Obama surpasses Hillary on the Wall Street Speaking Circuit

[pbrower2a]

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.


Sorry, whoever -- but I have a graph. I did not create the graph.  I looked at the collapse of stock prices and saw a long trend that portended an economic disaster analogous to that of 1929-1932. A 56% decline in stock prices over a year and a half is big trouble.

Obama did what Hoover didn't do -- he backed the banks. The bank runs that did the real damage from early 1931 to late 1932 didn't happen this time. It's worth remembering that America still had a shaky economy until FDR backed the banks. The recovery in the Financial Crash began in the early part of 2009. That is a huge difference. Sure, there was more -- like Cash for Clunkers.

OK, we may have to admit that the receivership socialism began under Dubya, and FDIC insurance of bank balances negated the need for drastic measures. But things went right earlier in the last panic phase than in the meltdown leading to the Great Depression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see an analogy in the first year and a half. The Financial Crash never got to the full depression-starting meltdown. Many people expected a replay. Both the meltdowns of 2007-2009 and 1929-1932 had bubble economies behind them. Bubbles devour capital without creating it. In the 1920s the bubble was in the stock market. In 2007 the bubble was in housing with large-scale financial fraud behind it.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Had the meltdown played out in 2009-2010 as it did in 1931-1932, then we would have seen unemployment much higher than 10%. Industrial production had already stalled before the 2007 peak. Remember: bubbles devour capital, diverting it from productive activities. America was underinvesting in plant and equipment during the Double-Zero decade, so maybe that explains why there was so little loss in industrial employmen; it was already in decline throughout the sub-prime lending boom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We need remember that the Depression was not simply a steady decline. Beginning in 1933 it was mostly a slow recovery. The recovery was far slower than the decline. People still felt the sting ten years after the Great Stock Market Crash. People were still scared throughout the 1930s that it could happen again even though the economic order had fundamentally changed. The easy money from speculation was no longer a prospect; people rediscovered making money the slow, hard way -- creating small businesses and cultivating customers.

[Lincoln Republican]

And when Obama bailed out Wall Street, just where was it that millions of those dollars from honest, hard working, tax paying Americans went, directly into the pockets of Wall Street executives to pay their bonuses, that's where.

Obama lacked the foresight to take measures in order to prevent this blatant rip off from happening.

He's not so smart.

Now, Obama is getting his hands on this ill gotten gain from Wall Street by agreeing to give a speech to corporate fat cats on Wall Street for $400,00.

[Suburbia]

I have my issues with Wall Street, but he is a free man. He can do what he wants. This is a reason why millennials are seen as underachievers and losers. They attack wealth. Which other generation has done so?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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/

Company that exists because it provides services to big money insists that big money paying off politicians who just happened to do big money favors while in office is completely innocent and nothing to get excited about.

/yawn

I understand Russia Today publishes some great stuff about how unfairly maligned Putin and Assad are, too.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I have my issues with Wall Street, but he is a free man. He can do what he wants. This is a reason why millennials are seen as underachievers and losers. They attack wealth. Which other generation has done so?

The G.I. generation voted overwhelmingly for FDR who slammed Wall Street and the wealthy numerous times. But I guess they were a jealous bunch of underachievers

[Hindsight was 2020]

The guy is an ex-president with a bunch of free time on his hands who cares?

[Virginiá]

The guy is an ex-president with a bunch of free time on his hands who cares?

Well this kind of behavior does have the potential to corrupt decision making in office. If presidents think they will get tons of money in the form of speaking fees post-presidency, then it could encourage them to take it easy on [industry]. He did sign Dodd-Frank, but at the same time, he let a lot slide imo.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Does that mean they have to sleep on the couch?

[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.

Actually, he was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was being sarcastic.

[Lincoln Republican]

And when Obama bailed out Wall Street, just where was it that millions of those dollars from honest, hard working, tax paying Americans went, directly into the pockets of Wall Street executives to pay their bonuses, that's where.

Obama lacked the foresight to take measures in order to prevent this blatant rip off from happening.

He's not so smart.

Now, Obama is getting his hands on this ill gotten gain from Wall Street by agreeing to give a speech to corporate fat cats on Wall Street for $400,00.

You know, the more I think about this, maybe Obama was smart in this matter all along, really smart.

You see, by failing to put  restrictions on this bail out money so that it could not be used for Wall Street executive bonuses, he was therefore able to cut a deal with the corporate fat cats that upon leaving office, he would get paid $400,000 per speech for speaking to the fat cats on Wall Street.

Very smart deal by Obama indeed.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

And when Obama bailed out Wall Street, just where was it that millions of those dollars from honest, hard working, tax paying Americans went, directly into the pockets of Wall Street executives to pay their bonuses, that's where.

Obama lacked the foresight to take measures in order to prevent this blatant rip off from happening.

He's not so smart.

Now, Obama is getting his hands on this ill gotten gain from Wall Street by agreeing to give a speech to corporate fat cats on Wall Street for $400,00.

You know, the more I think about this, maybe Obama was smart in this matter all along, really smart.

You see, by failing to put  restrictions on this bail out money so that it could not be used for Wall Street executive bonuses, he was therefore able to cut a deal with the corporate fat cats that upon leaving office, he would get paid $400,000 per speech for speaking to the fat cats on Wall Street.

Very smart deal by Obama indeed.

Why do you double down on your complete counter-historical illiterate jargon? What would Mitt have done! I'm afraid of what that horror show would've been

[dead0man]

I'm only surprised that the number was so low and (slightly less surprised) that it happened so quick.  I figured Obama wasn't going to sell out for anything less than 2 mil and wait a year or so.  I guess with Hillary losing he figured WTF, who cares?

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

Hahaha no, they still definitely would.

[RaphaelDLG]

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 !

He still knows a ton of people and is still massively influential

[Devout Centrist]

And when Obama bailed out Wall Street, just where was it that millions of those dollars from honest, hard working, tax paying Americans went, directly into the pockets of Wall Street executives to pay their bonuses, that's where.

Obama lacked the foresight to take measures in order to prevent this blatant rip off from happening.

He's not so smart.

Now, Obama is getting his hands on this ill gotten gain from Wall Street by agreeing to give a speech to corporate fat cats on Wall Street for $400,00.

You know, the more I think about this, maybe Obama was smart in this matter all along, really smart.

You see, by failing to put  restrictions on this bail out money so that it could not be used for Wall Street executive bonuses, he was therefore able to cut a deal with the corporate fat cats that upon leaving office, he would get paid $400,000 per speech for speaking to the fat cats on Wall Street.

Very smart deal by Obama indeed.

You really think Obama, a millionaire in 2008, made a deal over eight years ago to make a small pay day in 2017? What?

[publicunofficial]

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.

David Frum helped start the Iraq War and is a cancer.