• 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.
Remember when Hillary Clinton was demonized for months for how her paid Wall Street speeches were clearly signs of her corruption...and then it turned out she was using the platform to argue for promoting women in business and dreaming of a single hemisphere market for trade and energy. What a monster.

Black_Sun said:
Kinda, yeah. How can Bill Gates lambast wealth inequality when he can do something about it with all that dough
Click to expand...

Bill Gates is one of the world's most prolific champions of ending global poverty. It would've taken you literally five seconds on Goggle to spare yourself the embarrassment.
 
boiled goose said:
I completely disagree.
The effects of donor influence on legislation is measurable.
This is one mechanism, along revolving door, campaign donations, independent expenditures, access, etc. That I think such influence is transmitted.

I don't want my elected representatives to be able to do this.
You don't care.
I got it.

I think it's not only damaging the system as a whole but hurts Democrats advantages against gop. I think it's not only bad policy but bad politics and strategy.

Many on this forum in particular are very happy to defend the corporate Democrats, despite their horrible record. All I can hope is that they get primaried.
Click to expand...
Let's see ...

Revolving door doesn't apply as Eidan has (apparently fruitlessly) tried to explain to you and others itt.

And if this was some payment for "services rendered" it's a) a pretty weird way to go about it and b) I'd need to see some receipts from your side.

Moving on, he's not an elected representative, of the Democratic Party or anyone else. He's a civilian. A well protected one, but still. And civilians get paid for jobs. You want to change that, be my guest. Probably hugely popular. Nevermind you somehow deducing my overall stance out of this instance. Very impressive.

What it comes down to is Obama doing something any ex-president has done and will do. Only difference is that in the interim some part of US liberals has picked up on an all-or-nothing crusade on Wall Street and continue to obstruct the realization of their own ideals on account of socialist pipe-dreams. You happen to be one of them.

Get real.
 
I remember when Obama had the nerve to sympathize with the family of a dead black boy and his approval ratings tanked as a result.

He doesn't owe this garbage ass country shit.
 
I don't know Obama, but the last Brazilian president who did this was using this excuse as a smoke screen to justify bribes from megacorportions.
 
Eidan said:
Members of Congress can't be paid for speeches while they're in office.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're actually paying attention to what people in this thread are saying. Multiple people, not just myself, have pointed out that it is pointless to have MoCs that can't be paid for speeches in office if the moment you leave office, you then immediately can be. All that does is delay the inducement by a few years. So what was the point of you typing this sentence? I already know what you've said, it didn't add anything to the argument, or support your points in any way. It's just a pile of wasted space that makes me reluctant to bother talking to you, because you clearly don't listen.

People are paid speaker fees to drive attention and attendance to an event.
Click to expand...

That is one reason they are paid speaker fees, yes. Another reason they are paid speaker fees is to try and create a positive opinion of the person paying in the mind of the recipient. It can be both, and you've not disproved the latter.

But this narrative that it is used through FUCKING speaking fees is outright dumb.
Click to expand...

Maybe if I put FUCKING more frequently in my FUCKING posts or acted more like yourself and FUCKING Amirox by insinuating everyone is 12, I too could be as FUCKING persuasive as you! (Although having said that, most 12 year olds have the sense not to lie about things they did when the evidence is relatively easy to find, so I'm not sure quite how he has the brass balls to do that...)

But ignoring that, no, speaking fees are an entirely plausible way to do this - partly because they have the veneer of deniability, as you are so aptly demonstrating, which makes them more easily defensible than outright accept a consultancy post.
 
The Hermit said:
I don't know Obama, but the last Brazilian president who did this was using this excuse as a smoke screen to justify bribes from megacorportions.
Click to expand...
What exactly is Obama taking bribes for? He's not in office and never will be again. His financial priorities in life now are putting his kids through college, building his foundation and library, his redistricting reform organization with Holder, campaigning for other Dems, and living comfortably with Michelle.
 
CrazyHorse said:
Great point. Robin Hood also took from the rich. As long as Obama gives a large portion to charity, the he isn't hypocritical.
Click to expand...

That has been Obama's MO.

Washington Post said:
In 2010, for instance, the president’s taxable income was a little over $1.7 million, much of it from book sales. Line 19 of his itemized deductions shows that he gave $245,075 in gifts to charity.

That would be a rate of more than 14 percent, easily meeting Huckabee’s standard of a “dime out of a dollar.”

In 2009, the president’s taxable income was about $5.5 million. He listed $329,100 in charitable contributions on his tax return and also directed the Nobel Prize Committee to give his $1.4 million prize directly to 10 charities (which meant he could not take a tax deduction for donating the prize).

This adds up to a rate of 31.4 percent of taxable income, again easily surpassing Huckabee’s standard. (Update: a reader correctly notes the percentage would be 25.1 percent if you added Obama’s Nobel Prize money to his taxable income.)
Click to expand...


Despite all the Mike Huckabees of the world.

“All respect due, he [President Obama] reported giving one percent of his income away to charity and he wants to lecture me about being responsible as a steward of my resources. Mr. President, the last time I checked, the bare minimum for a believer is a dime out of a dollar that is supposed to go to take care of the widows, the poor, the orphans.”

--Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R), speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb. 10, 2012
Click to expand...
 
The Hermit said:
I don't know Obama, but the last Brazilian president who did this was using this excuse as a smoke screen to justify bribes from megacorportions.
Click to expand...
Naah.. The Wall Street people are not corruptible and are pretty good guys overall. I'm sure whatever speech from Obama, Hillary or any other politician is to teach them about family values, gender equality, and their favorite subject, how to fix income inequality. I've read like 3 articles on this subject so you're going to have to trust me, I'm an expert.
 
Wall Street: "Do right by us and we will do right by you when you are facing life out of office"

That is how you buy influence in countries with strong anti-corruption laws and principles.

I guess I should not be surprised that this is too subtle for a lot of people.

Wall Street: "This is almost too easy"
 
If there's anyone that should get rich giving speeches its probably the former most powerful person in the world. Should we cap income or something? Is investment and banking (wall street) inherently bad?

Curbing income inequality doesn't mean that wall street doesn't pay people to give speeches or presidents shouldn't be paid for speaking engagements. The amount is exorbitant, but its not like he's going to go "hey, actually could you guys pay me like 25% as much, i know you need the extra cash", like it's the Warren Buffet option on taxes that nobody checks off.

Change the system itself, and all these variables you think are "bad" will necessarily fall in line.
 
So what just because he spent 8 years trying to steer this country to a better horizon, he's got to spend the rest of his life, now retired from politics, as a humble hermit?
 
Blader said:
What exactly is Obama taking bribes for? He's not in office and never will be again. His financial priorities in life now are putting his kids through college, building his foundation and library, his redistricting reform organization with Holder, campaigning for other Dems, and living comfortably with Michelle.
Click to expand...
Not to forget that this garbage ass first post is omitting the single most important sentence from the short article while including a sentence about what Rupert Murdoch's The New York Post thinks about Obama.

"The 44th president has accepted an offer to speak at a healthcare conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald in September, US media report."

Makes me wonder about the economy of quote lines from the OP when literally only two sentences in the article provide details about his speech and one of those is omitted.
 
Kayhan said:
Wall Street: "Do right by us and we will do right by you when you are facing life out of office"

That is how you buy influence in countries with strong anti-corruption laws and principles.

I guess I should not be surprised that this is too subtle for a lot of people.

Wall Street: "This is almost too easy"
Click to expand...
It's cool how you keep posting these meaningless perceived causalities while failing to show any reputable receipts behind them.

Oh there you go again.
 
The Hermit said:
I don't know Obama, but the last Brazilian president who did this was using this excuse as a smoke screen to justify bribes from megacorportions.
Click to expand...
I don't even know which president you're mentioning since I'm pretty sure all Brazillian presidents did this at one point.
 
giga said:
It's cool how you keep posting these meaningless inferences while failing to show any reputable receipts behind them.
Click to expand...

I will ask Wall Street to fax them over right now.

"Hey Wall Street could you give me some written documentation of the ways you buy influence? Thanks in advance"
 
LOL at everyone shitting on him for getting paid. He's more likely to turn that cash to positive forces through his foundation/donations rather than building some grandiose life style like someone like Trump or the people he's giving the speeches to would.
 
Gattsu25 said:
Not to forget that this garbage ass first post is omitting the single most important sentence from the short article while including a sentence about what Rupert Murdoch's The New York Post thinks about Obama.

"The 44th president has accepted an offer to speak at a healthcare conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald in September, US media report."

Makes me wonder about the economy of quote lines from the OP when literally only two sentences in the article provide details about his speech and one of those is omitted.
Click to expand...

You are actually talking about the BBC news article...
 
Money money money. Fuck principles when it is one of the good guys amirite. Obama is our guy so that makes it not so bad.

How is Obama's track record on taking Wall Street to task? Yeah.

I expect nothing less from Republicans but this was a disappointment.
 
Guevara said:
It's totally normal, that's true; but it also explains why voters keep wanting to burn down the entire system.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm so sick of the partisan, team sport bullshit that politics has become. I don't necessarily have a *problem* with it, but I can certainly agree that it's not a good look. The same people that are saying "get that money Barry!" would be the same people that would be up and arms and chastising if it were a republican.

Also, people somehow trying to bring race into this - stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.
 
Timedog said:
If there's anyone that should get rich giving speeches its probably the former most powerful person in the world. Should we cap income or something? Is investment and banking (wall street) inherently bad?

Curbing income inequality doesn't mean that wall street doesn't pay people to give speeches or presidents shouldn't be paid for speaking engagements. The amount is exorbitant, but its not like he's going to go "hey, actually could you guys pay me like 25% as much, i know you need the extra cash", like it's the Warren Buffet option on taxes that nobody checks off.

Change the system itself, and all these variables you think are "bad" will necessarily fall in line.
Click to expand...

Basically this. I can think that Obama and others are paid too much for a speech, but can also recognize that's what the market is willing to pay them. Hard to fault Obama for taking money that is offered to him.
 
numble said:
They used to be able to receive speaking fees before 1991. Do you think it was dumb to implement such a prohibition, since people are just paid speaker fees to drive attention and attendance to an event?
Click to expand...
I do think it was unnecessary, but can at least understand the ethical concerns involving a sitting politician or government personnel taking speaker fees. But one who isn't?

Honoraria is used to gain high profile speakers to drive attention and attendance to events. Not to peddle influence over legislators who no longer have direct influence over legislation. That's what campaign contributions are for.
 
Forearms said:
LOL at everyone shitting on him for getting paid. He's more likely to turn that cash to positive forces through his foundation/donations rather than building some grandiose life style like someone like Trump or the people he's giving the speeches to would.
Click to expand...
Arguably one of his biggest failures was his inability to prosecute Wall Street offenders post-crisis.

I get why this stings.
 
Seductivpancakes said:
So what just because he spent 8 years trying to steer this country to a better horizon, he's got to spend the rest of his life, now retired from politics, as a humble hermit?
Click to expand...

Just get honest day job as Wallmart greeter or something.

Gattsu25 said:
Not to forget that this garbage ass first post is omitting the single most important sentence from the short article while including a sentence about what Rupert Murdoch's The New York Post thinks about Obama.

"The 44th president has accepted an offer to speak at a healthcare conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald in September, US media report."

Makes me wonder about the economy of quote lines from the OP when literally only two sentences in the article provide details about his speech and one of those is omitted.
Click to expand...

But title has done its job, isn't even title of article.
 
numble said:
You are actually talking about the BBC news article...
Click to expand...
Umm yes.

Only the first two sentences of the article provide important details and the first sentence is represented in the thread title. The second, what the speaking engagement is actually for? Omitted.

Everything else is fluff.
 
Sapientas said:
Leave it to GAF to blow things out of proportion. It is news-worthy, but most of the hyperbolic responses here are childish at best.

"Never voting Democrats again". WTF.
Click to expand...

You have people more interested in spending their time lecturing other liberals than anything else. It would almost be amusing if it wasn't so destructive.
 
FreedomFighter said:
Nah, man... I'll just vote indy like I did last election. I'm so done with the Dems. I expect this type of thing from GOP, not from the Dems. And they STILL refuse to move to the left and no one is buying this lame ass Bernie mascot tour he and Perez are on.
Click to expand...

You are confused. And the fact you have voting power in my Country is terrifying.
 
