Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

200k + benefits is most certainly comfortable living, but I don't think there's really any money level where we get to say "Enough, do not do anything for money anymore". Incidentally, Obama clearly isn't doing this for the money.

[BigRedBuster]

I will say this.

 

It's impressive how Obama supporters turned on him simply because of one speech.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

$200k/year guaranteed for the rest of his life with the additional perk of healthcare, doesn't meet basic needs? To put that in perspective, $200k/year is in the top 4% of income earners. That is exactly "don't need to make money ever again" territory. He could go out and make more money, but he and his family certainly don't need it.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming he can't go out and make additional money. Obama could start a collectibles store, be a day trader with part of that retirement, go out on the pro bass fisherman circuit, etc., etc. And he could get paid for speeches that don't have direct connections to decisions he made in office. For example, I don't think he helped the donut industry while in office, so he could go get paid for speeches to them. This is more of a gray area, but I think we can distinguish between cases of possible influence or not.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that people in government that acted in favor of some industry not be allowed to take money from that industry.

Going to have to agree to disagree on the $200k a year. One shouldnt have to earn less because he/she was president. Its already hard to get good people to consider this position. He took a pay cut for 8 years - shouldn't have to continue that once he and his family are out of office. I don't necessarily disagree with your comments on being more aware of where that money is coming from, but one man's 200 is another 's 50k.

Sorry NM but give or take a couple thousand $, one man's 200k is another man's 200k. There are outliers like having a serious medical condition or having 12 kids (which is a choice). For almost all other scenarios the reason one man can live on 50k and another has to have 200k is because the latter has a more extravagent lifestyle that they don't actually need.

Before anyone reads into my post, I'm not saying presidents shouldn't get paid more or not try to make more $.

I just think this talk about a guaranteed $200k/year (including a guarantee after retirement) not being enough to set you up comfortably for life is absolute insanity.

200k is alot different to a business owner than it is to an employee. 200k is not equal across the population or the country as NM said.

[Danny Bateman]

I will say this.

 

It's impressive how Obama supporters turned on him simply because of one speech.

 

Who turned on him? He's still my favorite president of my lifetime.

[Moiraine]

200k + benefits is most certainly comfortable living, but I don't think there's really any money level where we get to say "Enough, do not do anything for money anymore". Incidentally, Obama clearly isn't doing this for the money.

 

That isn't what you stated, which is what started this part of the conversation. The bolded is a lot different from saying you can't say someone can live comfortably without worry on $200k/year the rest of their lives.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

I think the perspective that he doesn't "need" to earn any additional money is a personal opinion Red. 200k sounds like a lot to many of us, but he's got kids going to private schools and enrolling in top tier colleges, he's carrying the family when he used to be he and his wife were very high earners and they live in high cost of living cities. A person shouldn't have to take a financial step back for their entire lives for having held that office. Michelle would be making more than that as a salaried lawyer, significantly more as a partner, and I'd think he'd be on a similar path.

 

I actually like your idea to put a restriction Presidents (or any Senate/Congressman) speaking for a paid fee for a certain number of years post holding office. I wish that the rules established (or at least spoken about) having lobbyists move between political positions and corporate positions or representing corporate interests. I know that's been talked about for a long time but nobody seems to hold anyone else accountable for monitoring it.

I really do not think a 200k pension with perks -- while nice -- is "don't need to make money ever again" territory.

I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't retire. And if I do go work, I wouldn't do it for free. I'd be a former POTUS, man. My time is valuable. Pay for it.

I do agree there's not much to regulate about political costs. It comes down to optics and I think it's quite fair to scrutinize the motives behind the arguments that are optics-based. There are some good ones, like why is he being so tone deaf. This one, though...I mean, I don't really understand not wanting him to ever do a speaking engagement with the financial sector. That's one among many intimately relevant groups for a guy who supervised national domestic and economic policy for a while. Where's the virtue in cold-shouldering them into perpetuity?

$200k/year guaranteed for the rest of his life with the additional perk of healthcare, doesn't meet basic needs? To put that in perspective, $200k/year is in the top 4% of income earners. That is exactly "don't need to make money ever again" territory. He could go out and make more money, but he and his family certainly don't need it.

 

Regardless, I'm not claiming he can't go out and make additional money. Obama could start a collectibles store, be a day trader with part of that retirement, go out on the pro bass fisherman circuit, etc., etc. And he could get paid for speeches that don't have direct connections to decisions he made in office. For example, I don't think he helped the donut industry while in office, so he could go get paid for speeches to them. This is more of a gray area, but I think we can distinguish between cases of possible influence or not.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that people in government that acted in favor of some industry not be allowed to take money from that industry.

Going to have to agree to disagree on the $200k a year. One shouldnt have to earn less because he/she was president. Its already hard to get good people to consider this position. He took a pay cut for 8 years - shouldn't have to continue that once he and his family are out of office. I don't necessarily disagree with your comments on being more aware of where that money is coming from, but one man's 200 is another 's 50k.

