Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107
  1.    #1  
    Any guess on who said this recently? Do you agree with this statement? If you do, at what amount is "enough" and what happens when you exceed that amount? Who should really determine what is excessive income? Should these "excessive" earnings be taxed at 70, 80, or 90%?

    By the way.....this comment obviously came from Prez Obama earlier this week....he went off the teleprompter when he said this. I wonder if his income of $5 million is excessive? Reminds me of his off teleprompter comment regarding "spreading the wealth". I get blasted in here for commenting on his need to use the teleprompter, but the good thing about his off-prompter comments is you really do get to see what he truly believes, not what he wants you to think he believes.

    Need a link? Look it up yourself, it pops up quite easily
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  2. #2  
    well if you are (person, not a corporate like Google) earning 20 billion a year (no one is, but i'm using it as an example), then you should be taxed alot. Now you don't tax 90% on all of it.

    you tax 0 for the first 30 000, then tax 5% for the next 10, then 10% for the next 20, etc.. (those are not the numbers i believe in. I don't know what the right percents are, but thats the system that most places use, and i think it's appropriate. )
  3. #3  
    Totally out of context. But I'm sure you would feel that regardless of how many small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors are totally screwed by Wall Street pushing them to buy things that they know will fail, you still think they should earn as much money as they possibly can at the expense of Main Street. I guess that's one reason the republicans are against financial reform. Thanks for clarifying that.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Totally out of context. But I'm sure you would feel that regardless of how many small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors are totally screwed by Wall Street pushing them to buy things that they know will fail, you still think they should earn as much money as they possibly can at the expense of Main Street. I guess that's one reason the republicans are against financial reform. Thanks for clarifying that.
    The only thing that's clear is that you can't/won't distinguish between earning money and earning money at someone else's expense. Personally, I've never thought wealth is a zero-sum game. In fact, I believe quite the opposite.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Totally out of context. But I'm sure you would feel that regardless of how many small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors are totally screwed by Wall Street pushing them to buy things that they know will fail, you still think they should earn as much money as they possibly can at the expense of Main Street. I guess that's one reason the republicans are against financial reform. Thanks for clarifying that.
    So, Obama was just talking about Wall Street investors? Last time I checked - they're not the only wealthy people in this country. Some of them got weathly through hard work and a little luck. You know, the ones that provide the vast majority of jobs in this country.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Totally out of context. But I'm sure you would feel that regardless of how many small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors are totally screwed by Wall Street pushing them to buy things that they know will fail, you still think they should earn as much money as they possibly can at the expense of Main Street. I guess that's one reason the republicans are against financial reform. Thanks for clarifying that.
    I think you're mixing up Goldman Sachs recent issue with the statement. But if you are suggesting that Goldman Sachs was pushing "small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors" to "buy things that they know will fail", you apparently didn't realize that those weren't the folks who were buying the GS investments in the news recently. These were supposedly sophisticated hedge fund managers. You know, some of those evil guys that make really, really, really big money that were being crucified by liberals not too long ago. Funny how now they are coming to their rescue? Anyway, these investments were not investments that folks like you and I would have been involved with. So, your comment is actually the one that is "out of context".

    Obama's comment is interesting because it clarifies what he really believes about people, apparently other than himself, making the big money. Does Obama really need to make and keep $5 million dollars when his housing, transportation, and benefits are paid for him? He does have to pay for some food....unless it's for WH events. But anyway, he's a darn hypocrite. But....again shows how when off the tele-prompter, he is likely to say what he truly believes....and that is the spread the wealth mentality. I am a little surprised his "guys" let him fly solo without a prompter.

    Of course, you did dodge the question as to how much is "enough money".
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Obama's comment is interesting because it clarifies what he really believes about people, apparently other than himself, making the big money. Does Obama really need to make and keep $5 million dollars when his housing, transportation, and benefits are paid for him? He does have to pay for some food....unless it's for WH events. But anyway, he's a darn hypocrite. But....again shows how when off the tele-prompter, he is likely to say what he truly believes....and that is the spread the wealth mentality. I am a little surprised his "guys" let him fly solo without a prompter.
    Jeebus, any opportunity to bash Obama huh Clem. Where have you been when two of the wealthiest men in America (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) espoused the same sentiment. And yea, google it, it pops up easily.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Jeebus, any opportunity to bash Obama huh Clem. Where have you been when two of the wealthiest men in America (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) espoused the same sentiment. And yea, google it, it pops up easily.
    The difference is that Gates and Buffet can't raise taxes...

    And by the way, I think the size of "enough" that Warren and Billy are thinking of (and are achieving) is a little bigger than what Obama has in mind.


    If Obama finished his sentence by saying that the number he had in mind was several BILLION, it might not be of such concern...

