Now is Not the Time for Profits!

[Buffalo Roam]

Obama said it, now how does He think we are going to get out of the recession?

If there are no profits for companies there is no recovery, and this Man is President?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bonuses

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said. "Now is not that time."

[cosmictraveler]

I think he means if you already make 100.00 a week in profits not to increase the costs of your goods to increase profits. So if you sold that thing that you recieved 100.00 in profits for , for 300.00, then don't increase that items cost if can help it.

[Buffalo Roam]

I think he means if you already make 100.00 a week in profits not to increase the costs of your goods to increase profits. So if you sold that thing that you recieved 100.00 in profits for , for 300.00, then don't increase that items cost if can help it.

If your are selling something for $100 it is because that is what the market will bear, and not one cent more, you cannot arbitraryly raise the price of your product to $300 unless people are willing to pay $300 for it.

And if people will pay $300 for your product then that profit is justifiable, if not then you go out of business because your sale drop and you stop making a profit.

We are in a recession because so many companies stopped making profits, they can't pay the investors dividends from the money the Investors invested in their companies, and now investors are not investing in those companies, because they are not making profits anymore.

Fannie and Freddie stopped being profitable, they over priced their market, beyond what the consumer could pay, so the consumer stopped paying for a inflated product that was no longer worth what they contracted for it.

The Fannie and Freddie Fuck up was a great big democratic ponzi scheme, dependent on the price always going up and more and more people spending money they couldn't afford, and like all ponzi schemes it reached the breaking point, where not enough new money was coming in to keep the prices going up so it busted, and started the slide in to recession, and now most likely Depression.

What don't you understand that profits are what keep us out of recessions and depressions.

What don't the President understand about that, no profits no recovery.

[pjdude1219]

I think he means if you already make 100.00 a week in profits not to increase the costs of your goods to increase profits. So if you sold that thing that you recieved 100.00 in profits for , for 300.00, then don't increase that items cost if can help it.

Yeah I'm going to agree with you. It seemed to me he was implying they shouldn't go for excessive profits.

[Xelios]

I dunno, in my experience a bonus is usually earned by doing a good job. Have these guys been doing a good job?

[pjdude1219]

I dunno, in my experience a bonus is usually earned by doing a good job. Have these guys been doing a good job?

Dude some of these guys get a bones and than are fired a week later.

[Xelios]

Dude some of these guys get a bones and than are fired a week later.
That's what severance packages are for...

[spidergoat]

BR, I think you are interpreting those words incorrectly. He meant that at this time, most companies aren't profiting like they were, so why are they rewarding people for poor performance? That's not capitalism, is it? This is all the more regrettable if these same companies are getting federal loans or bail outs.

[Buffalo Roam]

BR, I think you are interpreting those words incorrectly. He meant that at this time, most companies aren't profiting like they were, so why are they rewarding people for poor performance? That's not capitalism, is it? This is all the more regrettable if these same companies are getting federal loans or bail outs.

How do you get that out of this?, a direct quote:

"There will be time for them to make profits,

and there will be time for them to get bonuses,"

Obama said. "Now is not that time."

[cosmictraveler]

BR, too many people in business today are reaping very high , extremely high profits and you know damn well they are, that's NET profits I'm talking about. Greed is prevalent everywhere and a few greedy people need to just stop their greedy ways and slow down their profit taking and just ease back on wanting , taking and stealing the money from consumers.

[Buffalo Roam]

BR, too many people in business today are reaping very high , extremely high profits and you know damn well they are, that's NET profits I'm talking about. Greed is prevalent everywhere and a few greedy people need to just stop their greedy ways and slow down their profit taking and just ease back on wanting , taking and stealing the money from consumers.

Really, you can prove that?

Profit is what keeps us out of recession, and depression.

The profits dissapear and guess what you get, recession, and depression.

Now show that any profit that is excessive, doesn't kill sales and return the price of the product to the market value, any profit that is support by the demand and sale of a product is not excessive, and the President doesn't have the right to determine what excessive profits are, the market will do that just fine.

The last time a President and the Government determined what was excessive profits were under Carter, and we ended up with Interest rate,
21%, Inflation, 13.5%. Unemployment, 7%

[Tiassa]

While I hold with those who would suggest our neighbor, Mr. Roam, is splitting hairs in order to pretend a controversial proposition where there is none, we should also remember that many companies are perfectly willing to sink their revenue into another aspect of business: growth.

Inextricable from that notion is that a business might attempt to increase its profits by reducing its expenditures. And a common expenditure to reduce is the labor force.

Meanwhile, we see a of snotty, ill-concieved proposition straight from the intellectual gutter:


If there are no profits for companies there is no recovery, and this Man is President?

Quite clearly, such sentiments don't give a damn about the economy or people at large. Such rhetoric is purely political, an impotent twitch of flaccid pride. Indeed, the examples he pretends support his point are nothing more than vapid political slogans preying on the ignorance—both real and imagined—his ego depends on.

Fannie and Freddie stopped being profitable, they over priced their market, beyond what the consumer could pay, so the consumer stopped paying for a inflated product that was no longer worth what they contracted for it.

The Fannie and Freddie Fuck up was a great big democratic ponzi scheme, dependent on the price always going up and more and more people spending money they couldn't afford, and like all ponzi schemes it reached the breaking point, where not enough new money was coming in to keep the prices going up so it busted, and started the slide in to recession, and now most likely Depression.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not responsible for the subprime meltdown or the economic turmoil that followed. Neither organization issued a single mortgage. Furthermore, it was private-sector capitalists who manipulated the market, who deceived investors, who packaged bad loans. How many questionable securities did Fannie or Freddie rate as AAA? Absolutely zero.

In a time of great crisis, some people are simply unable to stuff their vacuous pride. It is more important to them to blame the object of their long-simmering hatred, to play political games. It is more important to them to see their preferred political affiliations brought to power than finding solutions to the challenges before us.

Indeed, in demanding proof of excessive profits, our man Buffalo seems to forget that while energy prices spiraled and petroleum companies pled expenses as the reason, those corporations were posting record profits.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama invoked First Corinthians, telling Americans that it was time to put aside childish things. And, as many liberals quietly expected, yet hoped against, we see that many of our conservative neighbors have responded, "You go right ahead and do that, Mr. President. We'll just be over here in the corner, complaining like spoiled children."

