Obama says "you've made enough money"

[HumblePie]

So wait, let me get back to the original point spidery07 made in the first post. He took a sentence out of context and put it in print something the president said as sarcastic and off-handed joke and tried to paint the comment as gospel?

Err... okay. I guess the president is not allowed to make any further jokes from now on. I'm sure his PR rep is all over that issue now that spider07 has brought it to light that some people have broken sarcasm meters.

 

[spidey07]

So wait, let me get back to the original point spidery07 made in the first post. He took a sentence out of context and put it in print something the president said as sarcastic and off-handed joke and tried to paint the comment as gospel?

Err... okay. I guess the president is not allowed to make any further jokes from now on. I'm sure his PR rep is all over that issue now that spider07 has brought it to light that some people have broken sarcasm meters.

If it were just a few slip ups by Obama I may let it pass. It's this constant behavior and the type of slip ups that show you the true Obama, what he really honestly believes and it started well before his campaign.

 

[Kappo]

You can't argue with someone like spidey, he's immune to facts. Plus, judging by the amount of posting on here, probably mooching of family.

Short of giving EVERY dollar away that you dont NEED, you really can't argue with that. Im willing to wager your lord and savior, while being very liberal with other people's money, is not quite the same when it comes to his own.

 

[HumblePie]

If it were just a few slip ups by Obama I may let it pass. It's this constant behavior and the type of slip ups that show you the true Obama, what he really honestly believes and it started well before his campaign.

Umm, didn't seem like a slip up to me when I heard it. Seemed to me like a very intentional joke. However, you portrayed what was a deliberate joke as something completely different. But before anyone could really point that out, the thread had devolved into mindless bickering so I thought I would bring it back on track to the original accusation you made.

Oh, and I make constant jokes about tons of things, many times the jokes are related, but that doesn't mean I believe in them. Maybe some do, as you are trying to allude to here, and maybe it's true, or maybe a joke is just that. A joke. Get over it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Come on, you have to know that is a gross simplification of why there are poor people in the world.

Perhaps, but how are you going to solve it? The "take from the rich and give to the poor" ideology doesn't solve the problem either. It often creates multi-generational poverty with those people becoming dependent on third parties (the government, charities, etc.) in order to survive.

 

[spidey07]

Short of giving EVERY dollar away that you dont NEED, you really can't argue with that. Im willing to wager your lord and savior, while being very liberal with other people's money, is not quite the same when it comes to his own.

And i'd bet good money that I donate more to charity than any liberal poster here.

 

[woolfe9999]

Lame troll thread. Statement taken out of context and overbroadened into a straw man. 404 outrage not found.

- wolf

 

[dmcowen674]

You can't argue with someone like spidey, he's immune to facts. Plus, judging by the amount of posting on here, probably mooching off family.

But like most of the radical righties on here they are rich family.

 

[Jhhnn]

Righties like to keep their panties in a wad by feeding their outrage addictions. It helps them convince themselves that they really are right, about everything, and that feeling of self righteous outrage is all they need to justify it to themselves.

Sometimes they need to really, really reach to get their fix, and to blame their usual targets, and this is a prima facia example...

 

[sandorski]

Lame troll thread. Statement taken out of context and overbroadened into a straw man. 404 outrage not found.

- wolf

Indeed. Between that and the consequent sub-discussions, once again the Moral Bankruptcy of the Right is touted as Virtue. Good News is that they lost Power, Bad news is that they learned nothing.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I don't agree with his trying to spread the wealth. But you need to ask yourself, what does one person need with 10's or 100's of millions of dollars ? ? You could never use it all, especially if they are making a few million per year or more in either salary or investments. I could be very comfortable with a start of about $6 million or so.

Some people won't be satisfied until the top 5% of the population--the ubermenchen--own 90% of the wealth and the rest of us are de facto enslaved. What's ironic is that some of the sheeple who are drinking the free market Kool Aid are not themselves rich and don't realize that they are merely the little people.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I've got a brilliant plan to anybody in that position. Now hear me out on this as it's very complicated. If they can't afford those things the program's solution is called WORK.

