Support NeoGAF

[whyamihere]

At that stage your issue is with the institutions that seek out paid guest speakers and in fact pay them. It's only an option because these companies provide the budget to do so. It's not in Obama on that's what they value his time at.

I mean, he didn't have to say yes. They didn't force him to do the speech. He did I. I don't think politicians, especially from a supposedly center-left party that is a champion for workers and the middle class, should take a $400,000 speech, even when offered.

 

[tbm24]

I mean, he didn't have to say yes. They didn't force him to do the speech. He did I. I don't think politicians, especially from a supposedly center-left party that is a champion for workers and the middle class, should take a $400,000 speech, even when offered.

He didnt have to say yes. But at this point you're going to have to explain how him saying yes suddenly puts into doubt his support for workers and the middle class.

 

[Stinkles]

I love that Trump's trumpy attempt to a) Deny 100 days has any meaning and b) Do a last minute frenzy of political shitposting to appear meaningful - is getting dominated by Obama doing nothing besides look cool and make more money per minute than Trump can pay off in debt interest, and c) Be dominated further by Flynn's ludicrously illegal collapse and administration coloration.

 

[whyamihere]

He didnt have to say yes. But at this point you're going to have to explain how him saying yes suddenly puts into doubt his support for workers and the middle class.

Because he took a speech for eight times what most Americans make in a year? Our party is already seen as out of touch with most Americans. This doesn't help!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I mean they're paid largely for celebrity.

I mean $50k for Laura Bush gets what exactly. Lol.

If the issue is access by the powerful to the powerful as noted already, no one needs to organise these speeches to talk to Obama.

Right exactly. The only logical complaint has to be one about the opticz, which are of course bullshit.

I mean, he didn't have to say yes. They didn't force him to do the speech. He did I. I don't think politicians, especially from a supposedly center-left party that is a champion for workers and the middle class, should take a $400,000 speech, even when offered.

I repeat what I said above; if he's so dumb as to turn down cash like that (which he could easily donate, or put into a fund for his kids and grandkids) then he should be ejected from the party for being dumber than a hypothetical Trump/Dubya love child.

 

[sphagnum]

Ahem I think you mean President Drone Strike Neoliberal Obama.

See he gets it!

Spoiler

It's all true

 

[whyamihere]

He's already super rich.

I really like Obama but you don't need to reflectively defend all of his dumb decisions. He's human. He's going to make mistakes. This is a dumb mistake. I hope he realizes it.

 

[Barzul]

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts Members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan.

The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on pre-existing conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.

Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) who authored this amendment confirmed this was the case: members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping this Obamacare regulations. Health law expert Tim Jost flagged me to this particular issue.

Incredible. Fuck over the rest of the country but protect yourselves.

 

[tbm24]

Because he took a speech for eight times what most Americans make in a year? Our party is already seen as out of touch with most Americans. This doesn't help!

Then again your issue falls under optics of the event instead of what it is. Speaking fees are entirely dependent on your visibility and celebrity. Obama may or may not have more plans in life than simply being just the ex-president. Bill Clinton has raked in bank from speaking fees and you'd be hard pressed to suggest he hasn't used that visibility to promote his foundation which as far as I've known it has largely been for good. I would be surprised if Obama takes speaking fees and doesn't pay it forward in the coming years as I don't see him taking it and going on holiday for the rest of the year.

 

[Pedrito]

Isn't that the usual perk of being president/head of state? You don't get that big of a salary for the hours and the responsabilities, and then when you're done, you get the book deal and the speaking engagements.

I repeat what I said above; if he's so dumb as to turn down cash like that (which he could easily donate, or put into a fund for his kids and grandkids) then he should be ejected from the party for being dumber than a hypothetical Trump/Dubya love child.

Yeah but he'd be pure though.

