Support NeoGAF

[More_Badass]

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.

I think it is the other way around. Dont spread right wing propaganda for them, by using the same arguments as them. I mean, shouldnt that instantly be telling? If you using the same criticism that the right wing media is using, maybe you should rethink your criticism? Just because you're saying it doesn't make it any better.

 

[Poodlestrike]

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.

It's not that 5 pages is a particularly low number in and of itself it's that the Obama thread should be less than one. We CANNOT let ourselves fight about ridiculous bullshit like this.

 

[Blader]

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.

These speaking engagements are available to all ex-presidents because of the stature that comes with being a President of the United States. Anyone who elected or re-elected to the presidency is automatically going to be given the opportunity to give paid speeches four or eight years later.

If this delayed compensation is proof of influence, then literally every President who will ever be elected is always going to be similarly influenced.

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.

To borrow a line, just because you think something isn't bad doesn't mean you think it's particularly good.

I don't think this is a big deal at all and don't care if Obama gives paid speeches at Wall Street sponsored events, just like I didn't really care that Hillary gave paid speeches to actual Wall Street firms. But at the same time, Obama speaking at a conference of healthcare investors is not what I would consider item number one on my personal wishlist of post-presidency Obama priorities, either.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's not that 5 pages is a particularly low number in and of itself it's that the Obama thread should be less than one. We CANNOT let ourselves fight about ridiculous bullshit like this.

Agreed, we can't start stupid fights like this. Obama should have simply promised to donate the proceeds to charity right from the start, then there would have been no fight at all.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Agreed, we can't start stupid fights like this. Obama should have simply promised to donate the proceeds to charity right from the start, then there would have been no fight at all.

That would've worked, sure. What also would've worked was people taking responsibility for the effect their reactions can cause and keeping it to themselves.

/shrug

Either way I'd be happy.

 

[Macho Madness]

I think it is the other way around. Dont spread right wing propaganda for them, by using the same arguments as them. I mean, shouldnt that instantly be telling? If you using the same criticism that the right wing media is using, maybe you should rethink your criticism? Just because you're saying it doesn't make it any better.

No, because the right wing media will use any ammo they have regardless of whether or not I criticize Democrats. The difference with them is they'd defend it if it was a Republican.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That would've worked, sure. What also would've worked was people taking responsibility for the effect their reactions can cause and keeping it to themselves.

/shrug

Either way I'd be happy.

Right, but when we have these two possible alternatives (1. politician avoids doing something politically harmful, 2. people avoid complaining about politician doing something politically harmful), I'm pretty content to say that on balance, 1. is the better way of avoiding said fight. So given that we're agreed that this fight should never have happened, and given you are indifferent between 1. and 2. but there is clear evidence a lot of people care a lot about 1., I'm hoping we can all agree that 1. should have been the case, and then move on accordingly.

This reminds me so much of the Perez/Ellison dispute. There were an awful lot of people telling us how much they didn't care who it was and the most important thing was that we didn't fight about it, while simultaneously fighting like blue blazes to make sure that their side predominated. It's some gross hypocrisy.

 

[PBY]

I think it is the other way around. Dont spread right wing propaganda for them, by using the same arguments as them. I mean, shouldnt that instantly be telling? If you using the same criticism that the right wing media is using, maybe you should rethink your criticism? Just because you're saying it doesn't make it any better.

I think perhaps there's a language issue here. I think that right wing propaganda leaps to CORRUPTION, PAY-TO-PLAY, QUID PRO QUO, which clearly isn't happening here. Critics of his actions need to emphasize that the issues here relate to: (i) a historic revolving door of regulator/private side interests that have led to a system where the financial sector wields outsized influence, and (ii) an optics argument that the Democrats are becoming the party of the elites and are out of touch.

These speaking engagements are available to all ex-presidents because of the stature that comes with being a President of the United States. Anyone who elected or re-elected to the presidency is automatically going to be given the opportunity to give paid speeches four or eight years later.

If this delayed compensation is proof of influence, then literally every President who will ever be elected is always going to be similarly influenced.