    ...just sayin'
  9. #9  
    heres an idea. lets throw all of the ceo fat cats out of their businesses, and place them below the poverty line. then we place those below the poverty line, at the helm of these huge businesses

    Worked great for Zimbabwe.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by GarrettQ View Post
    heres an idea. lets throw all of the ceo fat cats out of their businesses, and place them below the poverty line. then we place those below the poverty line, at the helm of these huge businesses

    Worked great for Zimbabwe.
    ...before we do that, let's do that with congress.
  11. #11  
    I think most Americans agree that a minimum wage is appropriate (the amount, that is another, more contentious topic). So does anyone out there think we need a maximum wage?
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    I think most Americans agree that a minimum wage is appropriate (the amount, that is another, more contentious topic). So does anyone out there think we need a maximum wage?
    Obama clearly does.

    Personally, I would like to figure out how to make enough that someone thinks I make "enough" because that would be a LOT more than I make right now.

    I'd also like to see Obama weigh in on those that make "enough" that aren't in those nasty corporate accounts.

    Specifically, I'd like to see him say that specifically to people who command $10m-$20m per movie. That's a lot more than the $5m he was criticiaing. I wonder if movie and tv stars would disagree with "their" president if he called for them to limit their earnings. In fact, I'd like to see him say that about Oprah.... and then see what she says in response.

    Then he can start in on professional athletes. They make way too much, so I can't afford to take my kids to the game like I did when I was a kid.
  13. #13  
    Of course, that's only half the quote. The other half is when he said that "but part of the American way is that you can keep making money as long as you provide a good product or a good service". But don't let the facts interrupt a nice partisan hackjob.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Of course, that's only half the quote. The other half is when he said that "but part of the American way is that you can keep making money as long as you provide a good product or a good service". But don't let the facts interrupt a nice partisan hackjob.
    True, I didn't read the whole thing. But just the fact that he can say those words... in his current position... after firing the head of GM and saving all those banks, etc... I wish he would have finished that statement with a commitment that part of the "American Way" is that people can continue to "keep" the majority of those earnings that exceed his "enough"...

    Personally, I would definitely stop working if I hit my "enough" bank balance. However, that isn't necessarily good for the country because at that point I would be adding a lot to the GNP, and to stop creating income would actually reduce tax receipts.

    But, I would love to hit a number that could let me get off the treadmill. I think $1million in the bank would be plenty for me. Maybe less.

    Here is the actual quote. It still concerns me because he doesn't draw any conclusion - he just puts it out there as somewhat of a jab... "enough... but that pesky american way still let's them keep going"... followed by rolling his eyes... emphasis and bidy language could really change the meaning...

    I know that isn't what he said/did, but it is something I can actually imagine him doing. I wish that weren't true. I can't imagine Reagan saying/doing that...

    "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."
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 05/01/2010 at 04:17 PM.
  15. #15  
    I didn't know the President made 5 Million dollars a year....hum must of missed that.....
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by mmcnamara43 View Post
    I didn't know the President made 5 Million dollars a year....hum must of missed that.....
    He doesn't in terms of his salary. Not sure what that $5m number is referring to.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Totally out of context. But I'm sure you would feel that regardless of how many small investors, retirement and pension funds, and business investors are totally screwed by Wall Street pushing them to buy things that they know will fail, you still think they should earn as much money as they possibly can at the expense of Main Street. I guess that's one reason the republicans are against financial reform. Thanks for clarifying that.
    I would have preferred that we not bail them out, but let them fail and get fired by their boards. And maybe even go to jail if they did bad things.
  18. #18  
    Sual Alinsky, Obama's mentor: Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909–June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing and has been compared in Playboy Magazine to Thomas Paine as "one of the great American leaders of the nonsocialist left".
    Last edited by RoverNole; 05/01/2010 at 05:13 PM.
  19. #19  
    Alinsky son on Obama:
    By Judi McLeod Tuesday, September 2, 2008
    In Artful Dodger style, Barack Obama, plays down his mentorship with Communist author Saul Alinsky. But Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, credits Obama for “learning his lesson well” from the Communist guru.

    Says Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky of his father’s influence at the Dem Convention: “ALL the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.”

    “The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style, the Communist guru’s son wrote in a letter published yesterday in the Boston Globe.

    The Artful Dodger may be less than pleased that he has been pegged as a Saul Alinsky Poster Boy by the guru’s own son.

    “Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness,” Alinsky Jr. wrote to the Globe. “It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

    “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

    “Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist.” (American Thinker, Aug. 30, 2008). “As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn’t coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services.”

    Obama followed the same path.

    It is a fact that activist-*** senator Barack Obama started off his career as an activist with a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned, in Alinsky’s own words, how to “rub raw the sores of discontent”.
  20. #20  
    RULES for RADICALS: For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting whatever he believed to be wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they don’t have the power to change a situation, they stop thinking about it.

    According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. Alinsky would say, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”

    Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

    Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

    Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
    Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
    Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
    Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
    Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
    Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
    Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
    Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
    Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
    Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
    According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions