• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Pres Obama now doing $400k speeches for Wall Street

Status
Not open for further replies.
sankt-Antonio said:
No wonder our socitiey is out of wack if some of you think 400K for a talk is "reasonable".
Be it Obama or not.

Most sensible thing for him to do is to give that money to charity, imo one can't preach about social equality and then proceed to take that kind of money for a days work without loosing his credibility.
Click to expand...

People across every industry make WAY more money doing WAY less work. Just what country do you think you live in?

No, Obama did not run on some ultra far - left Marxist platform that mandated hard caps on income. That would be the only scenario in which this would make him a hypocrite. He ran as a capitalist who supports the free market, as has pretty much every President before him.

I don't know what ideology you think he subscribed to, but it certainly wasn't "if you make lots of money you're automatically rotten inside".
 
VendettaRed07 said:
No it is not news. But I'd like to know how normalizing this sort of behavior in our current system has worked out for us so far. Nope nothing wrong has every resulted from the current dynamic of large financial corporations wining and dining influenctial politicians in various ways

Gee I wonder why there are climate deniers in congress. Is it because they are legitimately skeptical of the science or is it because they are paid or incentivized in various ways not to.
Click to expand...

Well, if the conservatives I know who might indeed decide to run for office if they had the money, it's because they are legitimately (in the sense that they just refuse to accept) skeptical of the science.

I mean, it's not hard to find people who have dips hit conservative views, and then pay for them to run for office. Why bother wasting time on finding someone whose loyalty to your cause needs to be bought?

Nobody is paying Steve King to be a white supremacist, he just is one.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
No it is not news. But I'd like to know how normalizing this sort of behavior in our current system has worked out for us so far. Nope nothing wrong has every resulted from the current dynamic of large financial corporations wining and dining influenctial politicians in various ways

Gee I wonder why there are climate deniers in congress. Is it because they are legitimately skeptical of the science or is it because they are paid or incentivized in various ways not to.
Click to expand...
Cause this has literally nothing to do with lobbying, if that's what you're getting at. That's a completely different problem. These type of sperches have nothing to do with lobbying and are just used to bolster resumes and send out PR fluff pieces. Lobbying is conducted through completely different means, at completely different locations and events. Trying to conflate thereof and act like they're one and the same just causes confusion and in no way helps solve or deal with actual problematic lobbying, if anything distracting from actual efforts to do so (not that there are many good issues of dealing with that particular problem that don't run afoul of the 1st amendment, but still).
 
Pretty lame. Obama could be setting an example that mainstream progressives are above an arrangement where wealthy elites throw money at each other to spout pablum. I can see that so much cash for so little effort is hard to resist but it's not like he needs the money. Missed opportunity.
 
ntropy said:
does a dictionary include 'hypocrisy'?
Click to expand...
Naw, he shouldn't be able to afford a dictionary, he should be homeless under a bridge somewhere lashing himself for not conforming to your myopic and warped sense of morality.

Stay losing, 8 years of Trump is your just reward. Getting paid to speak is the future the right wing wants.
 
VendettaRed07 said:
No it is not news. But I'd like to know how normalizing this sort of behavior in our current system has worked out for us so far. Nope nothing wrong has every resulted from the current dynamic of large financial corporations wining and dining influenctial politicians in various ways

Gee I wonder why there are climate deniers in congress. Is it because they are legitimately skeptical of the science or is it because they are paid or incentivized in various ways not to.
Click to expand...
Political lobbying can be done for a lot less for much more effect. Turning a few blue districts red is much cheaper than influencing a party by having an ex-president give a "people are good, america is cool" for $400,000.


Black_Sun said:
It's just re-confirmation that he was Wall Street's candidate.
Click to expand...
He's Speaking to more than just Wall Street. Speaker fees are crazy for anyone remotely famous. He'll be giving the same speech to lawyers, doctors, engineers and other high paid professionals for $400k for a long time.
 
Massive Duck said:
Man, who gives a fuck. He was president for eight years, he doesn't owe anyone shit, especially not half-assed self proclaimed liberals who won't even fucking vote unless the candidate is some superstar unicorn who massages their egos and wallets. If people are willing to pay him for speaking then that's on them anyway.


Fuck
Click to expand...

It's just re-confirmation that he was Wall Street's candidate.
 
cdyhybrid said:
How do you plan to fix this without winning elections?
Click to expand...
It's different to argue that it is a necessary evil for now until we pass sweeping campaign finance reforms, than to say there's legitimately nothing wrong for people in a position of political influence to take tons of money from people.

If Bernie or Warren are going and taking tons of money for speeches at Apple or where ever they should be called out for it and their feet should be held to the fire considering the fuckery companies like them currently get away with.

It makes me uncomfortable if someone like Obama if he plans on influencing the political future of the Democratic Party to be doing something like this at the same time because I think it's a conflict of interest. If he's going to be like Bill and largely stay quiet the majority of the time and not get involved much then I don't care. I don't believe that is unreasonable criticism
 
Randolph Freelander said:
You don't fix income inequality by refusing money for your services. You fix it by proposing, championing, and implementing policies that change income distribution. President Obama -- or anyone -- getting paid what the current market supports is absolutely reasonable. It would be unreasonable to expect him to take anything less.
Click to expand...

Myself, yeah I don't - the ex president of the US is more then a normal citizen. He said three days ago in Chicago that his post presidency life will be devoted to the youth, since only they have the power to change things around. So he sees his last endeavor is inspiring young politicians - he should hold himself to a different standard then the average Broker/Banker.

This is where people, myself included, bring in hypocrisy. You can't tell the young people to do everything for climate change (for example) and still be full on corporate/capitalism. Since you clearly can make more money easier if you disregard the climate. Same with heath care, same with social inequality. A country can't be run on capitalism alone, it needs a social component - him preaching on thing and acting another is what rubs people the wrong way I imagine.
 
Folks realize there's a difference between

a)Burn down Wall Street

and

b) Strongly regulate Wall Street

yes?


Sanders is more a and Obama b

Anyone who is a yeah would be a hypocrite for taking speaking fees from these folks.... Anyone who is b is not because they still see some value in Wall Street they just also want it controlled and regulated....
 
A Serious Man said:
Paid speeches might be the dumbest controversy from the election cycle. People are more stressed out over possible influence from being paid for a performance than they are over Citizens United and our completely fucked campaign finance system? Okay.
Click to expand...

no time for policy and doing real work, have to worry about optics and being pure.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Mine does! it says:



Hmm, did Obama ever say taking money from Wall Street was wrong? No.

Did he say the undue influence of moneyed interest in politics was wrong? Yes.

Is this an example of taking money from said interests in order to affect political outcomes? No.

Hey! Look at that.
Click to expand...
Obama said income inequality was the defining challenge of our time -- a challenge apparently he's not interested now that he's out of office!

like i said before, perhaps he'll give it to charity and your savior is given absolution

Bold One said:
Naw, he shouldn't be able to afford a dictionary, he should be homeless under a bridge somewhere lashing himself for not conforming to your myopic and warped sense of morality.

Stay losing, 8 years of Trump is your just reward. Getting paid to speak is the future the right wing wants.
Click to expand...
i don't support Trump. didn't vote for him.
 
Dude Abides said:
Pretty lame. Obama could be setting an example that mainstream progressives are above an arrangement where wealthy elites throw money at each other to spout pablum. I can see that so much cash for so little effort is hard to resist but it's not like he needs the money. Missed opportunity.
Click to expand...
He himself doesn't. But knowing the guy's past behavior of stuff, he'll probably end up giving it to those that do (and even if he doesn't that a huge chunk will just go back to people that need it through taxes regardless since at least we know the Obama's pay theirs but who knows what tricks the banks that this money came from are using to minimize their burden). None that it really matters at all (at least personally), but still.
 
That man's family got to eat and those Wall Street fellas have money to spare anyway. The way I see it, he's bleeding those suckers dry. Once he starts charging 400K for appearances at local primary schools, then it's time to make a fuss, but not at this shit.
 
sankt-Antonio said:
Myself, yeah I don't - the ex president of the US is more then a normal citizen. He said three days ago in Chicago that his post presidency life will be devoted to the youth, since only they have the power to change things around. So he sees his last endeavor is inspiring young politicians - he should hold himself to a different standard then the average Broker/Banker.

This is where people, myself included, bring in hypocrisy. You can't tell the young people to do everything for climate change (for example) and still be full on corporate/capitalism. Since you clearly can make more money easier if you disregard the climate. Same with heath care, same with social inequality. A country can't be run on capitalism alone, it needs a social component - him preaching on thing and acting another is what rubs people the wrong way I imagine.
Click to expand...

So only socialists/communists/anti-capitalists allowed in the fight for climate change?

Do you also feel this applies to the Democratic party?
 
sankt-Antonio said:
Myself, yeah I don't - the ex president of the US is more then a normal citizen. He said three days ago in Chicago that his post presidency life will be devoted to the youth, since only they have the power to change things around. So he sees his last endeavor is inspiring young politicians - he should hold himself to a different standard then the average Broker/Banker.

This is where people, myself included, bring in hypocrisy. You can't tell the young people to do everything for climate change (for example) and still be full on corporate/capitalism. Since you clearly can make more money easier if you disregard the climate. Same with heath care, same with social inequality. A country can't be run on capitalism alone, it needs a social component - him preaching on thing and acting another is what rubs people the wrong way I imagine.
Click to expand...

For like the third time...

Yeah, it's like those regulations on climate he made unilaterally because he had the opposing party controlling the legislature were totally in the best interest of the fossil fuel industry.

Yeah, it's like the original ACA with a public fucking option was in the best interest of the entrenched healthcare industry.
 
ntropy said:
Obama said income inequality was the defining challenge of our time -- a challenge apparently he's not interested now that he's out of office!

like i said before, perhaps he'll give it to charity and your savior is given absolution
Click to expand...

So, I guess, the solution to income inequality is for people to pass on paid keynotes?

giphy.gif
 
ntropy said:
Obama said income inequality was the defining challenge of our time -- a challenge apparently he's not interested now that he's out of office!

like i said before, perhaps he'll give it to charity and your savior is given absolution
Click to expand...

Bernie is a millionaire. He's better off than the vast majority of this country. Is he donating the majority of his worth?
 
cartoon_soldier said:
He should have said no, plain an simple. It diminishes his post presidency which has a long life.
Click to expand...
If you want to create change, it often requires a lot of money. In American politics especially. Republicans being able to dump so much money into so many small and unassuming areas of the country is a part of their success. And, as cool as stump speeches are they don't matter when the democrats in a county you need to get control of the house can't afford to run enough ads or be on the road.
 
Amir0x said:
his "movement", from the same folks who brought you his "revolution."
Click to expand...

theclosetfan said:
To everyone complaining about this. Whose your favorite far left rails-against-the-fat-cats liberal?

Noam Chomsky?

Ralph Nader?

Cornel West?

They all get 15k-30k for an hour long speech. That's the business. It's crazy, but schools, conferences, business associations, etc. pay big for even mildly famous speakers. Obama is getting paid what he's worth.
Click to expand...

preach

Black_Sun said:
It's just re-confirmation that he was Wall Street's candidate.
Click to expand...

man if your best argument was him ballin' here confirms a narrative you prolly had the last 8 years, he should work overtime

Big Baybee said:
It really doesn't. I feel like the left is being dumbed down when it comes to this stuff.
Click to expand...

i really think this is where purity tests lead us, especially when using metrics said candidate never ran on/embraced
 
Eh, this was to be expected. This isn't even an Obama issue. It's a money in politics issue. What's disappointing about this is that even the highly principled politicians like Obama head right to the trough after leaving office.

Not being Obama specific, but I don't know how anyone can claim that getting showered with cash by industries you were regulating in office after you leave the office is in any way acceptable. I find it repugnant no matter who is taking the money.
 
ntropy said:
Obama said income inequality was the defining challenge of our time -- a challenge apparently he's not interested now that he's out of office!

like i said before, perhaps he'll give it to charity and your savior is given absolution


i don't support Trump. didn't vote for him.
Click to expand...

It's almost like a heavily regulated Wall Street could actually play a role in ending income inequality.

There are many problems one could point out with the Obama administration, being overly cozy with big business is not one of them. There's a reason the markets climbed when Trump took office instead of Hillary, there's a reason moneyed interests fed tons of cash into the Tea Party. To pretend that Obama was some type of corporate shill is to blindly ignore every piece of evidence that can be offered.

Did you vote for Hillary? Because if you didn't you can take your seat in the corner.

Bold One said:
No one really cares, he is a less charismatic, older and less mobile Tyler Durden - but he's cool and not a hypocrite at all because he did a hip-hop handshake that one time?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that fucking bird.
 
ShironRedshift said:
He himself doesn't. But knowing the guy's past behavior of stuff, he'll probably end up giving it to those that do (and even if he doesn't that a huge chunk will just go back to people that need it through taxes regardless since at least we know the Obama's pay theirs but who knows what tricks the banks that this money came from are using to minimize their burden). None that it really matters at all (at least personally), but still.
Click to expand...