To borrow a line, just because you think something isn't bad doesn't mean you think it's particularly good.

I don't think this is a big deal at all and don't care if Obama gives paid speeches at Wall Street sponsored events, just like I didn't really care that Hillary gave paid speeches to actual Wall Street firms. But at the same time, Obama speaking at a conference of healthcare investors is not what I would consider item number one on my personal wishlist of post-presidency Obama priorities, either.

I don't think this is a "big deal" and I don't think most people do. I think Obama can do whatever he wants, and I agree that past presidents have all been afforded this right. That said, because its been done in the past isn't a great defense, particularly given our nation's history with money in politics. I DO think that in our current political climate it is a bad move for a party that claims to represent workers.

 

[More_Badass]

No, because the right wing media will use any ammo they have regardless of whether or not I criticize Democrats. The difference with them is they'd defend it if it was a Republican.

It would still be the same argument though, your intent doesnt change that.

 

[shinra-bansho]

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.

It also wouldn't be a big deal if everyone kind of shrugged and said "who cares if he does this" instead of getting worked up over it because other people don't care that he does this.

 

[PBY]

It also wouldn't be a big deal if everyone kind of shrugged and said "who cares if he does this" instead of getting worked up over it because other people don't care that he does this.

I mean... my stance is to shrug and say "he probably shouldn't do this" (and I think most critics probably agree here).

So its not that far off. I do think it matters somewhat given his administration's stance on Wall Street, and the party implications thereto.

 

[PBY]

It would still be the same argument though, your intent doesnt change that.

See my above post. I don't think its the same argument.

 

[Blader]

I don't think this is a "big deal" and I don't think most people do. I think Obama can do whatever he wants, and I agree that past presidents have all been afforded this right. That said, because its been done in the past isn't a great defense, particularly given our nation's history with money in politics. I DO think that in our current political climate it is a bad move for a party that claims to represent workers.

If Obama was an up-and-coming politician with a shot at the presidency in three years, then I'd agree. But Obama isn't running for office again, he isn't influencing legislation anymore, and any credible promotion of the Democratic Party as a party that represents workers is going to have come from the candidates running to be their representatives.

 

[Macho Madness]

It's still the same argument, your intent doesnt change that.

Maybe Obama should stop giving right wing media ammunition that aren't blanks then.

EDIT: PBY basically nailed it. I'm not really mad at Obama, I'm mad at the system that makes this kind of thing usual. That just accepts this as normal and everyone saying "$400k isn't a lot of money" when that would be life changing for me. It speaks to the out of touch nature in both parties.

 

[PBY]

If Obama was an up-and-coming politician with a shot at the presidency in three years, then I'd agree. But Obama isn't running for office again, he isn't influencing legislation anymore, and any credible promotion of the Democratic Party as a party that represents workers is going to have come from the candidates running to be their representatives.

I mean... you realize though that just because the compensation is deferred... doesn't mean that those incentives don't exist? And to be clear, this isn't an argument, again, for pay-to-play, etc.... but rather against how intertwined DC and Wall Street are.

Shit, I fucking work in it. I'm arguing against my own interests here.

 

[shinra-bansho]

His administration and the legislature passed regulatory reforms that strengthened oversight, perhaps not enough for some, but did nonetheless, while preventing collapses that would have wrought even greater economic disaster with funds that were ultimately returned to government coffers.

He's speaking presumably about the hallmark of his presidency. And he commands high value because he was the 44th President of the United States.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

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.

Right, claiming a quid-pro-quo would require evidence. Given the lack of anything like that you've fallen back on shadowy claims about how this speech 'relates' to a supposed lack of prosecution of the financial industry. Just like we should be able acknowledge Obama is making a mistake by accepting this speaking fee without forgiving all of the GOP issues, people should be able to criticize this specific action without digging back up specious claims from six years ago.

I mean... you realize though that just because the compensation is deferred... doesn't mean that those incentives don't exist? And to be clear, this isn't an argument, again, for pay-to-play, etc.... but rather against how intertwined DC and Wall Street are.

