We are all apes. In fact, we are stupid apes. We have nuclear bombs aimed at each other. Talk about stupid.
WE ARE THE PLANET OF THE APES
What animal can we compare Obama to without risking being called a racist?
- Thread starter NanoTick
- Start date
We are all apes. In fact, we are stupid apes. We have nuclear bombs aimed at each other. Talk about stupid.
WE ARE THE PLANET OF THE APES
as he starts to screw up more, i am sure we will have a name for him
Okay, take all the community activists and see what percentage became president.
Then take all the Wall Street types and see what percentage became rich...
Odds certainly favor wealth over presidency, Wall Street over community activist for wealth and power.
Then take all the Wall Street types and see what percentage became rich...
Odds certainly favor wealth over presidency, Wall Street over community activist for wealth and power.
You really consider $4.2 million wealth, compared to what was made on Wall Street by those with connections and a willingness to act in a corrupt manner?
You and I have a much different perspective on wealth, and the chances of someone to make real wealth as a community activist vs. a cushy Wall Street job.
To suggest there is more wealth and power to be made in the public sector vs. the private sector is illogical and inconsistent with fact.
You and I have a much different perspective on wealth, and the chances of someone to make real wealth as a community activist vs. a cushy Wall Street job.
To suggest there is more wealth and power to be made in the public sector vs. the private sector is illogical and inconsistent with fact.
I'm not disputing you on the majority of community activist. But not everyone in wall street makes big money either. That is evident now as ever.
Obama's skill as an organizer has taken him far, and not only are politicians mostly wealthy going in, but they will be even richer after they serve. Ask Bill Clinton, or Daschle, or any number. I can easily tie your comment on connections and corruption to politicians as I can to Wall Street.
I could easily live off the interest of 4.2 million. Yes, to me, that is wealthy, even by Chicago cost of living standards. Of course, the politicians define wealth as what? I've heard some say as low as 100k, and others 250k.
Back to the odds:
If someone had a primary goal of making money, would they go the way of Wall Street and the private sector, or would they opt for the public sector and community activism?
No doubt that Obama was driven primarily by a desire for political power, nearly everyone who runs for president has that dominate "gene" for desiring political power.
I am not suggesting there is greater corruption in one arena than another, but Wall Street has a tendency to attract more corrupt financial dealings, as the primary stated goal is money, not political power.
The destinations may or may not end up the same but generally the initial goals are different. Look at the current VP, he is not wealthy but in a very powerful position, and I doubt there are many who have reached the equivalent level of power (say Senior VP at Goldman Sachs) who are not compensated financially at a much higher level than any public servant. I would be very surprised if after office the current VP did not try to cash in by taking some position in the private sector that offered a big payday.
That we see the pols leverage their public sector experience and contacts into the private sector after retiring from public service, is the American way. They do so exactly for the reasons I am stating...there is more money to be made in the private sector. I seriously doubt that people plan on a 20 or 30 year career in the public sector with a goal of leveraging that into a big payday down the road. I doubt that people run for president so that they can become an ex president who can then mine the private sector for wealth.
Bottom line, do you think Wall Street has more power and potential to make money for an individual than does the public servant.
If someone had a primary goal of making money, would they go the way of Wall Street and the private sector, or would they opt for the public sector and community activism?
No doubt that Obama was driven primarily by a desire for political power, nearly everyone who runs for president has that dominate "gene" for desiring political power.
I am not suggesting there is greater corruption in one arena than another, but Wall Street has a tendency to attract more corrupt financial dealings, as the primary stated goal is money, not political power.
The destinations may or may not end up the same but generally the initial goals are different. Look at the current VP, he is not wealthy but in a very powerful position, and I doubt there are many who have reached the equivalent level of power (say Senior VP at Goldman Sachs) who are not compensated financially at a much higher level than any public servant. I would be very surprised if after office the current VP did not try to cash in by taking some position in the private sector that offered a big payday.
That we see the pols leverage their public sector experience and contacts into the private sector after retiring from public service, is the American way. They do so exactly for the reasons I am stating...there is more money to be made in the private sector. I seriously doubt that people plan on a 20 or 30 year career in the public sector with a goal of leveraging that into a big payday down the road. I doubt that people run for president so that they can become an ex president who can then mine the private sector for wealth.
Bottom line, do you think Wall Street has more power and potential to make money for an individual than does the public servant.