Yesterday, the GOP elected Michael Steele as its party chairman. The first African American to lead the Republican Party, Mr. Steele acknowledged that his team suffered an image problem. Now it is up to him to prove that his election to lead the nation's conservatives is something more than a cosmetic tweak. "Rush will says what Rush has to say," he told a reporter who asked about the recent exchange of words involving the President and the nation's foremost professional gasbag. "We will do what we have to do as a party." The hint of separation between the right-wing media machine and the party is encouraging, but he also had words for the White House: "How do you like me now?"

Perhaps he will work on putting away the childish things next week.

[Challenger78]

Dude.
Out of context.
Now is not time for excessive profits, or even growth. We're in a recession, because people put short term profits ahead of common sense.

[Bricoleur]

I take offence at companies, esp. banks, making record profits year after year. Nothing wrong with making a profit, but why the excess? Whats with the greed?
Why screw the customers with ever decreasing service on top of larger fees (account keeping, withdrawal fees etc), knowing that we can't really do any more than take our business to yet another one of the fat fucking pigs. I say eat the rich!:p

[cosmictraveler]

Really, you can prove that?

Take a look at the gas companies profits last quarter or even all of last year, what does that tell you? They made in excess of over 100 BILLION dolars in NET PROFITS! If that doesn't prove my point I guess you will never understand. :(

[Tiassa]

Nothing wrong with making a profit, but why the excess? Whats with the greed?

Investors.

[Zakariya04]

If your are selling something for $100 it is because that is what the market will bear, and not one cent more, you cannot arbitraryly raise the price of your product to $300 unless people are willing to pay $300 for it.

And if people will pay $300 for your product then that profit is justifiable, if not then you go out of business because your sale drop and you stop making a profit.


Hey buffalo

this is true but not if the consumer doesnt hav a choice, eg rail tickets to get to work etc etc etc

[Buffalo Roam]

Take a look at the gas companies profits last quarter or even all of last year, what does that tell you? They made in excess of over 100 BILLION dolars in NET PROFITS! If that doesn't prove my point I guess you will never understand. :(

We have a shortage of refinery capacity, caused by the Democrats and the Environmentalist shutting down refineries across the U.S., we are competing in a global market which determines the price of crude, and the Chinese and Indian economies are competing for more crude oil, and refined product off the market were we buy our crude and underproduction needs.

The profits were not excess, because that was what the market would bear at that time, and the reason the market would bear that price was because of Government interference.

The rules and regulations from the government have not allowed for a new refinery, since 1982, so we can't even refine all of our own oil production today.

We cannot compete in the fuel markets because we don't have the excess production to ship to a world market to keep the prices down, we are now at the mercy of the production capacity of the world market, and who is willing to pay the mark ups for that refined product.

Europe, India, China.....Head to head competition for constricted supplies, that are constricted because of Government policies that strangle our refinery capacity, and crude oil production.

Now just exactly did the government do to end the price run? not a dammed thing, it was the market, as the price went up people bought less, drove less, and the supplies caught up with demands and the prices fell, and guess what Big Oil is still making their normal 9 to 12 cents on the dollar invested.

Do you think they paid any less for their energy need than we did?

Their cost went up the same as ours did, for every penny, quarter, dollar that energy prices went up, the cost of doing business for Big Oil and Energy went up that exact same amount.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

[iceaura]

There is investment, and later there is profit.

Now is the time for investment, not profit taking. For example, the bailout money should be invested, not taken as profit.

That seems reasonable to me.

We have a shortage of refinery capacity, caused by the Democrats and the Environmentalist shutting down refineries across the U.S., Unless you think the US Democrats and Environmentalists shut down refineries all over the world, that is nonsense. The shortage of refinery capacity is global, and is exactly what one would expect from a cartel or monopoly industry structure with military backing. Exxon made record profits again this year, mostly on its refinery operations, which it has arranged for maximum profitability and without much restriction from basically non-existent competitive market forces.

Iran has been trying hard to increase its refinery capacity, for example. Exxon's pet government finds that prospect not to its liking.

[madanthonywayne]

Obama said it, now how does He think we are going to get out of the recession?

If there are no profits for companies there is no recovery, and this Man is President?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_bonuses

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said. "Now is not that time."While I agree with the main point Obama was making (no executive whose business was just bailed out by the governemnt deserves a bonus), I don't like the broader "profit is evil" demonization of business rhetoric.

[Buffalo Roam]

While I agree with the main point Obama was making (no executive whose business was just bailed out by the governemnt deserves a bonus), I don't like the broader "profit is evil" demonization of business rhetoric.

That I will a agree with, how does a executive deserve a bonus when the company loses money, any bonus should be awarded by the share holders, not the Boards.

But as you sat the demonization of profit is not called for, because it is profit that will get us out of the Recession/Depression.

Profit pays for expansion, and hiring, profit brings in new investors with more money for more expansion, and a larger work force.

What don't the Liberals and Democrats understand about that?

[pjdude1219]

While I agree with the main point Obama was making (no executive whose business was just bailed out by the governemnt deserves a bonus), I don't like the broader "profit is evil" demonization of business rhetoric.

profit is evil when your rank and file employees have to choose between the heating bill and food for the family. Not saying that is what happening but lets be honest if a company is raking in huge profits and the rank and file are having trouble making ends meet that can hardly be called a good thing. and there are companies whose rank and file or at least a percentage of have to make choices between essentials.

[Buffalo Roam]

profit is evil when your rank and file employees have to choose between the heating bill and food for the family. Not saying that is what happening but lets be honest if a company is raking in huge profits and the rank and file are having trouble making ends meet that can hardly be called a good thing. and there are companies whose rank and file or at least a percentage of have to make choices between essentials.

Profits are what pay the rank and file their wages, grasshopper.

No profit, no wages, no jobs.

Economy 101.

[joepistole]

Obama has cited the important roll business plays in our society. I believe this comments were taken out of context and deliberately misintrepreted by Republicans for political gain.

I believe he was trying to make the point that we should all be working to get ourselves out of this mess.

[Buffalo Roam]

Obama has cited the important roll business plays in our society. I believe this comments were taken out of context and deliberately misintrepreted by Republicans for political gain.

I believe he was trying to make the point that we should all be working to get ourselves out of this mess.