Have you ever heard the term "working poor" before? You see, under a real free market it's very possible that people could work very hard and end up being impoverished if the supply of labor is very large relative to the demand for that labor (see third world countries, which is the direction the U.S. is heading in.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Perhaps, but how are you going to solve it? The "take from the rich and give to the poor" ideology doesn't solve the problem either. It often creates multi-generational poverty with those people becoming dependent on third parties (the government, charities, etc.) in order to survive.

Birth control. Overpopulation is one of the huge causes of poverty worldwide. With a smaller, more manageable population there are more resources available per capita and less strain on the environment.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Birth control. Overpopulation is one of the huge causes of poverty worldwide. With a smaller, more manageable population there are more resources available per capita and less strain on the environment.

Yes, but are you willing to let the government mandate birth control?

 

[irishScott]

*sigh* P&N. Where mole hills turn into mountains on a daily basis. No talking about the line, found it to be pretty disturbing actually; but the core issue is a lot simpler.

I am entitled to make as much money as I possibly can, so long as I don't do so illegally. There is no cap. Now I'm constrained by my moral code in some ways, but I acknowledge that others aren't, and many have a different code entirely. The validity of that code is not for me to decide; and the morality, agree or disagree, is not mine to dictate.

The left, as demonstrated in this thread, simply wants to force their morality on everyone, and if you disagree you're automatically wrong in their eyes. Not that the right is much better; but with the right it's usually Religion oriented stuff (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that is inherently protected by the inviolable separation of church and state. With the left it's usually matters of wealth, power, and safety (gun control, financial regulation, welfare, etc); whose legal protections are much thinner if at all.

Last I checked America was the land of the free. More regulation != freedom, and if health care was any indication the regulation will be thousands of pages of political circle jerking that may or may not solve anything. Oh, and every senator on the left will claim, once again, that they read all of it. 🙄

 

[Zorba]

Money is not evil. Get over yourself.

Valuing nothing but money is, though.

 

[Argo]

As long as there are people in the world who cannot find affordable food, housing, or health care, I have no problem telling someone they've made enough money.

What if "enough" was set at half your income? What if somebody told you your car is too nice and you should be driving a beater, so somebody else can use that money.

What if somebody told you don't need an iPod, or a computer while there are starving families in Africa? What if somebody said your kids didn't need to go to college, while there are families in America that cannot afford to buy their kids clothes.

What if somebody told you don't need HDTV, since a standard def will convey the picture just fine?

Would you be ok with that? Who makes that decision?

 

[Argo]

*sigh* P&N. Where mole hills turn into mountains on a daily basis. No talking about the line, found it to be pretty disturbing actually; but the core issue is a lot simpler.

I am entitled to make as much money as I possibly can, so long as I don't do so illegally. There is no cap. Now I'm constrained by my moral code in some ways, but I acknowledge that others aren't, and many have a different code entirely. The validity of that code is not for me to decide; and the morality, agree or disagree, is not mine to dictate.

The left, as demonstrated in this thread, simply wants to force their morality on everyone, and if you disagree you're automatically wrong in their eyes. Not that the right is much better; but with the right it's usually Religion oriented stuff (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that is inherently protected by the inviolable separation of church and state. With the left it's usually matters of wealth, power, and safety (gun control, financial regulation, welfare, etc); whose legal protections are much thinner if at all.

Last I checked America was the land of the free. More regulation != freedom, and if health care was any indication the regulation will be thousands of pages of political circle jerking that may or may not solve anything. Oh, and every senator on the left will claim, once again, that they read all of it. 🙄

One of the few sane responses in this thread.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Then stop stealing public money directly from one bank account into your own, you thieving piece of shit. Oh no, I got it, you're special and we're peons. I forgot. I'll get back in line, massah.

 

[Jhhnn]

*sigh* P&N. Where mole hills turn into mountains on a daily basis. No talking about the line, found it to be pretty disturbing actually; but the core issue is a lot simpler.

I am entitled to make as much money as I possibly can, so long as I don't do so illegally. There is no cap. Now I'm constrained by my moral code in some ways, but I acknowledge that others aren't, and many have a different code entirely. The validity of that code is not for me to decide; and the morality, agree or disagree, is not mine to dictate.

