to work. YOU decide how many jobs you want to have. YOU decide how much money you want to make.

But what about in the world according to Barack Obama? Would you like to live in a country where the GOVERNMENT decides how much money you get to make? Would you like to live in a country where politicians get to opine over what kind of money you should make?

Well this is what Barack Obama had to say to a crowd in Illinois, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

According to whom, Mr. President?? What business do you have even expressing an opinion as to how much anyone not working for you should or should not make? If I'm not mistaking, didn't you pull down a cool $5 million last year? I guest we can all assume then that you don't think that $5 million is too much. Well, at least we have that.

Don't you see the inherent danger in a president of the United States who gets out there and tells you that there is a certain point where you've made "enough" money? OK, well let's define that "point." Is it when you make an 8-hour day? Is it when I make a million dollars a year? What the hell business is it of his?

What this comment displays is the true character of Barack Obama. This comment, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money" was unscripted .. it was off teleprompter. It was not pre-approved by the ObamaDrones. His dogwashers didn't scrub that comment down, making sure that every word is carefully chosen and crafted to be politically correct and safe. But I guess they can only contain him so much. A true wealth redistributor, a true lover-of-government, can only hide for so long before he is caught with his pants down.

Now to let the blows land.....

I'm certain that nobody on the right will let this go because you can see things any way you wish but, after listening to the speech literally about a dozen times, I believe the reference was a personal comment rather than some sinister attempt to institute official policy. He was talking about Wall St. bankers. Again, if you believe they should have unregulated ability to do whatever they wish in order to add to the bottom line, take issue with Obama's statement and label him a communist pinko socialist marxist lunatic if you are so disposed. I didn't draw that conclusion from it but I guess you see whatever you want to see depending on you political viewpoint. If I was a right-winger, I would undoubtedly pounce on this as well.

Much ado about nothing as far as I'm concerned. Contrive any controversy about Obama you wish....you have lots of company.
 
"Much ado about nothing..."

Indeed.
 

maildude

Postal Paranoiac
Like Hannity says: "This disrespects those who have clawed themselves out of poverty and become wealthy." Yeah. That means a lot to a CEO who makes $20 million a year, gives himself a bonus, then sends jobs overseas.
 
My point is saying "our" President is a loser, a President who is not even half way in...doesn't change anything...fuck I've been saying that about Bush for 8 years. Please tell me (you and whoever else) what did Bush ever do good in 8 years?
 
...showed the world what America is capable of?
 
Top