Then why have they cut the Republicans out of the decision making?

Pelosi, has changed the rule in the House so that Republicans can't offer any opposing bills or amendments to any legislation presented to the floor for a vote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/07/house-faces-early-partisan-fight-over-rules/

House rule changes squander good will
Bipartesin package angers GOP
David R. Sands (Contact)
Wednesday, January 7, 2009

The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn't survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation.

California Rep. David Dreier, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, called the procedural changes engineered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, an "act of pure cynicism," in stark contrast to the promises of President-elect Barack Obama to work with Republicans to pass major bills.

"So much for the Obama vision," said Mr. Dreier, who said the changes would create "the most closed Congress in history."

So much for Bipartisan Spirit by the Democrats.

[nirakar]

We have a shortage of refinery capacity, caused by the Democrats and the Environmentalist shutting down refineries across the U.S.

The refiners don't want refineries built. They have their own cartel which would be illegal under anti-trust laws if we still investigated antitrust fraud and prosecuted it. The environmentalists and NIMBYism are just convenient cover for the refiners. Environmentalists are bugs that can be squashed and gotten around if the refiners wanted to. Worse case scenario for the refiners would be that they make a few compromises with the environmentalists. But the refiners make more money if new refineries are not built.

http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20090109/09jan20091339.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/refinery.html

[nirakar]

The Fannie and Freddie Fuck up was a great big democratic ponzi scheme, dependent on the price always going up and more and more people spending money they couldn't afford, and like all ponzi schemes.


It was a unconscious Ponzi scheme. Fannie and Freddie and the fully private sector that bought mortgage backed securities failed to understand how inflated the housing bubble was.

The Democrats did not force Fannie or Freddie and especially the private sector to buy or insure this junk. The Republicans did not discourage Fannie and Freddie to slow down.

Limbaugh and Kudlow don't know or don't care when they do or do not speak the truth. They simply support their side.

[nirakar]

Profit pays for expansion, and hiring, profit brings in new investors with more money for more expansion, and a larger work force.

What don't the Liberals and Democrats understand about that?

If corporations have profits they may hire or they may just buy other companies. If you cut a rich man's taxes he may hire or he may drive up asset prices.

Why don't Republicans understand that if they pay their employees more they will spend more and consumer spending is were profits come from? The statement "paying their employees more they will spend more and consumer spending is were profits come from" is not accurate but it is the counterpart of the often stated idea "that profits leads to hiring" and it is as accurate as that statement.

[Challenger78]

Investors.

Shortest answer ever!.

[Buffalo Roam]

Well, nirakar, raise taxes on a Rich man and he moves his assets to tax protected shelters, or his business off shore to low tax areas, just look at the condition of our heavy industry.

What is left of our heavy industries? the Auto Industry, (in major trouble ) and a Fraction of our Steel Industry, Commercial Ship Building has moved over seas.

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world and our business are leaving our shores like a herd in a stampede.

No profits, no jobs, no industry, with out profits everything stops, except recession and depression.

[Syzygys]

If there are no profits for companies there is no recovery, and this Man is President?
[/B][/I]
Personal bonuses (specially undeserved and taxpayer paid) don't equal company profits.

Now you know.

[Buffalo Roam]

Not suprizingly, you are a moron.

Personal bonuses (specially undeserved and taxpayer paid) don't equal company profits.

Now you know.

No you moron, we are not talking about bonus's, we are talking about profits, there is a world of differences between the two.

And from Obamas statememt, he don't know the difference either.

No profits, no Money to pay Saleries, no Money to run the Company, no Money to run the company, no Company, no Company no Job, no Money, no company, no job, = depression and recession.

Economics 101.

I think the bonus situations suck big time, and that it should be the Stock Holders who decide any bonus, not the coporate boards.

But Profits are something totally different from Bonus, Moron.

[Syzygys]

But Profits are something totally different from Bonus, Moron.

You are an idiot. You simply REPEATING what I said, then pretending to disagree with me. :)

Obama was bitching (rightfully so) about undeserved BONUSES, not company profits....

Also, if you gonna whine about everything what Obama does, it is going to be a very long 8 years for you, sucker!

[Buffalo Roam]

You are an idiot. You simply REPEATING what I said, then pretending to disagree with me. :)

Obama was bitching (rightfully so) about undeserved BONUSES, not company profits....

And the rest of the statement idiot, was:

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said. "Now is not that time."

[desi]

And the rest of the statement idiot, was:

Maybe the margin of profit needs to go down a bit. Especially for things like food and fuel. I know the Esson executives deserve their coke and hooker parties but lets keep a thought in mind for the single mothers who have to buy gas to go to work at their minimum wage plus crummy tip jobs.

[iceaura]

No profits, no Money to pay Saleries, no Money to run the Company Bookkeeping skills right up there with the rest of them, apparently.

[Syzygys]

Just to piss off Republicans (after all it is out turn now) I don't care if Obama starts WW3 or eats babyseals for breakfast, he can do NO wrong! :)

[laladopi]

I think you have taken his words out of context buffalo.

[spidergoat]

Buffalo has some reading comprehension problems. Does anyone think that Obama doesn't want corporations to make profits? The whole bail-out plan is designed to start making companies profitable again...

[pjdude1219]

Profits are what pay the rank and file their wages, grasshopper.

No profit, no wages, no jobs.

Economy 101.

wrong. income pays employees wages not profit. wages are an expense. profit equals income minus expenses.


you failed economy 101 go directly to remedial economics. do not pass go and do not collect 200 dollars.

[Syzygys]

Buffalo has some reading comprehension problems.

I think that was pretty obvious. how could anyone with any common sense to think that??? :eek:

[Buffalo Roam]

wrong. income pays employees wages not profit. wages are an expense. profit equals income minus expenses.


you failed economy 101 go directly to remedial economics. do not pass go and do not collect 200 dollars.


Try and pay wages with out profit? income is profit, and again try and run a company with out profit, and you end up like American Motor Corporation.

[spidergoat]

They are called "non-for-profit" companies, there are many of them, like Goodwill. They can pay their employees and CEO, but they don't make a profit. Profit is what's left after paying all your expenses.

[Buffalo Roam]

I think you have taken his words out of context buffalo.

This is a direct quote, Obamas own words,

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said. "Now is not that time."

