If you're so angry at Obama for speaking at Cantor Fitzgerald

[BainsBane]

Don't vote for him. It's really that simple. You have as much say over how he earns his living as you do over mine or any other other private citizen: NONE.

Link to tweet

[MANative]

1. Agreed. I have no problem at all with speeches for fees when someone is not holding office.

Same way I had no problem with Hillary or Bill Clinton earning those fees when they had left their elected or appointed positions.

[BainsBane]

2. Neither does the US government

Which is why the law prohibits it for current office holders but not others.

[MANative]

5. Of course. But obviously, many people do, for reasons which are beyond me.

Its legality is not in question, and the complaints about "optics" don't make any sense. "Total purity" must extend to how one earns a living post-office, apparently. Sheesh.

[BainsBane]

7. but it isn't universally applied

at all. They don't hesitate to make excuses for the politicians they like.

[MANative]

8. Very true! And probably the most infuriating element of the whole discussion. nt

[okieinpain]

75. boom n/t

[ehrnst]

25. I have no problem if they get fees for speeches then run for office again. (nt)

[TheBlackAdder]

85. While I say "Take their money," it really is bad optics--playing into Putin's anti-Democracy push.

.


I think Rachel covered how Putin is trying to claim that all politicians take money from the elite, and whether it is his country or the US, everyone does it. He was implying that even in the US, politicians are all worrying about themselves and their nest eggs over the people, so US Democracy is flawed too.

While I think it is great to take money from the banksters, it really is bad optics--just months out of office.


.

[Warpy]

3. Excellent idea

Personally, I can summon only apathy about his appearance on Wall Street and his large fee for doing so. I do note that he is talking about health care, an appropriate subject for those money obsessed enemies of the people. Maybe he'll get through to some of them about how much hell there will be to pay if they take even the minor reforms of the ACA away from us.

Speaking fees and writing books are how literate ex presidents make their money once out of office, at least for the first few years before they get their lives completely back. After that, I see him as a constitutional law professor but not while his celebrity status is still intact and drawing crowds of gawkers wherever he goes.

I would like to know what Sanders found "distasteful," was it the venue or the fee? In any case, I disagree. I think it was slightly distasteful when W did it because the poor man had so little to say and word salad to say it in. Obama undoubtedly earned his fee.

[cwydro]

6. Well said. nt

[mopinko]

10. and cantor fitzgerald is a good firm.

they paid for health insurance for the dependents of employees killed on 9/11 for TEN.FUCKING.YEARS.
shared their profits, too.

i am curious just why they wanted him there to talk about that particular topic.

[lapucelle]

77. This is their second annual

"Innovations in Healthcare" conference. Cantor Fitzgerald is trying to establish this as yearly event. No better way to insure that there is interest than to have the former president as their keynote speaker. I also think it demonstrates a a seriousness of purpose in bringing a voice like Obama's to the table.

[Me.]

12. Envy

And as I've said on other threads PBO is not the one being probed by the FBI for alleged financial fraud.

[Warpy]

13. I take it Sanders is a personal enemy.

Duly noted and given the consideration it deserves.

[Me.]

18. Enemy, No

But it is very true that I take exception to his criticizing Dems, especially PBO. To me, he only walks his talk when it suits his purpose and agenda. Perhaps he should take more of a note, to what 45 has done to this country in 100 days, and focus on that.

[Lucky Luciano]

30. here ya go - you're welcome.

Last edited Sun Apr 30, 2017, 12:38 PM - Edit history (2)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8993617

[Me.]

42. Let's Hope That Stays His Focus

But Thanks

[R B Garr]

81. Trump was and is a con man. He stole divisive rhetoric to smear our nominee.

That's what Bernie should be acknowledging and saying. Con men don't make promises. Trump stole and lied intentionally so some gullible idiots will do what he wants. Big difference between a con man and a real campaign promise.

[LakeArenal]

70. Why isn't this considered off topic?

[Me.]

71. Why Would It Be?

[R B Garr]

82. The topic was the pious constructs of the Wall Street money smear.

Sanders recently criticized Obama for a speech fee, but it was pointed out that he shouldn't be so critical of others since he has some FBI financial issues of his own in his family. (Recent/current news about an FBI investigation into Jane Sanders).

So it's not off topic.

[BainsBane]

91. Apparently the point isn't concerns about wealth or profiting from public office

but attacking Obama. Otherwise other examples would not be dismissed as "off-topic."

[George II]

44. But in Obama's case it is not an "appearance on Wall Street"!

[smirkymonkey]

65. +1000

I can't even believe this is an issue considering the amount of TAXPAYER money that Trump is spending on his golf outings and his grifting family's security. This is just another distraction.

[Warpy]

68. Of course it is. It's more red meat from trolls on Farcebook

and I wish people on DU would stop repeating it here.

My favorite feature these days is "hide thread." Close second is "Ignore." The last 2-3 weeks have seen me use both of them more than I have in any give year before this.

[JHan]

4. when far lefties (some) and RWing smear mongers agree on something you know the view is BS.

Obama make that money!

[mopinko]

11. the eat the rich crowd.

anybody w any appreciable amount of money is a demon to them.
no small number of those around here.

[BainsBane]

16. Not everyone

They've defended people with far more money than Obama.

[JI7]

17. And there is not the same level or any anger at trump profiting off taxpayers

[WinkyDink]

9. Well, tbh, I wasn't happy with the fees for exes Reagan and 41.

[melman]

50. Of course

Many people weren't, and that goes for W and Bill Clinton too. This is not new but some people need to pretend it is.


Why do they need to do this? Well for the OP it comes down to this https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028995037#post7

It is always that. It's all about the extreme hate for You Know Who.

[sheshe2]

14. I ain't mad.

GOBAMA!

[spooky3]

20. Funny!

[sheshe2]

22. Why thank you spooky

[Egnever]

15. I understand the optics

I am personally pleased as punch he is getting what he deserves as a speaking fee. He is likely one of the most sought after speakers if not the most sought after. He is going to command high speaking fees that is the free market at work.

That said I do understand people not liking politicians leaving office and getting huge sums from speaking fees. It can appear to be a payback.

In Obamas case I don't for a second think it is payback but I can understand why especially people on the right would think so.

[Lucky Luciano]

31. If it is all about payback, then Cheney/Bush would get

...one million dollar fees to speak at Exxon etc.

It really is a function of Obama's popularity and ability to give a great speech.

[TNNurse]

19. I was sitting in the hall waiting to go to my old lady yoga class and a woman I did not know

made some comment about Obama taking that money for a speech. I just looked at her and said "He is a private citizen, I see no problem" and she answered, "well, yes, I guess so". We did not continue a conversation.

I was surprised I did not say,.." I see no problem, bitch", but I did not not. My mama would have been proud.

[spooky3]

21. In addition to the points others have made

I am happy to see Dems amassing assets that may help Dems. With our unfortunate system that is so money-driven, we have to fight fire with fire.

[redstatebluegirl]

23. They didn't have an issue with it until it was a woman and a Black man.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. He Made Dick...

...when he had the hardest job in the world!
This is back pay!

[thegoose]

26. I'm so angry at the media

Jacking off frantically about this story and ignoring the fucking pack of grifters currently inhabiting the White House!

Goddamn it!

[HopeAgain]

27. The lady doth protest too much...

Lots of defensiveness around here...

Wonder why?

[BainsBane]

38. I don't like self-righteous finger pointing

When refusing to let be up to the standards they demand of others.

[Botany]

28. why do I smell Russia/Republican propaganda pushing the "Greedy Obama" meme?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-60-million-really-not-enough-for-the-obamas/2017/04/28/e0f1fa68-2c46-11e7-b605-33413c691853_story.html?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.3b6ffcba39cf

And what % of those fees will the Obama give to charity and their foundation?

[thegoose]

32. Shit. You're right!

All ex-presidents cash in on their celebrity. That's what they do and it's what they've earned. This microscopic examination, however, is very, very weird....

[BainsBane]

39. You're not the only one

This reeks of it.

[shadowmayor]

29. IOKIYAR is now IODIYAD?

Puhleeze,

Nobody cares if he gets paid for speaking. It's who's paying him that is quite bothersome to many. Wall Street people don't help out Main Street people. Jimmy Carter rarely speaks and donates his fees when he does. This really began with Reagan, then Daddy, then Bill, then Jr. the eloquent, and now Obama. Just because others do it, doesn't make it OK.

I'm sure that if it were about lil' Bush grabbing big bucks from the same group, many folks here would be none too happy. There is an element of hypocrisy to all of this whether folks wish to acknowledge it or not.

Personally, I wish Obama had not seemed so pro-Wall Street while in office. I know, there was a bail-out to see to and dozens of other reasons. And I'm disappointed he's going to take money from these greedy pigs. I'd rather he march downtown and take a piss on the statue of the bull. However, in the great scheme of things, this is a mouse turd being made into a mountain by both sides, those who disapprove and his defenders.

Right now we have a family in the White House profiting in their businesses while participating in governmental affairs. And the news can only follow it for about 4 seconds. What in the hell is the daughter doing in the White House? And why is son-in-law in charge of everything else, or so it seems??

[BainsBane]

37. Yes, profiting from public office is unseemly.

Especially while still occupying it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8995452

[NurseJackie]

47. Wow!

[shadowmayor]

49. Agree

Profiting from public office is unseemly - and I don't care who or what party does it. Reagan, Bill, Bush's, Hillary, Obama, or Sanders - it's not for the best of the country. To give a pass to somebody who happens to be on our side is nonsense. It's just not very classy to schlep for big bucks from the very people that we the tax payer have had to bail out time and time again. Diverting campaign funds for profit is illegal, not just unseemly.

[BainsBane]

51. It actually isn't illegal

Like most truly atrocious things, it's legal. You may recall that Trump did it as well. The law should be changed to prohibit it.

Would you have the law changed to prohibit former presidents from being paid for speeches? Are there other kinds of income you would ban? I myself don't favor that.

[shadowmayor]

53. No I wouldn't

I would just hope that public officials do the right thing when they leave office. If they don't, they should be called out for it. I remember when General Schwarzkopf refused to take the easy money. While I didn't respect him much as a general, as a former general I thought is was a classy move. In that same vein, I'd rather President Obama would choose not to take the easy money. Doesn't mean I hate the man. Just means I don't agree with this particular decision.

[BainsBane]

54. Fair enough

At least you apply that across the board. That I respect.

[katmondoo]

33. Sounds like Republicans, as only THEY are allowed to make money

How much are the Trumpers making off the backs of Americas, I guess that doesn't count.

[BainsBane]

35. Not just Republicans. Sanders too has some questionable financial relations

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 09:44 PM - Edit history (2)

People who live in glass houses ought not cast stones.

You the money is closer to 30x $400k. http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/the-truth-of-the-matter-the-best-legal-form-of-siphoning,109480

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/the-truth-of-the-matter-the-best-legal-form-of-siphoning,109480

https://medium.com/@VonEbsy/old-towne-media-llc-buying-a-political-revolution-40cbac5cb4c3

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/comments/681y33/bernie_strong_armed_a_bank_unto_giving_jane_a/

[NurseJackie]

45. I don't know what to say

[BainsBane]

55. Interesting how there are no responses

Isn't it?

[NurseJackie]

56. It's revealing.

[JI7]

59. looking back i think Hillary needed to go after Sanders on these things

at the time i could understand her strategy. the numbers were on her side and she was going to be the nominee so don't try to get too much into the infighting. but with all the attacks on her from those who claim to be the left which continued through the general election and even now i think she should have brought this up.

she held back on many of these things .

but if sanders runs in 2020 that will not be the case with whoever else runs and if sanders goes after them the same way.

[BainsBane]

60. Yes, and the press was negligent

I know more from looking at FEC filings than has been reported in the MSM, including the leading newspapers. Now he continues the finger pointing with no accountability for his own actions. It's destructive to the party and by extension the country.

[JI7]

61. yes, that's the frustrating thing. these things are not secret. just the facts

we see rachel reporting on it when it comes to trump which others should be doing also. they should be bringing it up as she does and demanding answers .

but instead there is so much focus on obama doing something in the open and as a private individual .

the anger from people who claim to be on the left towards obama is very noticeable compared to the lack of when it comes to trump and how the entire fucking family is profiting off of the presidency .

[Gothmog]

67. There was no need to go negative on Sanders and the Clinton campaign treated sanders with kid gloves

[brer cat]

83. If he had won the primary

it would have all come out in the GE. There is no way the republicans didn't have a thick book ready to throw at him.

[Chevy]

72. And that GOP dossierre

is still out there in a safe somewhere. According to one of the GOP Never Trumpers who I spoke to after election, what he seen and heard of it said it is very nasty. Add the FBI investigation to it 2020 would be a bad idea.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

62. OOPS

[Gothmog]

66. Great post with great facts

[BainsBane]

86. It seems to have riled some feathers

In another thread.

[BainsBane]

87. Facts are dangerous

and can be met with efforts to censor and suppress the truth.

[Madam45for2923]

89. Woah!

BainsBane (41,347 posts)
35. Not just Republicans. Sanders too has some questionable financial relations

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 09:44 PM - Edit history (2)

People who live in glass houses ought not cast stones.

