Obama: ”…at a certain point you've made enough money.”

[stevea]

So why the hell aren't you yelling at Bob Baylock. Bob basically cherry picked the quote out of an entire speech and made it seem like he was a communist. Given the actual context it was more like Obama wondering what the hell do you do with that much money. Its the exactly the same idiocy that you are whining about. And given the fact that this isn't the first time Bob has utilized really dumb debating tactics it isn't even close to being unreasonable to question him.

No - it's not the same at all. You obviously don't understand. First, my point was a meta-argument about this forum. It had nothing to do with the content of the argument. There is no point in attempting a content discussion with ppl who have no intention of posing substantive rebuttal and instead use the most moronic obfuscation and pointless unsubstantiated denial as arguments; "is not", "is too", betcha he lied", "bet his source was partisan", "bet there is no context" garbage that fills this forum & specifically this thread.

--

On the content of the argument ....

Having read the president's side at ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-wall-street-reform-quincy-illinois
my interpretation is that with full context the president's statement is even more obnoxious to anyone who believes in free market economics than the isolated quote.

The immediate statements surrounding the quote can be interpreted as ...
''I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, BUT [...] you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product/service.'' Where "good" in later paragraphs means "doing things the right way" and "fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy". No such responsibility exists in the free market, nor does our federal government have any legitimate powers to direct the the private economy. Since when is the chief executive in charge of the economy or of conditions for private salaries ? He reinforces his "Emperor Obama" image by making such extensive claims to power while frequently using the royal "we". Consider the obverse statement - that he will limit your income if you don't follow his new rules or don't make it your responsibility to grow the economy as the federal government insists. It suggests a centrally planned economy.

The populist rhetoric of the speech has a substantial number of clear errors in fact and in logic. Despite his claim, obviously "Wall Street" could not have anticipated the bailout. He claims the bailout of investment banks was required, when obviously it was not. [I and many believe the outcome would be far better in bankruptcy court. Even Bernanke has implied as much]. So the public was never "on the hook" as he repeatedly states. He & Bush purposefully put the government on the hook. They forced TARP funds on some institutions, then used the taking of these funds as an argument for extraordinary controls. This isn't far different from Tony Soprano tactic. There were no "loopholes" wrt derivative trading. The most egregious claim is ... " It also happened because there were a lot of decisions by folks out on Main Street who were taking out mortgages they didn’t understand, credit cards they didn’t understand, [...] But millions of others were deceived or misled by shifting terms and confusing conditions and forests of fine print".

What a stunningly huge LIE ! What a massive claim for government intrusion on our lives ! Now the Federal government will prevent citizens from making what they consider bad decisions !!! For several centuries now, tort law has required a "meeting of the minds", that is there must be a common understanding by BOTH parties about the contract. Your bank doesn't have a valid contract if they deceive you - period - end-of-story. Any court in the land will adjudicate the contract favorably in such a case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds

No - these ppl were not deceived, they knowingly signed contracts obligating them to make payments with associated risk of default. These ppl were short sighted and miscalculated the risk. They were house-flippers betting that housing prices would never drop, and buyer/refinancers who wanted the big house or extra cash but had no intention of making the payments. I don't blame them but they took crazy risks I would never take, and I feel no obligation to help them out, nor to make the stupid lenders whole either.

Protecting poor-little-you from the big-bad-banker is just fairy-tale populist drivel meant to gain support for a paternalistic intrusive government. If YOU sign contracts you don't understand then YOU should be declared incompetent by a court to prevent you from making further contracts. I don't need it. The people in my life are adults and they don't need it either. It sounds more like a strawman argument appealing to the paternalism of the Left.

I have no idea what sort of added Investment Banking transparency the President wants in his three point reform plan, it's the only part I find potentially supportable. Financial instruments have special treatment under tort law, that may require revision. It WON'T prevent bubbles, and it WON'T prevent stupid people acting stupidly. It has nothing to do with individual incomes. All baloney populist arguments.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

What about Blackwater? Haliburton? The United Fruit Company? The East India Tea Company? Exxon Mobile? Debeers? Almost every company which comprises the American corn lobby? Businesses involved in the slave trade (molasses, cotton, etc)? The privatized prison industry? These are all companies which used their wealth to obtain power that made them extremely influential in the policies of nations which then allowed them to affect public policy for the worse which have had wide spread implications and in some cases resulted in the exploitation and suffering of people on an extremely massive scale.

This isn't me arguing making money is inherently evil, or that large corporations are inherently evil, just like I don't think being in politics is inherently evil. But it's simply naive to make it seem like businesses have little dangerous influence over the policies governments enact and maintain that then affects populations on a wide scale.


You mention Bill Gates and says he doesn't threaten you and act like that proves something about companies not being dangerous? Well I'm not threatened by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, I guess by your logic, that means that governments aren't dangerous.

For that matter, just because a company doesn't threaten you doesn't mean they don't threaten anyone.

Maybe if you were an Amazonian tribesman who was pushed off their land to make way for a cattle ranch for an American conglomerate, or a 9 year old working in a diamond mine, or a 13 year old who committed a minor crime who was then raped in a private prison because your judge Michael Conahan received kick backs to send as many kids to prison as possible even for minor offenses, you'd think differently.

 

[DavidJames]

Protecting poor-little-you from the big-bad-banker is just fairy-tale populist drivel meant to gain support for a paternalistic intrusive government. If YOU sign contracts you don't understand then YOU should be declared incompetent by a court to prevent you from making further contracts. I don't need it. The people in my life are adults and they don't need it either. It sounds more like a strawman argument appealing to the paternalism of the Left.

I'm guessing you're way to intelligent to recognize the oozing irony contained within this quote.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I guess the what Obama says takes the idea that one can never be too successful to heart... literally. I might be okay with if it were about punishing people who deserve to be penalized, but then, when it comes to the taxation of the rich, and determining where responsibility lies, surprise surprise, no such distinction.

Next thing you know maybe someone will suggest getting rid of the rich all together since they're all apparently scumbags...

*Part of me also wants to say he made that comment intentionally in a part satirize the people who don't like his policies... political ideology is often the subject of this sort of stuff.

 

[rwguinn]

"I've made enough money/to buy Miami/but I pissed it away so fast/ Never meant to last...' Jimmy Buffett

 

[Iamme]

Who is the government?

The ones that get money from us without us being able to tell them what they should get. The ones in actual power who can tell YOU what top do, and not you tell THEM what to do. The bottom line is it is not you. The notion we the people are the gov't is a bunch of poppycock. Can you imagine standing before a judge and telling the judge, "Now let me tell YOU something, mister!". Ha! ROGLMAO. See where THAT gets you, once.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Hey, bud, how's tings up there in Eau Claire and surrounds? Some day I'll tell ya about me and a judge.

 

[Piggy]

The ones that get money from us without us being able to tell them what they should get. The ones in actual power who can tell YOU what top do, and not you tell THEM what to do. The bottom line is it is not you. The notion we the people are the gov't is a bunch of poppycock. Can you imagine standing before a judge and telling the judge, "Now let me tell YOU something, mister!". Ha! ROGLMAO. See where THAT gets you, once.

On the contrary....

The gov't are the people we elect, and the people who are appointed by the people we elect.

We elect these folks to make and enforce laws because it's the only way to manage a large society.

And if anything, our problem at the moment seems to be too much willingness on the part of our elected officials to not do their job -- that is, use their experience and expertise to make necessary decisions -- but instead to defer to popular opinion.

Wanna know why the administration and Congress are hammering the execs so hard in the companies who got TARP funds? Because of popular outrage.

And then we get the kind of nonsense we're seeing on this thread. The President makes a crack about "at some point you've made enough money" in one speech, and there are folks who will point to this and insist that we're about to see some sort of command-economy restrictions on pay in general.

Pure idiocy.

 

[yaaarrrgg]

There are pros and cons. The consolidation of wealth is the consolidation of power. This isn't inherently bad, as a "just" person person with unlimited power isn't necessarily dangerous. They might do a lot of good actually. But for example, as Plato noted the best and worst systems can result from a central point of authority. Spreading this authority thinner reduces the likelihood of catastrophic failure, but also limits the maximum potential of the system.

 

[marplots]

“We're not, 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.”

—Comrade Barak Obama—​

What is controversial about that statement?​

 

[Snide]

What is controversial about that statement?

Because you can read a lot into what it means to say "you've made enough money."

The Obama bashers will interpret it as saying, "You've made enough money; therefore, anything you make beyond that should be taken by the government or simply disallowed."

More reasonable people take it to mean something less harsh - something perhaps along the lines of, "You've made enough money that you shouldn't worry about Bush's small, temporary tax cuts for the top margin expiring."

 

[marplots]

Because you can read a lot into what it means to say "you've made enough money."

The Obama bashers will interpret it as saying, "You've made enough money; therefore, anything you make beyond that should be taken by the government or simply disallowed."

More reasonable people take it to mean something less harsh - something perhaps along the lines of, "You've made enough money that you shouldn't worry about Bush's small, temporary tax cuts for the top margin expiring."

I think you've hit the nail on the head. What he said, literally, isn't controversial, but what people read it to mean (based on how they view his character) is where the passion arises. I take it to mean there exists an 'enough', short of infinity, for the category 'money'.