Support NeoGAF

[AntraxSuicide]

A book, is also, ultimately more work to write than a speech is. I am sure that the Audacity of Hope took more time and effort than the speech he is going to give. I think the two are being put together in a false equivalency.

Eh, a little bit, yeah. But like I said above, these post-POTUS books are not high art or deep. It's a whole lotta platitudes and dumb stories. They're about as well-written and academic as reading Guy Fieri's autobiography.

 

[jtb]

Did Obama even write the Audacity of Hope?

He should write his memoirs, because he's one of the best writers we've ever had as a president. But I doubt he will.

Eh, a little bit, yeah. But like I said above, these post-POTUS books are not high art or deep. It's a whole lotta platitudes and dumb stories. They're about as well-written and academic as reading Guy Fieri's autobiography.

If there's one president who might buck that trend, it's Obama. Let's get some Ulysses Grant up in here.

 

[Pixieking]

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.

It's incredibly bizarre. The usual liberal hand-wringing, together with the fear (driven home by Bernie?) that anything Wall Street does is Evil.

Just think, all those Wall Street millionaires who could be taxed. Being rich isn't a sin. And, even if it were, the only people angry about Trump's conflicts, business interests and salary in the White House are the liberal masses.

To average Redneck Joe in Florida, Trump is orgasmically perfect. They don't give a monkey's about Wall Street ties in the White House. Why should liberals? (They gave a damn when Hillary was running, because uppity women ain't ever getting in the WH. They gotta be home feeding the kids.)

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

If the liberal masses are going to whine about Wall Street, then this is the co-ordinated route to take. Being rich is the American Dream. Everyone deserves it, everyone wants it. It isn't bad. But being rich means taxing the super-rich so that everyone has a good life, the poor kids can get lunches at school, the roads can be kept decent, and there's parks for everyone to wander around.

 

[numble]

You may find this surprising, but celebrities give speeches for crazy amounts too.

Give an example and we can discuss. I was addressing why it is not comparable to saying that a celebrity should be paid minimum wage for a movie. Do you agree that it is not a logical comparison? I also do not think a book deal is comparable to a speech.

 

[Suikoguy]

Give an example and we can discuss. I was addressing why it is not comparable to saying that a celebrity should be paid minimum wage for a movie. Do you agree that it is not a logical comparison? I also do not think a book deal is comparable to a speech.

As many colleges struggle with tight budgets, some have drawn sharp criticism for paying hefty speaking fees. The University of Houston, which increased tuition this year, paid $166,000 to bring Matthew McConaughey to speak last spring, including $9,500 for his airfare.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-commencement-speaker-costs-20160520-story.html

From a quick google search.
I don't see Obama charging a college for that though.

 

[pigeon]

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.

That would be fine with me too.

He should say so! Easy fix!

 

[shinra-bansho]

Now I'm getting deja vu to the guy who wanted all public officials and politicians to be banned from earning in the private sector after leaving public service forever. Lol.

 

[whyamihere]

Now I'm getting deja vu to the guy who wanted all public officials and politicians to be banned from earning in the private sector after leaving public service forever. Lol.

Saying that it's a bad look for Obama to make 400,000 on one speech doesn't mean that you believe all politicians should look like Cosette!

Also he said "industry", it was an even wider net.

 

[royalan]

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?

This is entirely the wrong framing. I mean, it completely ignores how the world and celebrity works.

Obama is a politician. He is also a celebrity. It is a note of prestige for him to show up to your event, even if all he does is show up. THAT'S what people are paying for.

I mean, just take a peak in PopGAF sometime. Do you know how many pop stars get paid $xxx,xxx just to show up to a club opening? The sweet 16 for some millionaire's brat? It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean that that celebrity is in further debt with the person/entity paying them, because they showed up, lent their prestige, and did what they were paid to do.

I mean, this is so simple.

 

[numble]

Did you know they get paid to go on talk shows!!!

If you take an economics class, it would be very obvious why this is the case. Very often movie studios pay celebrities to go on talk shows because the publicity will make them money. Talk shows sometimes pay celebrities (its rare, right?) because they think the ratings will earn them money, or give the show publicity for future viewers and ratings.

 

[pigeon]

DING DING DING


Don't do this cash grab! Do the other cash grab!

I mean if you want to argue that Obama shouldn't write his book then fine, I guess.

Personally my understanding is that writing a book is pretty hard, especially given that Obama doesn't rely on ghostwriters, and so I don't think people are really going to care if he gets paid for doing a thing. You're right, he doesn't really need the $65 million though and it's an absurd amount of money for one book.

