Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.Exactly.That's why the rich put most of their wealth into capital, spending for example on heavy equipment that makes ditch diggers a million times more productive than with a shovel.And that's why you want to encourage the accumulation of wealth.If you try to spread it around evenly, the nation eats the seed corn.If you let it get invested, corn availability explodes.Trickle-down in a nutshell.It depends on not needing more money. Capital is exactly extra money.Let the government take it and the nation descends into extreme poverty.
Is the $5.5 million the President received last year "enough"?
I understand that the latest fundraiser for Barbara Boxer that Obama attended cost $17,000 a plate.I wonder if those folks have made enough money.
@Robert: I had the same thought."And any money Mr. Obama makes writing his books is money that he gets to keep."
Why does he always say "I want to be clear"? If you want to be clear, maybe you should just say what you really think. Maybe he should say, "We're pushing financial reform because I begrudge your success and think you've already made enough money. In fact, I want to redistribute your money to those who do not have your work ethic and smarts. I read 'Harrrison Bergeron' as a kid growing up in ((... single mother... helping hand...)) and I really think we all can be ballerinas or wall street bankers if we lower the common denominator enough. Now is the time for action and change."
So give me the rest of your money to spread around to the people who voted for me, so that they will be more likely to do so again. I like being president. I mean, at a certain point you have enough power, but for me, it's likely that there's no real limit, and I will never be satisfied until I control the entire world and have my hands in every pocket.
Define "fairly."We are all in deep trouble if we let Barack Obama define "fairly."I am going to vote this year specifically to keep Barack Obama and his ilk from defining fairly.
"Let me be clear" is a tell that what follows is not true.
Can he please stop with the 'I want to be clear' crap already?
Community organizer. Affirmative action figure.
Does POTUS begrudge Warren Buffett too because "..at certain point you've made enough money" or does he just like WB's donations?
As long as we each get to decide for ourselves when we've made enought money, well... fine.Is that what he has in mind?
Affirmative action figure.With a Kung Fu grip.On your wallet.
I wish I could spell.
[Rich Little voice]:Let me make this perfectly clear...[/Rich Little voice]
Let me be clear, I'm not bullshittin' ya, uh uh uh, but you are makin' enough money out there.Maybe I can too have someone write two fucking autobiographies for me and then make 5 million off it, via the PR campaign paid for by the US media.And maybe if I were able to push a bullshit idea like global warming, and con people, or not con them and actually work with them, into stupid exchanges where the only thing that's exchanged is dupes money. And again, I would have the full push from a PR campaign by the US media.Then maybe I'd be able to make so much money that I can afford a few mutli-million dollar houses.Un fucking belivable the hubris of these assholes.
Do people who have made enough money also include 'global warming' scaremongers who own $8 million beach houses?Just wondering.
As soon as I read this in the news, I knew it was going to go viral. I HOPE it helps people see what he is all about. He KEEPS SAYING exactly what he means but people do not want to believe it. He SAID he wanted to 'spread the wealth around' - but people somehow filter it into something more appealing because they want to believe.
This man has absolutely no sense of or concern for the term presidential.
Who the fuck does this guy think he is to tell anyone that he thinks they've made enough money. Fuck you Barely Obama.
@El Pollo, you beat me too it! And I was thinking that I was the only person to hear echoes of Richard Nixon's "let me be perfectly clear" tagline.When this thin-skinned weenie gets booted out of office in November 2012 will he tell the press that they won't have him to kick around anymore?
Anyway it was lucky for Bill Gates that he's retired, otherwise he would have had to move Microsoft a little bit north to Vancouver.
Sofa"Let me be clear" is a tell that what follows is not true. So true. The con man at work.
I don't want to be all Alpha Liberal or anything, but I actually would like to see the greater context of the quote (couldn't watch the video, if it's there). Could he have just been talking about personally, or a societal/cultural thing? I doubt it, and it certainly fits with everything else he's said and done, but I'd like to see how he followed that statement for more clarification about what he was specifically referring to and if he gave any indications of what "enough" means. - Lyssa
Of course, The Zero and people like Christopher Dodd and Slobbering Barney are the ones who determine when enough is enough, particularly when it's a donor or an old boyfriend.Robert said... Is the $5.5 million the President received last year "enough"?Does that count the million he got from Goldman? Or the 300 grand Michelle made as an affirmative action hire?
Here's an E-mail that explains the real story: The Protect Large Corporate Wall Street Democrat Donors Act "Goldman is NOT being thrown under the bus. This is a rope-a-dope scam and Goldman is in on it. A politically divided SEC has brought a very weak case that will never see a court room. It will be settled with a wrist-slap. In return for being made the whipping boy — which Goldman is very used to and even thrives on — it will get a "regulation" bill that enshrines too-big-to-fail status upon it and which will give it the same competitive advantages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enjoyed. That is, an implicit taxpayer guarantee. It will then be able to borrow at lower rates and engage in riskier behavior at a lower cost. Meanwhile, smaller competitors will not enjoy this advantage, thereby making Goldman even more powerful and profitable. Don't buy the spin on this. Obama is not throwing Goldman under the bus. Goldman willingly jumped and will receive a huge payoff for its "sacrifice." But the rest of us will pay. This is all a political scam from start to finish."
The longer quote is even worse, um, as he talks around, ah, the fact that we do want to let people, um, continue to make even more money if, you know, they're providing a good product or good service and are fulfilling, um, their responsibility of building our economy.The man is truly uncomfortable with what he's saying.
It's cut off in mid-sentence, for maximum damning effect. Hacks. The rest of the sentence is,"but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product."So for conservatives, it's heresy to even express the personal opinion that there should be some kind of limit to greed, even while allowing it's "the american way" for there not to be.Hacks.Drill, baby, drill, by the way! How's that working out?
If President Obama fought Al Qaeda with half of his class warfare arsenal, all our soldiers would be home by now.
Lyssa, I'm afraid the context doesn't make it any better. He went off-script to make that statement, committing the classic definition of a gaffe (i.e., saying what you really think.) Here's a link and discussion at Hot Air of the fuller quote.
"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."
The man is truly uncomfortable with what he's saying.As is a growing chunk of the electorate.
The rich not only grease the wheels of wealth creation, but they also endow higher education, fund medical research/hospitals/charities and support the arts. Obama recently honored the Arts & Humanities Award Winners at the WH. Many of whom receive their primary funding from wealthy patrons and endowments.
Republicans and Democrats choose Wall Street over main street every time. Always have and always will. They just pretend to care for the common person every so often when an election comes around.
God he sounds like the average college student bemoaning life's inequities. Obama is stuck in a wayback machine.
Not sure how you think that makes him look any better, Montaigne. Sounds to me like an admission that Obama can't stop that...yet. He certainly doesn't seem to understand the mindset of people who take that route.As for the "personal limit to greed" thing, we don't think much of it when it's coming from the President of the United States, no. Funny how when the government tries to put those limits on people that it makes exceptions for those who suck up to it. (Of course, to say that "people make too much money because they're greedy" is a moral position. Is there then no outcry about imposing personal morality on others?)
I thought last year I had made enough money too, then on April 15th I sent more than a third of it to Obama. I'm never going to be able to retire i.e. have enough money.romme: as in "he romme of my retirement"
So for conservatives, it's heresy to even express the personal opinion that there should be some kind of limit to greed, even while allowing it's "the american way" for there not to be.Greed and wealth are not the same thing.I know plenty of greedy people who have nothing and plenty of wealthy people who are content and generous with their financial resources. There should be no limit to wealth; that's how the capitalist makes the pie bigger and elevates the standard of living for himself and others.For those who would defend the President's remark, I would ask the simple question, "What is the dollar amount to which people should be limited to possess?" I'll guarantee not one would answer with a number close to their net worth.
