Obama Wall Street speeches fail to spark Democratic outrage

[Deleted]

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.

[Mayhem]

To me it's no surprise, I think many Europeans see US Democrats as the party that represents the banks more than anything else.

Yeah, no, many europeans see no difference between republicans and democrats regarding money, but that many europeans see the US democrats as the party that represents the banks more than anything else is just horseshit.

[Gestopft]

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.

The establishment wing of the party doesn't care. The general bi-partisan Neo-Liberal consensus since the late '70's has been very favorable toward Wall Street. The progressive wing, however, has been criticizing Obama on this issue for quite a while, so nothing has really changed in that regard.

[Arvei]

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.

Really? Our current president has Goldman Sach's reps in his cabinet and the Democrats are more complicit in representing banks?

[Mayhem]

Really? Our current president has Goldman Sach's reps in his cabinet and the Democrats are more complicit in representing banks?

It's deruyter, he's living in an alternate reality most of the time.

[Belize]

I need to start a thread about how gross misuse and frivolous spending of public funds from the current administration fails to spark GOP outrage.

[Deleted]

I see no difference between the parties in that at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion.

The main difference to me about the US parties is the social aspects - both are fairly fiscally right wing.

- - - Updated - - -


True, LOL!

True, both parties are financially right wing but the banks seem to favour the Democrats for their ability to bring stability and willingness to help them get a foot on the ground in certain countries where Republicans rather don't have any (political) ties.

[Felya]

I see no difference between the parties in that at all, not sure how you came to that conclusion.

The main difference to me about the US parties is the social aspects - both are fairly fiscally right wing.

It doesn't make sense even if you look at the picture he included. This picture didn't need any editing:

https://42mzqz26jebqf6rd034t5pef-wpe...95SF46-106.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

True, both parties are financially right wing but the banks seem to favour the Democrats for their ability to bring stability and willingness to help them get a foot on the ground in certain countries where Republicans rather don't have any (political) ties.

Where do you think Trump's billions are? Under his bed?

- - - Updated - - -

I need to start a thread about how gross misuse and frivolous spending of public funds from the current administration fails to spark GOP outrage.

Why even change topics? Where is the outrage for Trump removing wallstreet regulations signed by Obama? The conclusion doesn't make sens. OP bitches that Democrats are more bank friendly because Obama was paid for his speech to wallstreet. Well, how much was Trump paid to make this one or was this free:

At the beginning of his administration, Trump ordered reviews of the major banking rules put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, and last week he said officials were planning a “major haircut” for them.

“For the bankers in the room, they’ll be very happy because we’re really doing a major streamlining and, perhaps, elimination, and replacing it with something else,” Trump said on Tuesday.

“That will be the minimum. But we’re doing a major elimination of the horrendous Dodd-Frank regulations, keeping some obviously, but getting rid of many,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN17D1ZD

Hey... but Obama got paid for a speech...

[Lenonis]

Public figures cash in when they are out of office. It's part of the perks I guess. Some get paid in speeches, some get paid by writing best selling books, some get paid by being lobbyists.

When I don't understand is this sudden magically different standard that Clinton and Obama are being held to.

Should they be cashing in? Well...maybe not from a purely principled perspective, but I can't really blame them for doing so. I mean, if I had unique experience and expertise that companies were willing to pay me 6 digits to talk about, then I sure would.

[Theodarzna]

Saint Obama can do nothing wrong, he has such good hagiographers.

[Draco-Onis]

True, both parties are financially right wing but the banks seem to favour the Democrats for their ability to bring stability and willingness to help them get a foot on the ground in certain countries where Republicans rather don't have any (political) ties.

No banks love republicans far more because of tax cuts and deregulation, it is what Trump is doing. And last but not least did you miss all the bankers and Goldman Sachs people in the white house currently?

[Jeezy911]

Saint Obama can do nothing wrong, he has such good hagiographers.

This guy just needs to go back to retirement, he has caused enough harm.

[JohnBrown1917]

This guy just needs to go back to retirement, he has caused enough harm.

what harm lol

- - - Updated - - -

This guy just needs to go back to retirement, he has caused enough harm.

what harm lol

[Deleted]

Good for him

[Deletedaccount1]

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

[Everwake]

He's good at speaking, isn't currently in politics and should be paid for his talents. I don't see the problem.

[minteK917]

Saint Obama can do nothing wrong, he has such good hagiographers.

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.

[Omega10]

Obama was always fairly pro-Wall Street in Wall Street vs Main Street battles. America decided that Wall Street needed more power in the Wall Street vs Main Street battles, and now Trump is doing what America voted him to do.

[paralleluniverse]

Obama giving speeches to banks is meaningless.

Obama gave banks Dodd-Frank, regulation so tough they've gone hysterical, and are all in on Trump and his Goldman Sachs team who are desperately trying to dismantle Dodd-Frank, deregulate everything and cut taxes on the rich.

[Grapemask]

Democrats didn't care about paid speeches. Liberals of a particular category did, largely the same crowd that went for Sander. It's important to differentiate these things. But then, even the category was more likely to outweigh the political ideology, because conservatives in the same category also hated those speeches.

But at the same time, they didn't hate the behavior in general. No one cared a whole lot about a person being paid to give speeches to a certain group - what they disliked, regarding the finger pointing at Hillary Clinton, was that intentions were unclear. Millions of Americans are suffering because of pro-Wall Street practices, and that candidate gave every inclination of being more interested in furthering Wall Street than furthering struggling Americans. Obama, on the other hand, has a more mixed record; he helped banks, but then he kicked them right in the dick. So we have a lot less ambiguity given his intentions.

And, you know, the fact that Obama isn't running for a position where he can advance Wall Street's agenda.

It's okay to hate Obama and the left, but at least be rational about it.