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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

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.....






What would be the point of working more if you can't make more?


I never said you couldn't earn more. Merely saying that one must spend what they earn or else risk of forfeiting it back to "the people" upon their death.

I believe that, when growing up and knowing there will be no inheritance, that will drive people born with silver spoons to work harder.

And the rich should take responsibility too. They effectively take money out of the economic system, only to deposit it in a bank where it sits and rots! (and makes the bankers richer in the process) It's like they are allergic to putting into this world as much as they get out of it.

I can't understand why ANYONE would sit here and defend the rich and their money hoarding lifestyle unless:

1. they are brainwashed to defend the rich; or
2. they ARE the rich.

P.S. I earn a very good living, so your logic about "the only people that don't love money are those that don't have any" is bunk. I simply choose to spend freely, as I can't take it to the grave with me.

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




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Wow!!!

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.

I remember debating Liberals on Huffington Post. They were upset that Simon Cowell was getting a big contract for American Idol. They were saying that nobody is worth that much and how sad it is Simon is making that much money.

I had to remind them that we live in a free country and if Simon can get a contract worth that much, then FOX is making much more from advertising.

This is the far left mentality and they also think that people who get rich are crooks so they need to redistribute wealth. They think you are crooks unless you're them.

www.realclearpolitics.com...


Have you ever heard of the Law of Enough?


Your attitude won't last in the world that is coming.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
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".


Oh yes, I look forward to my check from the government addressed to me every year...



And in your scenario, the son that worked for 50-years can keep his 50-years worth of salary;


How nice. He gets to keep the money he earned and paid taxes on -- the entire 50 years.


however, anything beyond that is inheritance. And, in my opinion, inheritance is the biggest scam of an entitlement program ever developed....by the rich.


Nobody "developed" inheritance. It's family. Blood. It's the reason business, and the money that goes along with it, continues generation after generation.


Seriously, what's wrong with going out and earning a living?


Nothing.
But to say, thanks for working for 50 years, you're about to die, thanks for your efforts. -- Love, the Government


That's what all those opposed to government entitlement programs say.


No, it's not.
There is a difference between my hard-earned money going to someone that hasn't worked a day in their life, that I have no personal responsibility to care for, and it going to my children whom I do have a responsibility to care for. What about children whose parents die before they are 18? What about handicapped children that parents take care of for life?

What about life insurance? Should that also go to the government?


Under this philosophy, all the rich must do in order to avoid relinquishing their money is to.....spend it.


So, when the doctor tells me on the day I am going to die I will be sure to write the check so that the government doesn't get it. Gee, and I wonder if the government will figure out they'll get more money if they kill me before I can spend it.....

Nice bounty you just put on people's heads.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

P.S. I earn a very good living, so your logic about "the only people that don't love money are those that don't have any" is bunk. I simply choose to spend freely, as I can't take it to the grave with me.

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


That is your choice. Who are you to say how much is too much and what is the right amount to spend?

I believe in saving for things unexpected and expensive --

such as devastating illness, my kids' college education, my mother's nursing home expenses, my daughter's tutor, my house burning down, something tragic happening to my spouse.....

So that nobody else has to pick-up the tab for me simply because I didn't bother to plan ahead!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I have to agree, to a point. some people are simply paid way to much, think about this for a second. What could any person do with a Billion dollars? Or even a few Million? You can never spend it all, and by hoarding, you deprive others from having any. TV stars and Sports figures are paid way to much, in my opinion, and this practice needs to stop. Also, certain things, such as staples of the American family, things like gasoline, foodstuffs, sugar. Commodities manufactured within America should not be traded until the People are well supplied. The people need to have first dibs on staples, before Wall Street get it.

And another thing, while I am on this subject; The Congress make way too much money, and they vote themselves a raise whenever it suits them to do so. A Public Servant should work for a small stipend, and no more than that. Take way the Golden Parachutes that follow these professional politicians and business CEOs. I personally think a cap needs to be in place for these guys, what in fact is a 70 year old going to do with all that money?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
...going to my children whom I do have a responsibility to care for. What about children whose parents die before they are 18? What about handicapped children that parents take care of for life?


You have no responsibility to an adult child.

Minor Children?
A modest trust fund should suffice until they become "of age".

Handicapped children?
Same as minor children. If they are incapable of earning as living, then a modest, sufficient trust is all that is necessary. If they are capable of earning a living, then their handicap has no bearing on the issue.

Life insurance?
That should exist for the scenario where there are minor children involved. Or when a living spouse is left behind.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I think some of the disconnect on here happens because many americans are strict materialists, as evidenced by one persons suggestion that taking away profit takes away peoples incentive to work harder, and anothers suggestion that everything in the world has value only based upon what people are willing to pay for it. Because they see the world delineated by dollar signs, it seems they fail to realize that not everyone sees it the same way.

Once you get to a certain stage of conscious development, as described by maslow's heirarchy of needs as "self actualization", you begin to find your own motivations for progress, often by what makes you a better person, not based off of what car you will be able to drive when you are done. Sadly, greed and acquisition are the highest values espoused in the US today, and most americans seem to judge a persons success in life by his car, his clothes, and his plastic spouse, rather than cultivation of wisdom, compassion, or how you bring joy to those around you (unless that joy comes in the form of dollars). To the materialist it is impossible to point out the flaws of their ideology or of their view of human nature because it is outside the realm of their experience....its something each of us must learn in our own time i imagine, and sadly, society in the US is largely against such cultivation as they are held addicted to constant stimulation and consumerism by the bombardment of TV, marketing and advertising. Though it looks bleak though, who knows what the future may hold?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
That is your choice. Who are you to say how much is too much and what is the right amount to spend?

I believe in saving for things unexpected and expensive --

such as devastating illness, my kids' college education, my mother's nursing home expenses, my daughter's tutor, my house burning down, something tragic happening to my spouse.....

So that nobody else has to pick-up the tab for me simply because I didn't bother to plan ahead!


Again, you are trying to argue something I DIDN'T say. All of this above that I quoted is all assuming that your income is being restricted. I didn't say I was in favor of limiting income. All of the above is also a scenario where you are still alive.

Certainly, no one should have to pick up your tab. When you die, any savings you have should go to pay off debt. All other funds....to the people.

"To the people": pay off deficit, improve national infrastructure, etc. I'm not saying give it to the poor, nor am I saying let the government spend it on frivolous projects.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Dagar
 


Absolutely! Make money that's all good. Hell, if you think a product is a bad idea, put your money in that investment failing. Hell that's even good. But when you start creating products that you KNOW are going to fail, and bet that they will fail, all the while suckering people into buying into that product. Well that is fraud.

That is the problem, and that is when you know you have made enough money, now you are betting on the failures of people and the entire economy. You know it's going down, you don't say anything, in fact you make damn sure that it's going down just to reap the profits off of that failure? There is something wrong with that.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I have to agree, to a point. some people are simply paid way to much, think about this for a second. What could any person do with a Billion dollars? Or even a few Million? You can never spend it all, and by hoarding, you deprive others from having any.


What on Earth makes you think that if you take money away from other people it will go to you or me?

What does Warren Buffet having more than a billion dollars in the bank prevent me or you from having or doing?

What about the wealthy people that do donate to charity?

What about the Gates? They have helped tens of thousands of people -- millions in Africa -- with their money?

People seem to think there is a limited amount of money to go around. When the government needs more, they print it. When I need more, I get another job.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
You have no responsibility to an adult child.


You obviously have no children and therefore I will simply end this debate with:

"You don't get it."

Trust funds should be sufficient....
Minor trust fund for this.....
That should be enough for him....

Give me a break!

You have no idea what the future does or does not hold for anyone and therefore have no right whatsoever to dictate how much money a person should need to live.

My guess is that you have never been struck by unexpected life-changing tragedy. (I'm happy for you if you haven't)

My guess is you have no children. (If you do, I hope they don't read that you have no interest in their future or desire to create a good life for them)

My guess is that you are far from wealthy. (You probably have enough to cover your bills, entertainment, decent car, but little to no savings.)

My guess is that you are pretty young. (I would like to see you work for 50 years and then hand it over to the government.)

My guess is that you are not aware that the government does not equal the people.

My guess is that you aren't aware that Congress' budget allows for more than a million dollars in spending per Congressman and that any additional money received would up this number quite a bit.

My guess is that you aren't aware that the government thinks everybody else should stop making more money while they continue to give themselves salary increases every year.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


You can't MAKE a security that is going to fail, sell it to people as a relatively safe vehicle, then bet against it succeeding -- that's fraud.

And it's not hedging anything if you're not exposed to the risk of the original security; if they're simpling selling securities to people, they make a profit -- end of story; if they know that those securities will fail and then BET against them succeeding -- they make ANOTHER profit, ontop of their original profit from when they sold the security in the first place.

That's simply fraud, it's not "proper risk management" or whatever way you're trying to incorrectly spin such an action.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by lpowell0627
That is your choice. Who are you to say how much is too much and what is the right amount to spend?

I believe in saving for things unexpected and expensive --

such as devastating illness, my kids' college education, my mother's nursing home expenses, my daughter's tutor, my house burning down, something tragic happening to my spouse.....

So that nobody else has to pick-up the tab for me simply because I didn't bother to plan ahead!


Again, you are trying to argue something I DIDN'T say. All of this above that I quoted is all assuming that your income is being restricted. I didn't say I was in favor of limiting income.


Capping profits most certainly caps income.
So yes, this was part of your argument.


All of the above is also a scenario where you are still alive.


And if I die before them, and my money goes to the government, who takes care of all of this then? You are picturing the perfect little world where everybody dies in order. Trust me -- it DOES NOT work like that at all.


Certainly, no one should have to pick up your tab. When you die, any savings you have should go to pay off debt. All other funds....to the people.


You didn't give it to the people. You gave it to the government. And if you think the government is going to write checks to 300 million people equally as soon as someone dies -- you are in la-la land.

Here's the perfect scenario to tell you how the government really works:

Last year, due to my accountant's error, I overpaid my Federal taxes by $87.50. Overpaid!

Two months later, I get a notice that says:

"You are hereby imposed a penalty for paying the incorrect amount on your Federal Income Tax. The amount of the penalty assigned to you and your spouse is: $87.50.

How about that? I got charged a penalty for paying TOO much!

Edit to add:
You are aware that people in this country pay taxes on inheritance money as well?

We pay tax when we make it.
We pay tax on the interest we earn while it's in the bank.
We pay tax if we give it to someone as a gift. (If it's over $12K)
We pay tax if we make money on investments.
We pay tax when we pass it onto our loved ones when we die.

We pay taxes 4 - 5 times on the same money over and over again.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by lpowell0627]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
We don't have capitalism currently and we won't get it. With that in mind becoming more socialist or whatever is the only direction to go.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
We don't have capitalism currently



Explain.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Bud: How much is enough, Gordon? When does it all end, huh? How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough, huh?
Gekko: It's not a question of enough, pal. It's a Zero Sum game - somebody wins, somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply, transferred - from one perception to another. Like magic. This painting here? I bought it ten years ago for sixty thousand dollars, I could sell it today for six hundred. The illusion has become real, and the more real it becomes, the more desperately they want it. Capitalism at it's finest.
Bud: How much is enough, Gordon?
Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons; And what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull#. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.
en.wikiquote.org...(film)

I have to say that there is a time when you have enough... especially when you get it by ripping people off (Goldman Sachs, Enron, etc.)



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Wow!!!

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.

I remember debating Liberals on Huffington Post. They were upset that Simon Cowell was getting a big contract for American Idol. They were saying that nobody is worth that much and how sad it is Simon is making that much money.

I had to remind them that we live in a free country and if Simon can get a contract worth that much, then FOX is making much more from advertising.

This is the far left mentality and they also think that people who get rich are crooks so they need to redistribute wealth. They think you are crooks unless you're them.

www.realclearpolitics.com...



Obama says a lot of things that, if you look around him, who he has appointed and what is happening to the country, is simply a LIE. He will do nothing he is not allowed to do.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
It's so sad to see so much class envy.

People don't understand the concepts of freedom and liberty.

Freedom allows you to make money like Steve Jobs if you have a product that sells or Warren Buffet if you're a smart investor.

Freedom also allows you to be a jobless freeloader that lives in your parents basement.

I failed at two businesses before I started my third business and it's very successful for me.

I didn't cry about rich people who succeeded. I kept trying.

You can't have government limiting what people can make because they are crooks who already waste and spend trillions of dollars.

If a person makes a billion dollars and wants to be a scrooge that's his right. On the flip side, a person can make a billion dollars and give most of it to charity and that's his right in a free society.

The biggest problem is government. If we had a small, limited government as the Founders intended, we wouldn't have a lot of these problems.

You mean to tell me the government has us in over 12 trillion dollars in debt and 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and they haven't fixed anything?

These crooked politicians will always yell crisis in order to waste and spend more money and only a useful idiot will follow them.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I dont really understand how you completely fail to grasp that in our system, money = freedom from law. I dont understand how you fail to see that big corporations USE their money to disabuse the rest of us from ours, that big businesses often use their money to garner legislation that keeps the majority from having access to compete. How big pharma often pushes legislation that makes THIER drugs mandated, and natural alternatives illegal. How Monsanto pushes legislation that requires a farmer whose crop has become adulterated by their seed, to pay them royalties. How bankers pay millions to congressmen to get those congressmen to give the banks trillions in taxpayer dollars.

I think people dont realize here, we are not saying people who make a good profit, maybe pocket a few mill are destabilizing. Its when you garner enough fortune to alter politics that you reach the limit of "too much". What many dont realize is that money IS resources, and if one person garners all the oil, that leaves little for everyone else. Huge corporations act in this way as well, to restrict others access to their resources so we must pay whatever they want to charge. There are two countries i can think of off the top of my head, where american corporations own the rights to all the water supplies, and citizens in those countries are barred even from collecting rainwater to drink, as the corporation whines that the rain water is part of the water table that they have the rights too. This would happen HERE as well, if we didnt have regulations.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
An interesting email I got from Carl Levin...


I thought you might be interested to know that, on Tuesday, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, concluded the fourth in a series of hearings to explore some of the causes and consequences of the recent financial crisis. These hearings are the culmination of a year and a half long investigation by the Subcommittee.

As I mentioned at the onset of these hearings two weeks ago, the goal of this investigation has been to bring to light the policies, procedures, incentives, compensation structures, and regulatory failures that collectively led to the meltdown of the financial services sector. This man-made economic catastrophe put our economy into a tailspin, costing millions of jobs, depleting retirement savings, closing businesses, and necessitating drastic and unprecedented federal intervention to stave off a second Great Depression. This federal intervention was a bitter pill for Congress and the American people to swallow and made it clear that our country’s financial regulatory system was in need of broad evaluation and overhaul.

The Subcommittee’s first hearing on April 13th explored the role of high-risk mortgage lending. The hearing focused on a case study of Washington Mutual Bank, known as WaMu, whose reckless strategy to pursue higher profits by emphasizing high-risk exotic loans not only created hardship for borrowers, but also added excessive risk to the bank’s balance sheet. WaMu would then sell off these high-risk loans as mortgage-backed securities, building a conveyor belt that dumped toxic assets into the financial system.

Our second hearing looked at how federal regulators were aware of WaMu’s risky and reckless policies, yet completely failed to rein them in. Instead of exercising prudent regulatory oversight, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) repeatedly failed to act on major shortcomings it observed, and it thwarted other agencies from stepping in.

The third hearing dealt with credit rating agencies, specifically case studies of Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, the nation’s two largest credit raters. While WaMu and other lenders dumped their bad loans and regulators failed to stop their behavior, the credit rating agencies rubber stamped these high-risk financial products with AAA ratings. These credit rating agencies operate with an inherent conflict of interest – their revenue comes from the same firms whose products they are supposed to critically analyze, and those firms exert pressure on rating agencies who too often put market share ahead of analytical rigor.

Finally, Tuesday’s hearing explored the role of investment banks in the development of the crisis. We focused on the activities during 2007 of Goldman Sachs, one of the oldest and most successful firms on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs was an active player in building the mortgage machinery that contributed to the economic collapse the following year. During the period leading up to 2008, Goldman made a lot of money packaging mortgages, getting AAA ratings, and selling securities backed by loans from notoriously poor-quality lenders, such as WaMu, Fremont and New Century.

The Subcommittee investigation found that in 2007, Goldman Sachs was betting heavily that the housing market would decline while it was selling investments in that market to its clients. It sold those clients high-risk mortgage-backed securities that it wanted to get off its books in transactions that created a conflict of interest between Goldman’s bottom line and its clients’ interests.

The Subcommittee’s extensive work has shown that at every stage of the game, the rules must be changed. This only further highlights the urgent and pressing need for comprehensive reform of our financial industry. I am disappointed that the full Senate has yet again failed to bring legislation to the floor intended to do just that. I am hopeful that the information brought to light as a result of these hearings will help persuade my colleagues of the dire need for reform of our financial services sector.

My opening statement from Tuesday’s hearing contains more information on the Subcommittee’s investigation and is available on my Senate website at [www.levin.senate.gov...].

Sincerely,
Carl Levin


When have you made enough money? When you start doing the above to make more money because you can't make more money the legitimate way.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join