 

[teiresias]

I love that Trump's trumpy attempt to a) Deny 100 days has any meaning and b) Do a last minute frenzy of political shitposting to appear meaningful - is getting dominated by Obama doing nothing besides look cool and make more money per minute than Trump can pay off in debt interest, and c) Be dominated further by Flynn's ludicrously illegal collapse and administration coloration.

and us losing a trade war with Mexico.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

How is Paul Ryan this much of a loser.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/ryan-trump-tax-reform-237604

 

[whyamihere]

Then again your issue falls under optics of the event instead of what it is. Speaking fees are entirely dependent on your visibility and celebrity. Obama may or may not have more plans in life than simply being just the ex-president. Bill rakes has raked in bank from speaking fees and you'd be hard pressed to suggest he hasn't used that visibility to promote his foundation which as far as I've known it has largely been for good. I would be surprised if Obama takes speaking fees and doesn't pay it forward in the coming years as I don't see him taking it and going on holiday for the rest of the year.

Yeah it was an absolute mistake for Bill and Hillary to enrich themselves post presidency. I thought this past year was fairly indicative of that.

And Obama doesn't want to leave public life. He wants to be actively involved in reshaping the future of the country's center-left party. But it's already a contradictory statement. It's not about being "pure", it's about not being myopic.

 

[Ogodei]

The institution is paying for celebrity. Hillary's infamous Goldman Sach's speeches said or did nothing of consequence for anybody involved, but it let Goldman Sachs toot their own horn.

And if you're in demand, and the person asking can afford to pay you without hardship, why would you do it for free?

I've got no problems with people getting rich as hell, i just have a problem with intergenerational inequality, which is basically permanent wealth hording. Otherwise, get rich, spend it, invest it, let the government tax it, whatever. You do you.

 

[kirblar]

He's already super rich.

I really like Obama but you don't need to reflectively defend all of his dumb decisions. He's human. He's going to make mistakes. This is a dumb mistake. I hope he realizes it.

People making money is not a mistake.

Worried that people making a lot of money won't give it back? To paraphrase Mad Men: That is what the taxes are for!

Yeah it was an absolute mistake for Bill and Hillary to enrich themselves post presidency. I thought this past year was fairly indicative of that.

It was a mistake (more specifically for Hillary post-SoS) only because Hillary planned on running. Obama ain't running for anything now.

 

[tbm24]

How is Paul Ryan this much of a loser.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/ryan-trump-tax-reform-237604

Few things will make me as happy than to see Trump take away Ryan's number one claim to being smart/a wonk and then go full speed I go a wall with it.

 

[whyamihere]

People making money is not a mistake.

Worried that people making a lot of money won't give it back? To paraphrase Mad Men: That is what the taxes are for!

It was a mistake (more specifically for Hillary post-SoS) only because Hillary planned on running. Obama ain't running for anything now.

He literally plans on being extremely active in trying to reshape the future of a center-left party of this country. It's a contradictory message you're handwaving away.

 

[tbm24]

Yeah it was an absolute mistake for Bill and Hillary to enrich themselves post presidency. I thought this past year was fairly indicative of that.

And Obama doesn't want to leave public life. He wants to be actively involved in reshaping the future of the country's center-left party. But it's already a contradictory statement. It's not about being "pure", it's about not being myopic.

The issue there became Hillary doing the speech tour after being SoS but still having presidential ambitions. Not Bill, and that doesn't change the fact that thinking about Obama future speaking engagements as just a means to enrich himself is myopic.

 

[kirblar]

He literally plans on being extremely active in trying to reshape the future of a center-left party of this country. It's a contradictory message you're handwaving away.

It's not, because he's doing it all behind the scenes so far, and the thing he's explicitly said he wants to target (anti-gerrymandering stuff) is the most inside baseball thing imaginable.

We are at a money deficit with the GOP because of the interests they represent. Yes, money has rapidly diminishing returns in a single election, but we need to invest in a large number of institutions nationwide, and I'm not going to get pissed at someone for making easy cash that may end up eventually helping to pay for a bunch of staffers' salaries for the year.