You the money is closer to 30x $400k. http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/the-truth-of-the-matter-the-best-legal-form-of-siphoning,109480

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/the-truth-of-the-matter-the-best-legal-form-of-siphoning,109480

https://medium.com/@VonEbsy/old-towne-media-llc-buying-a-political-revolution-40cbac5cb4c3

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/16/1516075/-Sanders-are-still-profiting-from-Sierra-Blanca-nuclear-waste-dump-per-their-2014-tax-return

https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/comments/681y33/bernie_strong_armed_a_bank_unto_giving_jane_a/

[marieo1]

34. Fees

I love President Obama and I don't expect him to speak for nothing. He is such a great speaker I would gladly pay to hear him, if I had the money!!

[gtar100]

36. If you don't like Obama (or other democrats for that matter) speaking to Wall Street firms,

ask yourself this... who would you rather have speaking with them? Someone's going to. It's actually rather encouraging that they are reaching out to Obama, the Clintons, and others of Democratic persuasion. They could do worse.


(on edit.... this "you" is a rhetorical you; not in reference to anyone here specifically. Feel free to identify with it as you see fit)

[Brogrizzly]

40. Well, just like with everything else that had to do with Obama,

It is probably the racism, the undertone being that 400,000 being paid to a black man, that's unacceptable. People have a hard time letting go of their biases.

[Aristus]

41. Haters gotta hate.

To hell with them.

President Obama's still got it!...

[Raster]

43. I think it's AWESOME that a blue chip Wall Street firm would ask the Big O to speak...

... and by God, he deserves EVERY FLIPPIN' DIME!

And before anyone gets in a tethered tizzy they should probably take a good look at Cantor Fitzgerald and how they handled themselves before and after 9/11. They were AND ARE considered probably the most humane and decent of the blue chip Wall Street firms.

[George II]

46. If only people would spend as much time taking care of their own business than others' business!

[NurseJackie]

57. Amen!

[betsuni]

48. K&R

[Akamai]

52. I'm not angry at Obama, but am a little disappointed. That is a lot of money. I do wish that

Pres. Obama had earmarked at least some of that money for charity--but perhaps it is too difficult to do so.

It is easier to drain the swamp with one's pockets free from the swamp dwellers' coffers.

[Chevy]

69. Hasn't given speech yet plus

how do you know what he is doing with money?? Have you spoken to him?

[Akamai]

73. good! I look forward to Obama putting his thoughtful message on this transaction, and I am sure

that he is considering how it will go on.

[ucrdem]

58. Ha. Also the finance industry is a Dem constituency, like Hollywood, teachers unions, trial

lawyers, big universities, etc. Usually Silicon valley too. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, when you consider the alternatives, i.e. the big GOP constituencies, which are typically involved in extraction i.e. degradation, like Exxon etc, and warfare, like nukes and "logistics," those KBR-type outfits which seem to be a Texas specialty. So it's not like Obama is making some kind of deal with the devil

[BainsBane]

64. Not anymore

In general, the financial sector hates Obama and the Democrats. They don't think he's been nice enough to them.

[tenorly]

63. To say nothing of Poppy Bush and Dubya

They charge $2 million for some of those speeches - or "speeches" in Dubya's case.

[stevenleser]

76. Bainsbanes name isn't the issue here. Respond on the point, don't try to distract or deflect. nt

[BainsBane]

80. Looks like I missed an ad hominem

[stevenleser]

84. It was a silly attempt at a deflection based on your screenname. nt

[Gothmog]

78. The attacks on President Obama are really dumb and sad

[WellDarn]

79. Why would anyone be angry?

I can understand a person preferring that he not, given that his earning potential is RIGHTFULLY unlimited, BUT he isn't running for office and every word of his speech is right out there and available for EVERYONE to see.

Once again, the GOAT (greatest of all time) shows how it is SHOULD BE DONE.

[aikoaiko]

88. I haven't seen or heard anyone be angry about Obama speaking for a big paycheck.

Maybe some disappointment, but not anger.

[BainsBane]

90. I interpret name calling as anger

YMMV.

[aikoaiko]

92. Which names are you speaking of?

[BainsBane]

93. a tool of the wealthy elite

in contrast to FDR, of course. Because when one wants to posit a foil, the go do is a man born into extreme wealth who worked as a financier and bond trader.

[aikoaiko]

94. Thanks for explaining.