It matters only if Obama wanted to show, with populism on the rise, that people disgusted with rich people showering each other with easy money have alternatives other than Le Pen/Trumpism. This was an opportunity to demonstrate that he's not part of that system. But whatever, this and his Chicago speech show that he's the same kumbaya lets all get along Obama he's always been.
 
cartoon_soldier said:
He should have said no, plain an simple. It diminishes his post presidency which has a long life.
Click to expand...

Sure, he's not allowed to make money. In fact I want him to take all the money he has made and throw it into the streets for everyone to grab in a frenzy so I can admire him.
 
Dude Abides said:
It matters only if Obama wanted to show, with populism on the rise, that people disgusted with rich people showering each other with easy money have alternatives other than Le Pen/Trumpism. This was an opportunity to demonstrate that he's not part of that system. But whatever, this and his Chicago speech show that he's the same kumbaya lets all get along Obama he's always been.
Click to expand...
The answer to populism on the rise isn't more populism.
 
TSM said:
Eh, this was to be expected. This isn't even an Obama issue. It's a money in politics issue. What's disappointing about this is that even the highly principled politicians like Obama head right to the trough after leaving office.

Not being Obama specific, but I don't know how anyone can claim that getting showered with cash by industries you were regulating in office after you leave the office is in any way acceptable. I find it repugnant no matter who is taking the money.
Click to expand...

"Money in politics", in a thread about a retired politician who doesn't hold office sands thus can't affect public policy lol

You're talking about lobbying, which ISa blight in it's current form, but also has absolutely nothing to do with this here.
 
Black_Sun said:
Because a lot of the time it's used by companies/institutions to reward politicians for doing their bidding.
Click to expand...

Because AGAIN, the ACA really showed he was deeply invested in the increased profits of the health insurance industry.

Fuck.

Dude Abides said:
It matters only if Obama wanted to show, with populism on the rise, that people disgusted with rich people showering each other with easy money have alternatives other than Le Pen/Trumpism. This was an opportunity to demonstrate that he's not part of that system. But whatever, this and his Chicago speech show that he's the same kumbaya lets all get along Obama he's always been.
Click to expand...

Yeah that Chicago speech he did for free really increased his net worth,

Fuck.
 
Does nobody care that he'll be speaking directly to industry leaders in healthcare, with both the private and public sector represented, and will likely be in a key position to sway the way the business of healthcare is done in the USA, or is that just not as fun as saying "$$$WALL STREET$$$".
 
kirblar said:
The answer to populism on the rise isn't more populism.
Click to expand...

If you say so. With italics, even.

CrimzonSamurai said:
Yeah that Chicago speech he did for free really increased his net worth,

Fuck.
Click to expand...

Did I say it did? It just showed that Obama is still the kinda milquetoast guy who thinks everyone can agree if we just reach out to each other and hold hands.

I'm looking forward to when he says not all Trump voters are racist and some have valid concerns and the heads of all his fanboys here explode.
 
IrishNinja said:
preach



man if your best argument was him ballin' here confirms a narrative you prolly had the last 8 years, he should work overtime



i really think this is where purity tests lead us, especially when using metrics said candidate never ran on/embraced
Click to expand...

That's not my best argument.

His campaign was funded by Wall Street. Seriously, they were putting much more money into him than McCain. It's a reason why no one went to jail. They were his allies.

We have recorded conversations of him where he says he's on their side and trying to save them.
 
Black_Sun said:
That's not my best argument.

His campaign was funded by Wall Street. Seriously, they were putting much more money into him than McCain. It's a reason why no one went to jail. They were his allies.

We have recorded conversations of him where he says he's on their side and trying to save them.
Click to expand...

Yeah those conversations that were trying to prevent an actual depression instead of just a recession caused by decreased regulation under a Republican administration.

READ A BOOK.

Fuck.
 
Black_Sun said:
Because a lot of the time it's used by companies/institutions to reward politicians for doing their bidding.
Click to expand...
These same places are paying people like Michael Phelps and Magic Johnson the big bucks too. It's like a U2 concert for them. You see someone famous, maybe get some selfies and have a story to tell. If you're pulling in a ton of money a few hundred dollars per person to see Obama isn't too much
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Street Fighter - Official Trailer (October 16th)
33
478
Giallo Corsa replied
Barack Obama: "Aliens are real."
Opinion  2 3
117
1K
midnightAI replied
Hayley Atwell now
2
53
1K
-BLITZ- replied
Danielle Fishel (Topanga) now
39
900
BillMaxwell replied
SNL UK is now a thing
12
34
ValiantInstance replied
Top Bottom