It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
What i dont understand is that all these people complain about redistribution of wealth when people want to equalize the disparity down. However, none of them see anything wrong with redistributing up, such as the whole era of trickle down economics, such as tax breaks on corporations helping them to garner more profit, such as setting tax dollars now to DO the research on new drugs, while big pharma reaps the rewards, such as bailing out the banks who crash the economy, and then BoA and wells fargo dont pay a cent in taxes this year, but actually get a few mill BACK from the government.

All these corporations who are sending our jobs overseas, and putting their base of operations over seas so they dont have to pay taxes, yet WE're the ones who are whiny because we complain? Our GDP has doubled since 1970, and yet the average workers buying power has actually declined...not because we are not working as hard, but because the corporate sector maximizes profit by taking it from their workers, by minimizing pay raises, by lowering benefits, etc. THIS is how wealth has been redistributed by the owners, and since worker representation has been destroyed the average worker has little he can do about it. Now our economy is collapsing, there are record jobs lost each month, and record foreclosures quarter to quarter, and we are not supposed to complain as those corporations keep telling us things are fine because they keep posting record profit and bonuses??

The working class are losing jobs and homes on a massive scale, while big oil, big pharma, insurance, and banks are all posting sky high profit margins and you think no transfer of wealth is going on? If Obama really IS a socialist then he sure SUCKS at it!


Exactly. As long as the redistribution of wealth ends up in the hands of the upper class, it is perfectly acceptable. However, redistribution of wealth in to the hands of the middle and lower class is akin to socialism and must never ever be tolerated. That wouldn't be the American way afterall.

Welfare for the corporation is acceptable. Welfare for the average American is evil, and is nothing more than wealth redistribution.

We do not want big government. Yet, you already have a big government and have had a big government for decades now. Doesn't the US have over three hundred government agencies already in existence? That sounds pretty damn big to me. At the same time, corporations have been given free reign to completely take over the nation under the guise of free market capitalism. Very few Mom and Pop Shops are able to compete and they wind up going out of business. This is what happens when monopolies are permitted to take hold. They squeeze the life out of everyone else trying to compete, and they ensure the decimation of Main Street America. This whole show makes the term free market capitalism an oxymoron by default.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

pexx421

posted on 29-4-2010 @ 05:25


Sadly, it is a fact that massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few greatly destabilizes society, and is destructive to democracy ...




there seems a great big DISconnect when the profit mongers are corporations rather than individuals....


with all the massive firings and layoffs in all industries ...
something like +14 million unemployed,
that the corporations are making huge and outrageous profits...

all that signals to me is that the pricing of the corporations product or service is way overpriced... ergo, in the eyes of the President Øbama
that too much profit is over-the-top


i push for a roll back of prices, profits, compensation, benefits / perks
to a more modest bubble... if not by law or regulation then by what remains of our collective 'power-of-the-purse'



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
So it's ok that companies like Goldman Sachs can make a killing off of creating junk and selling it to the public? Then put money against that same junk so that when it fails like they KNEW it was going to fail, they can make a killing off the back end while people are getting kicked out of their homes?

Yay free market capitalism!

I think that when you start making money off of people's failures, in such a way that you set up these same people to fail, you have made enough money.

So how many of you on the Right lost your job or home when the economy collapsed? How many of you lost your assets when the stock market tanked? These people on wall street laughed at you while you fell. Go to the nearest mirror you can and look into it, and know, a sucker is born every minute and you were one of them.

Still for deregulation? While you were loosing everything including your house, Bush era SEC execs were busy downloading porn! Hell, they didn't have to look for anything wrong in the market, no, no Bernie Madoffs out there, no Goldman Sachs screwing the market up the tailpipe.

But Obama is a socialist, and damn if he should do the insane thing like require regulations in the market right?

I'll see you next time when you fall again.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Obviously you don't understand the markets.

People bet against risky investments all the time. This way you cover your backside.

The people investing in this risky paper knew it was risky and they didn't complain when the big returns were coming.

You never hear liberals complaining about George Soros who's worth 9 billion dollars and who made his money betting against currencies.

People complaining about Goldman really don't have a clue.

The real thieves are in Washington. They have borrowed and spent us into over 12 trillion dollars in debt and over 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

So what will these liberals say when a republican gets into office and redistributes wealth according to their ideology?

Redistribution of wealth is anti-American and anti-freedom and liberty. It makes a President a dictator.

Obama shouldn't force his ideology onto the American people and neither should a republican.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by mumma in pyjamas
 


Maybe someone should ask George Soros why he needs more money?

He seems to be the money behind Obama anyways. Who needs more money when he has it all?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Exactly, liberals never complain about Soros because he funds their liberal think tanks.


When George Soros placed a $10 billion speculative bet against the U.K. pound and won, he became universally known as "the man who broke the Bank of England." Whether you love him or hate him, Soros led the charge in one of the most fascinating events in currency trading history.


Now, I'm all for Soros right to trade the currency markets, it's liberals like Obama who want to redistribute wealth and dictate when someone has made enough money.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Yeah but like was pointed out, it doesn't include "certain people", I am sure.

No one is going to put the brakes on Soros, or Obama's Saudi friends, for that matter. So yeah, did Obama ever give up that cool million that came with that *laugh* Nobel prize?

How about Clinton's raise she voted for the year before she was put in the SoS seat? She was supposed to take a cut in pay. That ever happen?

It will only apply to the people and places they want it to apply. Yet another set of rules only meant for certain peoples.

The real question in the end is, who would it affect the most?

Once that is answered, motivation becomes rather clear.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


The problem is not betting against risky investments that's fine, it's betting against investments you KNOW are going to fail, because you made them in order to fail. Investments that are DESIGNED to fail. That is why Goldman is currently under investigation for fraud.

If I design a product that's use absolutely will kill people, then sell it as a product that won't harm anyone, that is fraud, I get sued, I get taken down. That is what Goldman did. At a certain point you have made enough money, that point is when you stop making money legitimately, and instead start making money off of the suffering and failure of others, especially when you design products to make sure that those others fail.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


That's just silly.

Where's the evidence that Godlman pushed securities they knew were going to fail.

Again, with risky investments you always cover your backside because there's a chance they can fail.

This is just nonsense that will never go anywhere. It was timed to help boos financial reform bill.

If Paulson picked these stocks for Goldman why aren't they going after Paulson?

Here's a line that says everything from your article:


In the search for possible criminal charges against Goldman Sachs, investigators will have to dig up evidence they knowingly defrauded investors.

"There is a lot to go through. Very dense material. And it will take some time," an unnamed source told the Daily News.


It's a fishing expedition.

There's no evidence that they knowingly defrauded investors.

They shorted a risky investment. This happens everyday on Wall Street.

The government also pushed lenders to give out loans to people with horrible credit. This was being "compassionate."

A blind man could see that these loans would go into default. I was in the mortgage business for three years and I saw people get loans and based on their credit, I wouldn't loan them a dollar.

The liberals want everyone to own a home even if they haven't paid a bill in years.

So it was smart to short these risky investments.




[edit on 30-4-2010 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


They created something they knew was going to fail. It wasn't supposed, they KNEW it was going to fail. They bet on it failing to make money. That is the problem.

Shoring up your investments with bets that it will fail is fine. If you aren't certain that it WILL fail. If you make a product designed to fail, and bet that it will fail just to make money, you are doing something wrong.

That is my point.

I know that people bet against things in the market. That happens, that makes perfect sense. However, when you make a product you KNOW is going to fail, then bet that it will fail, all the while selling that product as a good investment to others, you are doing something wrong.

But like I said, if that is cool with you, I will see you the next time that the market tanks because large corporations create a financial product designed to fail, then sell that product as a good investment to others.


It was timed to help boos financial reform bill.


Is that a racist remark against Obama?


Boo

boo is a term that is derived from the French word "beau" meaning beautiful. In 18th century England it meant an admirer, usually male. It made it's way into Afro-Caribean language perhaps through the French colonisation of some Caribean islands.


www.urbandictionary.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I think what he means is that the unbridled greed of certain big players must be reined in. When companies are so large that they can manipulate markets and their failure threatens the entire country, it is obvious that they are too big and anti-trust laws must be enacted to break them up. Further, laws must be enacted to prevent a repeat of the pillaging that recently took place.
Strict regulations should be reapplied. Commercial banks should loan money and collect interest. Investment banks should invest and reap profits or losses. Derivatives trading and other such activities should reside in gambling organizations. All should be separate companies so losses in one arena do not drain assets from another. All should be small enough to fail without perturbing the overall market.
The cronyism and insider trading that strips the small investor and lines the pockets of the favored few will probably continue but will be more difficult to perpetrate. This is important enough to provide more teeth to the SEC so that the prospect of jail time cools the ardor of the robber barons.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno


I think that when you start making money off of people's failures, in such a way that you set up these same people to fail, you have made enough money.




