Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fundamental lesson of Capitalism 101: Governments and bureaucrats don’t make what people want and need. They only get in the way. It is individuals, cooperating peacefully and voluntarily, working together without mandate or central design, who produce the world’s goods and services. They make what people desire and demand for themselves, not what Obama and his imperial overlords ordain that the masses should have.
As usual, Obama’s populist demagoguery is telling in its omissions and selectivity. While he lectures on the morality of salary caps for everyone else, his own cabinet is filled with fabulously wealthy CEOs and statist creatures who have parlayed government employment (a “good” service) into private gain as lobbyists, consultants and advisers (“core responsibilities of the financial system”) and then back again to public stints. Revolving doors have always grown the Beltway economy.
To wit: Austan Goolsbee, head of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, is the 15th wealthiest member of the Obama administration, with assets valued at between $1,146,000 to $2,715,000. He also pulled in a University of Chicago salary of $465,000 and additional wages and honorarium worth $93,000, according to the Washingtonian magazine.
What “good” did he provide? The government research fellow and Obama campaign adviser was a champion of extending credit to the un-creditworthy. In a 2007 op-ed for The New York Times, he derided those who called subprime mortgages “irresponsible.” He preferred to describe them as “innovations in the mortgage market” to expand the pool of home buyers. Now this wrong-headed academic who espoused government policies that fed the housing feeding frenzy is in charge of fixing the loose-credit mess he advocated. This is the “American way”?
He is talking about wage caps for private companies.
It is very on topic. Especially when it shows the double standard, that is the law of the Progressive movement, Obama has chosen to take.
and so dies an excellent topic because the liberals couldn't prove us wrong.
to recap:
"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. 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."
doesn't matter how you read it, "out of context" does not apply because when you have the whole statement, it still means the same thing. "i do think at a certain point you've made enough money." His next sentence does not qualify or clarify his preceding statement, nor does it say "under certain conditions i do think at a certain point you've made enough money" It means exactly what it says"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." he does not agree with this statement. he uses it as a reason why america does not agree with his statement "i do think at a certain point you've made enough money"
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.
I’ve said this before. I’ve said this on Wall Street just last week. I believe in the power of the free market. And I believe in a strong financial system. And when it’s working right, financial institutions, they help make possible families buying homes, and businesses growing, and new ideas taking flight. An entrepreneur may have a great idea, but he may need to borrow some money to make it happen. It would be hard for a lot of us to buy a house -- our first house, at least, if we weren’t able to take out a mortgage.
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. ...
can you give me an explanation of how that proves me wrong please?
i can extrapolate a number of things from that statement. obama is participating in one of those "heads, they tail -- tails, you lose." schemes, its called cap and trade. i'll point you in the direction of this link:
our own city data members spell it out there. so Obama saying "i do think at a certain point you've made enough money" is hypocracy when you give that example that you emboldened in your quote.
can you give me an explanation of how that proves me wrong please?
When he said "you've made enough money" he was speaking about the first sentence in my previous post: "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 he was talking about the risks they take on Wall Street and they privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
When he said "you've made enough money" he was speaking about the first sentence in my previous post: "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 he was talking about the risks they take on Wall Street and they privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
ok, so you're saying he meant only to wall street tycoons: "at a certain point you've made enough money."
so now the question is "where does Obama draw the line?" how much is too much?
Beck today on his show listed several constituents of Obama and how much they earn. the link i provided earlier shows that Obama's constituents are tied up in wall street. Goldman Sachs to be more specific. so his claim for anyone ""at a certain point you've made enough money." is hypocritical.
and he certainly doesn't turn down that presidential pay.
Last edited by Orincarnia; 05-03-2010 at 11:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have a nice day. 
