So, what does everyone think of President Obama's fab new lifestyle?

[fskimospy]

He passed Dodd-Frank in the wake of the most serious financial disaster in 80 years. It's no secret that Wall Street prefers Republicans to Democrats, but like many industries, they back both parties.

This is how much Wall Street hated Obama:

 

[Blackjack200]

This is how much Wall Street hated Obama:

Hated Obama or hated the Democrats? Warren was much more the enemy of Wall Street than Obama was.

In any case, I'll agree that Wall Street did largely hate Obama. I still think that taking $400k for speeches from an industry you recently regulated is obscene.

 

[fskimospy]

Hated Obama or hated the Democrats? Warren was much more the enemy of Wall Street than Obama was.

In any case, I'll agree that Wall Street did largely hate Obama. I still think that taking $400k for speeches from an industry you recently regulated is obscene.

I mean presumably most of the 2012 donations were about the presidential race, right? Wall Street contributions to Warren's race were a tiny fraction of the total.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012

Why is it obscene to take money from them? He's not in a position to regulate them now or at any time in the future.

 

[dank69]

Hated Obama or hated the Democrats? Warren was much more the enemy of Wall Street than Obama was.

In any case, I'll agree that Wall Street did largely hate Obama. I still think that taking $400k for speeches from an industry you recently regulated is obscene.

This is the same illogical thinking that fucked Hillary. If you have proof that Hillary or Obama said things counter to the policies they publicly support that would be one thing, but we don't. All we have is that they made a speech in exchange for money just like millions of other people do. The speeches could have been on any number of topics up to and including telling Wall Street to their faces what they did wrong and that they better not do it again.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think all this BS is much to do about nothing. Obama is no longer the President and deserves to live his life as he/his family sees fit, get over it and move on.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why is it obscene to take money from them? He's not in a position to regulate them now or at any time in the future.

There are employment bans in the federal government from regulators taking jobs from the industry they regulated for rather obvious reasons.

This is the problem that I have with excusing Clinton's loss with Russian interference, Comey, or the electoral college. It blinds the partisans from Clinton's very real flaws. Looking around the internet, I'm not seeing much criticism of this deal except from the typical right wing nuts, NYPost, Daily Caller, etc.

One notable exception is Matt Yglesias who has a pretty good piece in Vox about what's wrong with this deal. I don't agree with all of his framing, but overall I think it's a good piece.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

 

[Blackjack200]

This is the same illogical thinking that fucked Hillary. If you have proof that Hillary or Obama said things counter to the policies they publicly support that would be one thing, but we don't. All we have is that they made a speech in exchange for money just like millions of other people do. The speeches could have been on any number of topics up to and including telling Wall Street to their faces what they did wrong and that they better not do it again.

The issue is not what's being said at these speeches, it's the amount of money that's changing hands. I work in the financial industry and I've seen a bunch of keynote speeches, though certainly nothing at this level. The speeches are usually just a harmless behind-the-scenes look at politics and what's shaping the debate in Washington. Usually some banal advice on how to prepare for the regulatory environment to-be, but they're not getting the proverbial nuclear codes or anything.

I think all this BS is much to do about nothing. Obama is no longer the President and deserves to live his life as he/his family sees fit, get over it and move on.

I feel that to the extent that The President elects to remain in the public eye, it is fair to criticize him.

 

[dank69]

The issue is not what's being said at these speeches, it's the amount of money that's changing hands. ...

Then the GOP will continue to win. Good.

 

[Blackjack200]

Then the GOP will continue to win. Good.

How many more statehouses, congressional seats, and senate seats should the Democrats lose before trying something different?

 

[dank69]

How many more statehouses, congressional seats, and senate seats should the Democrats lose before trying something different?

It doesn't matter.

 

[fskimospy]

There are employment bans in the federal government from regulators taking jobs from the industry they regulated for rather obvious reasons.

This is the problem that I have with excusing Clinton's loss with Russian interference, Comey, or the electoral college. It blinds the partisans from Clinton's very real flaws. Looking around the internet, I'm not seeing much criticism of this deal except from the typical right wing nuts, NYPost, Daily Caller, etc.

