"...at a certain point you have made enough money."

[Butthead]

yeah, no socialist here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/28/obama_to_wall_street_i_do_think_at_a_certain_point _youve_made_enough_money.html

[magnetnerd]

Disturbing...

[KTM Rider]

If someone else defined that point and informed Obama his income was above the defined amount do you think he would happily accept his own logic?

[wallypiper]

Bill Gates made enough money. Then he gave, through 2007, about $28 billion to charity. Warren Buffet made enough and gave $31 billion to Bill Gates's foundation. Most people, once they've made enough, find ways to give some of it away to do some good in the world. Those two are the mega givers but many more are in the millions category. That's one of the freedoms that makes America such a great country - each individual gets to decide what enough is for the themselves. Hopefully, Obama and his disciples won't be able to do too much damage to that before we get rid of them.

[Spicoli]

Unreal.

[jlcnuke]

I completely ignore everything that comes in a 30 second sound bite out of a large speech. One sentence with little to no context is not the way to determine someone's agenda or actual thoughts though. For instance I could quote Butthead as having posted

socialist here.
and be completely in the right. He did post that. I'm just leaving out the context of everything else he said...

Not saying I like or agree with the plans or agenda of the POTUS (and specifically regarding "financial reform" I don't by a long shot for the most part) but random clips don't tell a story or report the facts; they tell propaganda for the one's using them.

[impalanar]

I completely ignore everything that comes in a 30 second sound bite out of a large speech. One sentence with little to no context is not the way to determine someone's agenda or actual thoughts though. For instance I could quote Butthead as having posted

and be completely in the right. He did post that. I'm just leaving out the context of everything else he said...

Not saying I like or agree with the plans or agenda of the POTUS (and specifically regarding "financial reform" I don't by a long shot for the most part) but random clips don't tell a story or report the facts; they tell propaganda for the one's using them.


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.

I agree, at a certain point you have made enough money. But only you can make that determination, not the President, not Congress, not the masses, you and you alone.

[KTM Rider]

Valid point however it wouldnt be news if it were completely out of context or untrue. Since it is believable that Obama said that is why it is news. I didnt fact check the story but I have no doubts he said it in the context people here have understood it to have been said in.

[jlcnuke]

Valid point however it wouldnt be news if it were completely out of context or untrue. Since it is believable that Obama said that is why it is news. I didnt fact check the story but I have no doubts he said it in the context people here have understood it to have been said in.

he did say it. The link includes a 30 second clip with some random babble then those words in the final sentence before they ended the clip. The full paragraph from that speech reads:

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.

A lot of that was ad-lib as the original text of the speech (tele-prompter/pre-distributed) was a bit different:

Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

Neither seems to imply that one sentence that is being quoted is what he was attempting to refer to though his redistribution of wealth side seems to have bubbled out in his ad-lib. Of course it took a lot longer to find the entire paragraph (still haven't found full script of the speech) than to find the sensationalized sentence plastered all over blogs with no context (aka Buttheads "socialist here" was all over google search but no mention of the context).

Not happy with his speech overall or with his "reforms" etc but that doesn't mean I'm willing to accept propaganda and out of context information to use as a source of making decisions or trying to understand policy. I am one of the few people left in the country that don't hate bankers and large companies or begrudge them success or bonuses.

[Spicoli]

I completely ignore everything that comes in a 30 second sound bite out of a large speech. One sentence with little to no context is not the way to determine someone's agenda or actual thoughts though. For instance I could quote Butthead as having posted

and be completely in the right. He did post that. I'm just leaving out the context of everything else he said...

Not saying I like or agree with the plans or agenda of the POTUS (and specifically regarding "financial reform" I don't by a long shot for the most part) but random clips don't tell a story or report the facts; they tell propaganda for the one's using them.

True, but how much more do you need to hear? This adminstration and Pelosi etc. are anti free market capitalists.

[winmutt]

I don't specifically agree with that statement but when you apply it to Goldman Sacs I think its quite appropriate. Betting against your own clients and all....

[winmutt]

True, but how much more do you need to hear? This adminstration and Pelosi etc. are anti free market capitalists.
So you support NAFTA?

[Butthead]

yes. one of the only productive things done by slick willy.


So you support NAFTA?

[jlcnuke]

True, but how much more do you need to hear? This adminstration and Pelosi etc. are anti free market capitalists.