Shit, I fucking work in it. I'm arguing against my own interests here.

He's just asking questions here folks.

 

[PBY]

His administration and the legislature passed regulatory reforms that strengthened oversight, perhaps not enough for some, but did nonetheless, while preventing collapses that would have wrought even greater economic disaster with funds that were ultimately returned to government coffers.

Yes.... AND his administration was extremely soft prosecuting financial crime. You can do both good and bad, and recognize both (even as a net positive) without turning this into a purity test.

 

[teiresias]

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.

What's there to even get about optics? People with these same concerns voted for Trump though he had​ the worst optics on this before the election, has even worse optics now given his Cabinet picks, and they still don't regret their vote all because they fall for his populist rhetoric that tells them what the want to hear, truth and ability to actually do it be dammed.

 

[PBY]

What's there to even get about optics? People with these same concerns voted for Trump though he had​ the worst optics on this before the election, has even worse optics now given his Cabinet picks, and they still don't regret their vote all because they fall for his populist rhetoric that tells them what the want to hear, truth and ability to actually do it be dammed.

You kind of just proved my point. The point isn't to immediately turn to the other party. The point is to make your party fucking stand for something.

edit: I just don't know how the party changes for the better/in a way that broadens our tent without doing this kind of self-examination.

 

[teiresias]

You kind of just proved my point. The point isn't to immediately turn to the other party. The point is to make your party fucking stand for something.

No, my point being the margin that decided the election didn't care about the issue these optics are supposed to be highlight in the light of "we'll have so many great coal jobs".

 

[PBY]

No, my point being the margin that decided the election didn't care about the issue these optics are supposed to be highlight in the light of "we'll have so many great coal jobs".

To me these aren't distinct issues though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You kind of just proved my point. The point isn't to immediately turn to the other party. The point is to make your party fucking stand for something.

edit: I just don't know how the party changes for the better/in a way that broadens our tent without doing this kind of self-examination.

"We don't need to change anything, because we're better than the GOP!" is setting yourself a pretty low baseline tbh.

 

[Blader]

I mean... you realize though that just because the compensation is deferred... doesn't mean that those incentives don't exist? And to be clear, this isn't an argument, again, for pay-to-play, etc.... but rather against how intertwined DC and Wall Street are.

Shit, I fucking work in it. I'm arguing against my own interests here.

I'm honestly having a hard time parsing your argument in a way that isn't "Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street just by virtue of being president."

 

[teiresias]

To me these aren't distinct issues though.

I agree, I'm saying approaching it directly with campaign rhetoric is what drove the votes despite the optics outside the stump.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Yes.... AND his administration was extremely soft prosecuting financial crime. You can do both good and bad, and recognize both (even as a net positive) without turning this into a purity test.

I'm not sure where any mention of purity tests came about.
My general reaction to him doing this is apathy.

Yours is apparently upset. Compounded by others not being upset. And implication it matters because of his administration's actions that well preceded this. Amounting to some kind of insinuation that there's anything linking these events.

Maybe Obama should stop giving right wing media ammunition that aren't blanks then.

EDIT: PBY basically nailed it. I'm not really mad at Obama, I'm mad at the system that makes this kind of thing usual. That just accepts this as normal and everyone saying "$400k isn't a lot of money" when that would be life changing for me. It speaks to the out of touch nature in both parties.

No one's said it's not a lot of money in absolute terms.

He's a former POTUS.

No one's paying you or me that money to speak because ultimately no one gives a crap what you or I as an individual think enough and we are simply not that important, prestigious or celebrated.

Maybe this is what is most galling to people.

 

[PBY]

I'm honestly having a hard time parsing your argument in a way that isn't "Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street just by virtue of being president."

First off... I think you're approaching my arguments with the backstop of Bernie-ology. I'm not that. I work in finance.

Second - I'm not making an explicit corruption argument. I'm just saying that, if you can get paid immediately after leaving office by those groups you are supposedly hired to regulate, there are undoubtedly conflicts of interest there and perverse incentives.