No, now is exactly the time for profits, the reason that Wall Street is crashing, and everybody is losing money is because there are no profits and that is leading giving us the recession and will eventually lead to a depression.

[Buffalo Roam]

They are called "non-for-profit" companies, there are many of them, like Goodwill. They can pay their employees and CEO, but they don't make a profit. Profit is what's left after paying all your expenses.

They don't pay taxes either.

[laladopi]

This is a direct quote, Obamas own words,

"There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses," Obama said. "Now is not that time."

No, now is exactly the time for profits, the reason that Wall Street is crashing, and everybody is losing money is because there are no profits and that is leading giving us the recession and will eventually lead to a depression.

Yes but you took what was actually mentioned into something that it is not.

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo has some reading comprehension problems. Does anyone think that Obama doesn't want corporations to make profits? The whole bail-out plan is designed to start making companies profitable again...

Really, and you have comprehension, and word deffinition problems.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of the quote is clear.

[spidergoat]

He is linking the idea of profits and bonuses. If they aren't making a profit (even asking for government hand-outs), then they shouldn't be paying bonuses. When the profits return, and they pay off their debts, then they can give away bonuses without controversy.

[spidergoat]

Really, and you have comprehension, and word definition problems.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of the quote is clear.

Translation: If there is any possible connotation of a sentence that makes Democrats look bad, you will find it and beat it into the ground regardless of how stupid it makes you look.

[Buffalo Roam]

pjdude, I guided my son through his finances, and by the time he was 25, he had $250,000 in the bank, where are you? Huh?

He has already purchased his first home, were are you at?

I never had a job that paid 30k a year, yet I have over a 1/2 mill in the bank, and still on my way to a full mill, and where are you at?

Still with your feet under mamas table complaining because you don't have a job, a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.

Yes tell me about your economic acumen and genius.

[Buffalo Roam]

He is linking the idea of profits and bonuses. If they aren't making a profit (even asking for government hand-outs), then they shouldn't be paying bonuses. When the profits return, and they pay off their debts, then they can give away bonuses without controversy.

Spin all you want, his statement was no where near to what you wish to spin it to.

Obamas own words and follow the puncuation if you can:

"There will be time for them to make profits,

and there will be time for them to get bonuses, " Obama said.

"Now is not that time."

[spidergoat]

Right, because of the Recession that is leading to little or no profits...

[pjdude1219]

pjdude, I guided my son through his finances, and by the time he was 25, he had $250,000 in the bank, where are you? Huh?

He has already purchased his first home, were are you at?

I never had a job that paid 30k a year, yet I have over a 1/2 mill in the bank, and still on my way to a full mill, and where are you at?

Still with your feet under mamas table complaining because you don't have a job, a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.

Yes tell me about your economic acumen and genius.

reported for flaming. and it doesn't require economic acumen to know what the basic terms mean.

[pjdude1219]

Yes but you took what was actually mentioned into something that it is not.

I don't think buffalo understands the concept of filling in the blanks himself. It kinda of obvious to me at least that the true meaning of what was said requires inference.

[Buffalo Roam]

I don't think buffalo understands the concept of filling in the blanks himself. It kinda of obvious to me at least that the true meaning of what was said requires inference.

Yes, now provide that reference, and show us exactly what Obama meant, not what you wish to spin it into, grasshopper.

[Buffalo Roam]

reported for flaming. and it doesn't require economic acumen to know what the basic terms mean.

For you that is obvious, you don't have the basic terms down so you don't have the acumen.

You don't even have a basic investment program, and I doubt that you will.

You will just continue to blame everything else for your failures, as you have done all your life.

[pjdude1219]

For you that is obvious, you don't have the basic terms down so you don't have the acumen.

You don't even have a basic investment program, and I doubt that you will.

You will just continue to blame everything else for your failures, as you have done all your life.
Your not going to get a rise out of me. I'm not going to react to you insulting my knowledge in areas when your own is so clearly lacking.


And I will ask you again please quit making baseless assumuntions on my life based on your biases.

[Buffalo Roam]

Right, because of the Recession that is leading to little or no profits...

Your playing the chicken or the egg game, but the cure for the recession is business profits, and those come from allowing business to operate freely.

For all the money thrown at the Recession so far what has been accomplished?

For all the strings attached to the money what has change about our slide into recession, on our way to a depression?

For all the money thrown at the recession where has it gone?

Everything done so far has restricted the ability of business to operate in it's own economic best interest, corporations that should have been let to fail, and now are on government life support, are still sucking the life out of the market, and depressing the economy.

Profits are what pays for jobs, expansions, dividends to investors, yes investors, ....people on retirement, people building retirement, banks who make money from investments to have more money to lend out to make more money to pay investors and lend out so others can build business's and build lives and retirements, and make life better for their children.

Yes, people who have 401k's Kehos, Roth, and just plain pass book savings accounts, just where do you think that money comes from?

PROFITS, and it should always be a time to make PROFITS.


So now lets look at the context of Wall Street:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/01/30/network-news-embraces-obamas-wall-street-bashing

Echoing Couric, ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced: “The President did not mince words this afternoon. Indeed, he was angry.” Dan Harris, who showcased a clip of left-wing cable TV host Jon Stewart, backed up Obama's take: “These bonus numbers are not only infuriating to the President, many Americans are bewildered and angry, too.”

Only the CBS Evening News, in a follow-up piece from Anthony Mason, noted how many on Wall Street have “taken huge pay cuts” and explained how bonuses are part of basic compensation: “While it's true that more than $18 billion in bonuses was paid to Wall Street workers in 2008, that plunged nearly 50 percent from the record $34 billion two years ago. The average worker saw a 37 percent drop in bonus pay last year to $112,000. That's the lowest level in five years. What's more, Wall Street uses the term 'bonus' differently.” Viewers then heard from Scot Melland of Dice Holdings:


It's more than likely that the bonuses paid to these financial services people accounts for 50 percent or 75 percent of their total compensation and it's geared to revenue brought in or success they brought into the firm. So it's more akin to a sales commission than what you or I would think about as a bonus.

I have now found Obams full statement, and in Context:

OBAMA: At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.


At a time when institutions are tettering on collapse, profits are what will keep them from collapsing.