 

[whyamihere]

The issue there became Hillary doing the speech tour after being SoS but still having presidential ambitions. Not Bill, and that doesn't change the fact that thinking about Obama future speaking engagements as just a means to enrich himself is myopic.

Again: Obama is trying to rebuild the working party of this country while simultaneously enriching himself with no announced plans for the money besides his own financial gain. How do you guys not see this as somewhat contradictory?

It's okay to like money, like Obama, and still realize this is stupid and potentially hurtful towards his long term goals.

It's not, because he's doing it all behind the scenes so far, and the thing he's explicitly said he wants to target (anti-gerrymandering stuff) is the most inside baseball thing imaginable.

We are at a money deficit with the GOP because of the interests they represent. Yes, money has rapidly diminishing returns in a single election, but we need to invest in a large number of institutions nationwide, and I'm not going to get pissed at someone for making easy cash that may end up eventually helping to pay for a bunch of staffers' salaries for the year.

He explicitly wants to be in front of the scenes!

Keep handwaving it away I guess?

 

[Sirpopopop]

Again: Obama is trying to rebuild the working party of this country while simultaneously enriching himself with no announced plans for the money besides his own financial gain. How do you guys not see this as somewhat contradictory?

It's okay to like money, like Obama, and still realize this is stupid and potentially hurtful towards his long term goals.

If we want to become a party that just hates people for being rich, then yes, this is a great step into becoming the Republicans caricature of us and losing our professional class.

I think though that is what some members of the party do want, which is very concerning.

 

[whyamihere]

If we want to become a party that just hates people for being rich, then yes, this is a great step into becoming the Republicans caricature of us and losing our professional class.

How's that straw man?

 

[Barzul]

He literally plans on being extremely active in trying to reshape the future of a center-left party of this country. It's a contradictory message you're handwaving away.

My only argument is that in the age of Trump I just don't see how it matters anymore. Trump has shilled harder for Wall Street with his administration staff than anything Obama will ever do post-presidency. Obama is also way more popular than Hillary especially post presidency. Basically I don't see the American people begrudging him this. I know if I was in his position I'd take the money from a few speeches here and there. He definitely should show restraint and be selective on which paid speeches he does.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yglesias sums up the argument that even if you don't think Obama is corrupt or has conflicts of interest for doing this that you should still hold him to higher standards pretty effectively http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

A counterproposal on the left is to reframe the populist theme and argue that middle-class Americans more generally are locked in a zero-sum conflict with rich people.

Obama and other center-left leaders around the world do not espouse that view primarily, I think, because they believe it is simplistic and wrong. But a crucial vulnerability of center-left politics around the world is that their sincere conviction — a faith in the positive-sum nature of cosmopolitan values and appropriately regulated forms of global capitalism, tempered by a welfare state — is easily mistaken for corruption. The political right is supposed to be pro-business as a matter of ideological commitment. The progressive center is supposed to be empirically minded, challenging business interests where appropriate but granting them free rein at other times.

This approach has a lot of political and substantive merits. But it is invariably subject to the objection: really?

Did you really avoid breaking up the big banks because you thought it would undermine financial stability, or were you on the take? Did you really think a fracking ban would be bad for the environment, or were you on the take? One man's sophisticated and pragmatic approach to public policy can be the other man's grab bag of corrupt opportunism.

If we want to become a party that just hates people for being rich, then yes, this is a great step into becoming the Republicans caricature of us and losing our professional class.

I don't hate people for becoming rich, I hate the system that allows them to do so and I have higher ethical standards for the standard-bearer of my party than not being a criminal.

 

[whyamihere]

My only argument is that in the age of Trump I just don't see how it matters anymore. Trump has shilled harder for Wall Street with his administration staff than anything Obama will ever do post-presidency. Obama is also way more popular than Hillary especially post presidency. Basically I don't see the American people begrudging him this. I know if I was in his position I'd take the money from a few speeches here and there. He definitely should show restraint and be selective on which paid speeches he does.

