Barack Obama Accepting $400,000 in Wall Street Speech Fee is Depressing

[No Excuses]

32 minutes ago, Bang said:

the notion this is something to be upset about is absurd.

Wall Street paid 400k for him to speak, so it stands to reason they are very interested in what he would have to say.

 

Pessimist; oh no! He's talking to THEM and accepting a lot of money for it!

Optimist: hey,, he's talking to them, and they paid him a lot of money to hear what he has to say.

 

Which are you?

~Bang

 

I am the one who is disgusted about the influence of money in our politics and how it has utterly ruined our governing system. 

 

I would like to live in a functioning democracy where money isn't the sole determinant of access to politicians and legislation.

 

I am at the point that I simply don't want to hear excuses about why Obama's paid speeches might be much more noble than others. The optics of it are bad enough to serioisly undermine a core message of the Democratic Party.

 

One can acknowledge that Obama isn't as bad on this as the GOP, but it is still disappointing to see him kiss up to Wall Street. His Justice Department was notoriously lenient against bankers. 

 

I am simply sick and tired of the fact that one party openly kisses ass to the wealthy, and the other does it behind closed doors. The GOP is not my concern. But as a registered Dem, I keep hoping that they realize the American public is dumb, but not dumb enough to see how two-faced some of their actions are on really important issues.

 

When most people can't find truth in the economic message of either parties platform, we end up with the current ****ty climate of identity politics. 

[Bang]

Paid speeches by ex presidents don't bug me,, i don't see it as money influencing our system, because they're out of the system. They have influence because of who they are and what they've accomplished, but no power beyond speeches.

Noble isn't really part of the equation for me. Oration is their stock and trade, and they've been paid for speeches by big business interests far longer than our identity politics has existed in it's current state. I don't think them making paid speeches has much to do with it.

 

~Bang

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 hours ago, No Excuses said:

This is truly why Dems lose elections. It is kind of sad to read this thread and see so many of you seemingly okay with the disgusting revolving door between DC and Wall Street.

 

Oh well, a mans gotta cash in while selling out our democracy amirite?

No, Dems lose elections because the Far Left is just as bullheaded and stupid as the Far Right. There is no compromising with them, it's zero sum all or nothing. There MUST be a balance between the needs of the poor and the rich. If you sacrifice the needs of the rich in order to serve the poor alone then you will get gutted in elections because you'll force the rich to the other side. There must be compromise. This is why I'm still a registered Independent. If the GOP would have run a competent centrist candidate I could have voted for them. Instead we got Jeb "Clap Please" Bush, and a few other card board cut-outs. We got the same thing here in our state governor's race, a far Right religious zealot with a hedgefund fortune. What more could you ask for, someone who praises The Ark "experience" while being a corporatist god. What did the Dems do? Lined up a cardboard cut-out stuff shirt who couldn't connect with a prostitute if he paid her double. 

 

Stop demonizing the wealthy, stop blaming them for everything, stop counting their money as if it's your own.

Enact sensible legislation and taxes that aren't punitive and don't simply give to the poor because they're poor. 

Find the middle ground and stop being stupid. 

[No Excuses]

Sorry, I have absolutely zero love for corrupt institutions that have created a system where only they themselves have influence in meaningful legislation and governing.

 

Having ethical boundaries between public servants and the wealthy elite isn't a crazy demand. It's the core of any well functioning democracy.

 

In Obama's case, and many influential Democrats, their message of championing the little guy is completely neutered when they are seen kissing up to the same people they criticize on the campaign trail. And I wish it was only optics. They also let a good number of horrible people get away with ruining lives:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/399368/

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Sorry, I have absolutely zero love for corrupt institutions that have created a system where only they themselves have influence in meaningful legislation and governing.

 

Having ethical boundaries between public servants and the wealthy elite isn't a crazy demand. It's the core of any well functioning democracy.

 

In Obama's case, and many influential Democrats, their message of championing the little guy is completely neutered when they are seen kissing up to the same people they criticize on the campaign trail. And I wish it was only optics. They also let a good number of horrible people get away with ruining lives:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/399368/

 

 

^^^^^this is why Dems lose elections.

It's why the Dems lost the House and the Senate (remember the Senate isn't subject to gerrymandering).

The Presidency was not subject to gerrymandering.

There are a LOT of people who are wealthy who aren't ruining lives, when the Left paints with absurdly wide and inflamatory rhetoric that only threatens the wealthy guess what...you lose.

You can scream all day about corrupt institutions and the way things are, but you have to win in order to change things.

