balladofwindfishes
Member
This would be a pretty awful, inefficient way of giving a kicback to someone.
-
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.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
This would be a pretty awful, inefficient way of giving a kicback to someone.
Macho Madness
Member
actually *our* people shouldn't do this shit in the first place
it's the same thing with Hillary. the problem was that she gave the speeches in the first place. not that people got mad about it.
What would be the efficient and legal way?
Apparently Trump will propose a massive increase in the standard deduction. Good for renters, meh for most homeowners probably.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...tions-Americans-can-claim-on-their-taxes.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...tions-Americans-can-claim-on-their-taxes.html
Poodlestrike
Banned
No, the problem is that people on the left can't let that little shit go.
And it IS little shit. I know this because I can see the shit the Republicans do on the regular and that sets the scale. I'm sorry, but some people lacking perspective doesn't change that. If you expend energy that could go into fighting the Republicans on Obama doing something that could, potentially,
but is not provably bad, you are part of the problem.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Setting him up as a private contractor and paying him behind the scenes for doing some random task. He's a private citizen, they can hire him as they would anyone else.
Not making a public speech in front of thousands about healthcare
Roland_Gunner
Member
This idea that you get a say in how Obama or Clinton conduct their private affairs is frankly nauseating. These people have invested more of their lives towards the general good than you ever will.
One thing I'll offer for the speech tour thing is people protected by the Secret Service actually are on the hook for paying the Secret Service for their protection. A notable portion of the speaking fee Bill and Hillary and Jimmy and Obama and whoever else charge is just the baseline security cost to get them to the podium where you want them to show up at.
Also they have to pay their office people and organizers and so on.
Also they have to pay their office people and organizers and so on.
Crimson_Gold
Member
Now this is something I did not know
That would be a pretty awful and inefficient way of giving a kickback to someone. The IRS could challenge the deduction and it would raise a lot of red flags, for one, unless he actually does some work that would actually require an expenditure of time. A quick private speech for an honorarium is much more efficient and generally accepted.
By the way, has it been indicated that this is a public event? The past events are only open to institutional investors.
Macho Madness
Member
I don't get a say in what they do that's correct but I do get to not like it
balladofwindfishes
Member
I meant public more in that we all know it's happening, what it's about, and who is attending.
Also 400k is a drop in the bucket for Obama. If that's his kickback, he's selling himself too cheap.
Also 400k is a drop in the bucket for Obama. If that's his kickback, he's selling himself too cheap.
The first two letters of Georgia speciality plates generally have to do with the type of specialty plate it is, like I have a University of Florida plate, so my tag number starts with UF.
I do not believe this to be true. I don't think they are on the hook for their own Secret Service protection. Do you have a source for this claim?
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
After 8 years of service if Obama wants to give a speech for 400k he can be my fucking guest. He's still actually working to do real good.
If this is what keeps you up at night while Trump is president you need to get your head out of your goddamn ass. We have actual fights we should be taking on.
If this is what keeps you up at night while Trump is president you need to get your head out of your goddamn ass. We have actual fights we should be taking on.
http://time.com/money/4640736/barack-obama-joe-biden-pension/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/26/Which-Former-President-Costs-US-Most
All ex presidents due to the FPA get funds, so officially we'll never have a broke ex-president anymore, but also officially they pay for their SS protection, as Obama noted Chaffetz's attempt to cap their income would interfere with ex-presidents SS coverage. Part of the issue is Secret Service expenses are kept secret for security reasons so neither side will mention exact numbers.
But it's pretty typical even for non-presidential speakers that when you want to show up, their speaking fee is including their security team costs, travel, etc.
edit: hell, there's even a basic speaking / appearance fee for SGA members to show up on any talk show, etc. Almost nobody speaks for free.
Macho Madness
Member
It doesn't have to keep me up at night or be my most important issue to think it's bad
Apparently thinking its bad isn't good ? I guess we should just keep letting rich people destroy everything
Apparently thinking its bad isn't good ? I guess we should just keep letting rich people destroy everything
^NAILED IT. Think that you have it exactly right, Macho. (With the caveat that I really do think some of the language around this needs to be more nuanced, more specifically, emphasizing that "rich" and "corporate" aren't necessarily dirty words, but at the same time, READ THE ROOM).
This isn't a good counterpoint.
This isn't a good counterpoint.
More_Badass
Member
How is Obama being paid for speeches "letting rich people destroy everything"? I dont understand that rationale
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
You think Obama is going to destroy everything just because he's rich?
Neither source proves your claim. I believe you have spread fake news.
The FPA funds pay for Secret Service. Capping FPA funds would interfere with SS coverage. The veto was a bill to cap FPA funds, not capping presidential income.
Edit:
Actually, the bill didn't touch on FPA funds or funding for secret service protection. Obama's statement was that by limiting funding for offices and staff, it decreases secret service's ability to protect because the government is not involved in the management of the office and staff:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...presidential-allowance-modernization-act-2016
I mean.. a lot of people think that the Obama administration's stance on prosecuting the financial crimes of the last 5-10 years is important. This isn't unrelated.
Not sure why you can't handle the criticism.
More_Badass
Member
This is the kind of the stuff that keeps me up at night. The whole blatant "I'm President, and my word should be lawful decree" thing is scary; it doesnt matter that Trump has been ineffective. The fact that our current President wants to act like he's a king is disturbing
Huh, ironically, now I know how my dad felt when he would go on his Tyrant Obama rants
Huh, ironically, now I know how my dad felt when he would go on his Tyrant Obama rants
Official statement from White House is... just read it.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/857082188407373829
Macho Madness
Member
$400k is a lot of damned money if you ask me. And the Democrats: https://twitter.com/thedemocrats/status/159312802832592898
$400k could pay for two houses for most people.
Especially some who were left out of the housing crisis when the banks were slapped on the wrist.
$400k could pay for two houses for most people.
Especially some who were left out of the housing crisis when the banks were slapped on the wrist.
I mean the Bernie zealots ideas seem to be, don't be rich before taking office, don't be rich after taking office, don't fundraise from big donor sources, BUT YOU BETTER GODDAMN WELL SPEND TONS OF MONEY ON EVERY ELECTION IN EVERY DISTRICT YOU WORTHLESS DNC SCUM BUCKETS WHO CARES THE DISTRICT IS R+9000
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
What exactly is it that I can't handle? I'm not being criticized.
What annoys me is not complaints that Obama's schmoozing with a bunch of bankers looks slightly hypocritical. What annoys me is the absolute hysteria and overreaction, Obama is now corrupt, he's stabbed us all in the back, the sky is falling.
You think any president ever succeeded without cozying up to Wall Street to some extent? No fucking way. You can do that and prosecute financial criminals, by the way.
The real problem in my view is that some of you want to live in a world where nobody is allowed to be rich.
I don't. I want to live in a world where everyone has an even playing field and the rich contribute more to society.
And if anybody has earned the right to a life of luxury, it's Barack Obama.
Macho Madness
Member
It's not how much money you make it's how you make it and how that can shape your policies
Intheflorsh
Banned
Seems like some folks are learning that it's a real fucking bitter pill to swallow when issues you care about get quashed under the foot of "pragmatism".
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Ok dude great awesome. How many houses does a Mar-A-Lago trip cost? How many people die when the ACA is replaced with the GOP's latest abomination? Pushing this point does nothing but demoralize Democrats and we desperately DESPERATELY need to take back the House to stem the damage. So how about directing your anger toward more important shit going on?
Honestly... Clinton crushed it with fundraising. Where the fuck did that get her?
I just hate that this discussion inevitably turns into the Bernie-wing vs Libs. Its not that. I honestly think you can criticize Obama here without turning this into a hand-wringing, all out assault on mainstream Liberalism.
That said - I just have this sinking feeling that the Dems DONT FUCKING GET IT. The impact of the financial crisis still reverberates, and I really don't think the party understands some of the optics of these kinds of things, but more importantly, the actually impact of this kind of revolving door governance by the elite class. Its as if we totally forgot that Holder just didn't do anything about prosecuting these big banks.
I just hate that this discussion inevitably turns into the Bernie-wing vs Libs. Its not that. I honestly think you can criticize Obama here without turning this into a hand-wringing, all out assault on mainstream Liberalism.
That said - I just have this sinking feeling that the Dems DONT FUCKING GET IT. The impact of the financial crisis still reverberates, and I really don't think the party understands some of the optics of these kinds of things, but more importantly, the actually impact of this kind of revolving door governance by the elite class. Its as if we totally forgot that Holder just didn't do anything about prosecuting these big banks.
Poodlestrike
Banned
First, getting money to speak is not letting rich people destroy everything and the assertion it is is more than slightly ridiculous. I think you know that.
