Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

[Si modo]

Yup. HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.

In my book, that is what idiots do. It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim, from the start. It's just that simple.

I like accuracy. Others obviously don't.

If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot. (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra).

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."

I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.

Ah. I'm an idiot for showing that your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity among industrialized nations, when it does not. I'm an idiot for showing that your subsequent claim (when called on your first wrong) that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized nations when it does not.


Keep trying and keep lying about my links which you don't read because obviously not only are you a liar, but you are lazy.

Moron. Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?

 

[QUENTIN]

Yup. HE posted an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then he posted an inaccurate claim again.

In my book, that is what idiots do. It's not hard to be accurate when one supports their claim, from the start. It's just that simple.

I like accuracy. Others obviously don't.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

You can tell when you realized you were probably wrong because you stopped posting support for your claim, since it didn't support it but disproved it, and started saying "vide supra"... "I don't have to support it, I already supported it... Yes, I did! Trust me! Just don't go looking for it and definitely don't click the link, take my word."

I like your obstinate argument, it damns you more than anyone else you're trying to insult. You are very clearly, by your own estimation, a big idiot. And that's funny.

Ah. I'm an idiot for showing that your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity among industrialized nations, when it does not. I'm an idiot for showing that your subsequent claim (when called on your first wrong) that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized nations when it does not.


Keep trying and keep lying about my links which you don't read because obviously not only are you a liar, but you are lazy.

Moron. Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?

No, by your own estimation you're an idiot for "posting an easily verifiable claim and it was inaccurate. Then posting an inaccurate claim again." And then again.

You've repeatedly stated that Mexico and China are industrialized countries, gone so far as to say only an idiot would think otherwise, and your own cited link proved they are not industrialized nations.

I immediately admitted we were not #1, but #2 in income inequality among industrialized nations according to the source you actually posted first (and I've cited specifically many, many times proving I've read it which you haven't done once):

List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (US =45 Gini index, Hong Kong =52.3, Singapore = 42.5)

We are not #1, that is true. According to your source and the IMF, we are #2 as I've said, so you didn't disprove anything there, instead you kept inaccurately claiming Mexico and China were industrialized nations. I'm the one who noted that while the IMF ranks us as having greater income inequality than Singapore and the source you provided says the same, the CIA differs and ranks them 1.3 points above us on the Gini index, so it's in dispute whether we're #2 or #3 as I said to Toro, but that disputed variation is ultimately insignificant to the point I've made several times now about the substance of the argument rather than the minutae of disputed rankings.

You did not admit you were dead wrong about China and Mexico, you continued to make the claim again and again, and still seem to stand by it even though you've backed off restating it since I categorically proved it was wrong.

According to your standards, that makes you a raging fucking idiot. They're your standards, ones you keep repeating in the very thread where you so blatantly violate them, that's what makes it so funny.

Anyway, you've demonstrated no amount of evidence is going to move you from your "dug in" and quite wrong position and out of silly pride or insecurity you're unwilling to admit your mistake and instead deflect in the extreme, calling me an idiot for behavior less egregious and quickly corrected. So I'm done with you, enjoy your hypocrisy and now your clear dishonesty.

 

[boedicca]

I wonder if Obama has told his buddies in Hollywood and in the media that there comes a point when they've made enough money.

You mean these folks?


And if you hadn’t heard it before now, you may be wondering who he was talking about.

Perhaps he was speaking to Hollywood — producer/directors such as George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, who were paid $170 million and $150 million, respectively, according to Forbes magazine’s 2009 list. Less generous, but still better than I and probably you, were Jerry Bruckheimer at $100 million and Atlanta’s Tyler Perry at $75 million. Or actors such as Harrison Ford ($65 million) or Adam Sandler ($55 million).

Then again, he might have been talking to America’s television stars. Dr. Phil (McGraw) pulled down $80 million, Forbes reports. Simon Cowell of “American Idol” was close behind at $75 million. And there’s Oprah, our highest-paid celebrity, at $275 million.

But Oprah is one of the president’s biggest backers, so let’s forget the big and little screens and turn to musicians. For all the challenges to that industry, Madonna managed to bring home $110 million. There’s Beyonce Knowles at $87 million; Bruce Springsteen, $70 million; Kenny Chesney and Dave Matthews Band, $65 million each; and a cool $60 million for the band Rascal Flatts.

I could mention athletes, but Tiger Woods was in a class of his own at $110 million (a figure he won’t match this year)....

Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield

 

[Misty]

I'd rather he said this; "I do think at a certain point the government has taken enough money from it's citizens and wasted it.".

 

[boedicca]

I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.

 

[Samson]

I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.

Like how many would that be, exactly?

100 pts!! Congrats

 

[QUENTIN]

Moron. Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

China
Mexico

IMF Developed Countries:

Australia • Germany • Malta • South Korea
• Austria • Greece • Netherlands • Spain
• Belgium • Hong Kong • New Zealand • Sweden
• Canada • Iceland • Norway • Switzerland
• Cyprus • Ireland • Portugal • Taiwan
• Czech Republic • Israel • San Marino[19] • United Kingdom
• Denmark • Italy • Singapore • United States
• Finland • Japan • Slovakia
• France • Luxembourg • Slovenia

Once more for those keeping score at home:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

* Afghanistan
* Albania
* Algeria
* Angola
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan
* The Bahamas
* Bahrain
* Bangladesh
* Belarus
* Belize
* Benin
* Bhutan
* Bolivia
* Botswana
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Brazil
* Bulgaria
* Burkina Faso
* Burma
* Burundi
* Cameroon
* Cape Verde
* Central African Republic
* Chad
* Chile
* China
* Colombia
* Comoros
* Democratic Republic of the Congo
* Republic of the Congo
* Costa Rica
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Croatia
* Djibouti
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* El Salvador
* Equatorial Guinea
* Eritrea
* Ethiopia
* Fiji
* Gabon
* The Gambia
* Georgia
* Ghana
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guinea
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana
* Haiti
* Honduras
* Hungary
* Indonesia
* India
* Iran
* Iraq
* Jamaica
* Jordan
* Kazakhstan
* Kenya
* Kiribati
* Kuwait
* Kyrgyzstan
* Laos
* Latvia
* Lebanon
* Lesotho
* Liberia
* Libya
* Lithuania
* Macedonia
* Madagascar
* Malawi
* Malaysia
* Maldives
* Mali
* Marshall Islands[18]
* Mauritania
* Mauritius
* Mexico
...

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.

Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.

That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.

In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.

Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.

 

[Si modo]

Moron. Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NICs are countries whose economies have not yet reached First World status but have, in a macroeconomic sense, outpaced their developing counterparts. Another characterization of NICs is that of nations undergoing rapid economic growth (usually export-oriented). Incipient or ongoing industrialization is an important indicator of a NIC.

Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.

Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.

That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.

In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.

Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.

Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin: You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra). Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra).

Idiot.

 

[QUENTIN]

I'd rather he said this; "I do think at a certain point the government has taken enough money from it's citizens and wasted it.".

It's the second part I have the real problem with. The right rages on about social safety nets that are among the primary reasons people form into societies in the first place, I think those are necessary and relatively meager. I have a problem with the exorbitant defense budget, nearly half of the defense spending of the entire world and largely going to privatized and embedded defense contractors making shit we don't need in the 21st century, and the right thinks those are necessary.

What we can almost all agree on is that for instance the massive bailout of private industry with public money is a horrible corporatist clusterfuck and that government spending in general is grossly inefficient. There are always going to be people who are just greedy fucks and resent paying taxes period despite the many benefits they receive from their government, but I imagine most people wouldn't have such a problem with their taxes if they were allocated in a sane and effective way.

As for Obama's Hollywood supporters, while they're not nearly as rich as the banking CEOs he's railing against, of course he doesn't mean it applies to them. He's profoundly disingenuous on the subject. His condemnation of "fat cats" is just rhetorical posturing. While trying to appeal to populist sensibilities during a depression Wall Street caused with what he says, his actual actions make him a reliable errand boy for the corporate elite. When he's done pretend-vilifying them in a speech, he turns around and gives them billions in tax dollars for their extravagant bonuses.

 

[QUENTIN]

Moron. Why the fuck would I post linksagain when you are too stupid to even readthem, let alone comprehend...and it's Wikipedia, so it's dumbed down as is)?

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Still haven't figured it out buddy? I understand if these terms are unfamiliar to you and you just assumed "big economy" meant "industrialized economy," but NICs are countries going through a rapid process of industrialization who are not yet industrialized. They've yet to meet the criteria of the UN, IMF, CIA, etc. to be considered developed countries. In other words, they are not industrialized nations. Again, your own cited evidence is proving you wrong.

Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.

That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.

In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.

Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.

Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin: You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra). Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra).

Idiot.

Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are not industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.

Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.

 

[boedicca]

I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.

Like how many would that be, exactly?

100 pts!! Congrats

Far less than we have now.



Thanks!

 

[Samson]

I do think at some point we've elected enough Progressives to government.

Like how many would that be, exactly?

100 pts!! Congrats

Far less than we have now.



Thanks!

I'm guessing thats probably, exactly, less than half a dozen.

 

[Si modo]

Those are examples of me quoting specific passages from the links you've provided demonstrating not only that I've read them, but comprehended them well enough to cite the relevant passages that prove your repeated assertions are wrong.

That citing of relevant information is something you haven't done once, preferring to pretend you've already supported your position, even when you actually provided the evidence yourself that you were wrong, with the "vide supra" nonsense once it was obvious and indisputable that your own sources made clear China and Mexico are not industrialized nations.

In point of fact, it's clear that you either didn't read or ignored the information contained within your own links while it's also clear I read them and on multiple occasions cited specific data contained within them.

Your argument has now totally fallen apart from every angle. You're reaching, flailing, and all the while proclaiming that you're an idiot. I know I said I was done, but this one was just too easy and ridiculous to pass up.

Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin: You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra). Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra).

Idiot.

Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are not industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.

Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.

Yes, indeed. I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE. Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries. (Third time posting the link...amazing.)

 

[boedicca]

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of Are are.

Quentin just doesn't grok.

 

[Samson]

Here, we'll go slowly for you, Quentin: You claimed the USA has the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra). Then you claimed that the USA has the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra).

Idiot.

Again, you're deflecting.

It's true that I claimed the USA had the highest income disparity of all industrialized countries. That's not true, as your link demonstrated, while it was long true, one of the "Asian Tigers" recently industrialized, Hong Kong, has greater income disparity. In my second post I noted and corrected my error. According to the IMF and the link you provided, the USA does have the second highest income disparity among industrialized countries (because China and Mexico are not industrialized (vide supra...heh)). As I but not you noted, there is a disparity among the experts over whether Singapore today has higher or lower income disparity than the US (most recent CIA figures put US at 46.8, Singapore at 48.1, most recent IMG figures put US at 45, Singapore at 42.5), meaning we are either #2 or #3 but can't independently verify because we don't have the resources or expertise to find out which of the two major international bodies is more accurate.

Now...

How about you? You keep studiously ignoring what you did in this thread that quite clearly fits your definition of idiocy.

You claimed China and Mexico were industrialized countries. Not true (vide supra...this is fun). Then you claimed it again. And again. Still not true (vide supra). You've yet to address the fact that you repeatedly stated factually inaccurate claims all the while posting evidence that those claims were inaccurate.

How long you gonna deflect, ignore, and refuse to address that fact that all can see?

Hypocrite.

Yes, indeed. I said that China and Mexico ARE industrialized countries because, they ARE. Note the verb tense - it's a present tense. They are (note that present tense, again) industrialized countries.

We be conjugatin' da verbage when we be postin' wid da Si.

 

[JBeukema]

you keep saying they're industrialized, but you don't link to the page about industrialized nations- rather you link to a wiki page that states they're being industrialized currently and mock the poster who cites the CIA?

 

[boedicca]

It's already been posted in thread.

List of NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries):

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Samson]

It's already been posted in thread.

List of NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries):

Newly industrialized country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you actually attempting to bring him up to speed?

Ah, Boester, the Eternal Optimist.........

 

[Si modo]

you keep saying they're industrialized, but you don't link to the page about industrialized nations- rather you link to a wiki page that states they're being industrialized currently and mock the poster who cites the CIA?

The term 'references therein' is lost on you.

 

[boedicca]

Mon Cher Sammy,

I would hope anyone can be receptive to New G2, bub.

*educationalizingmentingly*

boe