Obama said...

Crabby and MP -

Then what does Obama mean by "at a certain point you've made enough money"?

What is the "certain point"?

How much is "enough money"?

Be sure to keep in mind that this was said in a speech about financial regulation.

 

I think you missed a key statement when you bolded sections of the quote.

"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. "

 

So what did Obama mean by "at a certain point you've made enough money"?

IMbama is expressing his dilemma... How does he limit companies profits at "enough" - to satisfy his base who are invested in class envy - without causing those companies to decide to stop working "and thereby stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy."

 

Maybe you also missed the part of the transcript that said:

"(Laughter.)"

after the quote in question.

 

That his audience laughed does not effect the meaning of Obama's words.

That they laughed does not mean that Obama was joking.

They could have just as easily been laughing at the thought of "the rich" finally getting their come-uppance because in their minds they too heard Obama's words as "this financial regulation will limit companies profits to 'enough'".

 

If that is how the audience felt about limiting profits it would probably have been recorded as

"(Applause.)"

in the transcript and they would have said "Boo" to the sentence immediately following the laughter.

 

Gold Dragon get your head out of the collective kool-aide jug. You know exactly what Obama was saying. So, why don't you tell us how much is enough since you seem to agree with our illustrious president? Maybe those from down under have this magical answer.

 

Bit isn't that what the conservatives always wanted? Deregulation? "Supply-side" economics?

It seems to me that the Democrates are darned if they do; darned if they don't.

One of the reasons the race issue persists, is because people want to paint the entire race with such a broad sweeping scolding. But this discussion is not even about race. (And then in other discussions, we get into the whole "mooching grasshopper/cockroach" thing, which is even worse).
And then, you project this at the other side and imagine people are painting the entire white race the same way, as you did in that sarcastic post in the Tea Party thread.

If any group should be corporately admonished like that, I would think it should be conservatives, because it seems they are too fixated on everyone else's evil, and this is what makes people expect bigotry of all kinds from them. And then you sense that they are expecting it from you.

 

The magical answer is forty two. (Laughter.)

 

My point is that the government should have eliminated the Federal guarantee on bank accounts when they allowed the banks to take on more risks.

They could have made it a two track regulation with account guarantees for those banks that did not engage in the new risky investment activities and no guarantees for those that did.

The public that was putting their savings into the bank could have made the choice themselves as to how much risk they were willing to take for a given level of return.

Instead the government gave the banks a green light on high risk investments while still guaranteeing the accounts.

So the result is that the taxpayer paid for the increased risk with no benefit in return.

 

Thanks Nite,
I am glad to know that we see things in a very similar fashion.

 

it is a problem of scale

$5 million is pocket change to "real" rich people, green fees, their bar tab.

The real rich people have conspired to start intra-class warfare within the working class. A high end wage earner who works a 60 hour week can make $200K a year in wages. I should be jealous of him? He has a 35% (?) marginal tax rate. The guy who has $100 million in the market, he has a $5 million annual increase and pays a maximum 5% capital gains tax on what he SPENDS, not what he earns.

You all want a flat tax? At today's numbers, a "fair" tax would exempt the first $250K/$500K of WAGES, a 35% income tax over that and 35% tax on ALL capital gains.

 

Where do you get this stuff?

5% capital gains tax on what he SPENDS?

I'm a CPA and I have to ask - What in the world are you talking about?

 

That we do brother.

 

Yes he would do well to say that since the big money (Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Peter Lewis etc) are all Obama supporters. Wall Street investors contributed largely to the Obama campaign. By making statements about 'greed' and 'too much', he gets to stradle the fence and have it both ways.

 

>5% capital gains tax on what he SPENDS?

>I'm a CPA and I have to ask - What in the world are you talking about?
tax

A person who works for wages pays a tax on everything he earns, a SS and medicare tax if nothing else. A person with $10 million in the market earns about 5% or $500K on his investment. If he only intends to spend $200K he sells $200K of his portfolio, pays 15% capital gains and leaves the rest alone to accumulate tax free until he needs to spend it. He doesn't pay a cent of Medicare tax or SS on his investment.

That is why I say rich people only pay taxes on what they spend. Yes, they also may pay capital gains on what they sell and re-invest but that is a cost of doing business.

 

Yes, I can believe it, because he had the audacity during the campaign to tell us he wanted to spread the wealth. I took him at his word and nothing has surprised me since.

 

Oh, really, now? Well, you seem to be doing a pretty good job yourself of stoking wealth envy.

Must be all those years of union training. Jimmy Hoffa would be proud of your coveting skills.