-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
(Biden was one of the least wealthy people in the Senate.)You should probably let this go. Obama's main source of income during his presidency was book sales and normal blind investments, on top of his salary. Biden was already wealthy and Carter was QUITE wealthy to begin with. He was forced to divest himself of a peanut farm (haha how far we've come!) but regardless your point is weak and bears no scrutiny or comparison test.
Obama also wasn't flush with cash by any means either.
Ex-Presidents and top officials get to cash in. Such is stupid celebrity culture.
whyamihere
Banned
This is silly guys. Can't me on.
He supports raising taxes that would redistribute a hearty portion of the 400k!!!
"I'm only taking this money so some of it will be taxed later and be redistributed" is a Hillary-esque bad message.
Why not say you're donating most of it? Easy!
You should probably let this go. Obama's main source of income during his presidency was book sales and normal blind investments, on top of his salary. Biden was already wealthy and Carter was QUITE wealthy to begin with. He was forced to divest himself of a peanut farm (haha how far we've come!) but regardless your point is weak and bears no scrutiny or comparison test. Also it is not going to have ANY EFFECT on voters. None. Nada.
Biden almost had to sell his house to pay for Beau's cancer treatments. Obama was not comparably wealthy as a Senator.
What???
You should probably let this go. Obama's main source of income during his presidency was book sales and normal blind investments, on top of his salary. Biden was already wealthy and Carter was QUITE wealthy to begin with. He was forced to divest himself of a peanut farm (haha how far we've come!) but regardless your point is weak and bears no scrutiny or comparison test. Also it is not going to have ANY EFFECT on voters. None. Nada.
Biden is not very wealthy. He was less wealthy than Obama when they both started running.
It has been interesting to see the only thing that has mattered so far is that Cantor Fitzgerald is wall street based, not the company itself. You're right that it's not Goldman Sachs by any stretch, but it looks like that doesn't matter because wall street is guilty by association.The point is that all Obama is doing here is giving a speech.
He's not forming an oil company focused on creating chemicals for fracking here, or for "Insert whatever blatantly corrupt reason" in here.
Cantor Fitzgerald wants him to speak at a health care conference and they are willing to pay, so why not. It's easy money in the bank. It's not as if Cantor Fitzgerald is Goldman Sachs (not as if that should matter, but regardless). They are the firm who got decimated by 9/11.
Criticizing this action literally is criticizing someone for making money.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
a massive number of people who vote Democrat, including 26 percent of nonwhites, have changed to now believe the party is out of touchPractically the next President of the United States, Kirsten Gillibrand, is going to have large donors. Many of them either on or tied to Wall St as the Senator for NY.
Practically the "base" of the party has shifted to metropolitan areas. Practically many of the people who vote for the Democrats are not unionised traditional trades, but rather in the professional bourgeoisie.
I mean I am kind of curious what various people the coalition is meant to be now or should be. Abortion banning rural racists and college stoners as long as they want to block trade and make Medicare universal.
The point is that all Obama is doing here is giving a speech.
He's not forming an oil company focused on creating chemicals for fracking here, or for "Insert whatever blatantly corrupt reason" in here.
Someone wants him to speak at a health care conference and they are willing to pay, so why not. It's easy money in the bank.
Criticizing this action literally is criticizing someone for making money.
Sure, this is literally the argument that Hillary made during the campaign.
It super didn't work! People didn't trust her because she spent so much time cashing in, even though she also did a bunch of really good stuff.
It's especially problematic because Obama, like the Clintons, is already rich. Ignoring literally all the assets he accumulated before he became president, he has a lifetime pension of $200,000 a year and just got a $65 million book deal. If he thinks this speech is a good idea, why not do it for free? He gains no utility from the additional cash and it's a blatant money grab.
Maybe the Democrats should like, have principles? Nor is this even coming from the Bernie wing. Matt Yglesias did this article today!
A large % of those people will always feel the party is out of touch.a massive number of people who vote Democrat, including 26 percent of nonwhites, believe the party is out of touch
Get a charismatic leader instead of the High Sanders and many of those problems go away.
This is exactly where I'm at. Capitalist system w/ strong welfare state is perfecto. We don't have the latter.also, am I a bad person for believing that I'm fine with rich people being rich, as long as we tax the shit out of them?
really, we just need to make taxes cool again. it's a fucking civic duty you greedy fucks
fuck you reagan
Bernie still wasn't popular enough to win. I'm relitigating the primary but still I can't ignore that. Obama on the other hand is a immensely popular twice elected president. Gonna hazard that this doesn't affect him one bit, in fact most folks would want him to get paid. I sure as hell know I do after all the shit he had to put up with. Also like jtb said guys like Gillibrand, Cuomo and Booker are going to come into the primary with Wall Street ties and I maintain that in an era where we have a President Trump and we see what his administration looks like. Wall Street is no longer a potent attack.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
A large % of those people will always feel the party is out of touch.