Giving a speech is more or less zero work, though, which is why it's widely understood to be mostly a giveaway.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Saying that it's a bad look for Obama to make 400,000 on one speech doesn't mean that you believe all politicians should look like Cosette!

Also he said "industry", it was an even wider net.

No. I know. But it just made me remember. And chuckle. I can't remember which guy it was though.

 

[kirblar]

If you take an economics class, it would be very obvious why this is the case. Very often movie studios pay celebrities to go on talk shows because the publicity will make them money. Talk shows sometimes pay celebrities (its rare, right?) because they think the ratings will earn them money, or give the show publicity for future viewers and ratings.

I was making a point about how celebrities get paid for their time handsomely, no matter how dumb or mundane the task is. Speaking fees are appearance fees with a classier name.

I mean if you want to argue that Obama shouldn't write his book then fine, I guess.

Personally my understanding is that writing a book is pretty hard, especially given that Obama doesn't rely on ghostwriters, and so I don't think people are really going to care if he gets paid for doing a thing. You're right, he doesn't really need the $65 million though and it's an absurd amount of money for one book.

Giving a speech is more or less zero work, though, which is why it's widely understood to be mostly a giveaway.

The thing that may be misunderstood- the value which the company is gaining for their cash. It's not about influence, it's about using that person as a promotional tool! Royalan's club opening analogy is spot on.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I mean if you want to argue that Obama shouldn't write his book then fine, I guess.

Personally my understanding is that writing a book is pretty hard, especially given that Obama doesn't rely on ghostwriters, and so I don't think people are really going to care if he gets paid for doing a thing. You're right, he doesn't really need the $65 million though and it's an absurd amount of money for one book.

Giving a speech is more or less zero work, though, which is why it's widely understood to be mostly a giveaway.

People can also buy and read his book, too, which I think makes a difference. His book is accessible to most people in the country, this speech is not

Spoiler

even tho he obviously gives plenty of free speeches

 

[etrain911]

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.

I think it would help if he said so. Make a show of it, get a giant check, release the transcripts of the speech (to be as transparent as possible and to make the speech accessible to everyone else) and tell everyone that the money is being dedicated towards charitable foundation X to do Y. It is more about the image to me.

 

[jtb]

If the liberal masses are going to whine about Wall Street, then this is the co-ordinated route to take. Being rich is the American Dream. Everyone deserves it, everyone wants it. It isn't bad. But being rich means taxing the super-rich so that everyone has a good life, the poor kids can get lunches at school, the roads can be kept decent, and there's parks for everyone to wander around.

This is literally the message that Elizabeth Warren became a progressive icon on.

(It's a really good message!)

But I guess that's not "populist" enough anymore in the age of angry white people.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

But really no one outside of like hardcore right (and left I guess) wing websites is really going to give a shit about this. It might be """bad optics""" but I don't think anyone is paying much attention to how much Obama charges for speaking fees. Way more important things to worry about than that.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I mean if you want to argue that Obama shouldn't write his book then fine, I guess.

Personally my understanding is that writing a book is pretty hard, especially given that Obama doesn't rely on ghostwriters, and so I don't think people are really going to care if he gets paid for doing a thing. You're right, he doesn't really need the $65 million though and it's an absurd amount of money for one book.

If it was actually a well-written book worth reading then sure, I'll give him credit for it. But I can't think of one that actually is; it's not like the people who will buy it are looking for an academic text. His book will probably have a kitschy title like Yes We Did (there's a reason Colbert names his books the way he does), and it'll mostly be stories from the last 8 years (doesn't seem that hard to write) and a good bit of platitudes. Maybe Obama being a professor will actually help it out some.

But at least this position is logically consistent.

 

[pigeon]

I was making a point about how celebrities get paid for their time handsomely, no matter how dumb or mundane the task is. Speaking fees are appearance fees with a classier name.

The thing that may be misunderstood- the value which the company is gaining for their cash. It's not about influence, it's about using that person as a promotional tool! Royalan's club opening analogy is spot on.

Promotional tool for what? What does this company even do? Can consumers do business with them directly?

If that's all it is, maybe they should just hire Obama to cut a TV spot for them or do a billboard.

 

[Pixieking]

This is literally the message that Elizabeth Warren became a progressive icon on.

(It's a really good message!)

But I guess that's not "populist" enough anymore in the age of angry white people.

