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

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

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)

This sounds great and I WISH it would happen.  But these individuals using the system have put "their people" in place in a lot of situations that keep this kind of regulation from happening. Citizens United has made it hard to try to correct. 

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

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)

 

It's nice that we've figured out that regulating bankers and banking is necessary. 

 

Good luck doing that when they can buy politicians with what amounts to chump change for them.

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

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)

 

 

As a left-leaning moderate, I much prefer the company of Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street.  And that's the real reason Trump won.  

 

But I could be wrong...Let's gather another 10000 crusty hippies and Bernie Bros in tents in downtown Manhattan taking dumps in the alleys for a couple weeks in 2019.  That'll prolly do great things for the Dems come election time.

[No Excuses]

29 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

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

 

Jean Luc Melenchon was the most popular candidate amongst the French youth. 

 

Bernie in America.

 

Its coming and coming very soon. We can thank the greed of the corporate sector for when it kicks in.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, mcsluggo said:

 

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.   

When you listen to the rhetoric of the Left, some of whom are actively supporting Marxist ideals of equal distribution (members who are active here, maybe not in this thread) then yeah it is a pretty stark choice. 

As for the taxation, the rich will ALWAYS find a way to reduce their exposure...ALWAYS. You want to lower taxes? Then cut spending. Stop looking in other wallets to see who can pay for what you want.

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

 

As a left-leaning moderate, I much prefer the company of Wall Street to Occupy Wall Street.  And that's the real reason Trump won.  

 

But I could be wrong...Let's gather another 10000 crusty hippies and Bernie Bros in tents in downtown Manhattan taking dumps in the alleys for a couple weeks in 2019.  That'll prolly do great things for the Dems come election time.

 

Yeah it was the hippies who caused a collapse of the entire world financial system a decade ago. From which it seems very few learned important lessons.

[mcsluggo]

5 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

When you listen to the rhetoric of the Left, some of whom are actively supporting Marxist ideals of equal distribution (members who are active here, maybe not in this thread) then yeah it is a pretty stark choice. 

As for the taxation, the rich will ALWAYS find a way to reduce their exposure...ALWAYS. You want to lower taxes? Then cut spending. Stop looking in other wallets to see who can pay for what you want.

 

 

bull****.  

 

they will always try, of course... why not?  (everyone will try to limit their tax liability) but you don't have to let them.   turning the attention to spending is pure deflection, and ALSO bull****.  

 

No matter what the level of spending, taxes have to come from SOMEWHERE, and right now the tax system is rigged in the favor of the VERY rich... which makes it extra irksome to hear whining about whatever they DO pay.  

 

it is somehow the MOST irksome to hear the non-rich parroting back bull**** soundbites of how the very rich are so persecuted by the taxman

[HOF44]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

As for the taxation, the rich will ALWAYS find a way to reduce their exposure...ALWAYS. You want to lower taxes? Then cut spending. Stop looking in other wallets to see who can pay for what you want.

You are just looking at taxes. The .2 percent also control contracts going out of the government.  Through their influence they get these contracts and make obscene amounts of money from them.  They are actually stealing tax dollars from everyone else.  So let's start with getting the rich out of the governments (our) wallet.  

[grego]

12 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

 

BTW, Obama got 65.9 million votes in 2012. Hillary got 65.85 million votes. The difference was that GOP voters turned out. They got very excited for that piece of ****, Donald Trump.

 

i think youre giving trump too much credit. romney got almost 61 million votes, trump almost 63 million. a difference of about 6%, if my math is correct.

 

but if the voting eligible population went up by approximately 15 million between 2012 and 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections , (6%, again, if my math is correct),  shouldnt hillarys raw number of votes be higher?

[dfitzo53]

It's more like 3 percent, not that that changes your point. 

 

Edit: Sorry, 3 percent from 61 to 63 is what I meant. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

[mcsluggo]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Yeah it was the hippies who caused a collapse of the entire world financial system a decade ago. From which it seems very few learned important lessons.

 

it was eviscerated regulations and poor monitoring of behavior that led to the financial crisis.  The answer is better regulations, and better monitoring.    

 

What the occupy wall street crowd called for was a dirty group hug and during a public hanging ceremony wile burning financial infrastructure to the ground ....  (ok...i simplified a little )

 

the occupy-hippies never caused any real systemic harm...because nobody has been foolish enough to give them enough power to do so... yet!

  

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

You are just looking at taxes. The .2 percent also control contracts going out of the government.  Through their influence they get these contracts and make obscene amounts of money from them.  They are actually stealing tax dollars from everyone else.  So let's start with getting the rich out of the governments (our) wallet.  

Stop saying "the rich", start speaking specifics. 

To someome making $25,000 per year I'm rich. The number of people you're talking about at .2% are but a handful, yes they do a lot of what you say, but we need to stop just saying "the rich". 

10 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

bull****.  

 

they will always try, of course... why not?  (everyone will try to limit their tax liability) but you don't have to let them.   turning the attention to spending is pure deflection, and ALSO bull****.  

 

No matter what the level of spending, taxes have to come from SOMEWHERE, and right now the tax system is rigged in the favor of the VERY rich... which makes it extra irksome to hear whining about whatever they DO pay.  

 

it is somehow the MOST irksome to hear the non-rich parroting back bull**** soundbites of how the very rich are so persecuted by the taxman

And you wonder why Dems lose elections.

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

What is Obama going to talk about in his speech?

 

This is what I would like to know. I don't see this as bad as Hillary, because 1) Obama isn't running for office and could potentially be compromised in the future. There is nothing he can do towards gov't policy anymore than you or I. and 2) Hillary tried to ignore the mounting criticism of her numerous paid speeches to Wall Street, and then didn't want the content of her message to reach the public. That looks shady as hell, and for some people, it didn't take much to turn away from her. If Obama's speech is telling Wall Street how to be better, what is there really to complain about? They should air it live. 

 

I would be a lot more concerned if this was a potential Presidential candidate in 2020 than Obama. 

[HOF44]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Stop saying "the rich", start speaking specifics. 

To someome making $25,000 per year I'm rich. The number of people you're talking about at .2% are but a handful, yes they do a lot of what you say, but we need to stop just saying "the rich". 

When I speak of the rich controlling things you need north of 100,000,000 to be in that group.  They are few but oh so powerful. 

[Hersh]

2 hours 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/

 

 

 

Obama isn't a public servant any more. Also, you keep claiming that Obama is going to kiss up to these people. Do you have a copy of the speech? Have you talked to Obama about the topic or topics he will be covering? 

 

I find it notable that you continue to not talk about what Obama did when it comes to consumer protections or wall street reforms. 

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

it was eviscerated regulations and poor monitoring of behavior that led to the financial crisis.  The answer is better regulations, and better monitoring.    

 

What the occupy wall street crowd called for was a dirty group hug and during a public hanging ceremony wile burning financial infrastructure to the ground ....  (ok...i simplified a little )

 

the occupy-hippies never caused any real systemic harm...because nobody has been foolish enough to give them enough power to do so... yet!

  

 

Occupy Wall St and the Tea Party are symptoms of the same problem: a failing society. 

 

I used to think along similar lines to TryTheBeal. But it's glaringly obvious that the more our politicians sell out and fail the people, the more they will radicalize along their pre-existing political beliefs.

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

I find it notable that you continue to not talk about what Obama did when it comes to consumer protections or wall street reforms. 

 

His Wall Street reforms are nothing amazing. In fact, by current analysis, we are right in the same position that led to the financial meltdown last decade:

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/dealbook/living-wills-of-5-banks-fail-to-pass-muster.html

 

I also linked a pretty comprehensive report from the Atlantic that documented how Obama's Justice Department did a really poor job prosecuting Wall Street crooks after the last recession. 

 

Hopefully you take the time to read this stuff unlike one particular poster here.

[Hersh]

36 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

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.

You have an opinion without know what Obama is going to say. 

[grego]

15 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

It's more like 3 percent, not that that changes your point. 

 

Edit: Sorry, 3 percent from 61 to 63 is what I meant. 

Math is hard. 

 

[Weganator]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Occupy Wall St and the Tea Party are symptoms of the same problem: a failing society. 

 

I used to think along similar lines to TryTheBeal. But it's glaringly obvious that the more our politicians sell out and fail the people, the more they will radicalize along their pre-existing political beliefs.

Exactly. People grow tired of corporatism.

 

The question is whether or not to give government more power to reign in businesses or to take power from the government so that they can't give corporations too many advantages.

[AsburySkinsFan]

11 minutes ago, HOF44 said:

When I speak of the rich controlling things you need north of 100,000,000 to be in that group.  They are few but oh so powerful. 

Agreed, but this is why we need to be very specific when we gripe and call for heads. 

Just saying "the rich" doesn't cut it because that is an ambiguous and relative term at best.

[mcsluggo]

18 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

And you wonder why Dems lose elections.

 

because too large a proportion of the population is too stupid to recognize that they are being played for stupid?

ok...i'll buy that.

 

 

there will be taxes.  period.  it is unavoidable.  

 

when people making $250k and taxed around 35% all-in, buy into arguments about unfair taxes against people making $25 m (and are taxed about 11% all -in)  --- then yes.  it is stupid.    

 

When those same people consistently fall for the tactic of ALWAYS switching discussion "but it is the overall spending that is important.. not the distribution of tax burden" whenever tax burden distribution comes up...yes, it is stupid.   (both are important... but they are NOT the same discussion.  WHether the overall tax burden is $100 billion or $200 billion, SOMEONE still has to pay for it.  and right now the very rich are paying an ever lower percentage of their income-- )  

 

 

 

*** note *** all numbers are pure BS pulled directly from my anus for discussion purposes.    

 

Do

Not

Smell

The

Numbers! 

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

This is what I would like to know. I don't see this as bad as Hillary, because 1) Obama isn't running for office and could potentially be compromised in the future. There is nothing he can do towards gov't policy anymore than you or I. and 2) Hillary tried to ignore the mounting criticism of her numerous paid speeches to Wall Street, and then didn't want the content of her message to reach the public. That looks shady as hell, and for some people, it didn't take much to turn away from her. If Obama's speech is telling Wall Street how to be better, what is there really to complain about? They should air it live. 

 

I would be a lot more concerned if this was a potential Presidential candidate in 2020 than Obama. 

 

Valid points and kinda what I was thinking as well.  He's not running for office and I'm not seeing where he's going to hide what he's talking about.  If he goes and calls them out, what is there to be mad about?  That they paid him to do it?  I'll just wait for the transcript, I doubt they'll air it live.

 

Gotta wait to see what he says first before blasting him for it.  I'll be honest, that's a lot of money, and he does need to choose his words wisely.

[Hersh]

5 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Occupy Wall St and the Tea Party are symptoms of the same problem: a failing society. 

 

I used to think along similar lines to TryTheBeal. But it's glaringly obvious that the more our politicians sell out and fail the people, the more they will radicalize along their pre-existing political beliefs.

 

His Wall Street reforms are nothing amazing. In fact, by current analysis, we are right in the same position that led to the financial meltdown last decade:

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/dealbook/living-wills-of-5-banks-fail-to-pass-muster.html

 

I also linked a pretty comprehensive report from the Atlantic that documented how Obama's Justice Department did a really poor job prosecuting Wall Street crooks after the last recession. 

 

Hopefully you take the time to read this stuff unlike one particular poster here.

I'm fully aware of the poor job Obama did in prosecuting wall street crooks. Discussing the entire Obama record is a good conversation and totally a fair way to evaluate him. Being depressed over him giving a speech in which you have no idea what he will say about whatever topic they've asked him to speak about is what people are taking issue with. Going down the path of ideological purity is dangerous and disingenuous.  

[PF Chang]

I like how everyone has a different reason for why Dems lose elections. If you like Bernie you're sure the Dems lost because they aren't far enough left. If you like Clinton it's because the country is stupid and racist. If you're a Republican it's because the left is too PC and transgender or whatever. 

 

I think all of those factors and more play a part to different groups of voters. But I think the vast majority of people simply don't put much thought into voting and dislike politics.

 

The Republicans have a better brand, and this country is addicted to brands and advertising. The GOP is a total joke economically but it kind of seems like the average person is ALWAYS going to think "Republicans are better for the economy." The things Republicans emphasize resonate more with traditional American values -- hard work, small government, low taxes, individualism. It doesn't matter that they don't practice what they preach because people don't pay close attention. If you're into politics you tend to think everyone is, or that people are more generally informed than they actually are...