Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit

[Lincoln Republican]

Now, I am going to try to say this without sounding like trolling.

But Obama has no qualms about taking big bucks from a Wall Street bank, $400,000.

I cannot blame him for cashing in on his incredible status as the most recent former President, but to me this makes his championship of the average American laughable and hypocritical. 

The former US president has previously referred to Wall Street bankers as "fat cats" and in 2009 said the financial crisis was “caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street”.

The reported fee is close to twice the amount Hillary Clinton was paid for three speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2015.

Barack Obama, from champion of the little guy to champion of Fat Cat bankers?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/barack-obama-criticised-for-dollar400000-wall-street-speech-fee/ar-BBAnDVV?li=AAggv0m

[ShamDam]

Don't you see? By accepting money from Wall Street bankers, Barack Obama is simply taking a direct, brute-force approach to wealth redistribution! Socialism at its finest.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No surprise. Obama's actions as President spoke much louder than his words.

[Technocracy Timmy]

There you have it folks. And centre left Parties like the (former) Labour Party in the UK, the Democrats in America, Socialist Party in France, etc. all sit back dumbfounded when populists from the right are gaining momentum at their expense.

Pretty much expected. When left leaning parties pull sh!t like this by cozying up to Wall Street and other wealthy interests while simultaneously pushing a centrist economic policy but unyielding liberal social views then they create a working class vacuum for right wing populists to jack from them. It's becoming far too predictable. And now they've been relying on campaigns that don't focus on actually giving a positive message to people but instead say "We must protect the status quo from those who will make it worse!" That only works insofar as people trust you. And right now a lot of these working class people that you've abandoned don't.

[Beet]

When Obama does it, it's okay because he has a penis, you see.

[Shadows]

He is a former President, he won't have much power now! So why on Wall Street & these people waste 400,000$ in speaking fees for him? I mean this is obscene money! These are smart people, investors who see Return on Investment, value for money. What are they getting out of the 400,000$ ?

400,000$ is a lot of money & Obama will not be running again! But he is going to earning shi* loads of money selling books, in many millions. Does he require the 100's of Millions of $ doing all this?

I mean now Trump is in power with working class votes & Trump is a total mess. Does he have to do this now when many people are still looking up to him? I hope he doesn't involve himself in politics then & tries to lecture people about working class votes & Dem primaries or DNC Chair !

[Devout Centrist]

Not speaking fees, that makes him evil. It's not like he was a millionaire when he entered the White House or something.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Not speaking fees, that makes him evil. It's not like he was a millionaire when he entered the White House or something.

But this time he's actually gonna fight money in politics! He really means it this time! Wall Street won't even know what hit em.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is really undignified behaviour to be honest.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Now I am starting to believe that Michelle will run for the office.

[dead0man]

500k isn't that much.  Seems the negative optics from sh**t like this would hurt a lot more than 500k.

[LabourJersey]

I honestly don't understand why we only pay presidents $400,000 a year. You can harp on platitudes about how "you shouldn't go into public service for the money," but if a President made, say $5million a year, ex Presidents wouldn't have to go around doing these kinds of things in between book deals. Not to mention $5million is equal to one board out of 50 at a F500 company.

[mvd10]

I do understand it. I mean who wouldn't want to earn some money after 8 years of being blamed for every single problem in the entire fking world for 400k a year?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Not speaking fees, that makes him evil. It's not like he was a millionaire when he entered the White House or something.

The post-facto bribery that is endemic and accepted in the upper levels of our government is a major problem, even if most people don't want to see it that way. It doesn't matter which party is doing it, or that it's technically legal.

I suspect people being sick of exactly this kind of legal corruption - at which the Clintons excel -  played no small part in Trump's win. (Not that he was ever going to be any better.)

[ApatheticAustrian]

Frum: Simple rule: huge speaking fees to ex-presidents are less troublesome than huge speaking fees to possible future presidents.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/857218313952342016

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Very proud of him! Well-earned, Mr President!

[Beet]

When Obama does it, it's okay because he has a penis, you see.

No? Obama is not running for elected office in the future.

Because he's already served two terms, which being a friend of Wall Street doesn't prevent you from doing if you're male.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Frum: Simple rule: huge speaking fees to ex-presidents are less troublesome than huge speaking fees to possible future presidents.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/857218313952342016

Simpler rule: David Frum is an idiot.

[Santander]

One party masquerading as two.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Simpler rule: David Frum is an idiot.

not at all, one of the best trump critiques and sharpest political commentators.

anyway, he is correct and i can't see a scandal.

[RINO Tom]

One party masquerading as two.

Speaking to Wall Street people isn't bad.

[7,052,770]

When Obama does it, it's okay because he has a penis, you see.

That's the wrong take. It's not a problem for Obama or Hillary or anyone else to do this.

[Santander]

One party masquerading as two.

Speaking to Wall Street people isn't bad.

This is just plain cashing in. Not that I begrudge him doing so.

There's nothing wrong with securing a financial legacy for your posterity.

[136or142]

I agree it's unseemly and leaves an obvious appearance of a cloud of a conflict of interest for when he was President, but it's hard to disagree with this tweet and it's hard to not believe that a lot of the press about this is manufactured OUTRAGE!


The Resisterhood‏ @resisterhood  15h15 hours ago
More
 People are upset about a former President getting paid for speeches while the current President builds a kleptocracy right in front of us.

[pbrower2a]

Don't you see? By accepting money from Wall Street bankers, Barack Obama is simply taking a direct, brute-force approach to wealth redistribution! Socialism at its finest.

Obama did save the financial system.

If the financial industry should get cold feet about President Trump, then this liberal recognizes the wisdom of accepting its help. A drowning man grasps at a viper.

President Obama did stop to the race to the bottom in lending practices. The banking industry had to be saved lest people lose their savings, businesses lose their payroll and receivables balances, and the economy keep sliding into a full-blown depression as in the 1930s. He had to save the financial system before he could do anything else.

 

In about 300 market days the economic meltdowns beginning in the autumns of 1929 and 2007 looked much alike. Barack Obama probably deserves a Nobel Prize in economics for stopping a replay of the harshest and most dangerous economic meltdown in history -- the meltdown that put the Antichrist in despotic power in Germany. Who knows what quick attention to an extreme danger did to save the world?

So far we still have the Obama economy... but that is coming to an end. Donald Trump promotes much the same economic policies that gave America the economic meltdowns at the ends of the 1920s and the Double-Zero Decade... if we are to avoid a replay of the 1929-1932 meltdown, then the financial institutions will need to police themselves despite a President and Congress who both foster financial recklessness as an expression of freedom.