Get a charismatic leader instead of the High Sanders and many of those problems go away.
.As mentioned, Trump's challenges don't mean the opposition is in good shape. In March 2014, 48 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was out of touch with the concerns of most people. Today 67 percent say so. And the biggest change has occurred chiefly among the party's own typical loyalists, with "out of touch" ratings up 33 points among liberals, 30 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 26 points among moderates and nonwhites alike.
Biden is not very wealthy. He was less wealthy than Obama when they both started running.
I was speaking relative to the poster's weird limbo bar.
Joe is worth about half a million bucks. Which puts him categorically in the top ten percent of Americans. I should have put it in quotes but I thought that was redundant with my allcaps QUITE. Obviously poor as a churchmouse compared to most Senators.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
also, am I a bad person for believing that I'm fine with rich people being rich, as long as we tax the shit out of them?
really, we just need to make taxes cool again. it's a fucking civic duty you greedy fucks
fuck you reagan
That so many so called Democrats now view wealth as evil is a scary thing.
whyamihere
Banned
Sure, this is literally the argument that Hillary made during the campaign.
It super didn't work! People didn't trust her because she spent so much time cashing in, even though she also did a bunch of really good stuff.
It's especially problematic because Obama, like the Clintons, is already rich. Ignoring literally all the assets he accumulated before he became president, he has a lifetime pension of $200,000 a year and just got a $65 million book deal. If he thinks this speech is a good idea, why not do it for free? He gains no utility from the additional cash and it's a blatant money grab.
Maybe the Democrats should like, have principles? Nor is this even coming from the Bernie wing. Matt Yglesias did this article today!
Yeah, I'm no Berniecrat and Yglesias summed this up fairly well earlier.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
"Real Billionaires for Hillary" was very dumb in retrospect.
This isn't an answer to that question.
I fail to see why any professional would ever support the party you're talking about here. I'm not really sure I'd even support it beyond just voting (as in, I really don't think if the party starts witch hunting to make sure that we don't have any wealthy people being all rich and whatnot that I'd be out volunteering or anything).
Sure, this is literally the argument that Hillary made during the campaign.
It super didn't work! People didn't trust her because she spent so much time cashing in, even though she also did a bunch of really good stuff.
It's especially problematic because Obama, like the Clintons, is already rich. Ignoring literally all the assets he accumulated before he became president, he has a lifetime pension of $200,000 a year and just got a $65 million book deal. If he thinks this speech is a good idea, why not do it for free? He gains no utility from the additional cash and it's a blatant money grab.
Maybe the Democrats should like, have principles? Nor is this even coming from the Bernie wing. Matt Yglesias did this article today!
Do we know what Obama plans on doing with the money from his paid speeches?
Because we know with the Clintons that a lot of the money from their speeches went to their foundation. You know, that thing that saved countless lives when it wasn't busy being a fount of corruption.
Maybe the Democrats should like, have principles? Nor is this even coming from the Bernie wing. Matt Yglesias did this article today!
Man if you dont.... Working for pay is not unprincipled behaviour. And Im glad no one of note is buying into that bullshit.
Its fucking stupid, it was always stupid, and it will always be stupid.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_StatesThat so many so called Democrats now view wealth as evil is a scary thing.
Yes, this is what happens after a year+ of Bernie + Russia hitting you from both ends.
No one f'ing votes on income inequality. And there are plenty of better ways to address it than saying "YOU ARE BAD FOR MAKING MONEY"! Let people make money, then you tax it, and redistribute it!
This is where I'm at. It's like some want being broke (relatively) to be a prerequisite for our leaders. I just can't buy into that. I put more weight on policy than what you got paid for a speech or that you have some friends on Wall Street.also, am I a bad person for believing that I'm fine with rich people being rich, as long as we tax the shit out of them?
really, we just need to make taxes cool again. it's a fucking civic duty you greedy fucks
fuck you reagan
whyamihere
Banned
I was speaking relative to the poster's weird limbo bar.
Joe is worth about half a million bucks. Which puts him categorically in the top ten percent of Americans. I should have put it in quotes but I thought that was redundant with my allcaps QUITE. Obviously poor as a churchmouse compared to most Senators.
I mean, that's why explicitly I said there must be a happy medium?
