Obama said...

[sag38]

I watched the speech and it was no joke. The man was serious. There's no defending what he said. Now, if he personally determined that a set amount was enough and gave the rest away then I might respect him for sticking to his misguided communistic leanings. However, he's not doing that. He is a hypocrite.

 

[Crucified in Christ]

...while spending our money like a drunken sailor.

I am not the first to point out that this is, quite frankly, an insult to drunken sailors...at least they are spending their own money.

 

[targus]

I am not the first to point out that this is, quite frankly, an insult to drunken sailors...at least they are spending their own money.

Point taken.

My bad. :tear:

 

[NiteShift]

I am not sure, but the quote may be taken out of context. I do not know what the context was, but such a statement could easily be twisted.

Does a person ever have enough money? Enough in what way? Let's say a person has enough money that they will never have to worry about running out during their lifetime. Would that be enough?

Some years ago I was offered a job with a huge increase in salary over what I was earning. However, the new job would have meant I would be very limited in time for anything other than work.

I decided that for me, time was more important than additional money and I turned down the job.

Each of us has a limited amount of time. Time cannot be earned. Time cannot be set aside for a future date. To me the quality of my time left is more important than money.

How about you?

Having enough to pay the bills, and take a vacation now and then is enough. More time with the wife or family is better than more money.

 

[targus]

Having enough to pay the bills, and take a vacation now and then is enough. More time with the wife or family is better than more money.

And if you could make more money at your present job without putting in more hours - would you take it?

Or do you have enough money to turn down a raise?

Obama went off the prepared teleprompter script and stepped into it again by showing his true beliefs.

Namely that businesses should not be allowed to make money - they should exist only to give people jobs and to pay taxes.

 

[Revmitchell]

And if you could make more money at your present job without putting in more hours - would you take it?

Or do you have enough money to turn down a raise?

Obama went off the prepared teleprompter script and stepped into it again by showing his true beliefs.

Namely that businesses should not be allowed to make money - they should exist only to give people jobs and to pay taxes.

Yea you better believe he thinks any excess money should go to the government.

 

[Crucified in Christ]

Having enough to pay the bills, and take a vacation now and then is enough. More time with the wife or family is better than more money.

I think that it is great that these are your values, but I am worried that you are missing the point.

You have set a standard that you feel is enough, but is it right for the Government to impose a different standard on you. For instance, you stated that you want enough to pay your bills, but which ones? As a matter of principle, does the Government have the right to tell you how much you can pay in bills? Perhaps you have too nice a cable package or you spend too much on long-distance phone calls. Maybe you do not need to use your air conditioner as often as you do. Does the government have the right to insist that you no longer can spend this "excess" money because they can spend it more fairly. Also, how can you justify taking a vacation? Isn't this excessive when so many poor people out there never get to take any vacations at all? Does the Government have the right to tell you that you clearly have too much money if you are able to spend it on these luxuries?

I will prefer to keep the freedom to decide as much of my own spending as possible. I have always disliked the hypocrisy of politicians who want to be generous with my money, while proving themselves to be quite stingy with their own (i.e. studies that show just how little most politicians give of their own personal money to charity).

 

[Eric B]

How could Obama possibly believe that there is a "limited amount of money" while spending our money like a drunken sailor.

He has spent and is planning on spending more money than we can ever possibly hope to repay.

Maybe so, but apparently, the financial industry is poised to damage the economy a lot more than a little govt. overspending.

Also, to further clarify "making enough money", if industries are already making their leaders millions, and yet it's still not enough to them, and they still want more, to the point that they are willing to take any underhanded means necessary to get more; then I would say they already had enough, because now they're going beyond what was actually earned. This is what it seems Obama was getting at. Not money fairly earned.

 

[Alcott]

Democrats are known for having their Hollywood fundraisers, like $50,000 a plate attended by Steve Spielberg, Whoopie Goldbert, Barbra Streisand, et al. If he attends one of these, I hope this statement is brought up. Yet if so, we, the public, probably won't hear about it, as a lot of clout among these filthy rich can keep their activities out of the press.

 

[targus]

Maybe so, but apparently, the financial industry is poised to damage the economy a lot more than a little govt. overspending.

If the government had simply allowed the market to sort it out there would have been no need to bail them out with our money.

If any financial institution had failed it would have been a natural consequence of their own decisions.

Instead they have been rewarded for bad decisions and have no reason not to continue making them.

Also, to further clarify "making enough money", if industries are already making their leaders millions, and yet it's still not enough to them, and they still want more, to the point that they are willing to take any underhanded means necessary to get more; then I would say they already had enough, because now they're going beyond what was actually earned. This is what it seems Obama was getting at. Not money fairly earned.

The problem was all the governments making. The government loosened regulations on the financial institutions - thus allowing them to make poor investments and take on higher risk - while still keeping the Federal guarantee in place on bank accounts.

The higher risk investments paid off in the beginning so account holders started demanding a higher return on their money saved in the banks - by voting with their feet - by taking their money to banks that paid a higher return.

In order to keep their account holders banks took even greater risks in order to pay the higher returns to their account holders.

All that continued to escalate until it all fell apart.

The mess was the government's making.

And they are not going to make it better - they will make it worse - by over regulating in a mistaken attempt to take all risk out of investing.

No risk equals no return on investment. It's pretty basic economics - something which the government apparently doesn't get.