NOW - the existence of perverse incentives/conflicts does not mean that anything unethical is taking place; however, I don't think its a great move for the most public figure of a party to lean into these types of situations for no discernible reason. Its a bad optics point (that is tied to all of the elite liberal stereotypes that don't help the party) and it reinforces the incestuousness of DC and Wall Street (which his administration, particularly Holder, has a sub-optimal record on).

 

[Sirpopopop]

And what is taking a stand on Obama here doing besides promoting Class Warfare?

It's dangerous to vilify a group just because they are Wall Street. It's the same poisonous shit I see here in SF with the locals vilification of the tech industry.

 

[JesseEwiak]

"We don't need to change anything, because we're better than the GOP!" is setting yourself a pretty low baseline tbh.

Still better off than the party you want the Democrats to emulate in their practices and positions will be in a few weeks.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm honestly having a hard time parsing your argument in a way that isn't "Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street just by virtue of being president."

Let's start from the start.

1. At least some Democratic politicians might be inclined to change the way they vote on a particular bill if there was some reward at the end of it. We can identify two mechanisms for this:
a. conscious corruption. They change a line in a bill, in return, they get $2,000 in speaking fees after leaving office.
b. soft influence. They get to pal around with wealthy people, get invited to all the parties and soirees, get told they'll have a great speaking gig after they leave office. They don't consciously mean to change how they operate, but subconsciously they're now predisposed to be more favourable to moneyed interests.

2. Accordingly, it would be better if we discouraged Democratic politicians receiving inducements from moneyed interests, including a good grace period after leaving office, to prevent the way Democratic politicians vote or author bills being influenced.

3. This is true even if there are some (most) Democratic politicians who are uninfluenced and genuinely morally upright. I.e., I'm reasonably confident that the fee Obama received did not influence him, from what I know of his character. However, I can't say that in confidence about all Democratic politicians, and so I would rather have this safeguard mentioned in 2. in place.

4. Obama is a senior Democratic politician with significant influence over the party. Future Democrats will seek to emulate him, his actions form a model for what they do or do not do. Given 2., it would therefore have been better if Obama had chosen not to do this, since Obama refusing to do so would help prevent others, who may be influenced under 1., from doing so.

Saying PBY's argument is "Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street" is a straw man. It looks nothing like the argument set out above, which I think is a fairly pedantically constructed version of what PBY believes.

 

[PBY]

Still better off than the party you want the Democrats to emulate in their practices and positions will be in a few weeks.

But... but they won the election?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Still better off than the party you want the Democrats to emulate in their practices and positions will be in a few weeks.

Is this where you (incorrectly) intimate I'm a Corbyn supporter again? That one's a little tedious now, although I suppose unsurprising coming from a poster who supported the Nazis.

Spoiler

Annoying when people misattribute your support, isn't it?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Paul Ryan group pouring 3.5 million in GA-6 for Handel

Any outside support from Dems yet? Haven't seen any news. Though I assume Ossoff has raised millions himself already.

 

[Blader]

First off... I think you're approaching my arguments with the backstop of Bernie-ology. I'm not that. I work in finance.

Second - I'm not making an explicit corruption argument. I'm just saying that, if you can get paid immediately after leaving office by those groups you are supposedly hired to regulate, there are undoubtedly conflicts of interest there and perverse incentives.

NOW - the existence of perverse incentives/conflicts does not mean that anything unethical is taking place; however, I don't think its a great move for the most public figure of a party to lean into these types of situations for no discernible reason. Its a bad optics point (that is tied to all of the elite liberal stereotypes that don't help the party) and it reinforces the incestuousness of DC and Wall Street (which his administration, particularly Holder, has a sub-optimal record on).

Let's start from the start.

1. At least some Democratic politicians might be inclined to change the way they vote on a particular bill if there was some reward at the end of it. We can identify two mechanisms for this:
a. conscious corruption. They change a line in a bill, in return, they get $2,000 in speaking fees after leaving office.
b. soft influence. They get to pal around with wealthy people, get invited to all the parties and soirees, get told they'll have a great speaking gig after they leave office. They don't consciously mean to change how they operate, but subconsciously they're now predisposed to be more favourable to moneyed interests.