Contrary to Montagne's breathless assertion, the clip didn't cut off in mid sentence.From the WH site:"So they failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child’s college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what’s working fine for them wasn’t working for ordinary Americans. And we’ve learned that clearly. It doesn’t work out fine for the country. It’s got to change. (Applause.) Now, what we’re doing -- I want to be clear, 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. (Laughter.) But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."It does apear a bit sound bitish and if Repubs were smart (which they aren't), they'd use it to maximum effect. I think someone else is spot on with the observation that it's definitely a gaffe and one where he's saying what he's actually thinking.The larger context of the quote doesn't seem to help much.
Yes, Monty, the longer quote is even worse.It's all couched in qualifier words that make it about service to some greater good. He doesn't say that we need a financial sector that is healthy and strong and profitable. It's not an unavoidable economic principle so much as an American habit of making more money than you need, which is okay if distasteful, because the "good" sort helps to grow the economy.Since it only "helps" to grow the economy... I wonder what else he thinks contributes or what he thinks is central to growing the economy.The question remains, though, if the weasel words reveal his actual beliefs about what he says or if they are just a habit.
It's not about the money they've "made," but the money they've stolen and cheated away from others. Obama is so much in the pockets of these swine he can't even say the word fraud when discussing the real causes of our national and global financial meltdown (cheating and double dealing by the financial industry) and the consequent need for stringent financial reform and regulation of Wall Street.
Synova- thanks for providing the context. I think that GS provided a "good product and services" by helping fuel the growth of people's retirement investments, "fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy." The bubble crashed. Other bubbles have crashed. The "education bubble" may crash.In fact, for future tax revenue purposes, the President is relying on GS to do their thing again.
Excuse me, sir? Mr Preident?Fuck off.
Key word: "you"
Marxist. No other proof is needed.
We're talking about bankers here. They make too much money. The financial sector produces fake wealth. It's led to no real economic progress. While the bankers' salaries were skyrocketing in the 2000s, real wages were stagnant. But go ahead and keep defending the brave bankers and all they've done for society. Suckers. I'm sure Obama, who is socialist and in bed with Goldman Sachs at the same time somehow, will eventually be defeated by all the Ayn Randian army of Davids that you are. Finally, bankers will be allowed to safely earn their well deserved bonuses for pushing numbers from their asses, which is a great service that benefits all the small boats in its rising tide.You are shilling for bankers. you are dupes and suckers.
We're talking about bankers here. They make too much money. The financial sector produces fake wealth.Fake wealth, eh? I guess we'll all find out just how fake it was when the finance industry packs up and leaves New York for London after Barry's "reforms". Glad I don't own any NYC real estate.
"We're talking about bankers here."Yes, I know.And next week we'll be talking about doctors again, and how the evil greedy bastiches unnecessarily cut off limbs for money, which they don't need since they "make enough."
What did the kulaks ever do for Russia?Off with their heads!
"Fake wealth, eh? I guess we'll all find out just how fake it was when the finance industry packs up and leaves New York for London after Barry's "reforms"."Or Dubai.
@MMI call bullshit on Obama until he holds the lobby, entertainment and professional sports industries to the same standards as Wall Street. Ticket prices have placed most sports arenas out of reach for the average family and movie theaters are close behind. How much is too much for the NFL or MLB owners and players? Tiger Woods earned a billion in endorsements. Apparently Obama doesn't consider that excessive.How much profit do NBC-Universal,Time-Warner, Sony or Disney need? Or Oprah and her multi-billon dollar money machine? How about the $40 mil a movie deals? Does George Clooney need $300 mil in assets to get through his day? Then there's the K Street/govt revolving door ATM. I'll pass on Al Gore as a prime example as we've already beaten that horse on another post.
" . . . at a certain point you have enough power" --Kirby OlsonThat's a Hall of Fame comment.
He's just so incoherent.Compare an Obama commentary to a Bush commentary. Not some cherry picked gaffe, which both made plenty of, but just a plain comment off the teleprompter. Bush had at least 30 IQ points on this idiot. I guess that's why the actual president keeps Obama, the actor president, on the links all the time.He's a bigger boob than Joe Biden. Just look at this stupid statement. It doesn't even help his case once you decipher it.