The left, as demonstrated in this thread, simply wants to force their morality on everyone, and if you disagree you're automatically wrong in their eyes. Not that the right is much better; but with the right it's usually Religion oriented stuff (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that is inherently protected by the inviolable separation of church and state. With the left it's usually matters of wealth, power, and safety (gun control, financial regulation, welfare, etc); whose legal protections are much thinner if at all.

Last I checked America was the land of the free. More regulation != freedom, and if health care was any indication the regulation will be thousands of pages of political circle jerking that may or may not solve anything. Oh, and every senator on the left will claim, once again, that they read all of it. 🙄

You're right about the molehill into a moutain- that's what the OP was all about, and what you've endorsed. It was a *joke* by Obama- a *Joke*- get it?

You're right that you're entitled to make as much money as you possibly can. It's also true that, in a democratic republic such as our own, that the tax rate be determined by democratic means, irrespective of the amount of money an individual might have. And the legality of the means of making money is also determined in a democratic fashion. You *do* support Democracy, right? Or should we have one dollar/ one vote rather than one man/ one vote?

I think it's important to realize that every joke needs a bit of truth in it to be funny, and the truth about the accumulation of wealth is that it becomes an exercise in gamesmanship and an addiction at some point or another. Which was what Obama was *joking* about.

And the problem with it becoming a mere game for those at the tippy-top is that their game affects the whole economy. They can afford to take huge risks, because they're not risking it all- they're financially bulletproof. More or less income affects their lifestyles not at all, because only a small % of their income is actually spent on anything. The difference between making $50M and $250M/yr exists only on paper, and in the context of the game.

That's not true for the millions of other people who are affected by the playing of the game, however. When financial manipulations create the kind of boom/bust cycle we're experiencing, with the near collapse of the economy, it seems obvious that the rules of the game at the top need to be changed by democratic means, whether those at the top like it or not. It ceases to be a matter of ideology- it's a matter of self defense for the vast majority of Americans, and it's high time we recognize it as such.

 

[OrByte]

At this point I don't think Obama could possibly be re-elected even if this was North Korea and his name was Kim Jong-Il!!!

Obama is sooooo totally evil!!!

😛

 

[werepossum]

You're right about the molehill into a moutain- that's what the OP was all about, and what you've endorsed. It was a *joke* by Obama- a *Joke*- get it?

You're right that you're entitled to make as much money as you possibly can. It's also true that, in a democratic republic such as our own, that the tax rate be determined by democratic means, irrespective of the amount of money an individual might have. And the legality of the means of making money is also determined in a democratic fashion. You *do* support Democracy, right? Or should we have one dollar/ one vote rather than one man/ one vote?

I think it's important to realize that every joke needs a bit of truth in it to be funny, and the truth about the accumulation of wealth is that it becomes an exercise in gamesmanship and an addiction at some point or another. Which was what Obama was *joking* about.

And the problem with it becoming a mere game for those at the tippy-top is that their game affects the whole economy. They can afford to take huge risks, because they're not risking it all- they're financially bulletproof. More or less income affects their lifestyles not at all, because only a small % of their income is actually spent on anything. The difference between making $50M and $250M/yr exists only on paper, and in the context of the game.

That's not true for the millions of other people who are affected by the playing of the game, however. When financial manipulations create the kind of boom/bust cycle we're experiencing, with the near collapse of the economy, it seems obvious that the rules of the game at the top need to be changed by democratic means, whether those at the top like it or not. It ceases to be a matter of ideology- it's a matter of self defense for the vast majority of Americans, and it's high time we recognize it as such.

This is so funny and so typical! Lefties squeal "It's just a joke!" and then proceed to pontificate on why it's necessary. Pick a lane, Hugo.

 

[umbrella39]

You can't argue with someone like spidey, he's immune to facts. Plus, judging by the amount of posting on here, probably mooching of family.

LOL, there are a few vociferous junior teabaggers posting here from the safety of parents basement. Seems they have 24 hours a day to post here. I bet some of them were even able to get back onto their parents insurance when Obamacare was signed. That must really make them mad.

 

[irishScott]

You're right about the molehill into a moutain- that's what the OP was all about, and what you've endorsed. It was a *joke* by Obama- a *Joke*- get it?

You're right that you're entitled to make as much money as you possibly can. It's also true that, in a democratic republic such as our own, that the tax rate be determined by democratic means, irrespective of the amount of money an individual might have. And the legality of the means of making money is also determined in a democratic fashion. You *do* support Democracy, right? Or should we have one dollar/ one vote rather than one man/ one vote?

I think it's important to realize that every joke needs a bit of truth in it to be funny, and the truth about the accumulation of wealth is that it becomes an exercise in gamesmanship and an addiction at some point or another. Which was what Obama was *joking* about.

And the problem with it becoming a mere game for those at the tippy-top is that their game affects the whole economy. They can afford to take huge risks, because they're not risking it all- they're financially bulletproof. More or less income affects their lifestyles not at all, because only a small % of their income is actually spent on anything. The difference between making $50M and $250M/yr exists only on paper, and in the context of the game.

That's not true for the millions of other people who are affected by the playing of the game, however. When financial manipulations create the kind of boom/bust cycle we're experiencing, with the near collapse of the economy, it seems obvious that the rules of the game at the top need to be changed by democratic means, whether those at the top like it or not. It ceases to be a matter of ideology- it's a matter of self defense for the vast majority of Americans, and it's high time we recognize it as such.

lol. If it's just a joke then why are you so defensive?

In any case, I never argued against some regulation, mainly to ensure justice. Individual justice and public welfare are two different things. To use your style of extreme arguments: You do support individual justice don't you? Or maybe we should just abolish lawyers and court precedent and make every trial a national vote. 🙄

People at the bottom will always be jealous and covetous of what the people at the top have, and people at the top will always have more direct power than people at the bottom. Democracy limits that to a great extent, but hardly eliminates it. And it shouldn't be eliminated. A public is ultimately the sum of its individuals. Meaning for public welfare to be served individual welfare must come first, for the rich, middle and poor. A situation must be created where it is up to the individual to, through their own efforts determine their status over time. Intrusive legislation prevents this.

Now why did I type all this? Because Obama is and has for some time proven himself to be yet another liberal politician, and the liberal ideology usually destroys the environment I mentioned in favor of enabling without merit. He's just smarter, more charismatic and less rich-family inbred than most in DC.

Bottom line: I don't trust Obama or the Dems right now. They value the voice of their ideology over the voice of the people, and currently have trampling power in the government. I'll be for the creation of more regulation when the parties are balanced to the point where one party doesn't betray Democracy by trampling it's own moderates as well as the opposition.

 

[Pulsar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by shiner
That attitude is what built America




Yep and it's coming back to haunt the fuckers :thumbsup:

Really? Prior to all these social programs, you either succeeded, or you failed and paid the price. If you didn't have the money, you lost your home. If you didn't have have the money, you lost your TV, your Cable, your Cell phone.

You know what built the 'golden years' of the US? The great depression. It TAUGHT an entire generation how to save and how important it was to be intelligent with your money. My grandparents are a perfect example. School of hard knocks, but it resulted in a ton of saved money and low personal debt.

Now? Don't have the money? No worries. You're 'protected' from those evil banks - stop paying and it takes them up to a year to get your freeloading ass out of the home you can't afford. Declare bankruptcy! You can keep key assets protected from creditors! In the mean time, you can get another home loan through your husband (because the first loan was only in the wife's name), build a new smaller house, then walk away from the old big one.

Why? Because of all these wonderful protections in place. All these social security net programs. No one HAS to be responsible any more, because the consequences are that you still end up living in some semblance of decency.

Some people see them as the only thing a 'civilized' people would do. Fully ignoring the fact that life without consequences leads to people who don't work, don't care, and have zero personal responsibility.

If those same people knew that they were going to be out on their ass without all their toys? Goodness. I bet some of them would start making better decisions.

Go ahead. Call me cruel, or any of the many other names you regularly use. Call me a republican (you'd be wrong).