Obama Wall Street speeches fail to spark Democratic outrage

[Kujako]

You're right, I won't vote for Obama because of this.

[Endus]

And?

How is this an issue, in any way whatsoever? He's not seeking re-election. He's not offering any kind of political favors or anything. There's no indication he's giving speeches that in any way contradict his public ideals. People are literally whining because he's making a lot of money and they hate him because he's a well-known Democrat. And that's all there is to this.

[Theodarzna]

I know you are better than this lol. Either way, you will be hard pressed to find an American administration going against wall street. Obama did not, Clinton wouldnt have, Trump is even easier. Who ever wins in 2020 wont either. Its a non-argument on both sides really. Its literally trying to claim you can find a presidential candidate with a platform against money.

Pointing out something is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable.

[Felya]

I've been tired of seeing his face for 10 years yet he is still in the news somehow.

You literally had to click this link to see his face. Personal accountability, yo!

[Mayhem]

Pointing out something is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable.

What did you point out?

[Felya]

Pointing out something is commonplace doesn't make it acceptable.

Yes, it does. Something being common place and acceptable are synonymous. You cannot be rejected and commonplace at the same time. Rare and acceptance is possible, but that's an issue of scarcity.

- - - Updated - - -

What did you point out?

That it's so acceptable it's commonplace...

Example:

Rejected: fuck that shit.
Rare: where is that shit?
Accepted: it's just that shit.
Commonplace: it's just that shit. /point_anywhere

[melodramocracy]

What is your view on this? To me it's no surprise, I think many Europeans see US Democrats as the party that represents the banks more than anything else.

US politicians across the board are pro-bank, don't kid yourself. This isn't a side-of-the-aisle issue. GWB wanted bailouts to happen with zero oversight initially, before people in his own party put a halt to it.

[Tijuana]

Former president Barack Obama, it turns out, has wasted no time hopping on the Wall Street gravy train.

As Max Abelson of Bloomberg News reported Monday, Obama earned $400,000 last month for a speech to New York clients of Northern Trust Corp., an undisclosed sum for a speech last week to the private equity firm Carlyle Group, and will pull down about $400,000 next week for a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald’s health-care conference.

The speeches come, Abelson notes, as Democrats engage in a fresh round of soul-searching touched off by the publication of Hillary Clinton’s post-election apologia. In it, Clinton expresses remorse for the political damage she inflicted on herself by accepting millions in Wall Street speaking fees:

“I didn’t think many Americans would believe that I’d sell a lifetime of principle and advocacy for any price. When you know why you’re doing something and you know there’s nothing more to it and certainly nothing sinister, it’s easy to assume that others will see it the same way. That was a mistake. Just because many former government officials have been paid large fees to give speeches, I shouldn’t have assumed it would be okay for me to do it. Especially after the financial crisis of 2008-2009, I should have realized it would be bad ‘optics’ and stayed away from anything having to do with Wall Street. I didn’t. That’s on me.”

Obama, as far as we can tell, is racked by no such doubt. A spokesman said he gives speeches “true to his values,” and the earnings help support his charitable giving. One big difference, of course, is that he won’t be running for office again. But unlike Clinton, he directly coordinated the federal response to the financial crisis, including the release of the second tranche of Wall Street bailout money, the stress tests of the big banks, the imposition of a sweeping new regulatory regime that followed and the decisions not to prosecute individual malefactors from the industry.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.525e8a823719



What is your view on this? To me it's no surprise, I think many Europeans see US Democrats as the party that represents the banks more than anything else.

I say let him make his money. He worked hard in life, achieved, and now he wants to cash in. There isn't a damn thing wrong with that, despite what he himself probably thinks. lawl...

Regarding Democrats and banks, the center of the financial US, is in NY, a literal hive of Democrats. It's more geographic than philosophical.

[Felya]

US politicians across the board are pro-bank, don't kid yourself. This isn't a side-of-the-aisle issue. GWB wanted bailouts to happen with zero oversight initially, before people in his own party put a halt to it.

No, actually what put a halt to it is the very act that Trump is destroying. Cutting Bush's TARP was part of Dodd-Frank, not some GOP cause. The same act that returned Glass-Steagal, be it with a 1% limit. It is also what created the consumer protection agency, headed by Elizabeth Warren.

Oh and there is evidence that if Obama didn't cut TARP in half, we would have made more money as a country. Every bank paid back the halved TARP, with interest. If TARP was not cut, we as a country would have collected twice as much interest.

[BrerBear]

I say let him make his money. He worked hard in life, achieved, and now he wants to cash in. There isn't a damn thing wrong with that, despite what he himself probably thinks. lawl...

I actually agree with TJ on this.

If a bunch of wealthy companies want to pay him to make motivational speeches, more power to him. Maybe he'll even do something good with at least some of that money.

He's a private citizen with no power except his voice, so if he wants to join the thousands of other business leaders, entertainers, athletes, and politicians who give speeches for money, that's fine. If I were an employee of one of these companies, I'd be psyched if I got to hear a former President speak. It's a good perk and PR, and that's why companies pay big money for it.

[Felya]

Regarding Democrats and banks, the center of the financial US, is in NY, a literal hive of Democrats. It's more geographic than philosophical.

They are blue collar billionaires... now you have a problem with rich people?

- - - Updated - - -

I actually agree with TJ on this.

If a bunch of wealthy companies want to pay him to make motivational speeches, more power to him. Maybe he'll even do something good with at least some of that money.