Yup, Dubai and London are paragons of financial health at the moment. Bwah ha ha ha. When fraud and idiotic practices from the entertainment or sports industries require a massive taxpayer-funded bailout "or else," then I'll be all for regulating them.The financial sector is not a healthy part of the capitalist system. It's more like an out of control tumorous growth. Its growth was fostered by low interest rates and deregulation. How bout we get back to making things in this country? p.s. without the state there would be no financial sector
BJM:Here here. I myself don't begrudge pro athletes or entertainers whatever they are paid. If their paycheck does not bounce, they earned the money IMO. Obama would not have the balls to say these things to the high paid media elites at the WH Correspondents dinner this week. I.E. what does Katie Couric make $15 Million a year. God bless her dumb perky little ass because who is any president to say "enough is enough"?Obama just can't understand that most people earned what they have- he thinks the game is rigged.
Montagne Montaigne: I'm sure Obama, who is socialist and in bed with Goldman Sachs at the same time somehow...Let me help you with that. Before claiming that America doesn't fit the definition of "neo-mercantilist," just consider that the exports we're trying to protect are multi-national corporations and, especially of interest to the Goldman Sachses of the world, our international reserve currency.
(cheating and double dealing by the financial industry) Riiiiight, because the real estate and mortgage industries - which are heavily ahhh, how shall I say...influenced...by the government, who encouraged through legislation the creation of toxic assets upon which the "financial industry" based their derivatives - had such an insignificant part in all of it.
Is anybody stunned that the line about making enough money was an adlib by our genius-in-chief?
A good way to revolt and get back at Obama for these truly revolting and disgusting words is too send these bankers some of your hard earned money, to go along with the hard earned money you already gave them, that they already stole from you. And make a sternly worded sign. I'm angry!
The financial sector is not a healthy part of the capitalist system.That's a pretty stupid statement, even for you. What is the alternative to having a "financial sector" in the capitalist system? How bout we get back to making things in this country? Great. But how do we decide what to make? The financial sector is the mechanism that allocates capital to the industries that "make things". How would you do it? Five-Year Plans for tractor production developed by some Department of Agriculture bureaucrat in DC? That didn't work out real well last time.
By the way, I do agree that at a certain point a person has made enough money. But, I don't think anyone can be trusted to impose this sort of judgment on anyone else. People have tried to make generosity mandated. Turns out it just makes the political class into the ruthlessly greedy ones with all the power and goodies. I mean, I do think at a certain point politicians have enough power.
We're talking about bankers here. They make too much money. The financial sector produces fake wealth. It's led to no real economic progress.Montagne to New York: Drop Dead!But seriously folks, here's another gem from our dear essayist:Drill, baby, drill, by the way! How's that working out?Rather well, thanks.
"The financial sector is not a healthy part of the capitalist system. It's more like an out of control tumorous growth."In that case, if they pack up and move house, it's a good thing, right? "When fraud and idiotic practices from the entertainment or sports industries require a massive taxpayer-funded bailout "or else," then I'll be all for regulating them."We'll ignore, for the moment, just how thoroughly sports and entertainment are regulated to point out...A whole freaking heck of a lot of us opposed the taxpayer-funded bailout of *anyone*. This opposition to bail-outs pretty much spawned the Tea Party movement.Removing the natural consequences for screwing the pooch, however, is not corrected by imposing unnatural consequences. The most likely thing to happen is that the pooch gets screwed twice. We can hope, if we are optimistic, that the second screwing is on the gentle side.And still, none of that changes the essential moral statement made by our President, that there is something unseemly about making too much money.
"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. Those are clearly linked together, that’s the first thing he thought of to say after trying to say it’s not about people making too much money. The rest of the quote doesn’t fix that. Greed and wealth are not the same thing.Exactly! If you start a store, or make a product, or write a book…you may have had a good idea or good business sense and manage to end up with a hell of a lot of money. That doesn’t make you anything you weren’t before when you had nothing.