And if they can't make a profit they should be allowed to fail, and remove the drain on the economy.

If they don't make any profit now, it doesn't matter how much money the government throws at the problem, it will not do any good for the economy or the Tax Payer.

Now just exactly how much attention has the Government paid to the Vaunted Tax Payer? How much attention did Bush, and now Obama pay to the wishes of the Tax Payer? None, Bush and Obama were worried about the Tax Payer and our wishes, the Bail Out Money from the first bail out would not have been spent.

The tax payer was not in favor of the First Bail Out, and they are not in Favor of any more Bail Outs.

Poll: Most Americans Against Bush's Bailout Plan
Friday, September 26, 2008 | FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON — There is scant public support for President Bush's $700 billion federal rescue plan for the U.S. financial industry and little expectation it would solve the crisis that has roiled the markets and hobbled some of the country's largest investment firms, according to a poll released Friday.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to _42

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan,

Last week, support for the President’s plan was at 45% and opposition at 34%.


Hell even the French are smart enough to see that Government bail outs aren't the answer.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,582072,00.html

Indeed, with France and Germany both distancing themselves from an apparently Dutch plan to set up a €300 billion ($415 billion)

French President Nicolas Sarkozy pulled the plug. "I deny the sum and the principle (of the proposed rescue scheme)," he said.

[Buffalo Roam]

Your not going to get a rise out of me. I'm not going to react to you insulting my knowledge in areas when your own is so clearly lacking.

And I will ask you again please quit making baseless assumuntions on my life based on your biases.

Yes, someone who is still living with his feet under Mama's tale, and sleeping in a bed and room provided for by Mama, is lecturing me, on knowledge of economics, and business, :roflmao:

If your knowledge is so great, why are you still living at home? why don't your have a real job, if you have a job at all, and supporting your Mother instead of her supporting you?

You claim to be going back to school, yet, I see you on the forum at all hours of the day and night.

You are a Hour ahead of me in time zones, so on what should be school nights I have seen you on the forum a 2:00 o'clock my time and later.

One other question?, from all I know, the start of schools, and colleges, for January were right after the New Year, and by the 15th, the Colleges were back in session, so I have questions about your statement and commitment to going to school as you have claimed?

[pjdude1219]

Please keep running your mouth off buffalo show us all your true colors. A man willing judge that which he has zero knowledge or understanding of.
Yes, someone who is still living with his feet under Mama's tale, and sleeping in a bed and room provided for by Mama, is lecturing me, on knowledge of economics, and business,
well when you can't even get the shit that you learn in econ 101 right pretty much anyone who has some college experience has the right to lecture you on it.

[pjdude1219]

income= normal profit which is what is needed to cover all of a business' costs like.....employee wages.
profit= economic profit which is the money which is made above the normal profit.

another way to look at is
income=gross income
profit=net income

a company can make zero economic profit and stay in business.( costs to replace equipment and the like would be covered in the normal profit) It fairly obvious that when obama says profit he means economic profit which is in lay terms profit and even than in honest person will read in between the lines and understand that he is not against all economic profit because that is what is used to fund R&D but is in fact against the increasing of the economic profit at the expense of the economy as a whole and the expense of the average american.

[joepistole]

This is not a statement against profits. Obama has made many business friendly comments and most recently appointed a Republican to be Commerce Secretary. He was commenting about profiteering...taking unreasonable bonus money. He is asking people to do what is right for the country.

[spidergoat]

Your playing the chicken or the egg game, but the cure for the recession is business profits, and those come from allowing business to operate freely.

Like GM? Obama's statement was linking the lack of profits we are currently experiencing with the bail-out and bonuses. Bonuses seem inappropriate to pay out because that is the taxpayer money. That is all he meant.

Everything done so far has restricted the ability of business to operate in it's own economic best interest, corporations that should have been let to fail, and now are on government life support, are still sucking the life out of the market, and depressing the economy.
Evidently, corporations do not operate in their best interests when unregulated. They go for short term profits and huge personal bonuses to the detriment of long term stability and sustainability.

Profits are what pays for jobs, expansions, dividends to investors, yes investors, ....people on retirement, people building retirement, banks who make money from investments to have more money to lend out to make more money to pay investors and lend out so others can build business's and build lives and retirements, and make life better for their children.
In a perfect world, they would be making high profits and paying for all those things. Now isn't that time. Not because the Democrats don't want them to succeed, but because of the recession. The recession arguably caused by Republican economic policies.

PROFITS, and it should always be a time to make PROFITS.
It should be, but they just aren't making profits, people aren't spending, they are scared for the future.

I have now found Obams full statement, and in Context:

OBAMA: At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.


At a time when institutions are tettering on collapse, profits are what will keep them from collapsing.
Where are these profits? THEY AREN'T MAKING PROFITS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PRESENTLY DO SO!

And if they can't make a profit they should be allowed to fail, and remove the drain on the economy.
How much of a drain on the economy would it be if millions of people had to go on unemployment and welfare? The bet is that short term help prevent these businesses from failing, so that people will still have a job in the future.


If they don't make any profit now, it doesn't matter how much money the government throws at the problem, it will not do any good for the economy or the Tax Payer.
I don't think that's true. Investments now may pay off later. Unless you don't think there will be any banking or auto industry in the future.


Now just exactly how much attention has the Government paid to the Vaunted Tax Payer? How much attention did Bush, and now Obama pay to the wishes of the Tax Payer? None, Bush and Obama were worried about the Tax Payer and our wishes, the Bail Out Money from the first bail out would not have been spent.
I think most taxpayers demanded immediate action, not the laissez-faire inaction that has characterized the last 8 years.

[Buffalo Roam]

spidergoat you can spin Obamas statement all you want but that is not what Obama said or meant.

OBAMA: At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.

If Obama had stopped with the Statement:

At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. There will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.

But Obama also said:

It is shameful. There will be time for them to make profits,...and finished the sentence with....Now is not that time.

IYes, the Tax Payer want action, but logical action, not a Pork Barreled Hog Greased Vote Bought, Partesan payoff bill.

The Tax Payer is smart enough to see that the present bail out bill will do no good, they also see that over half the bill is for government projects and programs that will have no effect on the current recession.

Most of the moneys don't even come into play untill 2010 or later, only 5% of the moneys were for road and bridge infrastructure?

