Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

Then consider it a general argument that your position is an odd purity test to apply to [any] President.

 

This is what the entire discussion seems to be boiling down to. Whether or not we should be evaluating politicians and parties on this "Wall Street Speech Money" litmus test. I'm far from all in on that argument. Holding people accountable is different from enforcing ideological purity. Even if it weren't, this is a curious way to do it. It mostly serves politicians who can cheaply add "I take no Wall St money" to their resume.

[RedDenver]

What part of the country's economy does the president not have influence over?

That's a good question. Obviously he has some influence over all of it, which is why I used "direct influence". Maybe "influence" is the wrong word here. What I mean is that he shouldn't accept payment for something he acted on as president. For example, he bailed out the automobile manufacturers, so he shouldn't accept payment from them. But he didn't (as far as I know) directly act on the coffee industry, for example. There's clearly gray area here, as there always is when talking about ethics.

 

Obama could donate that $400k to charity (less his costs), and I'd be fine with that.

[RedDenver]

Then consider it a general argument that your position is an odd purity test to apply to [any] President.

 

This is what the entire discussion seems to be boiling down to. Whether or not we should be evaluating politicians and parties on this "Wall Street Speech Money" litmus test. I'm far from all in on that argument. Holding people accountable is different from enforcing ideological purity. Even if it weren't, this is a curious way to do it. It mostly serves politicians who can cheaply add "I take no Wall St money" to their resume.

Fair enough.

 

And to be clear, it's not the "Wall Street" part that bothers me. It's the influence of big money that I oppose. Wall Street happens to be an easy and frequent target because they've got the big money.

[knapplc]

It absolutely doesn't hurt to keep a watchful eye on post-presidential earnings (or post-congressional). I have no idea what Cantor Fitzgerald routinely pays for speaking fees, or what a former president should earn for a speech. Maybe this is right in line with what top-level speakers earn today.

[zoogs]

I agree that influence is something to watch out for. Money isn't the only way to acquire it, nor is it necessarily corrupting (at least, more than anything else). It's hard to exactly measure how beholden someone is or how swayed they become. Perception can become reality.

 

For example, the South Korean president who was recently ousted for being too heavily influenced by her mystic aide -- not necessarily purchased, no less pernicious. Trump's willingness to lean on Steve Bannon, or Jared Kushner ... neither involved large sums of money changing hands, but for better or for worse those guys are represented.

 

Big money looks out for themselves, and it's troubling to have politicians who serve Wall Street. There's probably more of that than is healthy. At the same time, they shouldn't get *no* influence, either. Boxing them out wholesale is an unrealizable ideal.

 

To go all the way to the other end, I would contend that the rare pol who relies entirely on small popular donations yields to influence, too. It's just of a different sort. Anger is needed to sustain that donation machine. Such a politician feeds on a sense of urgency or being threatened, and that can easily be what he becomes all about. Sure, that's just representing the people, but he also needs to keep the people whipped up in frenzy. These can also be insidious pressures, the kind we should hope to keep out of power.

[RedDenver]

To go all the way to the other end, I would contend that the rare pol who relies entirely on small popular donations yields to influence, too. It's just of a different sort. Anger is needed to sustain that donation machine. Such a politician feeds on a sense of urgency or being threatened, and that can easily be what he becomes all about. Sure, that's just representing the people, but he also needs to keep the people whipped up in frenzy. These can also be insidious pressures, the kind we should hope to keep out of power.

That's certainly a different take on the small donation strategy. I don't I buy that it only works with anger/frenzy, but I see that apathy could really hinder a small donation campaign.

 

Also, the era of needing huge sums to run a campaign may be waning. TV ads are the largest expenditures for campaigns, and with cord-cutting and the internet, the bar may not be so high financially. Hard to know how these things will play out.

[zoogs]

Yeah, I agree -- and Trump showed it pretty decisively, actually. Republican money lined up behind all their (relatively) sane guys and none of them came even close. So I'm not totally convinced the new way is better or worse, just different, with its own pitfalls.

 

I think if Obama had gone to work for one of these big financial firms -- or worse, if he had gone to lobby for him, then we can start saying he's betraying everything he's been working for. This sort of thing does seem to happen pretty often, especially when it comes to lower-ranking people who do need the money.

 

In Obam's case, if there's any influence transfer it's probably from him to them. There's a good chance he's bringing a positive and liberal message to these guys and maybe he's influencing some of their people, especially the younger ones, to see things his way. It's probably a more compromised message than a rabble-rousing socialist (I mean that in the nicest way) would have delivered, of course, but first, that guy doesn't have any credibility with these people to begin with and second, Obama being a centrist would be being true to himself.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm all for watching for inappropriate influence peddling. But, I still don't understand the uproar over an ex President getting paid like this to give a speech. It doesn't affect anyone but for some reason, people get upset because someone was paid a lot of money.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't like people getting paid that much to speak, but it's out of all our hands. As Knapp said, they served their country in one of the hardest jobs of on the planet. I personally can't be bothered to care that much.

 

BRB, I have an opinion same as I do on athlete salaries. It's crazy that much money is spent on on person speaking for an hour or playing a game when we have people living in poverty or infrastructure that badly needs repaired or rebuilt. But I could say that about any number of transactions in life. You're right; it's probably not even worth the thought. It's more of a passing thought about what I personally view as some of the inherent flaws of our free-market capitalist system here.

 

To the black bolded, I realized I was treading close to blatant Whataboutism. What I was trying to say is that I think there is some hope for the party to get back to being a party of the people IF this wave of enthusiasm can sweep some new faces into power that didn't rise up through the typical party power structure. I was also trying to point out that the GOP allegiances matter more at the moment since enjoying almost full control of everything.