2. Accordingly, it would be better if we discouraged Democratic politicians receiving inducements from moneyed interests, including a good grace period after leaving office, to prevent the way Democratic politicians vote or author bills being influenced.

3. This is true even if there are some (most) Democratic politicians who are uninfluenced and genuinely morally upright. I.e., I'm reasonably confident that the fee Obama received did not influence him, from what I know of his character. However, I can't say that in confidence about all Democratic politicians, and so I would rather have this safeguard mentioned in 2. in place.

4. Obama is a senior Democratic politician with significant influence over the party. Future Democrats will seek to emulate him, his actions form a model for what they do or do not do. Given 2., it would therefore have been better if Obama had chosen not to do this, since Obama refusing to do so would help prevent others, who may be influenced under 1., from doing so.

Saying PBY's argument is "Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street" is a straw man. It looks nothing like the argument set out above, which I think is a fairly pedantically constructed version of what PBY believes.

If the possibility of giving paid speeches after your presidency always exists, then the existence of influence -- whether soft or through blatant corruption -- will always be there from the start of the president's term, no? The only way you could prevent that then is with an outright ban on ex-presidents giving paid speeches (a grace period wouldn't work, because if they're already waiting 4-8 years before they can cash in on the paid speaking circuit, then what's another year or so?). Of course, candidates could always run on a platform of vowing to never give paid speeches after their term is up, but if they end up doing so -- and, given their clout, expenses and lack of consistent income, well, why wouldn't they? -- then they up becoming liars of their own making.

"Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street" isn't something I pulled out of thin air. Unless you make it impossible for presidents to give paid speeches after their presidency, then the opportunity to give those speeches someday will always exist, beginning on day one of their presidency, which you both are saying can lead to influence on legislation long before those speeches are given. Given that, I don't think what I said is a straw man at all.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Paul Ryan group pouring 3.5 million in GA-6 for Handel

Any outside support from Dems yet? Haven't seen any news. Though I assume Ossoff has raised millions himself already.

DCCC has ads that they are running. Dunno how much they've spent.

 

[Stinkles]

Russia is ecstatic today because they can slipstream astroturfing of this right into the normal self destructive left wing ha.d wringing and purity tests.

Oh look real posters and one post 2012 junior accounts as far as the eye can see!

 

[Blader]

What's really outrageous to me is that anyone would pay George W. Bush to speak. Even putting aside the disasters of his presidency, he's a bad speaker!

 

[PBY]

Russia is ecstatic today because they can slipstream astroturfing of this right into the normal self destructive left wing ha.d wringing and purity tests.

Oh look real posters and one post 2012 junior accounts as far as the eye can see!

I just wish I could say "Man, wish Obama wouldn't do this; not a big deal; not a great look for the party" and that be the end of it.

Because that's really all I feel, not sure why you're assigning hand-wringing and purity tests to this.

 

[dramatis]

when's the tax "plan"

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

DCCC has ads that they are running. Dunno how much they've spent.

They've spent a lot. Ossoff has an obscene amount of money

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

If the possibility of giving paid speeches after your presidency always exists, then the existence of influence -- whether soft or through blatant corruption -- will always be there from the start of the president's term, no? The only way you could prevent that then is with an outright ban on ex-presidents giving paid speeches (a grace period wouldn't work, because if they're already waiting 4-8 years before they can cash in on the paid speaking circuit, then what's another year or so?). Of course, candidates could always run on a platform of vowing to never give paid speeches after their term is up, but if they end up doing so -- and, given their clout, expenses and lack of consistent income, well, why wouldn't they? -- then they up becoming liars of their own making.

"Democratic presidents are automatically corrupted by Wall Street" isn't something I pulled out of thin air. Unless you make it impossible for presidents to give paid speeches after their presidency, then the opportunity to give those speeches someday will always exist, beginning on day one of their presidency, which you both are saying can lead to influence on legislation long before those speeches are given. Given that, I don't think what I said is a straw man at all.