The other point is that the Tax Payer is alread paying to much taxes, and they are not ready to pay more for a plan that doesn't make sense to them, pay more money so fat cats like those in congress can cheat on their taxes?

Not on your Life Mr.Magoo, we are seeing just how contientious the Senate and Congress is about paying their fair share of Taxes,

Timothy Geithner:

4 years of back taxes, and He gets off with no intrest or penalities?

Could you or I get away with the same, or be allowed to pay up with no interest or penalities?

How about:

Nancy Killefer ?

Tom Daschle ?

They only paid up after they were nominated, and they knew that they owed those taxes and cheated all the way.

I think the reason Killefer, and Daschle, with drew was the Tax Payers were on the phones to Congress and in a really pissed off mood.

The Democrats don't even want to believe their own CBO report that says thta the money will not be on line quick enough to do any good on the job unemployment sector.

Democrats tried to mitigate the impact of a Congressional Budget Office study that questioned administration claims that the money could be spent fast enough to reduce joblessness quickly.

[pjdude1219]

spidergoat you can spin Obamas statement all you want but that is not what Obama said or meant yes lets all bow down to ye of little intellect who implies that despite being ye of little intellect unlike those who best him in the intellect department he and he alone knows what other people think and mean.

[spidergoat]

I give up. Obviously Obama doesn't want companies to make profits, and doesn't want America to get out of it's recession. I heard he is just going to end the custom of having money, collect it all and just burn it or melt it down to sell for scrap.

[Buffalo Roam]

yes lets all bow down to ye of little intellect who implies that despite being ye of little intellect unlike those who best him in the intellect department he and he alone knows what other people think and mean.

Yes, grasshopper, we know the legend that your are in your own mind, but you are inferring what Obama said, Obama has not clarified the statement, so I would take it that He meant what he said.

Yes, you wan to say I inferred His meaning, but your are inferring something that is not part of Obamas statement, you are the one inferring what Obama said, I am making direct quotes of Obama.

This is not the first time the Government has tried to control the profits of companies, Carter tried to do so in the late 70tys, it is called price controls, the government set the price of the produce to control profit in the name of controlling inflation, (and guess what that is on the way, now that the Government has just added a trillion new printed dollars to the money supply, and are going to add to that another trillion with this bail out plan) and you saw just how well that worked for Carter, 21% interests, 13.5% inflation, and 7% unemployment.


Now let look at something else that Obama is trying to foist on the Tax Payer, this Idea that we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

This is the state of the economy as of 2008

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129762.html

Worst Economic Crisis Since the Great Depression, unemployment is at 6.1 percent, inflation is at 4.9 percent, and GDP shrank 0.3 percent this quarter, though it's still up for the year. I don't see how that even begins to compete with the late-Carter, early-Reagan era, when GDP shrank in both 1980 and 1982, unemployment never dipped below 8 percent from November 1981 to January 1984, and inflation never dipped below 8 percent between September 1978 and January 1982.

We haven't even reached the numbers of the Carter years, let alone the Numbers of the Great Depression:

21% interests, 13.5% inflation, and 7% unemployment.

Now this is what the Great Depression looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Effects of depression in the United States[46]:

13 million people became unemployed. In 1932, 34 million people belonged to families with no regular full-time wage earner.[47]

Industrial production fell by nearly 45% between the years 1929 and 1932.

Homebuilding dropped by 80% between the years 1929 and 1932.

In the 1920s, the banking system in the U.S. was about $50 billion, which was about 50% of GDP.[48]

From the years 1929 to 1932, about 5,000 banks went out of business.
By 1933, 11,000 of the US' 25,000 banks had failed.[49]

Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP fell around 30%, the stock market lost almost 90% of its value.[50]

In 1929, the unemployment rate averaged 3%.[51]
In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[52]

In Cleveland, Ohio, the unemployment rate was 60%; in Toledo, Ohio, 80%.[47]

One Soviet trading corporation in New York averaged 350 applications a day from Americans seeking jobs in the Soviet Union.[53]

Over one million families lost their farms between 1930 and 1934.[47]
Corporate profits had dropped from $10 billion three years ago to $1billion in 1932.[47]

Between 1929 and 1932 the income of the average American family was reduced by 40%.[54]

Nine million savings accounts had been wiped out between 1930 and 1933.[47]

273,000 families had been evicted from their homes in 1932.[47]
There were two million homeless people migrating around the country.[47]

One Arkansas man walked 900 miles looking for work.[47]

Over 60% of Americans were categorized as poor by the federal government in 1933.[47]

In the last prosperous year (1929), there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933 only 23,068 came to the U.S.[55][56]

In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it.[57]

New York social workers reported that 25% of all schoolchildren were malnourished. In the mining counties of West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, the proportion of malnourished children was perhaps as high as 90%.[47]

Many people became ill with diseases such as tuberculosis (TB).[47]

The 1930 U.S. Census determined the U.S. population to be 122,775,046. About 40% of the population was under 20 years.[58]

47.^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7655472.stm

48.^ a b c d e f g h i j k Overproduction of Goods, Unequal Distribution of Wealth, High Unemployment, and Massive Poverty, From: President’s Economic Council

49.^ Q&A: Lessons from the Great Depression, By Barbara Kiviat, TIME, January 6, 2009

50.^ About the Great Depression

51.^ The Great Depression: The sequel, By Andrew Leonard, salon.com, April 2, 2008

52.^ Economic Recovery in the Great Depression, Frank G. Steindl, Oklahoma State University

53.^ Great Depression, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

54.^ A reign of rural terror, a world away, U.S. News, June 22, 2003

55.^ American History - 1930-1939

56.^ Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in the United States of America, Source: US Department of Homeland Security

57.^ The Facts Behind the Current Controversy Over Immigration, by Allan L. Damon, American Heritage Magazine, December 1981

58.^ A Great Depression?, by Steve H. Hanke, Cato Institute

59.^ 1931 U.S Census Report Contains 1930 Census results

I would say that Obama doesn't know what He is talking about.

[Buffalo Roam]

I give up. Obviously Obama doesn't want companies to make profits, and doesn't want America to get out of it's recession. I heard he is just going to end the custom of having money, collect it all and just burn it or melt it down to sell for scrap.

spidergoat, like pj, your are inferring what Obama meant, a meaning that is not in the Words He spoke or in the way they were spoken.

Obama want the companies to make profits controlled by the Government, if your take Obamas all mighty government dollar, you will make profits only when the Might Obama Government tells you that you can, that is what was in the Quote by Obama.

A fancy way of saying price control, but it will have the same result as in the Carter years.

Now stop spinning and read Obamas words and look at the intent of the legislation that He is proposing.

[spidergoat]

That's right, it's conditional. If you take government money, you cannot spend on extravagences until it's paid back. It's in the companies interest to make as much of a profit as possible in order to repay the taxpayers. Can you explain how executive bonuses increase profits in any immediate sense?

[pjdude1219]

spidergoat, like pj, your are inferring what Obama meant, a meaning that is not in the Words He spoke or in the way they were spoken. the use of unstated qualifiers is fairly common. Just because me and spider are capable of picking up the unstated excessive and your not doesn't mean we are doing anything wrong. Being able to pick up on such things happens to be a sign of intelligence which is probably why the smart right wingers here aren't backing you here.

Obama want the companies to make profits controlled by the Government, if your take Obamas all mighty government dollar, you will make profits only when the Might Obama Government tells you that you can, that is what was in the Quote by Obama. typical buffalo make an accusation against someone than do the same thing your self except on a more egregious scale. nothing in that quote implies that unless you make some perfect wild ass assumptions.

A fancy way of saying price control, but it will have the same result as in the Carter years. please refrain from making shit up. no one is talking about price control except you.

Now stop spinning and read Obamas words and look at the intent of the legislation that He is proposing.
only one spinning here is you.


yes buffalo I'm a legend in my own for calling you out on saying that you know what people mean and others don't. Please do us all a favor and if your going to continue posting such idiocy DON'T

[nirakar]

I have now found Obams full statement, and in Context:

OBAMA: At a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don't provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.



Is was using Google to search for a text version that had the sentence that preceded circulated quote and your post was the first that I found. Thanks for finding it. Conservatives have been running wild claiming the snippet is proof of Obama's socialism.

Does anybody even care about truth anymore? Is the spin competition so much more important than truth?

[spidergoat]

Buffalo Roam quoted it first, and it still didn't clear anything up for him. You know what they say, you can lead a Buffalo to water...

[BlueMoose]

I give up. Obviously Obama doesn't want companies to make profits, and doesn't want America to get out of it's recession. I heard he is just going to end the custom of having money, collect it all and just burn it or melt it down to sell for scrap.

:roflmao:

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z36/ashleyMorrissey/joker-burninmoney.jpg

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo Roam quoted it first, and it still didn't clear anything up for him. You know what they say, you can lead a Buffalo to water...

Actually it didn't claer up anything for you, you are still spinning it to what you want it to mean.

[nirakar]

Actually it didn't claer up anything for you, you are still spinning it to what you want it to mean.

It is perfectly clear that Obama was talking about failed Wall Street management firms using taxpayer money to stay afloat using taxpayer money to give themselves bonuses that they probably don't deserve.

I don't think you advocate socialism to keep the Wall Street executives in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. Why do you want to believe Obama is a Boogeyman and a anticapitalist socialist? Whoever is filling your head have no regard for honesty. And you choose to believe those people. Look what they did to Obama's quote and try to learn from it so that you can become a better citizen who is part of the sollution rather than part of the problem.

For this democracy to work efficiently we need honest debate. I don't know how we can get there. It seems that humans are dishonest animals.


The White House, Oval Office
January 29, 2009

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s good to see you guys. I just had a terrific conversation with my Secretary of the Treasury, the Vice President, as well as the rest of our economic team, about the steps that we need to move forward on — not only on the economic recovery and reinvestment package, but also on making sure that we begin the process of regulating Wall Street so that we can improve the flow of credit, banks start lending again, so that businesses can reopen, and that we can create more jobs — but also to make sure that we never find ourselves in the kind of crisis that we’re in again, that we’ve seen over the last several months.

And Secretary Geithner is hard at work on this process. We expect that even as the reinvestment and recovery package moves forward — as I said, that’s only one leg of the stool, and that these other legs of the stool will be rolled out systematically in the coming weeks so that the American people will have a clear sense of a comprehensive strategy designed to put people back to work, reopen businesses and credit flowing again.

One point I want to make is that all of us are going to have responsibilities to get this economy moving again. And when I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses — the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 — at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don’t provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads — that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

And part of what we’re going to need is for folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility. The American people understand that we’ve got a big hole that we’ve got to dig ourselves out of — but they don’t like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they’re being asked to fill it up.

And so we’re going to be having conversations as this process moves forward directly with these folks on Wall Street to underscore that they have to start acting in a more responsible fashion if we are to together get this economy rolling again. There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses — now is not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them — and Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they’re receiving TARP money. We shouldn’t have to do that because they should know better. And we will continue to send that message loud and clear.

Having said that, I am confident that with the recovery package moving through the House and through the Senate, with the excellent work that’s already been done by Secretary Geithner in consultation with Larry Summers and Paul Volcker and other individuals, that we are going to be able to set up a regulatory framework that rights the ship and that gets us moving again. And I know the American people are eager to get moving again — they want to work. They are serious about their responsibilities; I am, too, in this White House and I hope that the folks on Wall Street are going to be thinking in the same way.

The Above is from http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:TXPyJEn_OGYJ:www.obamachronicles.or g/%3Fcat%3D172+%22full+text%22+%22At+a+time+when+mos t+of+these+institutions+were+teetering%22+%22I+exp ect+Secretary+Geithner%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

full text full quote context . Words for google's spider because the real quote is hard to find in the rapidly grow sea of misquotes.

Maybe the use of the word "profit" created a problem. "Profit" belongs to the stockholders. Bonuses go to management. But management in todays large corporations often seem to put their own interests above the interests of their stockholders.
Obama may have spent so much time around corporate managers that he has adopted their mindset that profits go to the managers.

[Buffalo Roam]

nirakar,

Then why didn't the statement end at, there will be a time to make bonus's.

Profits are essential to recovery, Profit money is either reinvested or spent by the Investors, profits create the flow of money in the economy, and that flow is being restricted by Government policy.

With out profits there is no money to reinvest in the economy, there is no money to make loans, that is the problem today, the flow of money because there are no profits, and banks and business are sitting on their reserves.