BTW, The Atlantic while a real knee slapper in New York or on the Cape is rejected in the majority of America because it's out of touch with them. You want to ween America off Faux News? Then wake up and start meeting people where they are rather than insisting they join the drum circle beating out rhythms against those who have more than others. That crap didn't work for Lenin, it won't work here either. 

Cutting the tall poppy only makes everyone shorter.

[No Excuses]

Quality incoherent rambling. I link you to a fairly comprehensive piece on how the Justice Department under Obama dropped the ball, and your response is that the Atlantic sucks because no one outside of NY reads it.

 

100% sure you didn't even read it. As is typical these days. Everyone's got an opinion, but barely any time put into assessing it.

[twa]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

It tells me a lot. It speaks volumes.

 

They hate women? 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

26 minutes ago, twa said:

They hate women? 

Depending on who "they" is, then yes, that was a contributing factor. The President certainly doesn't hold them in high esteem.

 

Here's another awesome thing about being the GOP savior.... a video could come out of Trump immolating 50 homeless kittens and all he has to do is say "nobody loves homeless kittens more than me, believe me. Hillary Clinton hates homeless kittens." and that's good enough for his gaggle of mouth breathers.

[Going Commando]

No Excuses has a point.  Our democracy is dangerously unhealthy and the future of the Left is in moving to the actual Left.  Bernie Sanders is the future.  The largest generation in the country right now is a bunch of college educated urbanite poor people who are slowly coming to terms with the fact that a lot of the ladders into the middle class got pulled up behind the previous guys and that the majority of them will be looking at a lifetime of underemployment, and debt--living paycheck to paycheck while struggling to pay for housing, pay for health care, pay for costs of living.  They're not going to settle for licking the boots of the rich people that **** them over in the hopes that doing so will allow them to cling to some sort of 20th century post war petite bourgeois life.

[AsburySkinsFan]

38 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Quality incoherent rambling. I link you to a fairly comprehensive piece on how the Justice Department under Obama dropped the ball, and your response is that the Atlantic sucks because no one outside of NY reads it.

 

100% sure you didn't even read it. As is typical these days. Everyone's got an opinion, but barely any time put into assessing it.

Now you sound just like the Far Right, I got called a liberal yesterday becasue I read an article. I'm not reading the Atlantic for the exact reason I don't read Faux News, I know what it's going to say before it ever even starts. 
We get it, you don't like the rich and you think they have manipulated a system to keep you and the rest of the proletariate down.

And you wonder why Dems lose elections.

2 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

No Excuses has a point.  Our democracy is dangerously unhealthy and the future of the Left is in moving to the actual Left.  Bernie Sanders is the future.  The largest generation in the country right now is a bunch of college educated urbanite poor people who are slowly coming to terms with the fact that a lot of the ladders into the middle class got pulled up behind the previous guys and that the majority of them will be looking at a lifetime of underemployment, and debt--living paycheck to paycheck while struggling to pay for housing, pay for health care, pay for costs of living.  They're not going to settle for licking the boots of the rich people that **** them over in the hopes that doing so will allow them to cling to some sort of 20th century post war petite bourgeois life.

So tell those Millenials to do something about it. Stop training for a job and start learning how to create a business, look for the opportunity and act. Everyone wants to act like little birds and they complain when they aren't being fed. Don't go to college and study 8th century Germanic literature and then complain that you can't find a job. The ladders weren't pulled up, and even if they were go out and create your own damned ladder. I'd rather own my own small ladder than beg to climb someone else's.

[HOF44]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

We get it, you don't like the rich and you think they have manipulated a system to keep you and the rest of the proletariate down.

 

It's not just "the rich" it's the rich that have his and her jets.  They have used money in politics to influence laws to give them the outcomes they desire.  All you need to do is look at the wealth distribution in this country from 1950's until now.  Unfettered capitalism is just as dangerous as pure socialism.  The government needs to be that check and right now that is not happening.  If this redistribution of wealth continues I think the rich will one day have a Marie Antoinette style revolt on their hands. 

[Mooka]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

Sorry, I have absolutely zero love for corrupt institutions that have created a system where only they themselves have influence in meaningful legislation and governing.

 

Only a Sith deals in absolutes....        lol the Star Wars references seem so weird now

 

But seriously, this is where you're going too far and just start talking anarchy. 

 

Yes, we're at the point where its hard to distinguish between corporation/union/lobby/bank/politician but that doesn't mean everything is out to cram sugar down your throat, steal your money, and sell grenade launchers to your kids. Some of that institution functions as intended, some of it fights against the corruption, etc. 