It's the Age of No Nuance. Being in favour of Wall Street, but also in favour of taxing Wall Street requires too much thought. Easier to just not be in favour of Wall Street.

It actually goes hand-in-hand with the polarisation of politics - everything has become black-and-white. Economic message or social justice. Guns or no guns. Nothing in-between.

 

[numble]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-commencement-speaker-costs-20160520-story.html

From a quick google search.
I don't see Obama charging a college for that though.

This is entirely the wrong framing. I mean, it completely ignores how the world and celebrity works.

Obama is a politician. He is also a celebrity. It is a note of prestige for him to show up to your event, even if all he does is show up. THAT'S what people are paying for.

I mean, just take a peak in PopGAF sometime. Do you know how many pop stars get paid $xxx,xxx just to show up to a club opening? The sweet 16 for some millionaire's brat? It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean that that celebrity is in further debt with the person/entity paying them, because they showed up, lent their prestige, and did what they were paid to do.

I mean, this is so simple.

I was making a point about how celebrities get paid for their time handsomely, no matter how dumb or mundane the task is. Speaking fees are appearance fees with a classier name.

I was addressing the frame that was presented to me--it was claimed that a paid speech is comparable to a movie star getting paid for a movie or an author getting paid for a book. I explained why that is not the case. If we want to move the goal post to a different framing, we can now discuss that.

When commercial for-profit entities pay for appearance fees (clubs, talk shows), they are doing it for a profit-seeking purpose--indeed, they cannot write it off on their taxes if it isn't for a business purpose.

I think a non-profit like a college should seriously consider whether a large fee furthers their non-profit mission.

Individuals in their personal capacity and sometimes even commercial entities may pay for entertainment. When you pay a fee for someone that is a professional entertainer, the expectation is that you paid for entertainment. When you pay for someone that is a professional policymaker, some people may question whether you are paying for something besides entertainment.

 

[pigeon]

If it was actually a well-written book worth reading then sure, I'll give him credit for it. But I can't think of one that actually is; it's not like the people who will buy it are looking for an academic text. His book will probably have a kitschy title like Yes We Did (there's a reason Colbert names his books the way he does), and it'll mostly be stories from the last 8 years (doesn't seem that hard to write) and a good bit of platitudes. Maybe Obama being a professor will actually help it out some.

But at least this position is logically consistent.

I actually respect Obama and have actually read his books, so I have a higher expectation for him than this.

 

[kirblar]

Promotional tool for what? What does this company even do? Can consumers do business with them directly?

If that's all it is, maybe they should just hire Obama to cut a TV spot for them or do a billboard.

Impress potential clients. Attract people to fundraisers. (I believe the Vets event Dubya got lit up for charging them for was a fundraisers) Get attention. It's a marketing expense.

I was addressing the frame that was presented to me--it was claimed that a paid speech is comparable to a movie star getting paid for a movie or an author getting paid for a book. I explained why that is not the case. If we want to move the goal post to a different framing, we can now discuss that.

When commercial for-profit entities pay for appearance fees (clubs, talk shows), they are doing it for a profit-seeking purpose--indeed, they cannot write it off on their taxes if it isn't for a business purpose.

I think a non-profit like a college should seriously consider whether a large fee furthers their non-profit mission.

Individuals in their personal capacity and sometimes even commercial entities may pay for entertainment. When you pay a fee for someone that is a professional entertainer, the expectation is that you paid for entertainment. When you pay for someone that is a professional policymaker, some people may question whether you are paying for something besides entertainment.

They're not being paid for entertainment, they're being paid to be there and be seen. Because that has value to the person forking over the massive paycheck.

 

[jtb]

Dreams from My Father is one of the best political memoirs ever written. Obama's not gonna phone in his book.

Hell, Clinton's memoirs weren't phoned in (you don't phone in a thousand fucking rambling pages).

Audacity of Hope is generic campaign lit though.

 

[numble]

If it was actually a well-written book worth reading then sure, I'll give him credit for it. But I can't think of one that actually is; it's not like the people who will buy it are looking for an academic text. His book will probably have a kitschy title like Yes We Did (there's a reason Colbert names his books the way he does), and it'll mostly be stories from the last 8 years (doesn't seem that hard to write) and a good bit of platitudes. Maybe Obama being a professor will actually help it out some.

But at least this position is logically consistent.