I actually don't completely agree with the second sentence. I agree they are pro-redistribution of wealth and borderline socialists but I think most of that is tempered by their love of making money (none of them are even close to "middle class" after all). I think a lot of the anti-Big Business and anti-Bank rhetoric and "measures/reforms" are more vote grabs of little to no substance until I see proof otherwise. The high level businessmen/bankers etc and the high level politicians know each other, are often friends and/or have mutual friends. Those are the guys who pay for politicians to come work for them or pay for their lectures after the political career.

Obama's little "ad-lib" "mistake" upsets the people making good money and those of us trying to make a good living based off our education and hard work. It upsets those of us that have large ambitions or drive and would someday like to be making the kinds of money that those bankers and CEO's make. It doesn't upset the majority that still cry about the pittance of a % of profits that gets paid in bonuses to those guys though. It makes them cheer him on. People are jealous of their financial success and feel there is no way they deserve that kind of money. News stations on both sides have been critical of them, Congress is "investigating" them and now the president in a round about way says they make too much money. I don't think that's going to hurt his poll numbers. I also don't think that Washington is going to do anything substantial against them though.

[winmutt]

yes. one of the only productive things done by slick willy.

And spicoli do you?

[Spicoli]

And spicoli do you?

I'm split on NAFTA. It's a free market, but it has shipped some jobs out which was an expected by product. It's done some good, some bad.

How is NAFTA related to the president stating there is a certain amount when someone makes too much money.

[winmutt]

I'm split on NAFTA. It's a free market, but it has shipped some jobs out which was an expected by product. It's done some good, some bad.

How is NAFTA related to the president stating there is a certain amount when someone makes too much money.
Your labeling :


This adminstration and Pelosi etc. are anti free market capitalists.

Sounds like you're one too? To me a totally free market is not a good thing, neither is communism. I think limited free market capitalist might be a better way to put it.

As far as gates and buffet, how many families did they make poor in the process of making themselves rich, only so that they could give donations in the end. I mean its not a government issue as much as a personal philosophy. Rarely can you get that kind of rich without screwing over a whole lot of people to get there, when you do get there and give money away like that I am pretty sure its a guilty conscience telling you to do so. I don't think its good for ANYBODY to be that kind of rich, I also certainly don't believe its any of the gubments business. Greed, last time I checked, was still a sin. You'd have a hard time convincing me people that rich aren't greedy. Wall Street CERTAINLY is.

[Spicoli]

Saw that coming a mile away. I said its done good and bad. That doesn't mean I don't believe in open markets. Nice stretch.

[TWI]

A lot of that was ad-lib as the original text of the speech (tele-prompter/pre-distributed) was a bit different:

Neither seems to imply that one sentence that is being quoted is what he was attempting to refer to though his redistribution of wealth side seems to have bubbled out in his ad-lib.

Not happy with his speech overall or with his "reforms" etc but that doesn't mean I'm willing to accept propaganda and out of context information to use as a source of making decisions or trying to understand policy.

The fact that it was his "ad lib" makes it that much more disturbing, as this is what he really thinks and not what his handlers clear him to say.

Interesting times. Wait until he comes after the rest of us.

[Jector]

To me a totally free market is not a good thing, neither is communism. I think limited free market capitalist might be a better way to put it.


That's where most of us sit here from what I can gather.

The government should be in the business of: 1. Protection of our citizens from physical and financial hardship caused by negligence or malicious intent. 2: Providing basic infrastructure services such as roadways, preserves, sanitation.

The market should be as free as possible with oversight and severe repercussions for abusing the privilege of having a business.

[Hammerhead]

Greed, last time I checked, was still a sin.

Aren't you an atheist?

[Jector]

Doesn't make it any less of a sin.

[Hammerhead]

Doesn't make it any less of a sin.

Well, I can assure you that every one of us on this board are sinners then.

[Jector]

There is a difference between desire and greed measured in the lengths one will go to in order to attain that which one wants.

[Hammerhead]

Everyone's greedy to certain extent. Period.

[Jector]

I don't have any real problem with greed as an emotion, only actions taken in it's name.

[Hammerhead]

I don't have any real problem with greed as an emotion, only actions taken in it's name.

What actions would those be?

[Jector]

Basically, anything that bring hardship on others for one's greed is what I find distasteful.

[derhntr76]

Everyone's greedy to certain extent. Period.

Somewhere I think there is confusion between greed and ambition. I firmly believe most of us are ambitious rather than greedy.

[Jector]

Same thing as desire.

[Hammerhead]

But everyone is greedy to a certain extent.

[Jector]

Whatever floats your boat, man.

[Hammerhead]

Whatever floats your boat, man.

If I came to your house this weekend & asked to use your bike for a couple of days, would you let me have it?

[Jector]

Would depend on how you presented yourself and if I had plans for it.

[jlcnuke]

Basically, anything that bring hardship on others for one's greed is what I find distasteful.

Every person that is currently employed in a field where others are looking for work is taking a job others could have thereby contributing to others hardships.

[wallypiper]

Everyone's greedy to certain extent. Period.

And everyone is a sinner. Pointless discussion.

To me, greed is:

1) Accumulation for accumulation's sake.
2) Claiming or controlling more than you need of a scarce resource when others around you are clearly suffering for lack of the same resource. I don't consider money or wealth to be a resource in and of itself, but it can certainly be argued that it always represents a resource. The thornier issue is defining need. I want to quit working and spend a little time doing what I want to do before I'm too old to make use of the opportunity. I "need" a certain level of accumulated wealth to accomplish that. But is that really a need? Hard question to answer in any absolute way.


Rarely can you get that kind of rich without screwing over a whole lot of people to get there, Simply not true. That is the anthem of the class warrior. It's an attempt to explain, to yourself and/or others, why Bill Gates has billions of dollars and you don't without admitting that he just made better choices than you did.

[Hammerhead]

And everyone is a sinner. Pointless discussion.



Which brings us back to where I started this argument. It's human nature to be greedy at some level, some people are more so than others. I'm not saying it's right or wrong I'm just saying that for someone to say that they're not the least bit greedy, like Jector has, is bunk.

[KTM Rider]

And everyone is a sinner. Pointless discussion.

To me, greed is:

1) Accumulation for accumulation's sake.
2) Claiming or controlling more than you need of a scarce resource when others around you are clearly suffering for lack of the same resource. I don't consider money or wealth to be a resource in and of itself, but it can certainly be argued that it always represents a resource. The thornier issue is defining need. I want to quit working and spend a little time doing what I want to do before I'm too old to make use of the opportunity. I "need" a certain level of accumulated wealth to accomplish that. But is that really a need? Hard question to answer in any absolute way.

Simply not true. That is the anthem of the class warrior. It's an attempt to explain, to yourself and/or others, why Bill Gates has billions of dollars and you don't without admitting that he just made better choices than you did.

Half of any choice in life is pure chance.

Bill Gates' fortune was amassed as a neat little side effect of his geekiness. Believe me when I tell you his ambition and goal when he started out doing the stuff he was doing that has resulted in his success, was simply him being a geek and pursuing his geekiness instead of him trying to get rich.

That is the way life works. Its like getting pussy at a bar. If you go out looking for pussy you will almost always come home alone. Its when you are out having a good time with your friends that pussy finds you.

Work and wealth is no different. If you go into business simply to make money, very few people succeed. If you go into business doing what you enjoy, success, even if not monetary, will usually be much more probable. Dont mistake what I am saying to mean that hard work is still not involved...it is, but if one's goal in starting their own business is simply to make money and they have no heart in what they are doing, they typically wont succeed. The investment bankers and acquisition specialists might, just like the James Bond at a bar, but they make up a lot less of society than the rest of us.

[Dan43]

yes. one of the only productive things done by slick willy.I don't have a real issue with the basic concept behind NAFTA. I have serious issues with the way NAFTA was implemented.

[Jector]

Every person that is currently employed in a field where others are looking for work is taking a job others could have thereby contributing to others hardships.

Being employed does not make you greedy. Missing an employment opportunity is not a hardship unless you're only looking in that one place, in which case it's pretty much self inflicted.


I'm not saying it's right or wrong I'm just saying that for someone to say that they're not the least bit greedy, like Jector has, is bunk.

And just where did I say I was immune to greed?

[Butthead]

what good concept does the federal government not FUBAR?


I don't have a real issue with the basic concept behind NAFTA. I have serious issues with the way NAFTA was implemented.

[Hammerhead]

And just where did I say I was immune to greed?

I simply said: "everyone is greedy to a certain extent".

Your reply: "whatever floats your boat".

I took that to mean you were disagreeing.

[Jector]

You seemed to be pushing an agenda and dealing in absolutes.

In any event, I do think truly non-greedy people exist albeit in very small numbers, but that in no way means I think that I'm one of them. I also think there's people out there capable of climbing Everest and piloting craft to the moon, are you going to say that I claim those abilities too or does it not jive with your current agenda?