[nirakar]

nirakar,

Then why didn't the statement end at, there will be a time to make bonus's.

Profits are essential to recovery, Profit money is either reinvested or spent by the Investors, profits create the flow of money in the economy, and that flow is being restricted by Government policy.

With out profits there is no money to reinvest in the economy, there is no money to make loans, that is the problem today, the flow of money because there are no profits, and banks and business are sitting on their reserves.

I think "profits" was a poor choice of words. I know I can't use the best words when I talk. Bush certainly couldn't. A good lawyer will write precisely but you can't expect them to speak precisely. I don't know anybody precise enough to not make statements that would not look like something other than what they are intended to mean if taken out of context. That is why context is important.

There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses — now is not that time.

Who is them? If you go back and look at the context you can figure out who them is. "Them" is "folks on Wall Street who are asking for help". Should the folks on Wall Street or the stockholders they represent be getting profits now? If we Tax Payers give these firms enough money the begging firms could have profits now but would that be right? I personally the we tax payers are already being too generous. The stockholders of these firms deserve to lose their money because they failed to supervise management and management seriously screwed up.

We voters and taxpayers would let these firms go bankrupt if we were not afraid of the harm that a chaotic collapse of some of our largest financial institutions could do to our economy.


profits create the flow of money in the economy, and that flow is being restricted by Government policy..
What government policy are you referring to and what does this policy have to do with the Obama quote?

Profits are essential to recovery, Profit money is either reinvested or spent by the Investors.............With out profits there is no money to reinvest in the economy, there is no money to make loans, that is the problem today, the flow of money because there are no profits, and banks and business are sitting on their reserves.

The above is true but it has nothing to do with the Obama quote. Businesses in general need to make profits. Aside from a handful of whacky unrepentant communists everybody agrees with that. The question is are profits for failed corporations being kept alive by life support in the form of gifts from the taxpayers essential to recovery? And Obama says these failed firms can have profits later presumably after they are no longer on taxpayer funded life support.

A pathetic poor person might not like the price that pawnbrokers give them for the stuff they bought with their credit cards. The Wall Street firms might not like the price the free market is willing to pay for their mortgage backed securities. Liquidity problems are a bitch. Liquidity problems don't entitle anybody to taxpayer funded bailouts.

Obama's quote is not anti-business; his quote is anti-socialism for highly paid screw ups. Read the whole text again and see if you can't see that?

[Buffalo Roam]

nirakar

Your interpreting Obamas statement, into what you want it to be, not what he said.

[spidergoat]

nirakar,

Then why didn't the statement end at, there will be a time to make bonus's.

Profits are essential to recovery, Profit money is either reinvested or spent by the Investors, profits create the flow of money in the economy, and that flow is being restricted by Government policy.

With out profits there is no money to reinvest in the economy, there is no money to make loans, that is the problem today, the flow of money because there are no profits, and banks and business are sitting on their reserves.

He was linking the idea of profits and bonuses. By taking the word profit out of context and linking it to "now is not the time", you have created a new meaning that was not present in the original statement.

[nirakar]

nirakar

Your interpreting Obamas statement, into what you want it to be, not what he said.

I guess this is futile but, no I have not interpreted Obama's statement into something that it is not (or at least not nearly as much as you ), you have interpreted Obama's statement into what you want it to be. Read his whole statement again.

I am curious whether you really believe what your are saying or are just propagandizing for your political faction.

[Buffalo Roam]

I guess this is futile but, no I have not interpreted Obama's statement into something that it is not (or at least not nearly as much as you ), you have interpreted Obama's statement into what you want it to be. Read his whole statement again.

I am curious whether you really believe what your are saying or are just propagandizing for your political faction.

I have, and everything that he says is great untill He makes the statement about profits, and ties it to bouns, and says now is not the time.

It is alway time to make profits, and the more profits a company make the healther it is and the economy.

[pjdude1219]

I have, and everything that he says is great untill He makes the statement about profits, and ties it to bouns, and says now is not the time.

It is alway time to make profits, and the more profits a company make the healther it is and the economy.

So if a company supresses worker wages to make more profit that is good for the economy?

[Buffalo Roam]

So if a company supresses worker wages to make more profit that is good for the economy?

No, because the company will lose skilled workers and therefore suffer a loss in profits.

You short your worker's pay and they migrate to a another company that pays better wages.

[pjdude1219]

No, because the company will lose skilled workers and therefore suffer a loss in profits.

You short your worker's pay and they migrate to a another company that pays better wages.

and if their all doing it?

[Buffalo Roam]

and if their all doing it?

You open your own business.

pjdude, "and if their all doing it?" not possable, that is a statement from the mentality of a three year old's perspective.

[pjdude1219]

You open your own business.

pjdude, "and if their all doing it?" not possable, that is a statement from the mentality of a three year old's perspective.

its very possible.

[Buffalo Roam]

its very possible.

That thinking, is why, you are were you are at.

[pjdude1219]

That thinking, is why, you are were you are at.
It is possible that all companies can be supressing wages at the same time. not probable but it is possible.

the more you post the more you prove your lack of intelligence and knowledge.

[Buffalo Roam]

It is possible that all companies can be supressing wages at the same time. not probable but it is possible.

the more you post the more you prove your lack of intelligence and knowledge.

No, and for you to think so proves your lack of intelligence and knowledge, and your desperation to blame everyone and everything else for your own personnel failure in life.

The only way that it could be done is if the Government took over wage control, juts like they are trying to do with the executives, if the government took control of the wages, guess what, they will drop like a stone in a well, and they would end up being the same for everyone who ws not in Government, just look to the Soviet Union.

[Buffalo Roam]

pj, shouldn't you be in bed by now, tomorrow is a school day, or have you dropped out already?

[pjdude1219]

pj, shouldn't you be in bed by now, tomorrow is a school day, or have you dropped out already?

um school starts the 30th next month( fucking quarter system) and what makes you think I would take friday classes?

[Buffalo Roam]

um school starts the 30th next month( fucking quarter system) and what makes you think I would take friday classes?

Friday Class's, Well, just maybe to show some initiative. But that was a forlorn hope, and why didn't you start with the 3rd quarter, like every one else I know?

4 quarter right into summer vacation.............yah,