I think you've just hit the nail on the head there


When a select few are actually betting on whole countries and economies failing, then actively working towards, and creating the conditions for that happening ... I think they've made enough money.

When you gamble away millions of lives, incomes, jobs, and livelihoods on the throw of a stock-market dice, just to squeeze that extra bit of profit out ... you've made enough money.

Profit, and making money is great ... I love both things, but there has to be SOME responsibility. There has to be a point where destroying people's lives can't be justified by either.

For heaven's sake you guys... those who worship at the altar of no holds barred, unfettered capitalism (particularly from the US)... WAKE UP!

Look at the state of your country, your finances, your priorities. Look at the mess you are in.

Yes, you might have the most powerful and advanced military on Earth, the richest billionaires on the planet, the biggest companies, the largest economy.... BUT

You are also trillions of $ in debt;
Your young men and women are fighting dying in foreign lands, for WHAT?:
Your infrastructure is falling to bits;
You have homeless and tent cities springing up everywhere;
Millions unemployed;
Your wealth is being squandered by the Military Industrial Complex (I believe over half your GDP goes on that)
Your jobs have been outsourced (they have to squeeze that extra penny of profit out)

Shall I go on?

By all means, enjoy making money and profit... but don't let it eat your nation up.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
Sadly, it is a fact that massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few greatly destabilizes society, and is destructive to democracy. This is what you have here in the US, where now congress no longer represents the majority, rather they represent what the lobbyists pay them to, meaning that money buys rules. Sadly, those who aspire to acquire such wealth and who succeed, are often those with the least consideration for the welfare of the society, and these are not the ones who should be running things. They usually by design are those who are so materialistically inclined that they have developed little in the ways of compassion or wisdom.

Until our nation truly does seperate money from our electoral system, then perhaps it is its charge to protect us from destabilizing forces...thats what we pay taxes for, to stabilize our society, and as the great accumulation of wealth IS a destabilizing force, it should be addressed in some fashion, rather than ignored. The danger is just too great when oil companies can lobby for war to increase their profit margin, when pharmaceutical companies can lobby for no negotiation of prices to increase their profit, or for a medicine to be passed before proven safe. When agro companies can lobby extensive and burdensome registration of cattle, making it hard for small farms to compete, and so on.


It´s make you warm when you read something like this...when you read the others greedy and really stultified posts you just think stupid americans...but when you read "pexx421" post you know there are still hope and there are still smart and nongreedy people out there...Thank you...Thank you...



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If Obama really wants to make a difference, perhaps his quote should have been:

"I do think at a certain point you've spent enough money..."

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement from him all the way around. Did he fork over all of his millions in profits from his books to charity? Does he forgo his salary to set an example? Does he have to waste so much money jet-setting to ball games, beer summits, and Olympic rah-rah nonsense? (I am not referring to his kids' games btw)

This is nothing more than the kettle calling the pot black. He has the ability to control one of the largest and most profitable, not to mention influential organizations in this country: the lobbyists. Yet, not only does he still meet with them, he now employs some of them.

Wall Street is the latest target of the White House. This administration seems to want to make sure we are mad at everybody else but them.

Auto companies, insurance companies, lobbyists, pharm companies, banks, Wall Street executives -- yes, we get it, they suck. But then, Mr. President, why do you still insist on doing so much business with them??



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I believe Obama is correct in his assertion that "at a certain point, you've made enough money"

While the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, I see 2 possible solutions:

1. Set a cap on profits; or
2. Put an end to inheritance (i.e., once you and your spouse are dead, then money goes back to the government)

I like option #2. Something just isn't right about people inheriting wealth that they made no contribution towards earning. If you didn't earn it, then you have no entitlement to it. (Funny, that sounds so familiar....oh yeah, that's what the tax protesters say about "entitlement" programs)

To think about how much that would stimulate the economy....if people knew that they had to spend it before they die, or else it goes to "the people"....