Sorry NM but give or take a couple thousand $, one man's 200k is another man's 200k. There are outliers like having a serious medical condition or having 12 kids (which is a choice). For almost all other scenarios the reason one man can live on 50k and another has to have 200k is because the latter has a more extravagent lifestyle that they don't actually need.

Before anyone reads into my post, I'm not saying presidents shouldn't get paid more or not try to make more $.

I just think this talk about a guaranteed $200k/year (including a guarantee after retirement) not being enough to set you up comfortably for life is absolute insanity.

200k is alot different to a business owner than it is to an employee. 200k is not equal across the population or the country as NM said.

No it isn't, not in this case, and this reply is for you, zoogs and NM.

 

 

We are not discussing normal income

 

 

Obama cannot get fired and lose the $200k

Obama will not retire and then lose the $200k

 

No matter what he does for the rest of his life, he will have the $200k

 

He doesn't even need to save for retirement, or a "cushion" as NM mentioned. He doesn't need a cushion. He will have $200k when he's 60. When he's 80. When he's 90. He doesn't need to save enough so that he has $200k*30 years ($6 million - social security - tax) after age 65 like someone on a $200k job income would. He has that guaranteed. This $200k isn't an income that he could lose at any moment like with a job. It absolutely is more than enough money for anyone to live on and never lift a finger again.

 

I also don't care what part of the country you live in. Unless the living comfortably definition is so specific that you have to live in the most expensive place on earth. And he knows that no matter what, he has $200k per year with which to move if he so desires.

 

He would be stupid to not go give a speech for an hour and make $50k or $500k or whatever it is, and the $200k should be increased, but y'all are freakin' weirdos with the comment that it's not enough to set him up for life.

[RedDenver]

To bring this back around to the topic, I think the Democratic party has lost touch with the voters, and I'm not the only one as 67% of the public thinks the Dems are out of touch in this poll (62% think Repubs out of touch for comparison). A large part of that (at least IMO) is the perception that the Dems are corrupt and in the pocket of big-money interests. Obama is such a large part of the party that taking this money lends itself to that perception instead of rebuilding the party's image.

[zoogs]

I don't think I've said that it's not enough to not set him up for life. Comfortable survival is not the question here. If he wants to be wealthy he needs to make more. If he wants to go retire and go paint in the woods, sure, whatever. Why is it more virtuous for someone in a position to make lots of money to turn that down because they already have enough? I don't think you disagree with that, either, so I'm not sure what we are debating

 

@RedDenver, I fully agree with you on the perception. I disagree about the merits of that perception.

[RedDenver]

If Obama's speaking fee is $50,000, are we having this conversation? Is the size of the fee the sticky wicket here?

The amount of money certainly plays a role in the scale of how unethical it is. And $50k is much less than $400k. I'm not claiming all unethical behavior is equal.

[zoogs]

If Obama gives a speech to Wall Street and cuts them a sweet financial deal for his fees when he should be commanding top dollar, why is that better? Isn't that worse?

[RedDenver]

I don't think I've said that it's not enough to not set him up for life. Comfortable survival is not the question here. If he wants to be wealthy he needs to make more. If he wants to go retire and go paint in the woods, sure, whatever. Why is it more virtuous for someone in a position to make lots of money to turn that down because they already have enough? I don't think you disagree with that, either, so I'm not sure what we are debating

I think we're mostly in agreement. And I'm not saying he can't go out and try to get wealthy. Nor am I making any sort of virtuous claim. I'm saying some ways are unethical due to his past position of power. As a counter-point, I don't have a problem with Obama's extremely lucrative book publishing deal because the source of that money is not possible as a pay-for-play (at least AFAIK).

@RedDenver, I fully agree with you on the perception. I disagree about the merits of that perception.

Ok. What merits do you disagree about?

 

And to be clear, I'm not saying this is some sort of purity or litmus test that means I'm against Obama or the Dems. It's just another thing they've done that makes me shake my head.

[RedDenver]

If Obama gives a speech to Wall Street and cuts them a sweet financial deal for his fees when he should be commanding top dollar, why is that better? Isn't that worse?

No. Cause and effect matter here. Wall Street didn't have a position of power in the government that Obama could be paying them back for exploiting.

[NM11046]

"The Former Presidents Act grants lifetime pensions to former presidents. First ladies and other members of the presidential family do not receive pensions, although widows of former presidents may receive $20,000 per year."

 

It's obvious our perspectives on cost of living and earning potential don't align Red, and that's fine. But there is more to the equation. Being smart about earning potential now while he is here & healthy is likely more than about his personal wealth. I don't think its fair to imply that his only desire is to live well and that that is his motivation. One has to protect and plan for providing for loved ones. Do you think if he died in a plane crash next year that his $200k a year would allow his children to go to school? Would that $20k pension allow his wife to retire at 62-66? Cover the cost of their debts and etc? Yes, there are loans and we all are able to take them out, and his children may very well pay for their own education and etc, who knows. I just keep going back to the fact that the past POTUS should not have to be limited in their earning potential for having been in the office.

