Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit

[Hermit For Peace]

So what?

Just because you give speeches to wall street workers, doesn't mean anything. You're not giving them favors, you're just a sought out speaker because you have high status in the world, and they like listening to those types. Same goes for when Hillary was doing it.

Let Obama cash in all he wants. Who cares?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

One can be upset about both.

If the former President is too busy cashing his six-figure checks from Wall Street to emit so much as peep about the kleptocracy his successor is building, it is difficult to see him as anything but a different (if less reprehensible) facet of the same problem.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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]

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.

One can be upset about both.

If the former President is too busy cashing his six-figure checks from Wall Street to emit so much as peep about the kleptocracy his successor is building, it is difficult to see him as anything but a different (if less reprehensible) facet of the same problem.

Pretty much this. If Obama tries to lead a movement (as he's recently indicated that he wants to do) to get money out of politics then why should people who are sympathetic to this movement trust him when he's doing quarter million dollar speaking fees for Wall Street? They're doing this to buy influence to a certain degree. Obama will continue to play an active role in politics moving forward and was clearly instrumental in getting Tom Perez to lead the DNC. They know he still has powerful influence over the Democratic Party.

[MAINEiac4434]

Didn't Cantor Fitzgerald lose like their entire staff on 9/11?

Wouldn't they want to talk to the guy who killed Bin Laden? And why wouldn't he want to get pad to do that?

[Shadows]

I am sorry to be harsh but pbrower2a's post is one the most ridiculous posts I have seen in an internet forum & any1 with basic idea about economics would be outraged by such a post, I mean this is Trump level stupid & frankly very insulting for any1 knowing basic economics.

Economists rarely agree on everything but is unanimous that the Great Depression was the worst economic downturn in more than a 100 years & is looked as the worst possible point the world economy could possibly go to - The great recession of the financial crash is not even looked as a depression (because it is not). The Great Depression is a basic material for Macro-economics which is why this kind of absurd ridiculous comments should not be made. Firstly, the Great Depression came due to a variety of complex causes (with no consensus) including aggregate expenditure fall in Demand-Supply Curve or a demand fall in lay man terms, prolonged deflation, people hoarding money, protectionary high tariffs causing a mess & so on & even WWI has been blamed. But it is a complex scenario & the economy had fundamental structural problems. The great recession was a simple banking crisis due to Sub-prime/mortgage etc.

The unemployment rate during the great recession was 10%, while it was 25% in the great depression, 1 in every 4 vastly different to 1 in every 10. International trade fell by more 50% in the Great depression, industrial production & prices fell to almost half the level. Nowhere in the great recession, did it even look to get anywhere close to that number.

I am not a fan of Ben Bernanke, but in his phd. in MIT, his research was largely about extensive studies about the Great Depression. This is what he said -

Where we have experienced inflation since the Crash of 2008, the situation was much different in the 1930s when deflation set in. Unlike the deflation of the early 1930s, the U.S. economy currently appears to be in a "liquidity trap," or a situation where monetary policy is unable to stimulate an economy back to health. In terms of the stock market, nearly three years after the 1929 crash, the DJIA dropped 8.4% on August 12, 1932. Where we have experienced great volatility with large intraday swings in the past two months, in 2011, we have not experienced any record-shattering daily percentage drops to the tune of the 1930s. Where many of us may have that '30s feeling, in light of the DJIA, the CPI, and the national unemployment rate, we are simply not living in the '30s. Some individuals may feel as if we are living in a depression, but for many others the current global financial crisis simply does not feel like a depression akin to the 1930s.

[Beet]

No, pbrower is right. That last Bernanke quote is just him patting himself on the back for his own heckuvajob (which he should!), he is on record as saying the 2008 crash was worse than 1929, which is true.

[Shadows]

And secondly to say Obama deserves a Nobel Prize is insanely stupid. Firstly, the Nobel Prize is not given by the Nobel Foundation but by a couple of banks & many insanely deserving people have not got it. I know some of the people whom are insanely awesome with amazing research who are nowhere near the Nobel, but to say a stupid President with 0 idea about economics with no ground breaking research deserves a Nobel is an insult to the very discipline of economics.

Coming to the reaction, in most major Macro-economic books, Great Depression is taught which is why FDR is considered one of the greatest President's in human history. This is because he changed Macro-economics by his policies in a way. There was Classical Economics which believed debt is debt & budgets must be balanced. And then there was the view that markers in itself are self-correcting & will get back to an optimum & there shouldn't be intervention.

When FDR implemented the New Deal, he implemented Keynesian Economics before Keynes' General Theory came in 1937 which statistically proved that in recessions government must stimulate demand. He showed that you can get to 5% unemployment from 25% by cutting wages (as is the free market theory that supply will re-adjust) but everyone will have less disposable income & the economy will be much weaker & it will be a vicious cycle. His work was ground-breaking. Today, every government, even conservatives, including Bush, etc follows Keynesian economics to some extent.

FDR also introduced fundamental structural changes like Minimum Wage, Social Security. Minimum Wage boosted low end wages & Social Security prevented old people from dying in hunger, both boosted aggregate demand by putting more money. You can look into 1933 & 35 Labor laws including Wagner act which allowed collective bargaining. Point is, FDR changed politics & economics with ideas like minimum wage which were thought to be a total distortion of the free market. It was path breaking. FDR increased income taxes from 25% to 94%, signed Glass Steagal, created Securities & Exchange commission, taxed alcohol (& ended prohibition) to increase revenue.

In 2007-09 odd, Bush had already started giving bailouts. Even monkeys can come & throw away money at bailouts. Obama did some small things here & there & some decent stuff. But it was a financial crash, not even a depression & there were no major structural changes. Certainly it did nothing to alter the entire role of government & economics in the world

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh.

[Shadows]

No, pbrower is right. That last Bernanke quote is just him patting himself on the back for his own heckuvajob (which he should!), he is on record as saying the 2008 crash was worse than 1929, which is true.

That is flat out retarded, I can't believe we are even having this stupid discussion. No sane economist can ever say that the 2008 was worse than 1929, this is not even a debate. This in an insult to any1 who has studied economics. If you have not studies economics, then don't embarrass yourself with such ridiculous statements !

There is massive different between the structural collapse of the entire economy & financial market collapse. There is massive difference between 25% Unemployment & 10% unemployment.

International Trade fell by more than 50%. Prices & Industrial Activity fell by close to 50% which is unheard of & has never happened. Nowhere in 2007-08-09 did any of it get anywhere near to this number. The Great Depression required fundamental abandoning of Classical Economics to embrace a newform of Economics called Keynesian Economics.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Obama runs for anything​ ever again, I will certainly take this behavior into account. But like with Hillary, any endorsement decision will be based on a holistic approach, and not based on this bad decision by itself.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2008 crash at first may have been worse then 1929 , heck neither of them are the worst in that 1987 is easily the worst . 1929 was  the worst in after affects of the crash(by far) while 1987 after affects were no where near as bad as 1929 or even 2008.

[Beet]

No, pbrower is right. That last Bernanke quote is just him patting himself on the back for his own heckuvajob (which he should!), he is on record as saying the 2008 crash was worse than 1929, which is true.

That is flat out retarded, I can't believe we are even having this stupid discussion. No sane economist can ever say that the 2008 was worse than 1929, this is not even a debate. This in an insult to any1 who has studied economics. If you have not studies economics, then don't embarrass yourself with such ridiculous statements !

There is massive different between the structural collapse of the entire economy & financial market collapse. There is massive difference between 25% Unemployment & 10% unemployment.

International Trade fell by more than 50%. Prices & Industrial Activity fell by close to 50% which is unheard of & has never happened. Nowhere in 2007-08-09 did any of it get anywhere near to this number. The Great Depression required fundamental abandoning of Classical Economics to embrace a newform of Economics called Keynesian Economics.

Look it up. He said it, and it's true. Your charts are missing the problem entirely. The macroeconomic situation was saved because of massive intervention, but the financial dynamics facing the West were worse in 2008 than any point during the Depression.

[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.

Um, yes, there is? The leaders of the Democratic Party should not be cozying up to the ruling class.

Why not? Just because someone works on Wall Street doesn't make them automatically evil.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

Baby steps, baby steps

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

Um, yes, there is? The leaders of the Democratic Party should not be cozying up to the ruling class.

Why not? Just because someone works on Wall Street doesn't make them automatically evil.