Edit for spelling


[edit on 30-4-2010 by Aggie Man]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

2. Put an end to inheritance (i.e., once you and your spouse are dead, then money goes back to the government)

I like option #2. Something just isn't right about people inheriting wealth that they made no contribution towards earning. If you didn't earn it, then you have no entitlement to it. (Funny, that sounds so familiar....oh yeah, that's what the tax protesters say about "entitlement" programs)


This is the most outrageous thing I have seen in a long time!! So let me get this straight, your grandfather works 50 years building a business in this country. He passed the reigns to his son. His son works in the business for 50 years. He decides to sell the business and makes millions. He dies of a heart attack the next month and leaves behind 2 children and 4 grandchildren.

You're telling me the government should get this money???

What, exactly, did the government do to earn it???


[edit on 30-4-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Wow!!!

Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

This is truly dangerous talk in a free society.

Now Obama is going to tell people when they have made enough money?

This is how far left progressives think.



Declaring words "dangerous" in a free society seems self-contradictory IMO, but whatever...

Also...in case you were reading challenged, the qualifier word for this statement "Think"...he was expressing an opinion..not a policy...

And if the video hadn't been painfully clipped you would have heard laughter from the audience..it was a light hearted statement about greed.

Here ...let me help you out and provide the full quote in case by some freak of circumstance you have an off moment and are briefly interested in intellectual honesty rather than out of context, rhetorical garbage.



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.

blogs.suntimes.com...











[edit on 30-4-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 30-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
This is the most outrageous thing I have seen in a long time!! So let me get this straight, your grandfather works 50 years building a business in this country. He passed the reigns to his son. His son works in the business for 50 years. He decides to sell the business and makes millions. He dies of a heart attack the next month and leaves behind 2 children and 4 grandchildren.

You're telling me the government should get this money???

What, exactly, did the government do to earn it???


By saying "government" I mean "the people". And in your scenario, the son that worked for 50-years can keep his 50-years worth of salary; however, anything beyond that is inheritance. And, in my opinion, inheritance is the biggest scam of an entitlement program ever developed....by the rich.

Seriously, what's wrong with going out and earning a living? That's what all those opposed to government entitlement programs say. Under this philosophy, all the rich must do in order to avoid relinquishing their money is to.....spend it.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

1. Set a cap on profits; or


Perfect, you have just ended anybody's desire to work harder.

What would be the point of working more if you can't make more? Do you really think employees are going to donate their time for free? Who are you to say how much money a job is worth? You also just wiped out competition between companies.

Everything in this world is only worth as much as someone else is willing to pay for it.

We already have the power to control wealth, we just choose not to do anything about it since secretly we all just want a piece of it.

If nobody paid $100 per month for cable, it wouldn't cost that much.
If nobody shopped at Wal-mart, we wouldn't be watching our neighbors lose their business.
If everybody refused to pay more than a million for a house, there would be none higher.

People love money. The only people that don't are those that don't have any.

We, the People, that everybody keeps talking about could have bailed on the banks ourselves. All we would have had to do is to pull our money out of big banks and move it to local -- but did people? Obviously not enough.

I wish people would take more responsibility for what they could do, instead of blaming everybody else and saying -- well if I can't have it, you can't either.....




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


This post shows why Obama followers are zombies.

I said:


It was timed to help boos financial reform bill.


Only someone blinded by kissing the feet of Obama can see racism in this statement. Even with the mistake.

It's obvious that the "t" is missing.

It should read:


It was timed to help boos(t) financial reform bill.


Only a blind Obama follower will yell racism at every turn.

Secondly, you haven't provided a shed of evidence that Goldman knowingly created these things to fail. Again, they bet against the risky investments because that's what you do. You cover your backside. It happens everyday on Wall Street.

The problem is people will always blame the rich when things go wrong. This is something politicians know and they play on this class envy.

These politicians make millions because they can waste and spend our money on everything and the useful idiots in this country blindly follow these crooks.

Hitler said:

"It's a fortunate thing for governments that the people don't think"

He also said:

"People are generally stupid. If you repeat the same slogans again and again they will eventually believe it"

Sadly, governments of the world know this and people follow them blindly.

We don't need sweeping financial reform, we just need to make sure the SEC does it's job.

We don't need the government wasting and spending more money we don't have. These politicians yell crisis all the time in order to spend and waste billions of dollars on problems that they created.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join