Not taking the speeches shows that wasn't a consideration during his time in office. It also sets a bar for future presidents to follow a higher ethical code of conduct or look less ethical than Obama was. The temptation shouldn't be an issue if they aren't going to take the money!

 

[Pandora012]

So what is the President trying to do with signing the Antiquities Act?

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

What's really outrageous to me is that anyone would pay George W. Bush to speak. Even putting aside the disasters of his presidency, he's a bad speaker!

Because they're barely-disguised appearance fees.

 

[sc0la]

when's the tax "plan"

No more taxes. Infinite revenue. The economy will grow SO HARD that everyone will have a job whether they want it, need it, like it, or a physically capable of working. *crying eagle*

EDIT: oh WHEN
eh no clue

 

[Blader]

Not taking the speeches shows that wasn't a consideration during his time in office. It also sets a bar for future presidents to follow a higher ethical code of conduct or look less ethical than Obama was. The temptation shouldn't be an issue if they aren't going to take the money!

But you don't know they're not going to take the money until 8 years later!

I understand the optics argument. But I don't buy that Obama and Holder were light on prosecuting Wall Street executives because Obama believed it would cramp his ability to cash in 8 years later. And I'm not saying, nor do I believe, that PBY is arguing that -- but there are certainly people in the other thread who are, and I think that's pretty ridiculous.

 

[Dominican Power]

Trump is so stupid.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I just wish I could say "Man, wish Obama wouldn't do this; not a big deal; not a great look for the party" and that be the end of it.

Because that's really all I feel, not sure why you're assigning hand-wringing and purity tests to this.

Yes.... AND his administration was extremely soft prosecuting financial crime. You can do both good and bad, and recognize both (even as a net positive) without turning this into a purity test.

Maybe because you keep using this speech as a chance to re-litigate the administrations handling of the entire financial crisis? Prosecuting large scale financial crimes is incredibly complex and you keep making these shadowy claims about "differed compensation" to question how these decisions were reached.

 

[Sirpopopop]

But... but they won the election?

Labour won the election?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If the possibility of giving paid speeches after your presidency always exists, then the existence of influence -- whether soft or through blatant corruption -- will always be there from the start of the president's term, no? The only way you could prevent that then is with an outright ban on ex-presidents giving paid speeches (a grace period wouldn't work, because if they're already waiting 4-8 years before they can cash in on the paid speaking circuit, then what's another year or so?). Of course, candidates could always run on a platform of vowing to never give paid speeches after their term is up, but if they end up doing so -- and, given their clout, expenses and lack of consistent income, well, why wouldn't they? -- then they up becoming liars of their own making.

The longer the period from office, the less likelihood there is it represents a good value for politicians or companies. For example, copying up to Lehman Brothers would have been a great move in the short-run, but if you cozied up in 2004 and there was a ten years good grace window... there's a degree of uncertainty about it. Are you really going to get your pay-offs at the end of the period? Is Microsoft the company you want to be cosy with, or might it be Apple by then? Do you cosy up to Uber - will Uber even exist in however many years? It becomes much harder to make these calculations over longer timespans.

I mean, I agree that the lowest amount of influence happens when you just stop them doing that altogether, but I'm pretty happy saying there's probably just some cut-off point where I no longer care if a 78-year old former politician might get a somewhat better retirement package, maybe. I couldn't name a specific figure from the top of my head, and would have to defer to some sort of econometric study on the matter, but intuitively I am relatively confident it's more than, what, 3 months after leaving office?

 

[PBY]

Maybe because you keep using this speech as a chance to re-litigate the administrations handling of the entire financial crisis? Prosecuting large scale financial crimes is incredibly complex and you keep making these shadowy claims about "differed compensation" to question how these decisions were reached.

I mean... I'm not relitigating that, pretty sure that's settled.

I work in the sector on the legal side, trust me, I am very aware of how difficult it is. If you've read about Holder's philosophy in the sector, I just fundamentally disagree on approach.