Most are definitely not bad people; they're just incentivized in some pretty troubling ways. And giving somebody who can exert huge amounts of political influence 400,000 dollars is a calculated move in hopes that Obama can steer the Democratic Party away from the populist movement that's gaining momentum within it. Or at the very least can advocate for policies that don't put heavy burdens on their industry to begin with.

[Chinggis]

Most are definitely not bad people; they're just incentivized in some pretty troubling ways. And giving somebody who can exert huge amounts of political influence 400,000 dollars is a calculated move in hopes that Obama can steer the Democratic Party away from the populist movement that's gaining momentum within it. Or at the very least can advocate for policies that don't put heavy burdens on their industry to begin with.

Meanwhile, Obama supporters explain that Bernie needs to stop monkeying around and chasing the great white male, and pay no attention to that nice man from Goldman Sachs behind the curtain. We need identity politics fused with neoliberalism to win!

If this guy had any integrity, he would take the money and give a landmark speech taking full responsibility for not breaking up the banks, while pointing (literally?) at the bankers in audience for robbing the United States and reducing our nation to a debt-ridden wasteland.

How much money would FDR have charged Wall Street for a speech? They would never have invited him! And that is why FDR was the greatest President of all time, and Obama is a glib mediocrity.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Slouching toward Blair-Clintonism.

Let's hope that Democrats begin to realize just how badly this charlatan screwed them over, because they will need to before they can begin piecing a winning coalition back together. It's not going to happen while Obama maintains >90% popularity among the base of the party that he and his policies shattered. This betrayal has been a work in progress since 2009, if not earlier.

My worry is that the party leaders, such as they are, don't care, and even prefer the current arrangement of power. That as long as they're enough of a force to get checks from Wall Street and other big donors, nothing else really matters. Sanders showed that it is possible to get Wall Street levels of funding from small donations. I fear the Democratic leadership wants to sweep that under the rug, so they can get back to easy, lazy, going with the flow corporatism. ("We're the minority party! We're fighting for you, but its your fault we don't win!")

Trump is a prefect example. He, and the shallow, petty greed and ignorance he stands for should be easy to rally against. But instead, the Democratic Party is scraping by with just barely doing enough to be a credible opposition.

I want Trump and the GOP stopped. I'm willing to put my time and money into helping do that. But right now, I don't know if we need to take over and completely remake the Democratic Party, or wreck it and then build a new one, or if everyone to the left can work together to effectively stop the Trumpublicans and then find a consensus on how to move forward.

If the Democratic leadership (Perez, et al) can't convincingly get their act together for the mid-terms,  I think the Democratic coalition is going to start fragmenting worse than it has so far. Probably with a really nasty intra-party fight going into 2020, that might allow even Trump to get re-elected. (Imagine 2016, but with Sanders and Clinton swapped, gloves off, and all the stops out.)

[Suburbia]

So? He's a successful man. Stop hating on Wall Street. Yes, they have flaws. But you can't gut the industry.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

$500K aint nothing compared to the $60 Million paid for the rights to Obama's 3rd memoir.

[I Won - Get Over It]

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.

Two hypothetical scenarios:
1 Some (including yourself) think that Trump's policies might benefit Russia. So, what would you say if he in 2025 gives a speech to... ehm... Russian banks. Or Rex to the Russian oil companies.
2 Some think that Obama's policies might have benefited Wall Street...

But we know that Trump is a bad hombre while Obama is good one, so... >>>>

So what?

Just because you give speeches to wall street workers, doesn't mean anything. You're not giving them favors, you're just a sought out speaker because you have high status in the world, and they like listening to those types. Same goes for when Hillary was doing it.

Let Obama cash in all he wants. Who cares?

[Indy Texas]

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

Actually, he was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[krazen1211]

Makes Sense. Barry was a winner, and the Nasty woman is too stupid and unelectable to be worth as much money.


Why wouldn't you pay more money to hear from someone who was at least good at something?

[Pyro]

Cashing out for eight years of favors.

[Hermit For Peace]

Reading the comments, I think people have a misperception of what these speaking engagements are all about. I found an interesting (and long) article that explains the situation pretty well. Plus it gives a very large list of people who accept money for giving speeches, and their general pay. (Trump is on that list.)

Big name speakers attract potential clients for the wall street firms, and that seems to be their main goal.

Obama is not unique, evidently all ex Presidents have done this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://priceonomics.com/why-do-famous-people-get-paid-s250000-to-give-a/