Dems Rebuild

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I have a question.....

 

It seems to me that the people in this thread were probably people who voted for Hillary and supported her.

 

She spoke to Wall Street BEFORE she tried to be President and she was still working in politics. Now, I still really don't have that big of a deal about it. But, I could see how that would cause a bigger stink than an ex-President who is never going to run for public office again doing it.

 

Were you all in an uproar over her on this issue?

[knapplc]

I wasn't. As I recall, she didn't kiss their ass in her speech, she spoke to them as partners. Here's an excerpt from a NY Times article:

 

"Mrs. Clinton comes across less as a firebrand than as a technocrat at home with her powerful audience, willing to be critical of large financial institutions but more inclined to view them as partners in restoring the country’s economic health."

Wall Street does unpopular things, and Goldman Sachs specifically has been linked to every American depression, but they are a necessary part of American life. The fact that she spoke to them isn't troubling. I'd be troubled if she was shown to have been paid for influence, but how does someone prove that?

My problems with Hillary rest more on a general dislike of her character and status as a career politician. Paid speeches are way down on my concern list.

[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.

 

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

Huh??

 

Am I the only person in the universe who says what they mean? People read into my posts all the damn time. I didn't say a thing about Obama. You made a post about paying everyone equally for doing different things and about paying a pitcher millions of $. I was speaking in generalities.

[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?

 

Huh??

 

Serious question.

He's out of office and won't be running for office ever again.

 

So....how are they buying politicians?

[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.

 

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

Huh??

Serious question.

He's out of office and won't be running for office ever again.

 

So....how are they buying politicians?

 

Scroll up. I edited my post.

[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?

Huh??

 

Am I the only person in the universe who says what they mean? People read into my posts all the damn time. I didn't say a thing about Obama. You made a post about paying everyone equally for doing different things and about paying a pitcher millions of $. I was speaking in generalities.

 

Pardon me if I misunderstood your comment. It's in a thread discussing Obama getting paid by Wall Street and Democrats are upset about that. From what I had been able to gather from some is their concern that he is being influenced and paid off by Wall Street. You then said what I bolded above which mentions rich people buying off politicians and policies.

 

I think it's reasonable to assume you were commenting on Obama's speech and getting paid for it.

 

If I'm wrong....oh well....not the first time.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

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?

 

Huh??

 

Serious question.

He's out of office and won't be running for office ever again.

 

So....how are they buying politicians?

 

 

She wasn't referring to Obama. She's talking about how big bucks shape policy. That's something we've all railed against at one time or another.

 

As to your point about Clinton, I voted for her and I'd do it again. She was hammered for Wall Street by both Trump and Bernie. She was also a New York Senator, so expecting her to have no ties to Wall Street is wildly unrealistic.

 

We've al got to decide how much giving highly paid speeches to Wall Street banks bothers us. For me, it faded into the distant periphery compared to the much more pressing concerns I had about Trump, which have now mostly played out as expected since he took over.

 

Had she won and immediately, say, filled her cabinet with Wall Street types and pushing for legislation that handed them the keys to the kingdom, I would've been rightfully concerned about it.

[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.

 

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

Huh??

 

Am I the only person in the universe who says what they mean? People read into my posts all the damn time. I didn't say a thing about Obama. You made a post about paying everyone equally for doing different things and about paying a pitcher millions of $. I was speaking in generalities.

Pardon me if I misunderstood your comment. It's in a thread discussing Obama getting paid by Wall Street and Democrats are upset about that. From what I had been able to gather from some is their concern that he is being influenced and paid off by Wall Street. You then said what I bolded above which mentions rich people buying off politicians and policies.

 

I think it's reasonable to assume you were commenting on Obama's speech and getting paid for it.

 

If I'm wrong....oh well....not the first time.

 

Your comments on socialism and capitalism were pretty general too.

 

If I cared about Obama's speeches I would've said something. (I don't care).

 

It's much worse to use money to gain political power than to use FORMER political power to gain money. Especially if it's pretty damn clear the person (Obama) didn't enter politics just to make $.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Your comments on socialism and capitalism were pretty general too.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the only place in this thread I mentioned either of those terms is Socialism when talking about athletes not being paid as much money.

 

 

Oh well....I must have misunderstood your post....no biggy.

[RedDenver]

Serious question.

He's out of office and won't be running for office ever again.

 

So....how are they buying politicians?

I started this tangent, so I'll answer. The ethical problem is that they could be paying him for things he did for them while he was in office. The pay doesn't have to come before the play.

[NM11046]

So then "ethically", by these standards, no politiciain should speak publicly anywhere after leaving office?

[funhusker]

 

Serious question.

He's out of office and won't be running for office ever again.

 

So....how are they buying politicians?

I started this tangent, so I'll answer. The ethical problem is that they could be paying him for things he did for them while he was in office. The pay doesn't have to come before the play.

 

Does anyone know what this speech is about?

 

Maybe he is getting paid a lot of money to discuss how Wall Street can coincide with a progressive agenda. President Obama isn't a socialist, he was/is a capitalist Democrat. To my understanding that means he wants to see a private economy succeed but not necessarily at a cost to consumer and the "99 percent". Maybe Wall Street sees an opportunity to try and understand a vision where they can be successful and possibly make more money for more people?

[RedDenver]

So then "ethically", by these standards, no politiciain should speak publicly anywhere after leaving office?

Nobody is saying that.

[NM11046]

Walk me thru that Red ... when I read through your comments they seem to align to the fact that a President should not speak to a group of individuals that they potentially could help in their role as POTUS (i.e. pay for play - totally understand and agree with this). Nor should they speak after their presidency to any groups that they helped or may have "helped" (or perceived to have helped) during their time in office. After 8 years in that prime leadership position, touching all that they do wouldn't that pretty much mean they couldn't speak to any group?

[zoogs]

If I'm understanding correctly, the argument is entirely that perhaps Obama is collecting his reward for not going after bankers harder during his presidency.