He has written books in the past that are critically acclaimed. He wrote a critically acclaimed book after graduating from law school before he achieved any political office.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

edit: In my mind Obama is 50:50 on writing good books, so I'm basically at null for how his next one goes.
edit2: I see the confusion. When I said "I can't think of one that is (good)" I was talking presidential memoirs, not any book written by a politician. I don't really care for any of them so far.

Promotional tool for what? What does this company even do? Can consumers do business with them directly?

If that's all it is, maybe they should just hire Obama to cut a TV spot for them or do a billboard.

It's a pitch to new hires for higher-up positions (not usually executive but the actual finance/design/engineering/etc... positions). We'll offer you $X a year, and we also guarantee that as a job perk you get to meet famous people a few times a year. From the company's position, they're spreading the $400K they pay Obama around over the initial salaries of new hires (instead of offering someone $250K a year I offer just $200K and throw in the potential once-in-a-lifetime Obama meeting; a lot of good hires take that in a heartbeat, and I just saved $50K per hire).

But really no one outside of like hardcore right (and left I guess) wing websites is really going to give a shit about this. It might be """bad optics""" but I don't think anyone is paying much attention to how much Obama charges for speaking fees. Way more important things to worry about than that.

This is what has me exasperated with it. It's just political navel-gazing. No plumber gives a shit whether he takes the cash; they care what cash they're taking home themselves. And I know the old "we can focus on a lot of things" response, but we always argue against that for a reason. If a person really thinks their time should be spent on something as stupid as this optics freakout, instead of actual issues (even real economic ones, not bullshit), then how does that drive up support? Like I said before, I do volunteer work because I want to back a social justice party, not a "what about the optics" party.

 

[royalan]

Impress potential clients. Attract people to fundraisers. (I believe the Vets event Dubya got lit up for charging them for was a fundraisers) Get attention. It's a marketing expense.

They're not being paid for entertainment, they're being paid to be there and be seen. Because that has value to the person forking over the massive paycheck.

I don't understand why this is so difficult.


I mean...the "Cash me Outside, how bout dat?" girl gets paid $30,000 PER event she makes an appearance at.

THIS 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL

MAKES $30,000

JUST BY BEING SEEN.

Do not underestimate how much people with means will pay to be in the same room as Barack Obama, even if all they'll get out of that is...being in the same room with Barack Obama.

 

[numble]

It's a pitch to new hires for higher-up positions (not usually executive but the actual finance/design/engineering/etc... positions). We'll offer you $X a year, and we also guarantee that as a job perk you get to meet famous people a few times a year. From the company's position, they're spreading the $400K they pay Obama around over the initial salaries of new hires (instead of offering someone $250K a year I offer just $200K and throw in the potential once-in-a-lifetime Obama meeting; a lot of good hires take that in a heartbeat, and I just saved $50K per hire).

This speech is at a conference for Cantor's clients, not for Cantor's employees.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

We should vote a scientist in as president. Maybe that way they'll undo all the damage to the environment.

 

[BoosterDuck]

We should vote a scientist in as president. Maybe that way they'll undo all the damage to the environment.

no, we should just vote someone with a brain as president

let the scientists do the sciencing

 

[pigeon]

Frankly these arguments make me think that Obama should turn it down just because it's fucking demeaning. He's getting paid $400,000 to sign autographs and shake hands? He's the former president of the United States, not a retired baseball player or a social media viral clip star. Have some self-respect.

 

[royalan]

Frankly these arguments make me think that Obama should turn it down just because it's fucking demeaning. He's getting paid $400,000 to sign autographs and shake hands? He's the former president of the United States, not a retired baseball player or a social media viral clip star. Have some self-respect.

If NeoGAF users ever found a way to monetize their memes the "(I'm an expert)" guy would be worth millions.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Frankly these arguments make me think that Obama should turn it down just because it's fucking demeaning. He's getting paid $400,000 to sign autographs and shake hands? He's the former president of the United States, not a retired baseball player or a social media viral clip star. Have some self-respect.

He could charge more tbh, and for far less. His speech could be him singing the SpongeBob theme song for an hour and he could still get that appearance fee.

And Obama himself would bristle at your dig against his "thanks Obama" meme skills.

 

[Suikoguy]

This is literally the message that Elizabeth Warren became a progressive icon on.

(It's a really good message!)

But I guess that's not "populist" enough anymore in the age of angry white people.

This. and i'll end here for the evening.

Demonizing making money will do more damage than good.
But we better make sure that 'extra' income is taxed at a reasonable rate that matches the marginal-utility of that income.

 

[pigeon]

This. and i'll end here for the evening.