I want to go back to this statement. These people getting paid like this have absolutely nothing (positive or negative) about people living in poverty. It's a ridiculous thing to link together. Especially, when it comes to athletes, many of those players came out of families that are living in poverty.

 

So....athletes who actually play the game, shouldn't be paid millions of dollars from owners who are making millions of dollars on them playing the game. So...what you are saying is that the owners should just keep their money.

 

Many of these athletes (just like many very rich people ) do great things with their money that benefit neighborhoods and people with less than them.

[Danny Bateman]

 

I don't like people getting paid that much to speak, but it's out of all our hands. As Knapp said, they served their country in one of the hardest jobs of on the planet. I personally can't be bothered to care that much.

 

BRB, I have an opinion same as I do on athlete salaries. It's crazy that much money is spent on on person speaking for an hour or playing a game when we have people living in poverty or infrastructure that badly needs repaired or rebuilt. But I could say that about any number of transactions in life. You're right; it's probably not even worth the thought. It's more of a passing thought about what I personally view as some of the inherent flaws of our free-market capitalist system here.

 

To the black bolded, I realized I was treading close to blatant Whataboutism. What I was trying to say is that I think there is some hope for the party to get back to being a party of the people IF this wave of enthusiasm can sweep some new faces into power that didn't rise up through the typical party power structure. I was also trying to point out that the GOP allegiances matter more at the moment since enjoying almost full control of everything.

I want to go back to this statement. These people getting paid like this have absolutely nothing (positive or negative) about people living in poverty. It's a ridiculous thing to link together. Especially, when it comes to athletes, many of those players came out of families that are living in poverty.

 

So....athletes who actually play the game, shouldn't be paid millions of dollars from owners who are making millions of dollars on them playing the game. So...what you are saying is that the owners should just keep their money.

 

Many of these athletes (just like many very rich people ) do great things with their money that benefit neighborhoods and people with less than them.

 

 

My argument is that in a more just world, money could be better spent for the greater good of the greater number of people.

 

Would you refute that?

[Landlord]

I think part of the trouble people are having with this (me too, on occasion I suppose?) is because Obama is such a gifted communicator, and seems like such a genuinely decent, kind and graceful man/father/husband/leader, that people idealize him as the champion or true representative of joe schmoe way moreso than they would some generic old white dudes with southern accents. Obama just seemed like a regular guy that was looking out for you and me. Seeing him take a ton of money for speaking to wall street, the "bad guys", throws a wrench into the hope for him to be a perfectly selfless leader.

 

 

I agree with dudeguyy in regards to compensation of politics, athletics, etc. It's not a feasible scenario, but rather an ideological philosophy of a world in which corruption and entertainment were not elevated millions and billions of times higher than meager struggles to stay safe, healthy, fed and alive.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I don't like people getting paid that much to speak, but it's out of all our hands. As Knapp said, they served their country in one of the hardest jobs of on the planet. I personally can't be bothered to care that much.

 

BRB, I have an opinion same as I do on athlete salaries. It's crazy that much money is spent on on person speaking for an hour or playing a game when we have people living in poverty or infrastructure that badly needs repaired or rebuilt. But I could say that about any number of transactions in life. You're right; it's probably not even worth the thought. It's more of a passing thought about what I personally view as some of the inherent flaws of our free-market capitalist system here.

 

To the black bolded, I realized I was treading close to blatant Whataboutism. What I was trying to say is that I think there is some hope for the party to get back to being a party of the people IF this wave of enthusiasm can sweep some new faces into power that didn't rise up through the typical party power structure. I was also trying to point out that the GOP allegiances matter more at the moment since enjoying almost full control of everything.

I want to go back to this statement. These people getting paid like this have absolutely nothing (positive or negative) about people living in poverty. It's a ridiculous thing to link together. Especially, when it comes to athletes, many of those players came out of families that are living in poverty.

 

So....athletes who actually play the game, shouldn't be paid millions of dollars from owners who are making millions of dollars on them playing the game. So...what you are saying is that the owners should just keep their money.

 

Many of these athletes (just like many very rich people ) do great things with their money that benefit neighborhoods and people with less than them.

 

 

My argument is that in a more just world, money could be better spent for the greater good of the greater number of people.

 

Would you refute that?

 

Sure....I guess. But, the world isn't perfect and unless we are going to go full socialist and everyone receive the same amount no matter what they do.....this isn't reality.

 

And...I would in no way be in favor of that.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a guy who can throw a 100 mph fast ball and win 21 games a year making 20 million per year if the owner of the team feels he is worth it.

[knapplc]

I think part of the trouble people are having with this (me too, on occasion I suppose?) is because Obama is such a gifted communicator, and seems like such a genuinely decent, kind and graceful man/father/husband/leader, that people idealize him as the champion or true representative of joe schmoe way moreso than they would some generic old white dudes with southern accents. Obama just seemed like a regular guy that was looking out for you and me. Seeing him take a ton of money for speaking to wall street, the "bad guys", throws a wrench into the hope for him to be a perfectly selfless leader.

 

 

I get that Wall Street has an ugly name and an earned reputation among us average Americans, but they are a necessary part of the American community. If Obama speaks to them, and encourages reconciliation between them and people like the Occupiers, maybe that's a good thing? The other option is to draw lines and further the separation. This may be a better option.

[Moiraine]

There's a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. When the mega rich can buy politicians and policy, capitalism has gone too far.

 

People opposed to big government should raise just as much or a stink over corporate control, but they don't.

[BigRedBuster]

There's a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. When the mega rich can buy politicians and policy, capitalism has gone too far.

 

People opposed to big government should raise just as much or a stink over corporate control, but they don't.

 

 

How is an ex-President speaking to Wall Street an example of this no matter what they pay him?