Individuals have indeed made obscene amounts of money from what does not appear to be efforts "deserving" that kind of compensation - and that includes some government, or semi-government, officials - but I think that is more symptoms that something is wrong with the finacial system Congress has designed and constructed than a cause of the ills.Whenever Obama goes off script, he sounds like a college sophomore, and college sophomores have not changed much in the last 100-150 years. I think this has to do with youth, idealism, and inexperience, which is fine in college sophomores, but is disturbing in a 50-year old who is also President of the United States.This is a bit like a 12-year old out on the street with a loaded shotgun with a hair trigger.
"We don't want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."I don't think its any private person's CORE responsibility to 'help grow the economy'. Leave it to a liberal to define our existance only in reference to the state.
You know what those evil bankers (who happen to give really generously to one particular political party) need?Tax-payer funded bailouts.
"When fraud and idiotic practices from the entertainment or sports industries require a massive taxpayer-funded bailout "or else," then I'll be all for regulating them.""Require"? Bwah ha ha indeed! This thread needed a good laugher."How bout we get back to making things in this country?"Well, other than the stark ignorance this now tired argument shows, why doesn't American labor try to keep from pricing itself out of the market?"p.s. without the state there would be no financial sector"Wow, where to begin on that one.
"...the hard earned money you already gave them, that they already stole from you..."Really? They stole money? I don't think you know what the definition of "steal" is.
"Let me be clear, and I'm not kidding, it's got 9 bathrooms."
"How bout we get back to making things in this country?"That would be sweet for sure. Currently, our best and brightest leave school and head to Wall Street, or into medicine or law. It would be nice to pump out a generation or two of highly skilled engineering types.
Obama is simply using a populist rhetoric, which most everyone thinks or feels about 'the rich'. Including teabaggers. Especially with regards to those on Wall Street who get bonueses after a federal bailout. His sentiment is a sentiment I have heard very often from regular folks. You know when a CEO makes so much more than their workers and then the CEO terminates those workers to 'save' money you expect people to be angry.When Thomas Montag, president of global banking at B of A, received $30 million after the bank received received $45 billion in federal funds then it does make you wonder.
pop quiz:a) do employees of the financial sector donate more to one political party over the other?b) which political party initiated the bailout of wall street?c) how much money did the taxpayer lose from the wall street bailout?Answers:a) it's about even; from 98-08, 55 percent of the political donations went to Republicans and 45 percent to Democrats, primarily reflecting the balance of power over the decade."b) the bailout was initiated under Bush, but you wouldn't know that from the T.E.A. signsc)if the economic recovery continues, the bailout programs may actually make money
GM, weren't the bailouts simply armed robbery?
@garage:A good way to revolt and get back at Obama for these truly revolting and disgusting words is too send these bankers some of your hard earned money ...Well, if they're getting taxpayer-funded bailouts, sure, why not put these guys on the federal payroll? Their salary maxes out at GS-15 around 130K a year. I'm sure these guys would love working 9-5 and getting all the holidays off.I don't how that fixes anything, but sure, why not?These investment houses should have never gotten as big as they did, where they couldn't be liquidated as needed without a massive hit to the economy. Yeah, that requires regulation -- It also requires regulators who aren't at the office watching porn all day.
MM, so, what party voted for the bailouts in the highest percentage? Who got more money, Obama from GS or Bush from Enron?
Bankers are middlemen. They match people with capital and people needing capital.Entertaining Mike Munger podcast on middlemen here.The job is spectacularly productive, even though it just rearranges what already exists.The inability of bankers to explain themselves reaches almost Bush's level of inarticulateness.
Aw, Montagne, bless your heart. So very wrong, though.Also, the bailouts were bipartisan, sweetie. Republican President, Democratic Congress. Remember?