 

Obama was a sell-out in a number of ways, particularly on enforcing his wall-street reforms and ending the influence special interests, but part of that comes with the territory. W Bush was a huge sell-out to many conservatives for his policies. Clinton... with his defense of marriage act, and so on. 

[Renegade7]

What is Obama going to talk about in his speech?

[AsburySkinsFan]

21 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

It's not just "the rich" it's the rich that have his and her jets.  They have used money in politics to influence laws to give them the outcomes they desire.  All you need to do is look at the wealth distribution in this country from 1950's until now.  Unfettered capitalism is just as dangerous as pure socialism.  The government needs to be that check and right now that is not happening.  If this redistribution of wealth continues I think the rich will one day have a Marie Antoinette style revolt on their hands. 

Which is why moderation is important. And I rub shoulders with a network of seven-figure+ people none of them have private jets, none are influencing laws, they are too busy running their businesses and resent everyone counting their money to give to others. 

 

The worst part for the middle class is that the rich hire lawyers and accountants and they figure out ways to lower their tax exposure, which then shifts the burden to the middle class who have their taxes forcibly paid on their behalf. 

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Which is why moderation is important. And I rub shoulders with a network of seven-figure+ people none of them have private jets, none are influencing laws, they are too busy running their businesses and resent everyone counting their money to give to others. 

 

The worst part for the middle class is that the rich hire lawyers and accountants and they figure out ways to lower their tax exposure, which then shifts the burden to the middle class who have their taxes forcibly paid on their behalf. 

7 Figures is not the group I'm referencing.  You have to have at least 9 figures for admission!  lol

[Going Commando]

23 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So tell those Millenials to do something about it. Stop training for a job and start learning how to create a business, look for the opportunity and act. Everyone wants to act like little birds and they complain when they aren't being fed. Don't go to college and study 8th century Germanic literature and then complain that you can't find a job. The ladders weren't pulled up, and even if they were go out and create your own damned ladder. I'd rather own my own small ladder than beg to climb someone else's.

 

Your panacea is to tell all millennials to become successful entrepreneurs and take on more debt to start small service industry companies in saturated markets that are probably shrinking due to automation?  People who are coming out of college already massively in debt that they need to begin paying off immediately, and probably lacking training in the field?  You think this is a realistic solution to the problem of massive income disparity, stagnating wages, and the rigging of the government and economy by wealthy corporate interests that's leading to the death of the middle class?

 

Moreover, just from the political standpoint, you think the right tack for the Left is to pull a Jason "well if you wanted health care, you shouldn't have bought that iPhone" Chaffetz and blame the poor for being poor?  Tell them the reason they're poor is because they haven't worked hard enough or trimmed enough of the fat?

 

Yeah... there is going to be a socialist revolution at some point in my lifetime.  Let's hope it's the peaceful kind.

[HOF44]

24 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Obama was a sell-out in a number of ways, particularly on enforcing his wall-street reforms and ending the influence special interests

I had such high hopes for him and when he started putting Wall Street in a lot of cabinet positions I knew it was for naught. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, HOF44 said:

7 Figures is not the group I'm referencing.  You have to have at least 9 figures for admission!  lol

Yet, 7 figures is top 1%

I have people in my photo album who when they hear the angry ignorant rhetoric from the Left about "the rich" know that it's them that's being aimed at. One of my friends now owns about a dozen medical offices, he no longer practices except for a day or two per month because he's managing the other offices, he has hundreds of employees. He has stepped in and purchased failing practices because the doctors don't know how to run their businesses. Yet, the Left want to count his dollars as if he owes them more. The rhetoric they sling is offensive to him because he knows that if he just minded his own business and stayed small that those other business would have failed and people would have lost their jobs. But, since he's financially successful then he's the target.

Honestly the rhetoric from the Left is immature, and irresponsible at best.

Oh, but then some will say, "Oh but we don't mean him." Well hell then, stop slinging such broad and damning condemnations around. And he fully knows that he wouldn't have the business he has without the people who work for him (Obama was right on that) but he knows damn well that without his efforts, his risk, his capital then they'd all be unemployed.

So which do you want?

10 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Your panacea is to tell all millennials to become successful entrepreneurs and take on more debt

Right there is literally where I stopped reading. Why? You are probably asking.

Because the "spend money to make money" is a lie that has been told over and over by those with no imagination.

The fact that you would write it reveals what you know about entrepreneurship and building a business, it's that lie that keeps people in the ruts of always seeking a momma bird to feed them.

[mcsluggo]

this is such a dumpster fire of a thread

 

Obama is gettig paid a whole bunch to speak because he has a current perspective that NOBODY in the world can come close to matching,  is easily one of the greatest orators in the world, and has severely curtailed supply.    I'm sure that Oprah would (or does) get tons.  Bill Gates would get tons...except he  is a pretty boring speaker.  W would rake it in.    Putin would get tons....if he ever stepped down.  

 

people want to pay interesting people to speak.  There is nobody in the world more interesting than Obama right now.

 

 

 

[DogofWar1]

Is it somewhat disappointing from a principles standpoint? Sure.

 

But he's out.  It doesn't bother me too much as a result.  His future influence is limited.

 

He also did a number of positive things while President in the face of unprecedented obstruction.

 

He's earned the right to cash in a bit.

 

I'm significantly more concerned about Cory Booker's pharma vote from earlier this year.  He HAS a vote and is one of the likely guys to run for the nomination.  I want to know who is paying him more (though I think speech payments are a bit overblown as an issue generally unless they're a cover).

[No Excuses]

50 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Now you sound just like the Far Right, I got called a liberal yesterday becasue I read an article. I'm not reading the Atlantic for the exact reason I don't read Faux News, I know what it's going to say before it ever even starts. 
We get it, you don't like the rich and you think they have manipulated a system to keep you and the rest of the proletariate down.

 

So like I suspected, you want to have an opinion in here without actually participating and engaging in what others are saying to support their arguments. 

 

You have the reading comprehension of a 10 year old if you think my beef is with the rich and not the erosion of a fair democratic system.

[HOF44]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yet, 7 figures is top 1%

 

7 Figures while rich by most any definition is not controlling and influencing National Government.  The .1/.2 percent have the juice to do that and they do.

[mcsluggo]

also... aside from that... Wall Street is not some sort of enemy.   Nor is "Business" in general.   Are they made up of individuals that will exploit the system to their own benefit??   Of course they are.  Is the potential for public harm strong in this instance?  --from individuals acting in their own self interest??   of course it is.     That means you need good regulations, and good enforcers, to try to keep incentives as aligned as possible.   (and i give the moron Trump, and his cadre of ghastly ghoulies zero possibility of accomplishing this, or even trying to....)

 

But that doesn't bankers and/or business are evil.   Regulate them.  Monitor their behavior.  Tax a portion of the gains.   and be glad that they are their serving vital purposes, and continue to provie an environment that will allow them to flourish  (which is not the same as operating unchecked)

[No Excuses]

Just now, DogofWar1 said:

I'm significantly more concerned about Cory Booker's pharma vote from earlier this year.  He HAS a vote and is one of the likely guys to run for the nomination.  I want to know who is paying him more (though I think speech payments are a bit overblown as an issue generally unless they're a cover).

 

People like Cory Booker are precisely my problem. It's the two-faced Dem politicians. 

[mcsluggo]

10 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Yet, 7 figures is top 1%

I have people in my photo album who when they hear the angry ignorant rhetoric from the Left about "the rich" know that it's them that's being aimed at. One of my friends now owns about a dozen medical offices, he no longer practices except for a day or two per month because he's managing the other offices, he has hundreds of employees. He has stepped in and purchased failing practices because the doctors don't know how to run their businesses. Yet, the Left want to count his dollars as if he owes them more. The rhetoric they sling is offensive to him because he knows that if he just minded his own business and stayed small that those other business would have failed and people would have lost their jobs. But, since he's financially successful then he's the target.

Honestly the rhetoric from the Left is immature, and irresponsible at best.

Oh, but then some will say, "Oh but we don't mean him." Well hell then, stop slinging such broad and damning condemnations around. And he fully knows that he wouldn't have the business he has without the people who work for him (Obama was right on that) but he knows damn well that without his efforts, his risk, his capital then they'd all be unemployed.

So which do you want?

Right there is literally where I stopped reading. Why? You are probably asking.

Because the "spend money to make money" is a lie that has been told over and over by those with no imagination.

The fact that you would write it reveals what you know about entrepreneurship and building a business, it's that lie that keeps people in the ruts of always seeking a momma bird to feed them.

 

this is ridiculous sounding, also.    It is not a stark choice between "kill it and take it all away versus just let business do whatever it wants"  

 

Of COURSE the very rich should be taxed.  And they should be taxed at the very least at an equal ratio as the well off  (those people making 6 figures).... but the perception is that they are not... and i think that perception is correct.