Who Is Obama To Say How Much Money Is Enough?

Obama was out campaigning for the Democrats’ Wall Street takeover legislation and had something very interesting to say:

“Now, what we’re doing, I want to be clear, 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.” [emphasis mine] Real Clear Politics (video)

Who is Obama to say how much money is enough? If people work and are successful then they are entitled to whatever they can earn. Professional athletes make a fortune for playing kids games and they are entitled to whatever team owners are willing to pay them. Wall Street executives and all other workers in the private sector are entitled to whatever wages they can earn. It is not up to Obama to decide.

This is nothing more than a play to the base about greedy people, you know the people who earn money and pay taxes. Speaking of taxes, I think there comes a point where we have paid enough in taxes. Perhaps Obama can explain how he plans to tax the rich to death but begrudges them their earnings, earnings on which they pay a lot of taxes. They pay nearly all the taxes.

Obama made 5 million dollars last year. Is that too much?

Obama’s pal Oprah Winfrey makes many multiples of Obama’s millions. Is Obama ready to tell Oprah that she has made enough money?

It is not up to a politician to decide if people have made enough money. That is up to the individual earning the money. If people think they have not made enough then they are free to earn more.

This is the mindset we get when a Socialist occupies the White House.

Then again, this is a regime misrepresenting TEA Party activists and training the military to combat them.

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

27 Responses to “Who Is Obama To Say How Much Money Is Enough?”

  1. The Won keeps slipping and accidentally revealing his true convictions. (I imagine there was no protective teleprompter at hand for him to consult.) It will cost him in November, and probably a second term in the Oval Office as well.

    Smith cannot dictate what Jones is willing to pay for Smith’s widget. Nor can Jones prevent Davis from outbidding him. But that is exactly the power Barack Hussein Obama wants invested in his person. By divine decree, perhaps?

  2. Blake says:

    I want Barrie to hand over his money to me- I have as much of a right to say that he has made too much money, as he is to say this- Actually, I have a better right- HE WORKS FOR ME- AND EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER, and I think he has been loafing on the job.
    I think he is wrong, and I think we should “clawback” some, if not all of his salary.
    I also want to put “boots” on Air Force One- it would be the green thing to do.
    Also, the constant speechifying probably is hastening “global warming”- at the very least, it’s noise pollution.
    Barrie doesn’t get to tell me how much I can make- if he tries,he will get bitch-slapped for sure, which would be about right.

  3. Adam says:

    Oh, goody. Another outpouring of conservative outrage over an out of context quote by Obama. You might be able to pull one over on rubes like Porretto but you should really read the full text before you parrot more right wing echo-chamber garbage like this.

    So [Wall Street] failed to consider that behind every dollar that they traded, all that leverage they were generating, acting like it was Monopoly money, there were real families out who were trying to finance a home, or pay for their child’s college, or open a business, or save for retirement. So what’s working fine for them wasn’t working for ordinary Americans.

    Now, what we’re doing — I want to be clear, 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 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.

    Obama isn’t begrudging the earning of money for hard work or a good product as you and so many other conservatives have claimed. He’s talking about the way Wall Street put their risky profits ahead of the financial stability of our country and how enough is enough.

    And additionally, if returning to 90’s level taxes on the upper brackets is “taxing the rich to death” then I guess that explains why the 90’s were such a disastrous time in our history. Oh wait…

    • Big Dog says:

      The 90s were disastrous. I know your claims but you know they are not true. The dot com bubble provided a great deal of money until it burst and things started going south. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton.

      No, Obama is saying that at a certain point you’ve made enough but that is not the way we do it right now. The words JUST KEEP ON MAKING IT shows the contempt. The two sentences make no sense the way you portray them. Given the first sentence the second means …but until that changes people can keep making money.

      But ask yourself, if Wall Street kept making money then they must have had a good product, right?