He's a private citizen with no power except his voice, so if he wants to join the thousands of other business leaders, entertainers, athletes, and politicians who give speeches for money, that's fine. If I were an employee of one of these companies, I'd be psyched if I got to hear a former President speak. It's a good perk and PR, and that's why companies pay big money for it.

Bush jr still makes 35 million a year, mostly on speeches and events. Not everyone is like Carter building houses with his bare hand 30 years after his presidency. It's not like he is remembered any better for it either...

[Tijuana]

They are blue collar billionaires... now you have a problem with rich people?

- - - Updated - - -



Bush jr still makes 35 million a year, mostly on speeches and events. Not everyone is like Carter building houses with his bare hand 30 years after his presidency. It's not like he is remembered any better for it either...

What in the actual fuck are you on about now? Where did I say anything you are straw manning me with?

- - - Updated - - -

I actually agree with TJ on this.

If a bunch of wealthy companies want to pay him to make motivational speeches, more power to him. Maybe he'll even do something good with at least some of that money.

He's a private citizen with no power except his voice, so if he wants to join the thousands of other business leaders, entertainers, athletes, and politicians who give speeches for money, that's fine. If I were an employee of one of these companies, I'd be psyched if I got to hear a former President speak. It's a good perk and PR, and that's why companies pay big money for it.

Yep. Enough with the "secret banker meeting" conspiracy theory bullshit. Banks are legal. Speeches are legal. Let the poor guy who sacrificed his wages for power get his money now.

- - - Updated - - -

They are blue collar billionaires... now you have a problem with rich people?

- - - Updated - - -



Bush jr still makes 35 million a year, mostly on speeches and events. Not everyone is like Carter building houses with his bare hand 30 years after his presidency. It's not like he is remembered any better for it either...

Your notion that Bush makes more money than his money makes is cute. Most his income is investment income, obviously.

[Zan15]

Former president Barack Obama, it turns out, has wasted no time hopping on the Wall Street gravy train.

As Max Abelson of Bloomberg News reported Monday, Obama earned $400,000 last month for a speech to New York clients of Northern Trust Corp., an undisclosed sum for a speech last week to the private equity firm Carlyle Group, and will pull down about $400,000 next week for a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald’s health-care conference.

The speeches come, Abelson notes, as Democrats engage in a fresh round of soul-searching touched off by the publication of Hillary Clinton’s post-election apologia. In it, Clinton expresses remorse for the political damage she inflicted on herself by accepting millions in Wall Street speaking fees:

“I didn’t think many Americans would believe that I’d sell a lifetime of principle and advocacy for any price. When you know why you’re doing something and you know there’s nothing more to it and certainly nothing sinister, it’s easy to assume that others will see it the same way. That was a mistake. Just because many former government officials have been paid large fees to give speeches, I shouldn’t have assumed it would be okay for me to do it. Especially after the financial crisis of 2008-2009, I should have realized it would be bad ‘optics’ and stayed away from anything having to do with Wall Street. I didn’t. That’s on me.”

Obama, as far as we can tell, is racked by no such doubt. A spokesman said he gives speeches “true to his values,” and the earnings help support his charitable giving. One big difference, of course, is that he won’t be running for office again. But unlike Clinton, he directly coordinated the federal response to the financial crisis, including the release of the second tranche of Wall Street bailout money, the stress tests of the big banks, the imposition of a sweeping new regulatory regime that followed and the decisions not to prosecute individual malefactors from the industry.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.525e8a823719



What is your view on this? To me it's no surprise, I think many Europeans see US Democrats as the party that represents the banks more than anything else.

Basically every republican Trump supporter should love Obama now, he is basically making money doing whatever he can to do it....just like Trump has preached and wrote books about. I mean hell if trump can make money off being president while being president, Obama is really just behind the curve.

[Sunseeker]

I have no problem with EX-presidents getting paid to give speeches.

The problem is looking like a corporate shrill before wanting to become president, not after.

[xChurch]

I like how the included Hillary quote basically says the only reason she shouldn't have done it was due to optics, which is something Obama no longer cares about. If he were going to run for something then sure it'd seem a bit slimy, but he's a private citizen now and his actual policy influence is pretty minimal.

[Xeones]

Obama isn't running for office.

Hillary, who has a history of being friendly to wall street, is telling the people one thing while telling the bankers another. The issue isn't inherently giving speeches for money. The issue with Hillary was her speeches were seen as bribes to influence policy.

If it doesn't effect me I don't care. Trying to bribe the person who may be my president effects me(on some level), thus I care in such a situation.

[melodramocracy]

No, actually what put a halt to it is the very act that Trump is destroying. Cutting Bush's TARP was part of Dodd-Frank, not some GOP cause. The same act that returned Glass-Steagal, be it with a 1% limit. It is also what created the consumer protection agency, headed by Elizabeth Warren.

Oh and there is evidence that if Obama didn't cut TARP in half, we would have made more money as a country. Every bank paid back the halved TARP, with interest. If TARP was not cut, we as a country would have collected twice as much interest.

I'm talking specifically about his original 700b bailout that didn't pass in the House. A different approach was passed shortly afterwards and signed by him.

[PACOX]

Why do people think speaking to Wall Street is an issue?

[Somewhatconcerned]

Capitalism.

Don't be mad about it now.

[Vynestra]

Who cares what he does now?


Yes I know trump and all the gop still want to try to blame everything on him and hillary, but they're both private citizens. Obama put forth the harshest wall street regulations of any president.

BUT HER EMAILS doesn't work anymore, BUT HES BLACK doesn't work anymore, we have trump, and the gop, they are in control of -all- branches and they fail miserably at governing.

Who gives a shit? Lets focus on the current president and stop being distracted by these distractions.