One notable exception is Matt Yglesias who has a pretty good piece in Vox about what's wrong with this deal. I don't agree with all of his framing, but overall I think it's a good piece.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

By that logic the president could have no job at all after office because in effect he regulates every industry. This is not a good argument.

 

[fskimospy]

How many more statehouses, congressional seats, and senate seats should the Democrats lose before trying something different?

What is the basis for the idea that Democrats lose state elections due to an insufficiently economically populist message?

 

[Blackjack200]

By that logic the president could have no job at all after office because in effect he regulates every industry. This is not a good argument.

Yglesias points out that Obama, as a former president, receives lifelong healthcare and a pension of $200k a year, easily in the 90th percentile of incomes.

What is the basis for the idea that Democrats lose state elections due to an insufficiently economically populist message?

For one thing, Bernie Sanders is offering an economically populist message and he's the most popular politician in the country.

 

[fskimospy]

Yglesias points out that Obama, as a former president, receives lifelong healthcare and a pension of $200k a year, easily in the 90th percentile of incomes.

Right, but is the argument really that he simply shouldn't work or make money anymore?

For one thing, Bernie Sanders is offering an economically populist message and he's the most popular politician in the country.

For many years Hillary Clinton was offering a standard democratic economic message and was among the most popular politicians in the country. If Sanders goes and campaigns for people and they start winning then this will be a much better point. So far I haven't seen any evidence that people sharing Sanders' views have been effective.

 

[Blackjack200]

Right, but is the argument really that he simply shouldn't work or make money anymore?

I'd say if a former president can't make an ethical distinction between a $400k speaking fee for Wall Street, and work that is more aligned to the public interest, he should probably avoid employment entirely.

For many years Hillary Clinton was offering a standard democratic economic message and was among the most popular politicians in the country. If Sanders goes and campaigns for people and they start winning then this will be a much better point. So far I haven't seen any evidence that people sharing Sanders' views have been effective.

I think Clinton's standard democratic economic message came up against a more progressive and populist message in 2008 and she lost to Obama. She won the primary in 2016, but I think it's disingenuous to not recognize her substantial advantages in that race. Don't you think that Sanders outperformed his expectations? And don't you think that there's something to take from that?

If it's not that voters are ready for a more earnest populism, what is it?

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say if a former president can't make an ethical distinction between a $400k speaking fee for Wall Street, and work that is more aligned to the public interest, he should probably avoid employment entirely.

Why is it unethical to give a speech to Wall Street? Would it be more ethical if he gave a speech to some other organization? If so, why?

I think Clinton's standard democratic economic message came up against a more progressive and populist message in 2008 and she lost to Obama. She won the primary in 2016, but I think it's disingenuous to not recognize her substantial advantages in that race. Don't you think that Sanders outperformed his expectations? And don't you think that there's something to take from that?

If it's not that voters are ready for a more earnest populism, what is it?

Obama and Clinton's platforms in 2008 were nearly identical. Obama won because he was a better campaigner in my opinion. As for Sanders outperforming expectations that seems reasonable, but I don't think that outperforming primary expectations means much as to general election success. Again, let's see some Sanders-ites win elections and then I'll be on board with a changing message. So far I haven't seen it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why is it unethical to give a speech to Wall Street? Would it be more ethical if he gave a speech to some other organization? If so, why?

It's not unethical to give a speech to Wall Street. It's unethical for a President, barely 3 months out of the job and still essentially the leader of his political party, to take $400k for a speech to Wall Street.

Obama and Clinton's platforms in 2008 were nearly identical. Obama won because he was a better campaigner in my opinion. As for Sanders outperforming expectations that seems reasonable, but I don't think that outperforming primary expectations means much as to general election success. Again, let's see some Sanders-ites win elections and then I'll be on board with a changing message. So far I haven't seen it.

That sort of view, that Obama won the '08 primary because he was a better campaigner, is one thing that Matt Taibbi highlighted in his review of "Shattered". It's essentially the view that elections are won by campaigns that can build an electoral coalition by taking the right positions and finding the right talking points that herd voters into their camps like cattle.

For all my recent criticism of Obama, I believe that in 2008 he was far more sincere and more authentic than Clinton was, and that explains his win and grassroots support much better than his ability to campaign.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not unethical to give a speech to Wall Street. It's unethical for a President, barely 3 months out of the job and still essentially the leader of his political party, to take $400k for a speech to Wall Street.

Why is it unethical? How many months should he wait and/or what would be an acceptable dollar amount? What's this based on?

That sort of view, that Obama won the '08 primary because he was a better campaigner, is one thing that Matt Taibbi highlighted in his review of "Shattered". It's essentially the view that elections are won by campaigns that can build an electoral coalition by taking the right positions and finding the right talking points that herd voters into their camps like cattle.

For all my recent criticism of Obama, I believe that in 2008 he was far more sincere and more authentic than Clinton was, and that explains his win and grassroots support much better than his ability to campaign.

What you're describing is basically better campaigning.

As for who was more sincere, on the substance that was easily Clinton. Remember one of their primary differences in policy was that she was proposing a health care bill that looked a lot like Obamacare in that it had an individual mandate. Obama HAMMERED her on that saying that he didn't think an individual mandate was the right way to go. As soon as he actually proposed health care legislation the mandate came back because...well... it had to. He ditched it during the campaign because it was unpopular. Had he spent any time reading up on health policy (and we both know he did), he would have known it was essential.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why is it unethical? How many months should he wait and/or what would be an acceptable dollar amount? What's this based on?

It's unethical because that money purchases influence from Washington.

Yglesias conceded that its difficult to draw bright lines around what kind of work would be okay for a former president to accept. I think my view is not that we need any specific rules here, but that a president as smart as Obama understands the concerns that industry has undue influence in Washington right now, and it's tied into concentration of wealth and primacy of business interests. You may disagree, but I think people see themselves as being on the other side of the table from Wall Street, and these speeches put Obama and the party on the side of Wall Street.

What you're describing is basically better campaigning.

As for who was more sincere, on the substance that was easily Clinton. Remember one of their primary differences in policy was that she was proposing a health care bill that looked a lot like Obamacare in that it had an individual mandate. Obama HAMMERED her on that saying that he didn't think an individual mandate was the right way to go. As soon as he actually proposed health care legislation the mandate came back because...well... it had to. He ditched it during the campaign because it was unpopular. Had he spent any time reading up on health policy (and we both know he did), he would have known it was essential.

Yeah, I mean, it wasn't limited to healthcare either. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, and also promised tacitly (or maybe explicitly, I don't remember) to get us out of the Middle East. The promises he made in 2008 didn't look very much like what he delivered, and you can say that it was the R controlled house, and then the senate, but some of it was Obama.

That said, my memory of that race was that it was a lot more about Clinton's vote on the Iraq war than it was about the individual mandate. I think it's hard to argue that Obama was seen as more sincere and authentic, and Clinton was seen as more establishment and more politically motivated.

 

[Thebobo]

Well since you said everyone, I could care less, it's just another distraction.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's unethical because that money purchases influence from Washington.

Yglesias conceded that its difficult to draw bright lines around what kind of work would be okay for a former president to accept. I think my view is not that we need any specific rules here, but that a president as smart as Obama understands the concerns that industry has undue influence in Washington right now, and it's tied into concentration of wealth and primacy of business interests. You may disagree, but I think people see themselves as being on the other side of the table from Wall Street, and these speeches put Obama and the party on the side of Wall Street.



Yeah, I mean, it wasn't limited to healthcare either. Obama promised to close Guantanamo, and also promised tacitly (or maybe explicitly, I don't remember) to get us out of the Middle East. The promises he made in 2008 didn't look very much like what he delivered, and you can say that it was the R controlled house, and then the senate, but some of it was Obama.

That said, my memory of that race was that it was a lot more about Clinton's vote on the Iraq war than it was about the individual mandate. I think it's hard to argue that Obama was seen as more sincere and authentic, and Clinton was seen as more establishment and more politically motivated.

So is this where you buy your clothes?
https://sackclothandashes.com/

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So as part of this fab lifestyle is Obama wearing bell bottoms with a paisley shirt or nehru jacket?

 

[zinfamous]

Are you just now realizing liberals are the most hypocritical class of people known to exist?

They are the ones saying don't shame fat people... But I'm not marrying/dating/fucking a fattie.

They are the ones that are the rockstars/moviestars saying to help the poor and middle class.... But do you see any of them marrying outside of their elite status? Of course not.

staggering, the amount of projection on display.