      And while Wall Street is not blameless neither is the government that fostered the environment where the risks were encouraged and where banks were forced to lend to those who could not afford the loans. The very people who caused this mess are trying to regulate. Here is an idea. Let the banks run their businesses and if they get in trouble LET THEM FAIL. Why is Goldman in favor of the regulation? Because it will favor them and the big boys at the expense of the little folks. People who received hundreds of thousands of dollars from these companies are now making new rules for them. And you actually think they will be bad for those companies?

      Echo chamber, like the one on the left spewing lies about Arizona police being able to stop people for no reason and ask for papers? The comparisons to Nazi Germany and such. Now there is an echo chamber from people who failed to read and cannot comprehend the law.

      • Adam says:

        “The two sentences make no sense the way you portray them.”

        Sorry. The way I “portray” them is simply the reality of what Obama was speaking about. Try reading for comprehension and not simply vomiting up right wing talking points given to you from the pack of liars and manipulators that pass for party leadership on your side.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “left spewing lies about Arizona police being able to stop people for no reason and ask for papers?>>

        Obviously they have a reason Bigd, it’s to make sure your turn signals are working… and ask for papers. Just like in Germany.

        “Reasonable suspicion” is not defined and is a gaping hole wide enough to drive a 747 through.


      • Darrel says:

        “This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on “reasonable suspicion” that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause,” said Mack in a statement. “It shouldn’t be against the law to not have proof of citizenship on you.”

        –Republican Representative Connie Mack, W. Post.

        • victoria says:

          Oh please–we are asked everytime we turn around for ID. If I use my debit card I am asked for ID. If I write a check I am asked for ID. If I apply for a job I am asked for my ID and birth certificate. If you get stopped for anything you are asked for drivers license and proof of insurance and car registration.

        • victoria says:

          It seems to me that apparently only the illegals are never supposed to be asked for any ID for fear of offending them or something. They for damn sure don’t get prosecuted for breaking the law (ie driving in this country without a license or being able to read the signs in English. etc.) I had a very good friend killed by an obvious illegal driving without a license who ran a stop sign and nothing ever came of it and I do mean nothing because they get out on bail and run back to Mexico. If you or I had of done that we would be in jail right now.

        • Blake says:

          I see people stopped for speeding, or some other traffic infraction, and when asked, say that they “forgot” their drivers license- how freakin’ STUPID do you have to be, to drive WITHOUT a license? Based on this, these people, from WHEREVER they came from, should be held until confirmation of their identity comes up- there SHOULD be negative consequences for stupid behavior- this is how some people learn- by sticking their hand into the fire.
          Does one tell the fire not to burn the person so stupid as to do this? No- and one should not tell the police to NOT arrest these brain-dead people- and if they are in the country illegally, they should pay a fine for their illegal act, and then get shipped back to the border.
          There must ALWAYS be consequences for one’s actions.

    • This “rube” is 58 years old, a husband and father, holds a PhD in physics, and possesses an over-200 IQ. And he thinks your persuasive technique needs more than a little work. Have you been studying under Darrel Henschell, perhaps?

    • Blake says:

      Actually, Adam, Owebamma IS begrudging the money made from hard work- he just AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME has no way to stop someone from making it, but believe me- he WILL try to find a way- of course, with exemptions for himself and other progressive elites like Soros.
      And the 90’s were not such a “good” time- well, I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, right?

  4. Big Dog says:

    Reading for comprehension? Adam, you have trouble reading anything for comprehension. I am quite good at reading. Perhaps one day you might even achieve a higher level but until you do don’t question my ability to comprehend.

    • Adam says:

      “Adam, you have trouble reading anything for comprehension.”

      Isn’t the “No, you!” comeback a sign of weakness on the school yard you live in?

      See, I usually want to think the best of people. I had hoped it was just reading comprehension but if you’re sure you’ve got that taken care of then I’m left only to assume you know you were duped again by your Con media overlords and you’re simply maintaining your status as an intellectually dishonest partisan.

  5. Big Dog says:

    No Darrel, you obviously are echoing the liberal talking points. Contact with the law has not changed nor has reason for contact. The police cannot walk up to people and ask for papers. To be clear, the Arizona law only allows the local police to do what FEDERAL LAW allows. Immigrants who are here legally must carry their papers with them, that is the federal law.