@Montagne:the bailout was initiated under Bush, but you wouldn't know that from the T.E.A. signsThe Tea Party stuff is directed at who is in charge now. I guess you could go picket Bush's home in Crawford, Tx, but I don't think that will do any good.As far as Republicans go: as has been reported, the Republicans who have gone along with the bailouts don't get any slack from Tea Partiers either. What's motivated the Tea Party now is:(1) Federal spending exploding after Obama's inauguration.(2) The inevitability of higher taxes to pay for it all.Anyway, I don't recall the anti-war activists who called for Bush & Cheney to be prosecuted as war criminals a few years back, also calling for Bill Clinton to be tried as a war criminal for bombing Iraq in 1998.
Also, at a certain point (to be decided by Obama and his Czars), you will have eaten enough of your share of food, purchased enough household goods, used enough of your allotment of energy and gasoline and have enough clothing. No one should have more than their allotment, unless you are amongst the elites, who are above being rationed.The amount of medical care you are allowed to have should not exceed a set amount....to be determined by your betters.And you'd better believe that the amounts that you are to be allowed as enough for you will be a constantly moving target.Nice world. Do you want to live in Obama's version of Animal Farm? I certainly don't.
"We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."Wow, sounds just like some lefty self-proclaimed intellectual going on and on about things, that he just knows to be so true.That is a one weird quote, I think I see what he's saying.He wants to decide what financial function is allowed to be used and what isn't. Some people do good things, but others do bad things, he thinks. And we need to stop em! Like this asshole knows anything about it! Hilarious. Are you arguing he isn't a hard lefty? He has already proven to me he doesn't know what fucking insurance does, he is out of his league.But so smart, as lefties say, he is just so smart and thinks and is smart.He heard Rev Wright and Bill Ayers and most certainly agrees with them.His presidential campaign has to have been the most dishonest in US history. You lefties aren't fooling anyone.
"I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."Please Mr. Government, at long last, define this number. How much in a year is rich? And remember, no government employee will be allowed to earn that much from the taxpayers, because we're not going to allow someone to get rich off the public. How much is rich?
If the Tea Partiers had a coherent idea of what they're het up about, they'd be demanding we withdraw immediately and completely from our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places yet unrevealed, given the trillions we've already squandered there so far to no purpose other than destruction and death, and the billions we're continuing to squander there each month.They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money.
And Obama the econo-idiot seems to think that if you make TOO much money, it means that you are taking money AWAY from someone else--rather than creating more wealth and more economic activity.This is one of the fruits of affirmative action--This guy did badly in college, probably never learned any economics, got into Harvard Law on the basis of his skin color, where he did quite well. And so he emerges with the reputation of being an intellectual, but he drugged his way through his undergraduate education and now sort of knows nothing (other than how to play race cards and identity politics).Imagine if you were his roommate at Columbia, and he smoked dope and did blow and got lousy grades and he got into Harvard Law and you had better grades but a white skin and didn't. And imagine how committed Obama would have to be to the "justice" of affirmative action in order to justify to himself such an unfair result. And that would then justify taking anything away from anybody in the name of equality.
It will be a fun-filled news day when Obama's college grades are uncovered and disclosed to the public.
I came to Althouse via Instapundit awhile back and am a 'lurker/reader'. Comments here usually run 5 - 20 range. This post hit big, Titanic iceberg tip (the man is going down)?
Obama needs to talk to Oprah. Surely she has too much money :-)
Robert Cook said"They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money."That is true. They feel exactly the way you do. You want to waste money on the lazy and unproductive members of society who don't want to pull their weight. You know the desperate poor who have $500 sneakers, plasma TV's, I-pods and Escalades.But bombs make a really cool sound when they blow shit up. Just sayn'
It may surprise many of you here, but I agree with Obama on this one.I believe that the US Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank have made enough money, and they should stop making......printing, really.....money.Isn't that what he was saying?
"They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money."Cook, you hit the nail on the head here. Most of us decide what is good or bad based on our personal circumstances. What will happen when the first fiscally conservative candidate suggests means testing for Social Security? Just for the heck of it, suggest it to a few friends who are over fifty and watch for their reactions. It's enlightening.
I love this: A group of tea bagging wing nuts, who just got a tax cut from President Obama...defending the top 1% of the population and the major corporations...because you think all is well with the economy, and these people and companies need to make as much as they can.And as for major corporations like Exxon, not paying a fucking dime in taxes, that's okay, too."Cause it'll ALL eventually "trickle down" to the rest of the population.Duh.
"We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy."Let me help by translating and refining the language for Obama:"We don't want people moving their capital to other countries or refusing to take risks in American investments, we just want to cap their potential return from taking that risk."Actually, I can do better that that:"We don't want our political enemies to stop carrying the burden they currently carry, we just want to lessen their benefits"But I can even make it easier to understand: "I don't want you to stop paying for dinner, I just want you to stop having dinner with us when you pay."Or to make it really clear and easy to understand - the elevator version:"Just fork over your money, jack!"
@Robert Cook:They're really just mad at the government spending money on things they don't agree with, rather than that the government is spending money.That's a liberal argument if I ever heard one. There's no libertarian, or small government conservative, or fiscal responsibility argument here. Such people have no principles, or don't exist.If only those stupid people would let us spend as much as we want on whatever programs we think are best, and shut up, they'd be so happy!
"defending the top 1% of the population and the major corporations"Let me ask ya something genius, maybe I should just ignore the stupidity...but is a corporation like a big box of cereal with nothing but honey bunches of oats inside?Do people work at those corporations? Do they provide you with a computer, electricity, food, clothes? I accept that they do some unethical things...Your alternative is governmental control of the means of production.Tried before, didn't work, but apparently we have to fucking find out again because morons like you elected a thug leftist.Good job jack.
@Jeremy:And as for major corporations like Exxon, not paying a fucking dime in taxes, that's okay, too.No, that's not OK. It's an argument for simplifying the tax code. I think on this issue we're talking past each other.Simplify the tax code, so that multi-nationals will leave their money here in the U.S. and pay taxes on it. Now, they find the lowest tax haven and use every legal means they can to avoid paying taxes here.That may require lowering the corporate income tax rate, but if they're shifting it overseas legally to avoid the taxes, how do you come out ahead?I don't understand, Democrats are in charge, why aren't they taking care of this?
I thought I had enough money for a civilized life. My Banker Aunt insisted one never has enough. I didn't believe her; I'm not greedy. Then Lehman Brothers pushed over a domino.wv:extinga - What happened to my money.
Since he obviously doesn't have the first fucking clue about the subject of his ravings, who wants to be the first to give Ron Jeremy here the Econ. 101 primer about corporations and taxes?
There is no such thing as success fairly earned. There is no fair. There is no such thing as enough money either.Socialists only think like that.
"Corporations are not evil but they are not perfect entities either. Government is not evil but it is not perfect either."In the ten year period between 1999 and 2009, nearly half of the companies of the Fortune 500 had fallen off that list. Businesses that cease to self correct will not be around very long. On the other hand, there's Government, which has no incentive to self correct whatsoever. Yesterday's mistakes don't have them go out of business. The cost of those mistakes are passed on to the taxpayers, and when that isn't enough money to get by, they print more money. Both bad? Then I'll bet on the one that can create wealth. The Government does not create wealth.
Jeremy: What is the tax cut you refer to ? Are you talking about those crappy tiny checks that got sent out last year or are you talking about a cut in tax rates? Or do you know?
When I get to that point I'll stop trying to make it. Meanwhile butt out.
A beast unleashed, my email is flooded with comments. May I dream or die trying, may I make money to my hearts content. Who are YOU to tell me otherwise? You not seek to make money, do so to your hearts content; leave my heart alone.
Obama thinks he can buy us off with a $250 check.
eve said...Are you talking about those crappy tiny checks that got sent out last year.I recall Bush sent out crappy little checks and you probably didn't complain about those. I also know Obama changed the Pub. 15 Federal deduction for those making less than 100k or so - and I'm sure you spent that.If you are talking about the Marginal Tax codes you should know Obama has proposed 39.6%, which is lower than the avg. it was under Reagan.
Montagne Montaigne said...Drill, baby, drill, by the way! How's that working out?It's working out just fine you human shit stain. There are hundreds of wells out on the open ocean pumping and drilling. Fuck off.
MethadrasWell I see you and Obama both like to drill. Nice to see you agree with out president. Now, maybe do what any thriving entrepreneur should do and consider investing in alternative fuels and different ways of transit because we won't have oil forever.
And he knows that he has not nearly reached that point.I would love to see the audit on Obama's doubled book royalties this past year. I would ask two questions: (1) Was there any change in the royalty rate? (2) Was there any person or organization buying the books in quantities who might want to curry favor with Obama.Now it's entirely possible--perhaps even likely--that there was a great surge in sales of his books in 2009. But given the potential for abuse, doncha think some news organization should ask these questions?
Matt: I was responding to Jeremy who seems to think that there have been some enormous tax cuts under Obama. Crappy little checks sent out by any administration are not "tax breaks" You go on to say "I also know Obama changed the Pub. 15 Federal deduction for those making less than 100k or so - and I'm sure you spent that." Actually I didn't spend it since I didn't get it because I make considerably more than 100K as I hope you do also. Finally, you aver that "you should know Obama has proposed 39.6%, which is lower than the avg. it was under Reagan" This is a non sequitur of some sort but certainly gibberish since you seem a top rate with an average which, of course, is not possible.
Nah, he's not a socialist. What would make you think that?
Oprah. NBA players. MLB players. NFL players. Actors. Directors. Studio moguls. They make big dough, but are never demonized. Why do you suppose that is?Or have they now made enough?
Step back and look at the big picture. Obama is preaching to the choir, his base, all the while thinking that enough voters believe that someone can make too much money.Some people believe that because they do not have a large descresionary income no one else should be so entitled. Envy is an ugly emotion.Gores Pied-a-terre in the hills was purchased at a modest price for the area. A small lot and the lack of a white water view equals a modest abode. If you want ocean front plan on spending at least $20,000,000. With nine bathrooms he probably has bowel problems or Tipper plans to entertain alot.
If Gore was preaching that everyone should build and work to have what he has I doubt that many would care at all that he owns several nice homes or that endangered sea bass (legally harvested) were served at his kid's wedding.No one cared much that McCain, through his wife, has multiple spacious homes, even though it was brought up as an attack on him (was it the Obama campaign that was highlighting that?) because McCain, unlike Gore, hasn't been scolding the rest of us to make do with less in order to save the planet.
I'm with those who think the only appropriate response to this latest idiocy requires curse words.Fuck you, Barack Obama. Fuck you and damn you to hell. Whatever remaining shreds of respect I had for you have blown away like a fart in a hurricane. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you worthless, un-American leech.
Oh, and Jeremy? Fuck you too, even harder than Obama.
@matt re: "we won't have oil forever".. maybe you are too young to remember, but we were told that, without a doubt, we would be completely out of oil before the end of the 1970's. guess all that stuff being pumped out of the ground for the last 40 years has been gravy..or maybe you just can't always believe the hype.
What did Gore do to earn his millions?That's right, nothing. In lefty speak that's "unearned income".No physical labor was used in the producing of Al's money.So he doesn't deserve to have it. I want it, now.
@Matt:...and both are really out of our control. We have to live with both. We can. We do.Sorry that my response will lack nuance, but of the two, who has the guns? Who will send armed agents to my home should I decide not to pay them?And that's why I'm deeply concerned that the leader of the group with the guns is openly musing about limits on what I may own or earn.
And Obama the econo-idiot seems to think that if you make TOO much money, it means that you are taking money AWAY from someone else--rather than creating more wealth and more economic activity.This is one of the fruits of affirmative action.Yes, the Diversity Hire thinks Economics is a zero-sum game.
Post a Comment