Demonizing making money will do more damage than good.
But we better make sure that 'extra' income is taxed at a reasonable rate that matches the marginal-utility of that income.

Not all ways to make money are equally good. That's just the truth! Even liberal technocrats should agree with that!

 

[Pixieking]

Frankly these arguments make me think that Obama should turn it down just because it's fucking demeaning. He's getting paid $400,000 to sign autographs and shake hands? He's the former president of the United States, not a retired baseball player or a social media viral clip star. Have some self-respect.

There's a lot of assumptions being made, here (not your post specifically, but generally, too)

Like, this is what the FT says:

Mr Obama had agreed to appear as the keynote speaker at Cantor's annual healthcare conference in September.
[...]
Cantor launched its healthcare conference in New York two years ago, describing it as an opportunity to introduce investors to executives at dozens of the biggest healthcare companies.

So, we're assuming it's a generic schmooze-fest.

But what if it isn't? What if Obama is going to leverage being in the same room as "investors [and] executives at dozens of the biggest healthcare companies" to push for how the ACA should only be the start, and how they shouldn't give-in to Trump pushing the ACA into a Death Spiral.

Or maybe it'll be about how investors in healthcare should become investors in renewable energy, because the healthcare costs of coal and oil are massive negatives when set-against the healthcare costs of solar or wind.

Sure, it might also just be a schmooze-fest. But, I mean, all this pissing and moaning about optics, and we just don't know anything, beyond the cost.

Edit: and this is just the contents of the speech, right? It may be, the speech will be generic blah, but he'll use the before-and-after to play the game a little.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I can't imagine anyone that voted for Trump but could potentially vote for any non-Clinton Dem would give a crap about Obama getting this paycheck.

I mean, they voted for Trump.

I don't know anyone who actually cared about Clinton's speeches before Bernie and the GOP made them an issue. And when they were released and actually contained wholly non-objectionable material for progressives, none of them actually read any of them and just continued to parrot the Sanders campaign's talking points about them.

I mean Trump must have gotten loads of these kinds of fees for showing his goofy orange ass.

If there are potential Dem voters who didn't vote for Trump over Hillary then I don't think her speeches would have been the issue that kept them from voting for her. They're probably just apathetic voters in general, as they would have to be, to not take a side in 2016.

 

[Fenderputty]

Not all ways to make money are equally good. That's just the truth! Even liberal technocrats should agree with that!

Why is giving s paid speech a bad form making money?

 

[pigeon]

There's a lot of assumptions being made, here (not your post specifically, but generally, too)

Like, this is what the FT says:


So, we're assuming it's a generic schmooze-fest.

But what if it isn't? What if Obama is going to leverage being in the same room as "investors [and] executives at dozens of the biggest healthcare companies" to push for how the ACA should only be the start, and how they shouldn't give-in to Trump pushing the ACA into a Death Spiral.

Or maybe it'll be about how investors in healthcare should become investors in renewable energy, because the healthcare costs of coal and oil are massive negatives when set-against the healthcare costs of solar or wind.

Sure, it might also just be a schmooze-fest. But, I mean, all this pissing and moaning about optics, and we just don't know anything, beyond the cost.

Edit: and this is just the contents of the speech, right? It may be, the speech will be generic blah, but he'll use the before-and-after to play the game a little.

I think that would be awesome, as I said before.

But if that's the goal maybe he should follow up by donating the speaking fees to charity or renewable energy. That would really make an impact!

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

do people think Gary Cohn gave huge sums of money to both Hillary and Rubio because he was a huge supporter of their agendas?

 

[numble]

Impress potential clients. Attract people to fundraisers. (I believe the Vets event Dubya got lit up for charging them for was a fundraisers) Get attention. It's a marketing expense.

They're not being paid for entertainment, they're being paid to be there and be seen. Because that has value to the person forking over the massive paycheck.

I don't understand why this is so difficult.


I mean...the "Cash me Outside, how bout dat?" girl gets paid $30,000 PER event she makes an appearance at.

THIS 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL

MAKES $30,000

JUST BY BEING SEEN.

Do not underestimate how much people with means will pay to be in the same room as Barack Obama, even if all they'll get out of that is...being in the same room with Barack Obama.

The reason why people question it is because of the potential reasoning you can come up with.

If you pay a celebrity X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the celebrity was paid for the appearance, including ulterior motives. This is List A.

If you pay a politician or policymaker X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the politician was paid for the appearance, including potential ulterior motives. This is List B.