    And the list of items that is assumed to prove legal status is long and includes a driver’s license.

    You and your buddies are wrong about this.

    The law is the law and I think that while one could make a case that it is federal law to decide who is here legally, the state can make the case that they have a right to determine who is in THEIR state legally.

    • Blake says:

      The State can also make the case that if the Federal government, for whatever reason, cannot or will not protect the State’s citizens, it is the State’s right and obligation to do so, and the Federal government should, at that point, step out of the equation.
      If you will not exercise your responsibility, then the responsibility is taken from you and given to someone who WILL.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The police cannot walk up to people and ask for papers.”>>

      Actually I heard a bigshot police chief from Arizona getting interviewed about this yesterday. He was defending the law as it is and making his best case. When given the exact same example you just gave he admitted they they in fact could. And of course, they would.

      Note, this is not to argue for or against the law (I am actually a little torn on the issue), but rather to ask that the facts are stated correctly. And they are changing fast, the law was just amended the other day.


  6. Big Dog says:

    Obviously Mack and others are going by what is reported rather than what is written. Read the law.

    There is no reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal to stop them. The reasonable suspicion MUST come after making contact with the law for some other reason just as in the past.

    The law is a good one and is misrepresented by people who do not obey the law and those like progressives who like illegals because they add to the slave labor pool in the country and provide votes.

    Get back to the law Darrel and you will do fine.

    You were gone for a while and I was hoping that you had moved on in life but you keep coming back…

  7. Big Dog says:

    Amazingly Adam, you ignore the verbosity of some of your allies here.

    Don’t be a hater Adam, it is unbecoming.

    • Adam says:

      I don’t hate anyone here. I just speak the truth. And I wouldn’t insult Darrel too much. It’s awful boring around here when he and I aren’t commenting.

      • Blake says:

        It is fairly boring when you ARE here, Adam- we ALL know exactly what you are going to say, which is right out of the progressive playbook, and most often contrary to common sense.
        There is a wide gulf between you and the truth- you just speak to your perceptional prejudices, and try to legitimize these ideologically flawed arguments. Same with Darrel.

  8. Bunny Colvin says:

    “Obama’s pal Oprah Winfrey makes many multiples of Obama’s millions. Is Obama ready to tell Oprah that she has made enough money?”

    Oprah never needed a government bailout, you dope. Do you ever think before you post?


    • Big Dog says:

      Bunny, I have warned you when you were here before about the way you talk to people. I am sure you are frustrated but that is your issue. You have been away for a while and it was nice here. You will be away much sooner this time if you don’t straighten up.

      Many of the companies who took bailouts were forced to do so by the government and they did not need them.

      If you could show me where he was talking about only those who took bailouts then I might see it. Of course, financial reform will be ONLY for those who took bailouts, right?

  9. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog- you are so soft. Hard to believe you were a serviceman for so many years. Such thin skin.

    Many of the companies who took the bailouts were healthier than Bear or Lehman. Unfortunately, the run against their firms had already begun. Morgan Stanley was next to go, even though by your definition they didn’t “need” the bailout. Wells Fargo was really the only major player who had a strong argument not to take the money. Even so, they accepted the terms to save the entire industry. If you are talking about non-financial firms not “needing” the money, you make some sense. But there were more than a few companies in this group too- GM and Chrysler come to mind. So does GE.

    I realize that you know little of markets and the fundamentals of finance, Dog. That is not a problem. It’s when you try to oversimplify everything that happened and blame gubment intervention for the meltdown that you make yourself look like an a$$.

    Do you know who Brooksley Born is, Dog? I doubt it. But check out what she had to say many years ago. Perhaps the types of regulation she suggested would have been for the best. I know, I know that it was Rubin and Summers (Clinton guys) who shut her up. Blind allegiance to unregulated markets permeates both parties. But don’t you think a little gubment intervention in the world of derivatives might have done some good?