 

[saturneptune]

Well, since Obama made more than 5 milllion last yr, I say 2.65 million is enough to make in one yr.. and propose a bill that anything made over 2.65 million be given to the tinytim makeover charity!

Technology can only do so much.

 

[Winman]

I don't know about you folks, but I have never had a poor person give me a job. The company I work for is owned by a lady who could hire Donald Trump as a butler. But you know what? I have a good job because of her.

Obama is a socialist, a marxist.

Speaking of dumb things he says, last week he said that whether we like it or not America is a superpower. Unbelieveable. I think he would prefer we were a third world nation.

 

[Cutter]

I don't know about you folks, but I have never had a poor person give me a job. The company I work for is owned by a lady who could hire Donald Trump as a butler. But you know what? I have a good job because of her.

Obama is a socialist, a marxist.

Speaking of dumb things he says, last week he said that whether we like it or not America is a superpower. Unbelieveable. I think he would prefer we were a third world nation.

Good points and good post! :thumbs:

 

[NiteShift]

I think that it is great that these are your values, but I am worried that you are missing the point.

You have set a standard that you feel is enough, but is it right for the Government to impose a different standard on you. For instance, you stated that you want enough to pay your bills, but which ones? As a matter of principle, does the Government have the right to tell you how much you can pay in bills? Perhaps you have too nice a cable package or you spend too much on long-distance phone calls. Maybe you do not need to use your air conditioner as often as you do. Does the government have the right to insist that you no longer can spend this "excess" money because they can spend it more fairly. Also, how can you justify taking a vacation? Isn't this excessive when so many poor people out there never get to take any vacations at all? Does the Government have the right to tell you that you clearly have too much money if you are able to spend it on these luxuries?

I will prefer to keep the freedom to decide as much of my own spending as possible. I have always disliked the hypocrisy of politicians who want to be generous with my money, while proving themselves to be quite stingy with their own (i.e. studies that show just how little most politicians give of their own personal money to charity).

No, Crabby asked how we felt personally about how much is enough, and I responded to that. I don't like to take a whack at him with every comment.

Absolutely the government has no business telling people how much is enough. Even though for us here it wouldn't make a whit of difference, since we'd all probably fall well below the threshold no matter how they reckoned it. It's the principle of the thing

 

[Gold Dragon]

Context of the quote.

We had a system where some on Wall Street could take these risks without fear of failure, because they keep the profits when it was working, and as soon as it went south, they expected you to cover their losses. So it was one of those heads, they tail — tails, you lose.

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.

Link

 

[Crabtownboy]

Context of the quote.

Gold, thanks for the quote. In the paragraph where the 'infamous words' appear it says:

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.

I think anyone who reads the paragraph can see the critics have lifted one sentence and criticize that as the entire thought. As I commented in my first post it may have been taken out of context. To me that is exactly what his critics have done. There is nothing in the quote about limiting a person's income and the government taking the rest. Why did not his critics also quote:

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 becomes obvious ... as it has in other posts that there are those who hate him and will find any reason, legimate or illegitimate reason, to damn him. I know it is too much to ask fairness.

 

[targus]

"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."

IOW - Obama is not pushing financial reform because he begrudges success that is fairly earned but at some point companies make enough money. Because after all in Obama's mind the purpose of business is to grow the economy not to make a profit.

He is saying that financial reform should limit a companies profits to what Obama considers to be "enough".

 

[Crabtownboy]

"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."

IOW - Obama is not pushing financial reform because he begrudges success that is fairly earned but at some point companies make enough money. Because after all in Obama's mind the purpose of business is to grow the economy not to make a profit.

You cannot grow the economy without making a profit! Than are hand and glove.

He is saying that financial reform should limit a companies profits to what Obama considers to be "enough".

Your biased take. No where in the quote does he talk about company profits being limited, at least not as long as they are made fairly. Do you believe the big banks were being fair in the packaging bad debts along with good debts and selling them as derivatives ... good debts?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your biased take. No where in the quote does he talk about company profits being limited, at least not as long as they are made fairly. Do you believe the big banks were being fair in the packaging bad debts along with good debts and selling them as derivatives ... good debts?

Those who lift a line out of context to spin what someone says are guilty of lying. What a shame to see Christians engaging in this. Criticize the President, but twisting his words to mean something entirely different than what he was saying is nothing but spreading lies.

 

[Cutter]

It becomes obvious ... as it has in other posts that there are those who hate him and will find any reason, legimate or illegitimate reason, to damn him. I know it is too much to ask fairness.

Thanks a lot Crabby. These arguments about Obama always seem to come to this. If you disagree with Obama's policies...you hate him. If you believe he is taking the country in the wrong direction...you hate him. If you point out his marxist views...you hate him. There is nothing no one is supposed to say, think, or disagree with Obama about. If so, you are a hater. And the sad thing about it is, sometimes we see it working. Intimidation is a powerful force. People do not want to viewed as a hater or racist since that is what they are accused of, so they back off. Well guess what Mister, many are getting tired of this accusation and are fighting back. Until all races can be treated equally, in praise and in protest we will never make any progress in race relations. See this equal and color blind society that we are trying to build in America is a double edged sword. If you want all of the benefits of being judged by the content of your character and not the color of your skin, then you have to be willing to take your lumps just like every other ethnic group and race. Until the black race can accept opposition without playing either the victim or race card they will continue to be viewed as irresponsible and unaccountable. :tear: