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

A person or company can make as much money as possible in America. With that being said, it cannot be at the expense of their fellow americans.

Any profits made by an individual or company over set limits, to be imposed, should be taxed and redistributed into health care and education.

No one company should make over 10x operating profit without substantially giving back to the country in which it operates

reply to post by AaronTheSpeaker


That doesn't make much sense.

Who's going to redistribute this wealth? Will it be Obama or some republican? Will it be redistributed according to liberal ideology or conservative ideology?

Redistribution of wealth appeals to class envy and it's the talk of a wanna be dictator.

What if a conservative President wants to redistribute the wealth in the form of school vouchers or more tax cuts?

Also, these crooks in Washington have us in 13 trillion dollars in debt and over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Why should we give them more wealth to redistribute when they can control their spending?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


It seems the socialists and communists have been working overtime on the propaganda.

These people do not even realize that without the government having all this power, that the corporations could not have manipulated the regulations to favor them.

I guess you are talking to walls.

Listen people. All the government would have to do, is actually prosecute crime. When was the last time you heard of any of these crooks go to jail? Especially ones in government.

Maybe 10-15 in the last 10 years?

Yes, that is all we need to do, is give them more power.

Pfffft, like talking to people suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

If they actually prove that GS and the others had done fraud, do you think anyone will go to jail. Do you think they would seize all the assets or the assets of those responsible.

C'mon, these asshats cannot even defend our borders. One of the 19 enumerated powers.

They have 19 jobs to do. That is it, with a budget of over 5 Trillion per year. They frell up everything. And you want them to run everything.

Man, I almost give up. Almost. There are a few out there still listening.

Originally posted by tgidkp
these things you have listed are the products of hard-work and ingenuity. they are the products of man's mind and hands. and as such they are rightfully represented by the term: "generating value".

Without capital as an incentive for work and as the motor of the products dissemination there is no generation of value.

on the other hand, you can see that there is no such value being generated by switching numbers between computer databases faster than the mind can think. this is called: "making money".

Im familiar with the Bolshevik talking-points against Wall Street. There talking points were shared by Goebbels. They kept going on about how Wall-Street generates no value but merely "makes money" as if there were a difference.

but, once someone has "made money", they have done wrong. i cannot think of anything more abhorrent and evil by nature.

Oh yes, making money is sooooooooooooo evil, lets just all go back to living in caves.

reply to post by lucid eyes

Im familiar with the Bolshevik talking-points against Wall Street. There talking points were shared by Goebbels. They kept going on about how Wall-Street generates no value but merely "makes money" as if there were a difference.

Obviously there is a major difference, otherwise the market would not have tanked as it did. Lot's and lots of money, little value. (the rest of my post isn't specifically directed at you.)

I am all for making money in the markets, don't get me wrong. I think it's a great thing for people to have the ability to invest in products, services, ideas, businesses, etc. That's all well and good.

I know it must sound like a radical commie idea but I also believe that companies have a responsibility to shareholders to not sell crap and call it gold.

I know, it's backwards thinking. I know you all think that it's just fine for some company to sell a person a house, (that they know the person has no hope to be able to afford.) give them a loan for that home, then turn and sell that mortgage to someone else, (knowing that the person who is in that house will default on it.) And call it a good investment, all the while I bet against the company that I just sold that mortgage to. (I can safely do this, because it's a good bet that the person I sold the house to will default on the loan.) To me, that is fraud.

I don't think it's right. I think it's sneaky, double dealing, and in the end screws both the person who never should have gotten the home loan in the first place, and the company who bought into that bad loan.

See, my opinion is, if you are a company, and you make a good product, and you sell that good product, and people invest in your company, if that product sells well, you should succeed. Hell, if you make a billion dollars a day off of that good product, good for you. I hope you continue to make a billion dollars a day for many many years.

However, if you are selling a crap product, telling everyone it's a good product, having people invest in that crap product, and then you place a bet on that product failing because you know it's a crap product? Well, you are doing something wrong.

[edit on 5/1/2010 by whatukno]

Have the people on Wallstreet made enough money? At least that is what the President apparently thinks?



Now, I know people are going to get up in arms about what he said. However, I think he meant it in jest, and not to be taken literally. I am pretty sure the unemployed at home who had the chance to catch that lengthy grilling of Goldman Sachs, and their quite equitable foray into the phenomenon of mortgage back securities are thinking the same thing as the President? From what I saw, and I actually watched some of that hearing, I am a little disturbed at how these men acquired such excessive wealth from a financial scheme they knew was as one senator who referred to it by commenting on the interoffice emails, as excrement.



So, after seeing this I am sure some were absolutely furious by the activities of some and how they acquired their wealth. The proof is in the emails, and Goldman Sachs knew what they were getting their clients involved in was garbage. Now, is this an isolated incident? Sadly, it seems apparent that it was not, and everyone on Wallstreet was involved. Lets not rehash the Panic of 2008, because everyone knows that Wallstreet was rocked to the core with some big names biting the dust like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

Now, back to the concept of "making enough money," as the President puts it. How much is enough, or is there ever enough? Greed, to me is just as deplorable as the habit of a drug addict. However, this is America and to each their own. Who has the right to judge the behavior of someone else? The President, a Politburo, judge, your neighbor, or anyone for that matter.

Business in my opinion has to be at least equitable for all those involved. Goods are bought and sold, and so on so forth. At the very least, I would hope business is being done above board to the best of our abilities. However, that seems to have run astray with the recent revelations of Goldman Sachs and others as more information comes out. Personally, if one wants to make a lot of money, more power to them, but make that money the right way. Not like some vulture or marauding barbarian who are not content unless their is blood flowing in the streets after a business deal. In other words, their should be no caps on what one makes, but honest and transparency in business.

Business needs to return to a climate of being at the very least, equitable for all those involved. From the CEO down to the low level worker. Should the government use its weight and leverage to enforce this? Yes, but at minimum. More regulations may be in order, capping the influence of lobbyists, and a more robust and responsive Securities Exchange Commission. Those are some initiatives that may improve the situation? It remains to be seen if something can be put in place that will still encourage growth in the business climate and keep them honest, but something needs to be done.

In this economy, it is probably not a good idea to squeeze those in the business and to smother business as well. Still, this latest comment by the President seems to be made in jest. At least I hope it was? I am not fan of our current President's policies, but the guy can't say one thing without the hyenas descending to tear apart everything that comes out of his mouth. However, making money through fraud, stealing, unfair manipulation, and other nefarious actions is unacceptable. Thus, making mean through those means, the people on Wallstreet have made more than enough money!



[edit on 1-5-2010 by Jakes51]

reply to post by Jakes51


You have to be joking.

Obama wasn't saying anything in jest. This is what far left liberals think. This is why he wants to redistribute the wealth. He wants to take from those who make money and waste and spend it.

People always make excuses for these politicians when they tell you exactly what they are thinking.

Obama has been talking about "redistributive change" for years even if people who want to worship the guy aren't listening to what he's saying.

It's just like liberals on the Huffington Post were upset when Simon Cowell was rumored to make 100 million from Fox. They complained that nobody was worth that much. What they don't realize that Fox is making a ton of money of off American Idol and if they want to pay Cowell that much, it's between Simon and Fox, not Simon, Fox and far left liberals.

You can just read the post in this thread and read post from far left folks full of class envy who think it's right to take what people earn and allow crooked politicians to redistribute it according to their ideology. That makes no sense, because when a republican gets into office he/she will redistribute the wealth according to their ideology and these same democrats will be crying. So it's best to let people redistribute the money that they earn and not crooked politicians.

You also talked about Goldman and clearly the video is silly. Levin kept asking questions and when the guy tried to respond he cut him off.

The guy was trying to say the markets decide. If it's a #ty investment then the market will tell you so. It's there job to bet for and against these things in order to protect shareholders.

Goldman just covered their risk.

Have you ever heard of junk bonds?

Theirs a big disclaimer before you invest that tells you investing is risky and you could lose money.

We don't need sweeping financial reform. We just need 4 things:

Strengthen the SEC
Ban on corporate lobbying
Public financing of campaigns
Term Limits

If you limit the power of politicians, you limit the influence of Corporations.

Sadly, there's people who want massive government, with massive government control which just means even more influence from corporations and special interest.

See, governments have too much power. This is why these people raise millions of dollars for a seat in Washington that pays less than $200,000 a year. These seats are worth much more because they have control over trillions of dollars and control over peoples lives.

reply to post by whatukno


corporations have no social responsibilities... they're not in the business of determining good products, either -- the market does that for them.


For instance, Fox news knows they are a tabloid, junk, bull# "Newz" organization, but they're also the most popular of the 24/hour news networks. They don't have to deliver quality to make a profit..

And, again, who determines "quality?" The market. Right now fox is doing well, even if by objective standards, sane people would label it as complete horse manure . That doesn't matter, because of the major news channels, fox has the highest ratings -- as determined by the audience.


And btw, as an investor, I look for companies who sell crap and call it gold. Nike is great at doing that, for example... They sell clothing with a little Check mark on it, then jack up the premiums because it has a check mark on it.. and dumbass people buy it it's brilliant. The consumers are suck morons, it's a joke.

reply to post by Janky Red


i don't have a problem with steve jobs making billions. his buisness is doing great! his business is turning a PROFIT. i have a problem when ceos, bankers and wall street guys, can make millions while their company is LOSING money or while they are PROFITING that money at the expense of others i.e trashing our economy and then getting bailed out. welfare for the rich.

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.

People who cant get enough money are the ones destroying this world.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You bring up some very good points, and I was not joking. I still think he was saying that in jest. Maybe he is just choreographing his next move? Either way you look at it, something rotten was taking place on Wallstreet. The very people who initiated the scam, are not only profiting off of it, but I sense an aura of arrogance among them. People are losing their pension funds, 401ks, jobs, and a very decent standard of living as a result of their shoddy business dealings.

I am adamantly against the so-called concept of "redistributing the wealth!" I hope you did not get that from my response. However, what went on among the banking and financial industry, and with alleged collusion of the government; is practically the crime of the century as far as I am concerned. Both Republicans and Democrats did nothing as long as things appeared to be on the up and up.

Moreover, I am in agreement with the solutions you have offered, and they are on par with what I said. All I ask is if Goldman Sachs or whatever financial institution knowingly manipulated their customers into shoddy investments and presented them as being decent, then someone has got to answer for it! I would consider myself a staunch advocate for capitalism and a responsible Federal Government, and that is something I am in agreement with you about.

I still think Obama was only speaking hyperbole, and was speaking as an observer of how he thinks the people view Wallstreet and CEO compensation at this juncture. Again, I am not a fan of this President's policies or performance at this point, and yes, people tend to downplay his statements far too often. If he starts radically advocating a redistribution of wealth and nationalization of industry, then we ought to start screaming at the top of our lungs in protest. So, now we wait, but right now I think his words were in jest. Thanks for the response!

reply to post by lucid eyes


Where i am from they use my taxes to build roads.
They used to own all the utilities and pay for it with tax collected.
The ones they have sold to corporations, use my money, and money of other customers to provide this service to us, and still make huge profits.

Who is helping who?
we had power, water, communication BEFORE we had private corporations to "fund" them
Now we have them and don't even have the benefit of reaping the benefits of any profit made, which used to go back into the federal budget.

I applaud personal success, not unbridled greed.

............. if the reason people DESERVE such copious amounts of money because they are savvy and resourceful,talented or skilled shouldn't the money be buried with them when they die, in case someone "undeserving" were to inherit said wealth.I could live with over the top wealth if that were the case........I mean if you only get that rich cause you deserved it how can we tolerate inheritance Billionaires?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You say
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. .......I say

Unless you have nothing to invest with.
Unless you do not have the capital, or the backing of someone with the capital to manufacture market and distribute the product.


We all enjoy the "rags to riches" tales of the past.Where an illiterate farmer who was the Tenth of Thirteen children who wore onion sacks as shirts who overcame incredible hardships to become the owner of a moderately successful vacuum cleaner chain store. It really appeals to the idea of the American dream.

The reality is these days, with the massively uneven distribution of wealth and the "who you know not what you know" effect more apparent then ever before in history(of American Capitalism, not the world), the same Farmer today would have to work Three times as hard to attain a far more humble measure of success. To say, get a job in a moderately successful vacuum cleaner store.

Frank Grimes comes to mind.....

If you are born with nothing you are more likely then ever to die with nothing.
And if you are born with everything you are more likely than ever to die with, a lot more.And all you have to do, the only thing you have to do is not BLOW it, and just with interest on bank balances alone you'd have to try to blow it!
I don't think that was the meaning of the American dream, if my forefathers worked hard, long and were smart, then i ...never have to work, ever.Just collect properties and corporations like kids collect stamps.

But if my forefathers were poorly educated, disadvantaged,grew up in poverty then if I'm lucky someone in Human resources at a chain store, owned by a Corporation may overlook my blackened teeth, poor literacy skills and highly undesirable address to give me a chance working for minimum wage at a Vacuum cleaner chain store.

I thought the American dream was everyone gets a big bit of pie, not some get 90% of the pie and the rest can share the crumbs.The system is now set up for the average family to get the crumbs, and for the below average to get those crumbs.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by mumma in pyjamas]

reply to post by whatukno


You need to understand that Goldman Sachs (relating to the hearings) was just the market maker in this instance.

They did NOT "bet against" anything as the role of a market maker is to keep an orderly book.

These con artists like Levin do not understand basic market principles. He made himself and the rest look quite stupid after spending 6.5 hours trying to figure out the verbiage behind what he was saying.

GS employees/ ex- employees could have made most of the Senate look quite stupid but I am sure had to hold back because of tarnishing their firm.

Think about it, who is responsible for letting homeowners borrow more than they should? Oh that's right the government regulations. Did GS hand out mortgages? Nope.. Interesting then how the government has tried to blame this debacle on everyone but themselves. Again, they have fooled most of middle America because most are dumb as rocks.

Do you really think GS derivative instruments that TRADED ONLY BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS had anything to do with this downfall? It is laughable if you really think that. If you buy into any of this you have been brainwashed by the facade of DEM/REPUB parties.

Also, when you are saying "betting against" this is a very gross misinterpretation of what is going on when a market maker sells inventory. If you need a clear definition search online for the roles of a principle / market maker in financial transactions.

Well, he's OK with you making money, but at a certain point he thinks he should have a say in how you spend it, not you. After all, its the good of the collective thats important, not personal achievement.

He has millions of fat, lazy Americans who will eagerly vote for him so he can tell you to work harder, so he can give them more.