 

Again, who is paying him for what can and should be debated and monitored. Determining what someone has the right to earn, what is appropriate to live on, how someone lives or where they choose to reside is none of our business. But someone who has held such an important role should not be punished for trying to provide for their family.

 

And why is this such an issue when we've got someone in office now that is collecting a ridiculous amount of money for his goods, his properties, and lord knows what other unknowns. Honestly who Obama, or Bush, or Clinton speaks to and what they earn is such a non issue compared to the fact that our current POTUS is actively accepting payment directly and indirectly from groups, governments and individuals who are paying him for favors and benefits that are far more reaching that what this speech amounts to.

[RedDenver]

"The Former Presidents Act grants lifetime pensions to former presidents. First ladies and other members of the presidential family do not receive pensions, although widows of former presidents may receive $20,000 per year."

 

It's obvious our perspectives on cost of living and earning potential don't align Red, and that's fine. But there is more to the equation. Being smart about earning potential now while he is here & healthy is likely more than about his personal wealth. I don't think its fair to imply that his only desire is to live well and that that is his motivation. One has to protect and plan for providing for loved ones. Do you think if he died in a plane crash next year that his $200k a year would allow his children to go to school? Would that $20k pension allow his wife to retire at 62-66? Cover the cost of their debts and etc? Yes, there are loans and we all are able to take them out, and his children may very well pay for their own education and etc, who knows. I just keep going back to the fact that the past POTUS should not have to be limited in their earning potential for having been in the office.

 

Again, who is paying him for what can and should be debated and monitored. Determining what someone has the right to earn, what is appropriate to live on, how someone lives or where they choose to reside is none of our business. But someone who has held such an important role should not be punished for trying to provide for their family.

 

And why is this such an issue when we've got someone in office now that is collecting a ridiculous amount of money for his goods, his properties, and lord knows what other unknowns. Honestly who Obama, or Bush, or Clinton speaks to and what they earn is such a non issue compared to the fact that our current POTUS is actively accepting payment directly and indirectly from groups, governments and individuals who are paying him for favors and benefits that are far more reaching that what this speech amounts to.

Everything I've highlighted in red is a strawman argument. Let me repeat myself: I'm not saying Obama can't earn money. In fact, Obama just signed a $60 million book deal that I have no problem with.

 

And as I said before, if the current retirement amount isn't enough to keep our former presidents from having to take unethical money, then let's raise his pay. Or in your scenario, let's pay his widow.

 

Just because Trump or someone else is doing something similar or worse, doesn't mean we just condone everything that's not as bad. That's flat-out ridiculous.

[funhusker]

 

"The Former Presidents Act grants lifetime pensions to former presidents. First ladies and other members of the presidential family do not receive pensions, although widows of former presidents may receive $20,000 per year."

 

It's obvious our perspectives on cost of living and earning potential don't align Red, and that's fine. But there is more to the equation. Being smart about earning potential now while he is here & healthy is likely more than about his personal wealth. I don't think its fair to imply that his only desire is to live well and that that is his motivation. One has to protect and plan for providing for loved ones. Do you think if he died in a plane crash next year that his $200k a year would allow his children to go to school? Would that $20k pension allow his wife to retire at 62-66? Cover the cost of their debts and etc? Yes, there are loans and we all are able to take them out, and his children may very well pay for their own education and etc, who knows. I just keep going back to the fact that the past POTUS should not have to be limited in their earning potential for having been in the office.

 

Again, who is paying him for what can and should be debated and monitored. Determining what someone has the right to earn, what is appropriate to live on, how someone lives or where they choose to reside is none of our business. But someone who has held such an important role should not be punished for trying to provide for their family.

 

And why is this such an issue when we've got someone in office now that is collecting a ridiculous amount of money for his goods, his properties, and lord knows what other unknowns. Honestly who Obama, or Bush, or Clinton speaks to and what they earn is such a non issue compared to the fact that our current POTUS is actively accepting payment directly and indirectly from groups, governments and individuals who are paying him for favors and benefits that are far more reaching that what this speech amounts to.

Everything I've highlighted in red is a strawman argument. Let me repeat myself: I'm not saying Obama can't earn money. In fact, Obama just signed a $60 million book deal that I have no problem with.

 

And as I said before, if the current retirement amount isn't enough to keep our former presidents from having to take unethical money, then let's raise his pay. Or in your scenario, let's pay his widow.

 

Just because Trump or someone else is doing something similar or worse, doesn't mean we just condone everything that's not as bad. That's flat-out ridiculous.

 

But we're waiting for a valid reason for why it is "unethical". I agree, it is a bad look because people are going to read into it. But Obama is getting a fair price. Admittedly, I just did some quick Google searches and discovered Larry the Cable Guy apparently makes around $200,000 for appearances. Hillary Clinton got similar money and she wasn't in a position nearly as high as Obama.

 

That said, assuming you're correct, Obama just signed a $60 million book deal. Why on earth would he risk his legacy and potential jail time for $400,000? A measly $400,000 "cut" that hardly even registers as a fraction of the success Wall Street experienced in the last 7-8 years.

 

Nothing more to this than giving people something to fret about. A bad look? Yes. Unethical? No.