There's a difference between the money Bill and Hillary made and the money Biden and Carter made.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
That so many so called Democrats now view wealth as evil is a scary thing.
I don't think people have a problem with Obama making money from something like a book deal
It's mostly because it's over 10x what most people make in a year for like a 30min-1hour speech (which, sure, Obama's time is more valuable than the average person's. Doesn't necessarily make it right). It's """"""bad optics""""""" mostly
But I'm not sure it matters **that much** since Obama isn't running for anything and he's also charismatic, tho
shinra-bansho
Member
Setting aside the arguing for a moment to nerd.I mean the poorest in these metropolitan areas had a huge drop off from 2012 to 2016 in the Democratic vote. We'll need them too if we want to win the EC.
Is there a data set that cross references median income, USDA rural urban continuum codes, and vote share across multiple elections.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Do we know what Obama plans on doing with the money from his paid speeches?
Because we know with the Clintons that a lot of the money from their speeches went to their foundation. You know, that thing that saved countless lives when it wasn't busy being a fount of corruption.
Yeah, but like, it's probably better in the long run if they never took that money so that it sat at Goldman Sachs instead.
whyamihere
Banned
Setting aside the arguing for a moment to nerd.
Is there a data set that cross references median income, USDA rural urban continuum codes, and vote share across multiple elections.
I can post some links later, I'm on my phone and have some work to do (clearly that I'm not doing now lol) but I'll post what I've read.
This is exactly the impulse that leads to people being angry at athletes in contract negotiations with teams, and other sorts of collective bargaining agreements.I don't think people have a problem with Obama making money from something like a book deal
It's mostly because it's over 10x what most people make in a year for like a 30min-1hour speech (which, sure, Obama's time is more valuable than the average person's. Doesn't necessarily make it right)
I'm not sure it matters **that much** since Obama isn't running for anything and he's also charismatic, tho
Here's Tyler Cowen on how Income Inequality really doesn't work as a banner issue in politics, btw: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-20/-fight-inequality-is-a-poor-rallying-cry
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I don't think people have a problem with Obama making money from something like a book deal
It's mostly because it's over 10x what most people make in a year for like a 30min-1hour speech (which, sure, Obama's time is more valuable than the average person's. Doesn't necessarily make it right). It's """"""bad optics""""""" mostly
But I'm not sure it matters **that much** since Obama isn't running for anything and he's also charismatic, tho
Obama is a celebrity.
Leonardo DiCaprio can make similar money per hour, is he evil too?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I don't think people have a problem with Obama making money from something like a book deal
I agree that people are making this argument but it makes no sense! Books post-Presidency ain't Shakespeare, it's also a cash grab. What's the difference between them and speeches? Pigeon brings up Obama's book deal, but why shouldn't Obama just write the book for free? It's literally the same argument.
I was speaking relative to the poster's weird limbo bar.
Joe is worth about half a million bucks. Which puts him categorically in the top ten percent of Americans. I should have put it in quotes but I thought that was redundant with my allcaps QUITE. Obviously poor as a churchmouse compared to most Senators.
When the salary for a Senate term is $1,044,000, you can hardly say the person is wealthy relative to the salary that all Senators draw.
Not really. Nope.
Because all of the elements that exist today that make people feel that the party it out of touch existed in 2008 and 2012. But that didn't become the dominant narrative because we had other voices out there making sure it didn't.
I'm not saying that I don't think that the Democratic party is out of touch. We are. But that comes down to messaging. Getting down on the ground with people, adopting their language, and speaking to them.
Going all-in on petty, token issues like "No paid speeches!" won't make Democrats more in touch with our base. It'll just make us broke and out of touch.
When you say this, who are you referring to? Because the Obamas have money to spare. Most politicians at the federal level do. I think it is fair to say that it isn't productive for a major party figure like the former president of the United States who up until last year, was in charge of legislating these locations, to give speeches there to the tune of that much money. It doesn't look good, it doesn't feel good, and ultimately, not doing so is not going to cause our party to become broke. Unless I am misreading your statement in which case I apologize profusely, I don't mean to come across as obtuse. Oh wow, I am replying to a much older post, my sincerest apologies.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Obama is a celebrity.
Leonardo DiCaprio can make similar money per hour, is he evil too?
No one said Obama was evil!
Leonardo DiCaprio is also not a former POTUS who is going to have a major influence on the Democratic Party going forward
I agree that people are making this argument but it makes no sense! Books post-Presidency ain't Shakespeare, it's also a cash grab. What's the difference between them and speeches? Pigeon brings up Obama's book deal, but why shouldn't Obama just write the book for free? It's literally the same argument.
Optics, basically. Books are a product that's sold, so no one relevant is going to be like "obummer is just writing the book for easy cash" because if his book sells it's because people actually want his book.
People have a hard time imagining being paid $400,000 for giving a speech and think that's kind of bad, that's all
I agree that people are making this argument but it makes no sense! Books post-Presidency ain't Shakespeare, it's also a cash grab. What's the difference between them and speeches? Pigeon brings up Obama's book deal, but why shouldn't Obama just write the book for free? It's literally the same argument.
DING DING DING
Don't do this cash grab! Do the other cash grab!
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
No one said Obama was evil!
Leonardo DiCaprio is also not a former POTUS who is going to have a major influence on the Democratic Party going forward
Should DiCaprio work for minimum wage while working on a movie?
Would it have been OK if Obama got paid $7.25 for the speech?
If you force public servants to live a life of aestheticism and keep them from profiting post-political office, do you think that creates some incentive structure where 1. only ultra-wealthy people can run for office and 2. good, well-intentioned people choose other career paths other than public service (i.e. the teacher brain-drain argument)?
Obama gets a $200,000 pension every year, fucking miss me with the suggestion that we're forcing his kids to go to community college.
Man if you dont.... Working for pay is not unprincipled behaviour.
Giving one speech for $400,000 is not "working for pay." Be real. I know what working for pay looks like. I have to actually do it. Barack Obama does not, because he's fabulously wealthy.
Do we know what Obama plans on doing with the money from his paid speeches?
Because we know with the Clintons that a lot of the money from their speeches went to their foundation. You know, that thing that saved countless lives when it wasn't busy being a fount of corruption.
Man it seems like if Obama is going to send the money from his speeches to his foundation he could set a real good example by just saying so beforehand.
As I already said, if Obama wants to give a speech to Wall Street or whoever for free, or for charity, then I don't care.
This isn't an answer to that question.
I fail to see why any professional would ever support the party you're talking about here. I'm not really sure I'd even support it beyond just voting (as in, I really don't think if the party starts witch hunting to make sure that we don't have any wealthy people being all rich and whatnot that I'd be out volunteering or anything).
I mean, it's good to know that you don't care about people of color, women's rights, GLBT, etc. and literally the only reason you've ever supported the Democrats is because of their neoliberal economics.
You definitely should check out the Republican Party, it sounds a lot more your speed!
That so many so called Democrats now view wealth as evil is a scary thing.
As a person with a lot of wealth, wealth is a little bit evil.
In case you didn't notice, lots of people are starving to death or dying of exposure because the world's wealth is distributed in such a way that a few people have way more than they could possibly want and lots of people have less than they need to survive.
That is actually morally problematic! You should understand that!
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
DiCaprio is not writing nor voting on legislation, nor is he setting other policies that will affect the lives of the country.
Fenderputty
Banned
"I'm only taking this money so some of it will be taxed later and be redistributed" is a Hillary-esque bad message.
Why not say you're donating most of it? Easy!
That's not the message though. At least it shouldn't be. Making insane money shouldn't be demonized by the left. Making insane money in an economic system which doesn't redistribute large portions of that should be!
Liberals love warren buffet simply because he says he should be taxed more!
shinra-bansho
Member
And moderates. And liberals.a massive number of people who vote Democrat, including 26 percent of nonwhites, have changed to now believe the party is out of touch
And yet nothing has substantively changed. So as a non politician I don't really care about people's residual hurt feelings about not getting their way.
Maybe they don't like all the downplaying of their issues as secondary concerns to court angry white men.
DING DING DING
Don't do this cash grab! Do the other cash grab!
In Hillary's case, not sure it was just that the speeches were paid that bothered people, but that the speeches were largely private.
*and singlehandedly reduced Colorado's teen pregnancy and abortion rates by 40%.That's not the message though. At least it shouldn't be. Making insane money shouldn't be demonized by the left. Making insane money in an economic system which doesn't redistribute large portions of that should be!
Liberals love warren buffet simply because he says he should be taxed more!
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Should DiCaprio work for minimum wage while working on a movie?
Would it have been OK if Obama got paid $7.25 for the speech?
I don't even know what argument you're trying to address with the first part
But, yes, if Obama were paid minimum wage for the speech I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't even really have too much of a problem that he did it for $400,000.
Obama was the most powerful man in the world for eight years. Most people, the ultra-wealthy included, would happily trade all of their wealth for that power.
So I do think there is something to be said that it's not like politicians are making some noble sacrifice by going into public life, when they are getting political power - which is arguably far more valuable.
I really don't feel strongly about this one way or the other. I guess my conclusion is Obama shouldn't do this because optics. Which is a bad reason, but when you've got idiots like Cilliza and Halperin to pander to, you can never play too stupid. He doesn't need the money. It was bad optics when Hillary did it. Should've done a listening tour and wrote a book on the middle class.
So I do think there is something to be said that it's not like politicians are making some noble sacrifice by going into public life, when they are getting political power - which is arguably far more valuable.
I really don't feel strongly about this one way or the other. I guess my conclusion is Obama shouldn't do this because optics. Which is a bad reason, but when you've got idiots like Cilliza and Halperin to pander to, you can never play too stupid. He doesn't need the money. It was bad optics when Hillary did it. Should've done a listening tour and wrote a book on the middle class.
Frank the Great
Banned
What the fuck is going on in this thread. Since when is it as problem for an ex president to get speaking fees.
This is a classic example of poligaf over-thinking the shit out of something that no one in the real world gives a shit about. Obama would be an idiot not to take that money. He isn't running for office ever again so no influence is being purchased, and no progressive principles are being violated. We shouldn't be demonizing people for being rich or for speaking with rich people. Let Obama do whatever he wants, why do nerds on a message board think he should act to please them.
I just really don't understand you people sometimes.
This is a classic example of poligaf over-thinking the shit out of something that no one in the real world gives a shit about. Obama would be an idiot not to take that money. He isn't running for office ever again so no influence is being purchased, and no progressive principles are being violated. We shouldn't be demonizing people for being rich or for speaking with rich people. Let Obama do whatever he wants, why do nerds on a message board think he should act to please them.
I just really don't understand you people sometimes.
DING DING DING
Don't do this cash grab! Do the other cash grab!
Should DiCaprio work for minimum wage while working on a movie?
Would it have been OK if Obama got paid $7.25 for the speech?
If you need to explain the income to the public, you need to explain it in this manner:
DiCaprio gets paid X amount to film a movie because the movie studio believes they will make more than X amount from the movie ticket sales.
Obama gets paid X amount to write a book because the book publisher believes they will make more than X amount from the book sales.
Obama gets paid X amount to give a speech because the recipient of the speech just wants to hear what he has to say.
Do you see why some people may have concerns about the third situation?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I mean, it's good to know that you don't care about people of color, women's rights, GLBT, etc. and literally the only reason you've ever supported the Democrats is because of their neoliberal economics.
You definitely should check out the Republican Party, it sounds a lot more your speed!
It's actually the opposite! I care much more about those issues, which is why I would probably be turned off a party that chooses to brush those aside because a famous guy is popular enough to get paid to talk to a crowd. As far as I'm concerned, pretty much the definition of "out of touch."
When you say this, who are you referring to? Because the Obamas have money to spare. Most politicians at the federal level do. I think it is fair to say that it isn't productive for a major party figure like the former president of the United States who up until last year, was in charge of legislating these locations, to give speeches there to the tune of that much money. It doesn't look good, it doesn't feel good, and ultimately, not doing so is not going to cause our party to become broke. Unless I am misreading your statement in which case I apologize profusely, I don't mean to come across as obtuse.
You have to know what Obama planned to do post-presidency.
Besides the fact that most presidents form charitable foundations and use speaking engagements and appearances to help keep those foundations funded (and I certainly wouldn't fault Barack from using just his own money to do this), Obama had big plans involving redistricting when he was out of office:
Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign
If Obama is doing speaking engagements to help fund these things, more power to him.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
If you need to explain the income to the public, you need to explain it in this manner:
DiCaprio gets paid X amount to film a movie because the movie studio believes they will make more than X amount from the movie ticket sales.
Obama gets paid X amount to write a book because the book publisher believes they will make more than X amount from the book sales.
Obama gets paid X amount to give a speech because the recipient of the speech just wants to hear what he has to say.
Do you see why some people may have concerns about the third situation?
You may find this surprising, but celebrities give speeches for crazy amounts too.
Did you know they get paid to go on talk shows!!!You may find this surprising, but celebrities give speeches for crazy amounts too.
Fenderputty
Banned
*and singlehandedly reduced Colorado's teen pregnancy and abortion rates by 40%.
This too, but I see it brought up far less than his views on wealth redistribution.
Sure, this is literally the argument that Hillary made during the campaign.
It super didn't work! People didn't trust her because she spent so much time cashing in, even though she also did a bunch of really good stuff.
Lots of stuff didn't work for Hilary. People didn't trust her, but it definitely wasn't just cause she cashed in. That's not a fair claim. At all
- Status
- Not open for further replies.