Second, no, thinking it's bad is fine. However, right now, saying so is playing directly into right wing propaganda campaigns and I think we've established pretty well that that IS bad.
Its been said many times here. Does it matter when the payment comes, if there's an expectation that after running for office these speaking engagements will be readily available? The compensation is delayed, but it doesn't mean that the influences aren't there.
Roland_Gunner
Member
How is it related? Are you seriously suggesting that in 2010 Obama told the Justice department not to bring cases forward because he would get some sweet, sweet speech money seven years later? If people really believe that, it just shows that our society has failed in explaining how complex the legal system is and education has been replaced by Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories.
Oh my god, you really think prosecutions didn't happen because Obama was trying to line his pockets and not because proving criminal intent is exceedingly difficult.
Macho Madness
Member
Do you think I'm for any of that? I've been calling my (R) representative every time one of these legislative issues comes up to let them know what I think. Sometimes they answer, sometimes they don't. I keep trying. I depend on the ACA.
I am done arguing about Obama. Don't think anyone is convincing anyone either way.
So... we can never criticize anyone on the Left for that which we don't deem to be "important" for fear of right wing propaganda campaigns? Come on. I think Obama is the goat president, but he's not perfect - and it doesn't help anyone or the party to ignore these issues.
balladofwindfishes
Member
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
To reiterate this argument:
The Democrats are doing something bad.
The GOP are doing something much worse.
If we point out that the Democrats are doing something bad, some people might not vote for them.
Therefore we shouldn't point out the Democrats are doing something bad.
This is a terrible argument when the alternative is:
The Democrats don't do something bad.
We can't point out that the Democrats aren't doing anything bad because they're not.
Why is the onus on us as citizens looking for a better politics to tolerate the continued relationship of moneyed interests and politicians, instead of the onus being on politicians to end that relationship?
Not to mention it's also a false dichotomy - it is perfectly possible to complain about the GOP as well!
Who is making that direct quid-pro-quo point? No one. The only point is related to the outsized influence of the big banks, the revolving door nature of the agencies that supposedly should be regulating these entities and an optical point that plays to the worst conceptions of the party.
People are criticizing this move not to shit on Obama, but because they want the Democratic party to succeed in the future. There's no real good defense for this.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
It's 3% of his net worth, so not really.
That's some serious whataboutism going on. Does that mean we can never criticize the Democratic party because the Republicans are worse? Part of why the Democratic party comes across as out of touch is because they take for granted the fact that there are people who will vote for them simply because they're not the Republicans. If there was a viable third party, at this point, I might consider voting for them, but there's not and never will be, so I vote for who I can, and it is part of why I want them to do better. I do not like the sudden shift in anti-choice rhetoric, for example.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Lol come on.
I've still yet to hear one good reason why this is a good thing Obama is doing. I really don't think it would be such a big deal if everyone kind of shrugged and said "yeah, he probably shouldn't do this"; people get worked up because people defending this for reasons I can't really comprehend.
Abso-fucking-lutely to this post.
At what point does doing little for a lot of money switch from something every American dreams about, to something every American hates other people doing. Look at Trump - a god awful businessman who's putting Wall Street in every corner of government. Do you think Trump voters care that much?
Add to this, there's a difference between perception of corruption, corruption, and being undiplomatic.
Are people worried Obama is corrupt?
Are people worried Obama may be tainted by corruption, and turn evil?
Are people worried about voters perceiving corruption where there is none?
Are people worried voters may perceive someone who was once the President of the United States as out of touch on issues regarding money?
Let us stop conflating these four issues, and be precise in our arguments.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Because the GOP voters are going to be lock and step with their candidate.
Listen, I want to make changes to but let's go about that once we've gotten our guys into office is all that I'm saying. We have to be able to focus on some overall good measures rather than nit picking EVERYTHING.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I'm dead serious! As long as the insidious influence of Fox and Breitbart and all those monsters exists, we need to be giving our politicians at least as much slack as they give theirs, or else we are straight up aiding and abetting them. Call them out when their actual policy goals fail you, but shit like this should be taking up exactly no bandwidth.
I'm going to repeat myself from that thread as well. What are people supposed to say for more than 5 pages? What quality discussion can be had about actions that are blatantly corrupt aside from "Fuck the GOP!"? You can talk about whether or not someone should accept speaking fees. That is debatable. The ethics of that amendment are not.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked