Obama Goes From White House to Wall Street in Less Than One Year - Polidicks

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-18/obama-goes-from-white-house-to-wall-street-in-less-than-one-year[/url] [quote]Hillary Clinton says she made a mistake when she gave speeches on Wall Street after leaving government. Taking money from banks, she writes in her new memoir, created the impression she was in their pocket. Her old boss doesn’t seem to share her concern. Last month, just before her book “What Happened” was published, Barack Obama spoke in New York to clients of Northern Trust Corp. for about $400,000, a person familiar with his appearance said. Last week, he reminisced about the White House for Carlyle Group LP, one of the world’s biggest private equity firms, according to two people who were there. Next week, he’ll give a keynote speech at investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s health-care conference. Obama is coming to Wall Street less than a year after leaving the White House, following a path that’s well trod and well paid. While he can’t run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power. His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on and disappoint anyone expecting him to avoid a trap that snared Clinton. Or, as some of his executive friends see it, he’s just a private citizen giving a few paid speeches to other successful people while writing his next book.[/quote]

[QUOTE] His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he’ll be on and disappoint anyone expecting him to avoid a trap that snared Clinton. [B]Or, as some of his executive friends see it, he’s just a private citizen giving a few paid speeches to other successful people while writing his next book.[/B][/QUOTE] I mean, if I was told I'd get paid $400,000 for a speech, hell yeah I'd do it. That said, like the article itself says, I really, really hope this isn't a sign of him slowly slipping into the pockets of some private firms. He's too good for that.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52696316]I mean, if I was told I'd get paid $400,000 for a speech, hell yeah I'd do it. That said, like the article itself says, I really, really hope this isn't a sign of him slowly slipping into the pockets of some private firms. He's too good for that.[/QUOTE] Are you implying he already wasn't?

Don't get rose-colored glasses now. Obama was as corporatist and neo-liberal as they come. Bailed out Wall Street, didn't regulate the banks, didn't prosecute any of those scumbags for tanking the economy with their fraudulent practices, pushed TPP, the list goes on. This is just him cashing in.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52696606]Don't get rose-colored glasses now. Obama was as corporatist and neo-liberal as they come. Bailed out Wall Street, [B]didn't regulate the banks[/B], didn't prosecute any of those scumbags, pushed TPP, the list goes on. This is just him cashing in.[/QUOTE] This one's objectively not true, his administration wrote up and passed a financial regulation law which the GOP is now trying to repeal [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act[/url]

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52696610]This one's objectively not true, his administration wrote up and passed a financial regulation law which the GOP is now trying to repeal [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act[/url][/QUOTE] And many economists consider Dodd-Frank to be kid's gloves that doesn't go far enough. The fundamental problem of predatory "too big to fail" banks still exists. Three out of four are bigger now than before the recession. A government bought by Wall Street isn't going to be tough on regulating them. [editline]19th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Trebgarta;52696646]Paid speeches being evil is a way of thinking I sincerely disagree with. The corporations don't need paid speeches to influence politicians, being this public about it would actually be counterproductive. Let's not forget why Hillary said that she made a mistake: [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-10/clinton-done-with-being-a-candidate-as-she-recalls-2016-errors[/url] Obama isn't running for office anywhere. He doesn't need to convince voters.[/QUOTE] Because it's not to influence Obama. It's his payout for doing them favors while in office.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52696663]Obama's time isn't worth 400k[/QUOTE] The dude's practically a rockstar, man. His time is worth a lot; he's one of the most popular ex-presidents there's ever been and he's very well educated, 8 years of presidential experience under his belt, and has a lot of connections besides. He could probably pick an outrageous price (say $5,000,000 a speech) and it'd still get paid.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52696663]Half true. Obama's time isn't worth 400k, but he gets to bill 400k legally and when someone asks then it's for "giving a speech".[/QUOTE] I think anyone has the time to make $400,000 for just about an hour of talking. [editline]19th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52696316]I mean, if I was told I'd get paid $400,000 for a speech, hell yeah I'd do it. That said, like the article itself says, I really, really hope this isn't a sign of him slowly slipping into the pockets of some private firms. He's too good for that.[/QUOTE] You realize you can't get elected to high office in the US without corporate backing already?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52696646]Paid speeches being evil is a way of thinking I sincerely disagree with. The corporations don't need paid speeches to influence politicians, being this public about it would actually be counterproductive. Let's not forget why Hillary said that she made a mistake: [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-10/clinton-done-with-being-a-candidate-as-she-recalls-2016-errors[/url] Obama isn't running for office anywhere. He doesn't need to convince voters.[/QUOTE] Clinton's issue is she was doing pay-to-play, not just giving speeches. Doesn't seem like Obama is really doing anything wrong here, unless hes getting paid for pay-to-play stuff he did while in office. But more likely hes just earning some funbucks to go on top his presidential salary.

I haven't even made 400,000 in my entire life yet. I can't help but wonder where all these speakers put their fees.

If it were me, Id do a bunch of speeches and then just give the money away. Trick wall street into doing more charity

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;52697455]If it were me, Id do a bunch of speeches and then just give the money away. Trick wall street into doing more charity[/QUOTE] I doubt they really care where the money goes

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52697077]Clinton's issue is she was doing pay-to-play, not just giving speeches. Doesn't seem like Obama is really doing anything wrong here, unless hes getting paid for pay-to-play stuff he did while in office. But more likely hes just earning some funbucks to go on top his presidential salary.[/QUOTE] Most pay-to-play politicians just go and work at lobbying firms directly. Seems like most of Obama's money has come from books and investments anyways.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52696316]I mean, if I was told I'd get paid $400,000 for a speech, hell yeah I'd do it. That said, like the article itself says, I really, really hope this isn't a sign of him slowly slipping into the pockets of some private firms. He's too good for that.[/QUOTE] He was an ok president after and before two shit presidents. His stance on economic disparity and the miasma that the VA was aren't going to go away just because Trump is a literal mouth breathing orange clusterfucktrashfire. He was a decent man, and pretty ok president; no more, no less. As for Hilary, she openly stated act like who you are in private and someone completely different in public, and while Obama wasn't that extreme or mercenary it's no secret rhetoric from parts of the rural south and south west annoy the fuck out of him enough for him to be caught multiple times talking shit on record. Obama is not suit jesus, he's just a (mostly)competent leader who also wasted three years of his acting terms trying to compromise with racists and oligarchs.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52697705]Most pay-to-play politicians just go and work at lobbying firms directly. Seems like most of Obama's money has come from books and investments anyways.[/QUOTE] Better pay-to-play politicians will make money off of a speech in exchange for some sort of political dealings, like what the Clinton Foundation was doing. I doubt Obama is getting his pay-out for stuff he did years ago, but it wouldn't really surprise me if thats the case.

If the content of the speech is publicly available then I don't really see an issue with stuff like this. (The article wasn't entirely clear on that unless I overlooked it.) If it's made behind closed doors though then it's iffier. And if they pull a Hillary and do underhanded bullshit like noise generators then that's simply shady as fuck.