There are so many asinine posts in this thread that I don't know where to begin, so I will say this: For as much as some of you condemn the current GOP for being too radical, you yourselves are just as bad.

The author was right, Obama doing speeches like this will definitely undermine his legacy, but that's only because there is an enormous amount of ignorance that stems from the very people that call themselves liberal.

kitchenmotors said:
Oh look, a thread for all the crazy, Trump supporters to come out of hiding.

This kind of money for a speech isn't unheard of, and honestly, after all the shit he went through with the Republicans, he deserves it. But let's focus on the real issues, right? Right Trump guys?

Oh, I forget. You guys don't think logically.
Click to expand...

Less Trump supporters and more delusional liberals.
 
He's a private citizen. He can do whatever the fuck he wants. Did those who are "disappointed" seriously believe he was anti capitalist?
 
Kayhan said:
I will ask Wall Street to fax them over right now.

"Hey Wall Street could you give me some written documentation of the ways you buy influence? Thanks in advance"
Click to expand...
It's good to hear you accept your statements are without credibility.
 
By all means, he should take that money. I'd trust him with $400k more than businesses that can afford to toss $400k at someone just for a speech.

Get paid Obama, take all the vacations, he more than deserves it.
 
manakel said:
Exactly. I'm so sick of the partisan, team sport bullshit that politics has become. I don't necessarily have a *problem* with it, but I can certainly agree that it's not a good look. The same people that are saying "get that money Barry!" would be the same people that would be up and arms and chastising if it were a republican.

Also, people somehow trying to bring race into this - stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for anyone else but...


No.

If he would should favoristism towards some dictatorship and now gets a wellpaid job there, sure.

But money for a speech? There is worse.
 
numble said:
There are limits to the amount that a person can fund a political operation like you describe (one or two speeches would cover the annual limit for several years). I guess there is no limit if he uses a PAC to put out issue-based ads, but those technically cannot endorse candidates, right?

Its more likely that he will be fundraising for candidates. Do you really expect that you will see Obama personally donating up to the limit to individual candidates?
Click to expand...

Good questions. I was merely trying to shift it away from the cartoonish surface level stuff about optics. To your point, a lot of this is networking.
 
Jaeger said:
You are confused. And the fact you have voting power in my Country is terrifying.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what I'm doing and I'll do it again. You don't like it, your problem. No amount of shaming, bullying, taking on a silly patronizing and esoteric tone, or just generally being a dick is gonna change anything with people like me voting in "your" country.
 
Gattsu25 said:
Umm yes.

Only the first two sentences of the article provide important details and the first sentence is represented in the thread title. The second, what the speaking engagement is actually for? Omitted.

Everything else is fluff.
Click to expand...

What possible good could it do to point out that a President that vastly shaped healthcare is going to speak at a healthcare conference sponsored by a Wall Street firm known for its charity in the wake of its own personal tragedy on 9/11?
 
Oersted said:
Can't speak for anyone else but...


No.

If he would should favoristism towards some dictatorship and now gets a wellpaid job there, sure.

But money for a speech? There is worse.
Click to expand...

If its Wall Street paying for this speech.. that would mean that the same group of people that Obama did not prosecute for crashing the economy are now paying him over twenty times my yearly wage for a single hours worth of speaking. To me thats not a good look.
 
Real Hero said:
Obama should not do this, makes it seem ok and allows money easily influence other politicians
Click to expand...
This is why Dems will not win in 2020.

Won't commit to expanding Medicare, voting against the amendment that would let people buy drugs cheaper, etc... all because they're loyal to donors and don't give two shits about the people.

This speech by Obama, just like those speeches to Wall St. from Hillary, will continue. And Dems will fall further into irrelevancy. Polls showing they're even more unpopular now. It's insane.
 
For the new page.

"The 44th president has accepted an offer to speak at a healthcare conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald in September, US media report."

For those wondering what the speech is actually about. OP felt that knowing this was less important than knowing that the New York Post disapproved of Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Street Fighter - Official Trailer (October 16th)
33
474
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
889
BillMaxwell replied
The End of Oak Street | Anne Hathaway, Ewan McGregor, and Dinosaurs | Official Trailer
7
230
jason10mm replied
Top Bottom