List A and List B will have some similarities, but there are items in List B that are not in List A.

Michael Flynn is getting in trouble for being paid for a speech, for instance. If you agree that he should be in trouble for that speech, is your issue more with the fact that he failed to disclose it, or more because of the entity that paid for the speech and the implication that they were not simply paying a celebrity appearance fee?

 

[Fenderputty]

I also think that requiring Obama dontate money to chairity is also misguided since the liberal platform often argues chairity isn't effectual enough to make an impact therefore taxes and redistribution.

 

[pigeon]

I also think that requiring Obama dontate money to chairity is also misguided since the liberal platform often argues chairity isn't effectual enough to make an impact therefore taxes and redistribution.

This argument makes no sense.

"Charity is insufficient to provide a social safety net" is not equivalent to "nobody should donate money to charity."

 

[Pixieking]

I think that would be awesome, as I said before.

But if that's the goal maybe he should follow up by donating the speaking fees to charity or renewable energy. That would really make an impact!

He may donate to charity in the end. Though, depending upon how this shakes out in the media, I would be tempted to not, simply because anyone against him could say "Well, if it wasn't a bad thing to do, why did he end up giving the money to charity?" All you end-up doing in a way is continuing the stigma against paid speeches. And this stigma is one that's ignored by the GOP except when it's used to attack liberals.

The reason why people question it is because of the potential reasoning you can come up with.

If you pay a celebrity X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the celebrity was paid for the appearance, including ulterior motives. This is List A.

If you pay a politician or policymaker X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the politician was paid for the appearance, including potential ulterior motives. This is List B.

List A and List B will have some similarities, but there are items in List B that are not in List A.

Michael Flynn is getting in trouble for being paid for a speech, for instance. If you agree that he should be in trouble for that speech, is your issue more with the fact that he failed to disclose it, or more because of the entity that paid for the speech and the implication that they were not simply paying a celebrity appearance fee?

Whilst this is an entirely justifiable line of reasoning, it's also one that is created entirely by people outside the transaction. And, as I noted above, it's not a one-way street - Obama has the chance to lobby rich, powerful people, just as they have the chance to lobby him. Both infer a seediness to the situation that may or may not be present.

 

[shinra-bansho]

do people think Gary Cohn gave huge sums of money to both Hillary and Rubio because he was a huge supporter of their agendas?

I dunno. Maybe. Or maybe he's got his own agenda. Like (((Soros))).

 

[dynamitejim]

OBAMA AND NEOGAF EXPOSED

What kind of quid pro quo were these two plotting? How demeaning for the President to be caught shaking hands with a wealthy large donor! We're all posting on a tool of the .0001 puh-cent!

 

[Plumbob]

This argument makes no sense.

"Charity is insufficient to provide a social safety net" is not equivalent to "nobody should donate money to charity."

That wasn't their argument. Their argument was "No one should require Obama to donate his money to charity"

 

[pigeon]

That wasn't their argument. Their argument was "No one should require Obama to donate his money to charity"

The exact same critique applies to this version of the argument!

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I dunno. Mayne. Or maybe he's got his own agenda. Like (((Soros))).

(((Soros))) clearly has an ideological bent to his donations so not sure how they're the same.

Is criticizing money in politics now antisemitic?

 

[tbm24]

The reason why people question it is because of the potential reasoning you can come up with.

If you pay a celebrity X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the celebrity was paid for the appearance, including ulterior motives. This is List A.

If you pay a politician or policymaker X amount for an appearance, list the potential reasons why the politician was paid for the appearance, including potential ulterior motives. This is List B.

List A and List B will have some similarities, but there are items in List B that are not in List A.

Michael Flynn is getting in trouble for being paid for a speech, for instance. If you agree that he should be in trouble for that speech, is your issue more with the fact that he failed to disclose it, or more because of the entity that paid for the speech and the implication that they were not simply paying a celebrity appearance fee?

Michael Flynn giving a speech in Russia is one thing. He can do that so long as he goes through the proper channels which exist to facilitate this. What you cant do is go and make this speech and not disclose that you were paid for it which required approval by the state department given his position. Those circumstances are what lead to the idea that he's being bought by a foreign/borderline hostile nation to the US. Obama is being invited to speak at an event by a company based on wall street with what I believe is a theme about Healthcare. This was announced as was what they agreed to pay Obama forhis appearance and speech. What in this scenario lends itself to believe this is a front to back door dealings from what I believe is an investment Bank with a history of philathropy.