Clearly it matters somewhat -- Trump was able to say he wasn't bought by Wall St. because he was already rich (which, obviously stupid) but it worked. People are already wary of politicians and 67% of Americans don't think the Democratic Party understands them. That's bad. I'd rather not give people more ammo!

 

[neurosisxeno]

My only argument is that in the age of Trump I just don't see how it matters anymore. Trump has shilled harder for Wall Street with his administration staff than anything Obama will ever do post-presidency. Obama is also way more popular than Hillary especially post presidency. Basically I don't see the American people begrudging him this. I know if I was in his position I'd take the money from a few speeches here and there. He definitely should show restraint and be selective on which paid speeches he does.

He's a damn former President. Public Speaking is basically all he is expected to do at this point. It's also one of his strongest skills, I don't imagine we'll get a presidential candidate or president as skilled at speaking as Obama for a long time.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

He's already super rich.

I really like Obama but you don't need to reflectively defend all of his dumb decisions. He's human. He's going to make mistakes. This is a dumb mistake. I hope he realizes it.

This is extremely lazy. I'm not saying what I'm saying because "yes we can rah rah rah!" I'm saying it because what you're saying could be summed up with one word (OPTICS) and we just spent a year talking how fucking stupid optics is. I'm fairly certain you'd be one of us saying this!

For the 3rd time (a bit more directly) if one were offered $400K to blow smoke up someone's ass for half an hour and they said no, I'd call them an idiot to their face and ask that they not drive a car because I don't think they're capable of handling that with their level of intelligence.

 

[Barzul]

He's a damn former President. Public Speaking is basically all he is expected to do at this point. It's also one of his strongest skills, I don't imagine we'll get a presidential candidate or president as skilled at speaking as Obama for a long time.

He should definitely speak as much as possible. I'm simply saying limit the ones he gets paid to do you know.

 

[whyamihere]

This is extremely lazy. I'm not saying what I'm saying because "yes we can rah rah rah!" I'm saying it because what you're saying could be summed up with one word (OPTICS) and we just spent a year talking how fucking stupid optics is. I'm fairly certain you'd be one of us saying this!

For the 3rd time (a bit more directly) if one were offered $400K to blow smoke up someone's ass for half an hour and they said no, I'd call them an idiot to their face and ask that they not drive a car because I don't think they're capable of handling that with their level of intelligence.

Right you keep making this point but it's still a very stupid point for someone who is already incredibly wealthy.

 

[neurosisxeno]

He should definitely speak as much as possible. I'm simply saying limit the ones he gets paid to do you know.

The paid speeches alone weren't a problem for Hillary, it was the fact that she gave them and was running against the Anti-Wall Street Sanders which forced her to pivot to being a "tough on Wall Street" candidate and nobody bought it.

 

[Boke1879]

Who cares how much he gets paid for giving a speech. He's done being President.

Stop worrying about dumb shit.

 

[whyamihere]

Yglesias sums up the argument that even if you don't think Obama is corrupt or has conflicts of interest for doing this that you should still hold him to higher standards pretty effectively http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee



I don't hate people for becoming rich, I hate the system that allows them to do so and I have higher ethical standards for the standard-bearer of my party than not being a criminal.

Yglesias is 100% correct.

Who cares how much he gets paid for giving a speech. He's done being President.

Stop worrying about dumb shit.

It's this dumb shit that's already disillusioned a lot of our potential voters to the political process, so I'd prefer to worry about it. Maybe not Obama's speeches right now, since that's a thing that just happened, but a larger pattern of Dems being out of touch!

 

[kirblar]

If we want to become a party that just hates people for being rich, then yes, this is a great step into becoming the Republicans caricature of us and losing our professional class.

I think though that is what some members of the party do want, which is very concerning.

