Obama Goes Full Clinton Foundation With Series Of $400,000 Wall Street Speeches

[Sig]

Have you ever heard of revolving door politics? The paper of record has.

The Trouble With That Revolving Door - The New York Times
https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/.../the-trouble-with-that-revolving-door/?...0
Dec 18, 2011



You're trying to equate me attempting to influence politics on ET with the former president of the US attempting to influence politics while he's receiving this kind of money?

You're off in nutsville.

Actually I'm engaging in a rational, calm conversation. You?

The problem here is this reflexive jumping on a bandwagon without actually understanding what the underlying issues are. Some intelligent people did some thinking and realized that a public employee could, for example, grant some favors for a company while in office and then be viewed more favorably for a job when they left. That's the underlying "revolving door" issue. I don't think any rational people believe that President Obama implemented a policy while in office to get him a market rate speaking gig. If you can demonstrate an understanding of the "revolving door" issue beyond posting a link to an article, then tie a specific policy that Obama implemented in order get a specific speaking gig, then you have ideas worth discussing. If not you're just parroting what you've heard without really understanding it.

 

[Sig]

Political Action Committees? Super PACs?

Wait, you said pay to play. That's different from legitimately lobbying for your point of view.

Not sure I understand your point? Is your point that investment bankers paying the $500,000 market rate for a Clinton speech is more liable to influence her behavior in office than a group of those same investment bankers, for example, that contributes $100M to a PAC that supported Clinton? If so, the we simply disagree. If not, great, we're on the same page!

 

[gwb-trading]

Not sure I understand your point? Is your point that investment bankers paying the $500,000 market rate for a Clinton speech is more liable to influence her behavior in office than a group of those same investment bankers, for example, that contributes $100M to a PAC that supported Clinton? If so, the we simply disagree. If not, great, we're on the same page!

Just so folks understand the reality... when worked for a major technology corporation we had to pay the following to have Bill Clinton speak - several hundred thousand dollars to Bill, one million to the Clinton Foundation, and several million to Democratic PACs. Trust me Hillary, Obama, and others have all the angles covered when they give a speech.

 

[Sig]

Just so folks understand the reality... when worked for a major technology corporation we had to pay the following to have Bill Clinton speak - several hundred thousand dollars to Bill, one million to the Clinton Foundation, and several million to Democratic PACs. Trust me Hillary, Obama, and others have all the angles covered when they give a speech.

You've got a copy of that contract? What was your role there exactly, and what was the company? In case you can't tell, I'm calling bullshit on you. We can all make things up or post what we heard from someone who heard from the CEO's admin assistant behind an anonymous account on the internet. Not a lot of credibility attached to that my friend.

 

[fhl]

Actually I'm engaging in a rational, calm conversation. You?

The problem here is this reflexive jumping on a bandwagon without actually understanding what the underlying issues are. Some intelligent people did some thinking and realized that a public employee could, for example, grant some favors for a company while in office and then be viewed more favorably for a job when they left. That's the underlying "revolving door" issue. I don't think any rational people believe that President Obama implemented a policy while in office to get him a market rate speaking gig. If you can demonstrate an understanding of the "revolving door" issue beyond posting a link to an article, then tie a specific policy that Obama implemented in order get a specific speaking gig, then you have ideas worth discussing. If not you're just parroting what you've heard without really understanding it.

He was the boss of the country's top regulators (like of banks for instance) and now he's getting big bucks from the people that were regulated. Seeing as how the banks made out remarkably well under his regulatory schemes, it's not surprising that the banks are some of his biggest 'clients'. I have no doubt that the health insurance industry will be one of obama's future speaking engagements.
It's like revolving door on steriods.

 

[fhl]

How The Clintons Have Made $230 Million Since Leaving The White ...
https://www.forbes.com/..

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented ...
www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid.


A combination of pay to play and revolving door.

 

[Sig]

He was the boss of the country's top regulators (like of banks for instance) and now he's getting big bucks from the people that were regulated. Seeing as how the banks made out remarkably well under his regulatory schemes, it's not surprising that the banks are some of his biggest 'clients'. I have no doubt that the health insurance industry will be one of obama's future speaking engagements.
It's like revolving door on steriods.

This is funny. The guys who says to me "You're off in nutsville." claims that the President who was behind/fully supported Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, and a whole litany of regulation that the banks hated is somehow being paid off by them because he helped them out so much! There was nonstop screaming the entire time he was in office that he was a communist/socialist/fascist who was tearing the very fabric of capitalism, and now he was a huge friend to the banks? Wow. Clearly you're not able to engage in a rational conversation or have severe impairment to your short term memory, so I'll let you continue your rant into the ether.

 

[fhl]

This is funny. The guys who says to me "You're off in nutsville." claims that the President who was behind/fully supported Dodd-Frank, the CFPB, and a whole litany of regulation that the banks hated is somehow being paid off by them because he helped them out so much! There was nonstop screaming the entire time he was in office that he was a communist/socialist/fascist who was tearing the very fabric of capitalism, and now he was a huge friend to the banks? Wow. Clearly you're not able to engage in a rational conversation or have severe impairment to your short term memory, so I'll let you continue your rant into the ether.

GS ran the place under Obama. Wake up.

WAIT! Are Banks Way More Profitable Under Obama Than They Were ...
www.businessinsider.com/bank-profitability-under-obama-and-bush-2011-11
Nov 6, 2011 - They've made more profit in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than theydid during the entire Bush administration, industry data ...

 

[Tsing Tao]

It's not OK to open fake universities and defraud people of their hard earned money.

you keep on using the word ''racist''. Why is that ?

I use the word "racist" because you guys always use it. I figure it saves time to bring it up and get it out of the way from the start and call everyone racist, since you're probably going to do it anyway.

 

[Tsing Tao]

A bit of apples and oranges isn't it? You've got an ex-president with no conflict of interest giving speeches, not a guy running for, or in office doing so.

I think it's more the guy who pretended to be for the people going to make money from the group that has spent it's entire existence taking from said people. I don't have a problem personally with Obama making money off Wall Street speeches. I knew all along that was the type of guy we had as a President.