The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Or it could mean we pay a lot of money for pretty s***ty work by our federal government.

Or, you could get paid even more money by a bank and keep repeatedly trying to destroy the world!

[southsider2k5]

Obama's 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."

 

Are you guys serious? Who out there doesn't think that at some point more riches won't help an individual. Besides he adds, "keep on making it [money] if you’re providing a good product or providing good service." In addition, if you listen to the to the quote he says it in his jokey/casual way.

 

You can complain about his policies or that they unfairly burden the wealthy job creators all you want. But this quote doesn't mean s***. I don't trust someone who doesn't at some point realize that more money doesn't really help you, and make your life better. But as Obama states, if you're creating a good product/service (think jobs), all the power to you!

 

In Democratic societies, that doesn't matter. When you have the President flat out saying that he doesn't believe in the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness part of the constitution, it worries people, as well it should. Again, no one in this country constitutionally has the RESPONSIBILITY to grow the economy. Not individuals, not business, not the government. There are morals and ethics to where they should want to, but they it is pretty clear that they shouldn't have to. The fact when the President isn't reading from the script goes off of such anti-individual rants should scare people. What scares me most is that so many people in this country don't see a problem with these sort of statements. If these same sort of statements had been made in context of race, sex, et cetra, there would have been an uproar. But because this is class warfare, no one cares. It is a travesty.

[southsider2k5]

Or, you could get paid even more money by a bank the President and keep repeatedly trying to destroy the world!

 

[NorthSideSox72]

In Democratic societies, that doesn't matter. When you have the President flat out saying that he doesn't believe in the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness part of the constitution, it worries people, as well it should. Again, no one in this country constitutionally has the RESPONSIBILITY to grow the economy. Not individuals, not business, not the government. There are morals and ethics to where they should want to, but they it is pretty clear that they shouldn't have to. The fact when the President isn't reading from the script goes off of such anti-individual rants should scare people. What scares me most is that so many people in this country don't see a problem with these sort of statements. If these same sort of statements had been made in context of race, sex, et cetra, there would have been an uproar. But because this is class warfare, no one cares. It is a travesty.

Wait, back up the bus. He said what?

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Obama's 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."

 

Are you guys serious? Who out there doesn't think that at some point more riches won't help an individual. Besides he adds, "keep on making it [money] if you’re providing a good product or providing good service." In addition, if you listen to the to the quote he says it in his jokey/casual way.

 

You can complain about his policies or that they unfairly burden the wealthy job creators all you want. But this quote doesn't mean s***. I don't trust someone who doesn't at some point realize that more money doesn't really help you, and make your life better. But as Obama states, if you're creating a good product/service (think jobs), all the power to you!

 

WRONG.

 

Of course, after a certain point you dont need anymore, but who are you or anyone else to say when a person has made enough?

 

Does Bill Gates need a yacht, or private plane of a ridiculous house? No, but he has them because of his enormous wealth. Does he need to put his kids/grandkids/whoever else through college? No, but he can because of his wealth. Does he need to donate tens of millions of dollars to charity? No, but he can because of his wealth and so on...

 

99.99% of people will never know what it is like to be worry free about money, but that doesnt mean those that do should ever be capped because they are "fine how they are already".

[southsider2k5]

Wait, back up the bus. He said what?

 

Read the statement again. He pretty clearly stated he believes that people should only be able to make so much money, and they should be forced to give their own time and efforts to things they aren't obligated to.

[Balta1701]

Read the statement again. He pretty clearly stated he believes that people should only be able to make so much money, and they should be forced to give their own time and efforts to things they aren't obligated to.

And you guys accuse me of taking things out of context.

[Jenksismyhero]

And you guys accuse me of taking things out of context.

 

What's another meaning you can take from what he said?

 

 

[Balta1701]

What's another meaning you can take from what he said?

2k5 interpreted it as saying that "you should only be able to make so much money". The key word there to me is "Should" which stresses that 2k5 believes Obama is suggesting there's a limit to what should be allowable.

 

"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."

Another obvious interpretation is...at some point, you've made so much money that another few hundred million makes no difference to your lifestyle and you'd never notice the difference or be able to spend it.

[Balta1701]

The question I'd then ask next, evil communist that I am is...is it a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of the economy if people keep making money past the point that they'll never be able to spend it?

 

If the current market setup was actually allocating funds efficiently, you might be able to give me a coherent argument that it's not a problem because even then those funds will be re-invested and continue creating jobs. Right now though...you're going to have a whole lot of issues arguing that one...because of how many vacant, collapsing, unsold houses that this country is sitting on.

[NorthSideSox72]

Read the statement again. He pretty clearly stated he believes that people should only be able to make so much money, and they should be forced to give their own time and efforts to things they aren't obligated to.

Yeah, that's not what he said. You made a fairly huge leap there. I don't like what he said, but to say he doesn't believe in that phrase is a huge reach.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

2k5 interpreted it as saying that "you should only be able to make so much money". The key word there to me is "Should" which stresses that 2k5 believes Obama is suggesting there's a limit to what should be allowable.

 

Another obvious interpretation is...at some point, you've made so much money that another few hundred million makes no difference to your lifestyle and you'd never notice the difference or be able to spend it.

 

I mean, I agree he doesn't come out and say "once you make 100 million you can't make anymore." But I think 2k5 is basically saying what I got out of it - the guy is adlibing, so he's giving you an indication of what he actually thinks (taking away the PR bulls***), and it's that people in this country make too much money and apparently have some sort of responsibility towards everyone else (nope, not socialist minded at all!)

 

edit: SOME people make too much money I mean

Edited April 30, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

The question I'd then ask next, evil communist that I am is...is it a good thing or a bad thing for the rest of the economy if people keep making money past the point that they'll never be able to spend it?

 

If the current market setup was actually allocating funds efficiently, you might be able to give me a coherent argument that it's not a problem because even then those funds will be re-invested and continue creating jobs. Right now though...you're going to have a whole lot of issues arguing that one...because of how many vacant, collapsing, unsold houses that this country is sitting on.

 

The country wouldn't exist if this thinking was prevelant when it started. All the founding fathers were some ubber rich mother f***ers that were pissed because big government was trying to take that away from. Interesting how back then it was a horrible thing, but now it's a good thing.

[Balta1701]

The country wouldn't exist if this thinking was prevelant when it started. All the founding fathers were some ubber rich mother f***ers that were pissed because big government was trying to take that away from. Interesting how back then it was a horrible thing, but now it's a good thing.

And then...they set up a system that gave a disturbing amount of power to the masses.

[Balta1701]

BTW, here's the 100% full text.

OBAMA: And in case you're wondering, let me just take a minute to explain why it's important to you. The crisis we went through, it wasn't part of the normal economic cycle. What happened was you had some people -- not all people -- there's some very decent people here who are in the financial sector -- but you had some people on Wall Street who took these unbelievable risks with other people's money.

 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Damn. (Laughter.)

 

OBAMA: They made bets. They were making bets on what was going to happen in the housing market, and they would create these derivatives and all these instruments that nobody understood. But it was basically operating like a big casino. And it was producing big profits and big bonuses for them, but it was all built on shaky economics and some of these subprime loans that had been given out. And because we did not have common-sense rules in place, those irresponsible practices came awfully close to bringing down our entire economy and millions of dreams along with it.

 

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.

 

So there's nothing wrong with a financial system that helps the economy expand. And there are a lot of good people in the financial industry who are doing things the right way. And it's in our interest when those firms are strong and when they're healthy.

 

But some of these institutions that operated irresponsibly, they're not just threatening themselves -- they threaten the whole economy. And they threaten your dreams, your prospects, everything that you worked so hard to build.

 

So we just want them to operate in a way that's fair and honest and in the open, so that we don't have to go through what we've already gone through. (Applause.) We want to make sure the financial system doesn't just work for Wall Street, but it works for Main Street, too. It works for Quincy. It works for Mount Pleasant. It works for Macon and Fort Madison. (Applause.)

[Jenksismyhero]

And then...they set up a system that gave a disturbing amount of power to the masses.

 

No, they didn't. They gave power to people with money and land. They designed the system so that small groups of elite could always control what was going on to protect themselves from government. They gave power to individual states to decide what worked best for them.

 

That's why I said yesterday they'd be spinning in their graves if they knew how much government invaded everyones lives today.

[southsider2k5]

BTW, here's the 100% full text.

 

That actually makes it clearer in my mind that he has no belief in the rights of the individual.

[Jenksismyhero]

BTW, here's the 100% full text.

 

Whoa. Ground breaking. All great talking points except the adlib part. Does anyone really argue against the fact that Wall Street should be (and should have been) more responsible since they have so much power? I haven't heard anyone make that case.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, that's not what he said. You made a fairly huge leap there. I don't like what he said, but to say he doesn't believe in that phrase is a huge reach.

 

How is it a reach? If he believes it, what else does that mean?

[Balta1701]

No, they didn't. They gave power to people with money and land. They designed the system so that small groups of elite could always control what was going on to protect themselves from government. They gave power to individual states to decide what worked best for them.

 

That's why I said yesterday they'd be spinning in their graves if they knew how much government invaded everyones lives today.

So, basically, your argument is that the real mistake we've made was taking power out of the hands of small groups of elites and giving it to the masses.

 

 

Anyway...you're right to some extent but you're wrong to another...yes they tried to restrict voting to landowners...but they could easily have made things much, much more restrictive to protect their own influence and power. That was not done. And unless you'd like to argue against the 14th amendment, the trend from there has been to try to move power away from the elites by legislation/amendment (although there are steps taken the other way, like Citizens United)

[Balta1701]

That actually makes it clearer in my mind that he has no belief in the rights of the individual.

It's scary how far you guys are willing to go to defend the rights of a few people to ruin the lives of everyone else.

[Jenksismyhero]

So, basically, your argument is that the real mistake we've made was taking power out of the hands of small groups of elites and giving it to the masses.

 

 

Anyway...you're right to some extent but you're wrong to another...yes they tried to restrict voting to landowners...but they could easily have made things much, much more restrictive to protect their own influence and power. That was not done. And unless you'd like to argue against the 14th amendment, the trend from there has been to try to move power away from the elites by legislation/amendment (although there are steps taken the other way, like Citizens United)

 

I'm just saying they designed the system against what Obama just said. They wanted free reign to do whatever they wanted to do. They were tired of being forced to give back portions of their earnings. They were all businessman, and I guarantee you most of them would take issue with the fact that a President told them they made too much money and had a responsibility to give some of it back.

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's scary how far you guys are willing to go to defend the rights of a few people to ruin the lives of everyone else.

 

It's scary how much you want to control what I can/can't do!

 

Edit: and at least for me, I'm not defending these people, I'm defending the ideas we're talking about.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[ChiSox_Sonix]

It's scary how far you guys are willing to go to defend the rights of a few people to ruin the lives of everyone else.

 

As opposed to defending the rights of a few people to tell everyone what they can and can not do.

[NorthSideSox72]

How is it a reach? If he believes it, what else does that mean?

Because its quite clear he doesn't believe it.

 

Like I said, I don't like what he said either. But the idea that he doesn't believe in the phrase you quoted is absurd. He said nothing even approaching that.

 

I just want the discussion to come back to reality, without all the ridiculous hyperbole that I'm seeing on both sides of the aisle here.