Being the party of the "working class": not working out in the UK. Won't work out here. (Because the WWC backstabbed everyone two generations ago and hasn't looked back.)

I'm not saying labor interests aren't an important part of the party, but they're part of a coalition, in large part because people won't organize along economic lines.

 

[Sirpopopop]

How's that straw man?

It's not a straw man when you are literally criticizing someone for taking money to make a speech.

I don't hate people for becoming rich, I hate the system that allows them to do so and I have higher ethical standards for the standard-bearer of my party than not being a criminal.

Why is this unethical?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Right you keep making this point but it's still a very stupid point for someone who is already incredibly wealthy.

I'm not seeing anywhere that his cash on hand is at a level where you can say "fuck it" and retire comfortably and leave a lot to your kids and grandkids. All I can find is that he's making like half a million a year from salary and royalties on his books. He's also apparently donated over a million to charities.

I'm finding it really hard to understand your position here. Do you think Obama should only draw his salary for the rest of his life? Surely you can't argue that his future books (that I'm sure he'll write) are any different than these speeches; it's all for cash.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Trump taking even more L's.

"Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Order Blocked by Federal Judge"

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

This is the shit that gives me life.

 

[shinra-bansho]

He's already super rich.

I really like Obama but you don't need to reflectively defend all of his dumb decisions. He's human. He's going to make mistakes. This is a dumb mistake. I hope he realizes it.

Maybe... not everyone thinks it's a mistake.
And so it's not reflexive defending.
It's people genuinely not giving a shit.

I'd do it.
Most everyone here would do it.

 

[whyamihere]

Maybe... not everyone thinks it's a mistake.
And so it's not reflexive defending.
It's people genuinely not giving a shit.

I'd do it.
Most everyone here would do it.

Okay then maybe that's part of the problem for Democrats ¯_(&#12484_/¯

It's not a straw man when you are literally criticizing someone for taking money to make a speech.

If you don't actually want to understand my position in the very post you quoted, just don't bother.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

whyamihere, surely you don't make more than the average salary of blue collar workers, right? Lord knows I'd hate to get phonebanked by some out of touch Dem trying to get me (a person who makes a little more than minimum wage) to vote for them when they're raking in more than I am.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Who cares how much he gets paid for giving a speech. He's done being President.

Stop worrying about dumb shit.

Okay so if Obama is done being president then I don't have to worry about him being bought off now since he holds no political power (except for when he does, but). Great.

Now Gillibrand or Cuomo or whoever is our nominee. They can expect (as the precedent set by Obama, Clinton, and others) that when they finish being president they can make enormous sums of money for virtually no effort from very wealthy people with specific interests. Will that affect their behavior while in office, knowing the people they're legislating for could potentially be offering an absurd paycheck when they're done?

 

[Boke1879]

Yglesias is 100% correct.



It's this dumb shit that's already disillusioned a lot of our potential voters to the political process, so I'd prefer to worry about it. Maybe not Obama's speeches right now, since that's a thing that just happened, but a larger pattern of Dems being out of touch!

It's only going to be a problem for people that want it to be a problem. He's not running for any sort of office anymore.

Some of you really do worry about optics way too much. GOP want to get rid of pre-existing conditions. Trump is literally using the WH to enrich himself, but some of you are tripping over yourselves to make an ex President speaking for 400k a big deal.

 

[whyamihere]

whyamihere, surely you don't make more than the average salary of blue collar workers, right? Lord knows I'd hate to get phonebanked by some out of touch Dem trying to get me (a person who makes a little more than minimum wage) to vote for them when they're raking in more than I am.

Bless you. Have a nice night.

 

[kirblar]

Okay so if Obama is done being president then I don't have to worry about him being bought off now since he holds no political power (except for when he does, but). Great.

Now Gillibrand or Cuomo or whoever is our nominee. They can expect (as the precedent set by Obama, Clinton, and others) that when they finish being president they can make enormous sums of money for virtually no effort from very wealthy people with specific interests. Will that affect their behavior while in office, knowing the people they're legislating for could potentially be offering an absurd paycheck when they're done?

If someone really wanted to make a lot of money with no ethical repercussions, they'd be a republican.

Okay then maybe that's part of the problem for Democrats ¯_(&#12484_/¯

The fact that the majority of us aren't socialists isn't a problem.

 

[Boke1879]

Okay so if Obama is done being president then I don't have to worry about him being bought off now since he holds no political power (except for when he does, but). Great.

Now Gillibrand or Cuomo or whoever is our nominee. They can expect (as the precedent set by Obama, Clinton, and others) that when they finish being president they can make enormous sums of money for virtually no effort from very wealthy people with specific interests. Will that affect their behavior while in office, knowing the people they're legislating for could potentially be offering an absurd paycheck when they're done?

He's writing a book too that he's making a shit load of money off of. Does that upset you too?

I have no issues with people getting paid to give speeches. A lot of people do it. Hell I wish I could do it. Doesn't bother me at all.

Hell ask for a million next time.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Okay then maybe that's part of the problem for Democrats ¯_(&#12484_/¯
If you don't actually want to understand my position in the very post you quoted, just don't bother.

It's a problem... for humans. People want money to buy things. People want money for their children. People want to accumulate resources.

I mean you talk about reshaping the party etc etc. That new shape isn't going to entirely shun financial services, or the wealthy, or making money, or capitalism.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Bless you. Have a nice night.

What? You're always posting about phonebanking. How can someone who's out of touch with poor Americans keep representing the Democratic Party if we're going to be a worker's party? I get by on my salary, so I don't see why you get to lord yours over me.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

So I don't know how this got started by a comment on Senators (which of course is 2 no matter what), but we should absolutely repeal the 1929 House Reapportionment Act if we get the chance, and just make House districts commensurate to Wyoming (how many Reps does a state get? How many Wyomings is the state?) It would only lead to like 500-600 Reps which is manageable.

Sounds interesting. Personally I like the idea of abolishing the senate and turning the House into a massive body with thousands of members, each holding their seats for three years, organized into three classes with yearly elections. It would be closer to a parliamentary system, would eliminate a ton of veto points, and make accountability clearer. But that's neither here nor there.

I don't get how mixed at-large systems work from a voter's perspective, though. Say I lived in New York state under the old rules -- could I choose to either cast my vote in my district *or* for the at-large seat?

 

[The Technomancer]

If you don't actually want to understand my position in the very post you quoted, just don't bother.

It's a problem... for humans.
I mean you talk about reshaping the party etc etc. That new shape isn't going to entirely shun financial services, or the wealthy, or making money, or capitalism.

To elaborate on my personal feelings on this: I'm not hypothetically opposed to jettisoning big money from the Democratic party in favor of grassroots fundraising, but I am skeptical that the latter is a replacement for the former from a simple math standpoint and I haven't really...seen the projections that say otherwise yet

EDIT: I don't know your actual positions, I'm just sort of jumping in about a sentiment I've seen floating around

 

[whyamihere]

It's a problem... for humans.
I mean you talk about reshaping the party etc etc. That new shape isn't going to entirely shun financial services, or the wealthy, or making money, or capitalism.

I realize that. That's why I said, and I quote, "I like money and I like Obama". But I also realize that trying to win back some voters we lost for our natural coalition might require our party leaders to take obscene amounts of money from financial industries. You can have a relationship with the wealthy and financial industries without our party leaders making obscene amounts of money for one speech.

 

[whyamihere]

What? You're always posting about phonebanking. How can someone who's out of touch with poor Americans keep representing the Democratic Party if we're going to be a worker's party? I get by on my salary, so I don't see why you get to lord yours over me.

This is very weird and I'd appreciate if you stopped replying to me about this. Thanks.