Jump to content


Dems Rebuild


Recommended Posts

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.

 

I gave reasons why it's unethical, but I'm apparently not getting my point across. So here are two articles that describe the ethics of the situation. Here's a quote from the first article that sums things up (emphasis mine):

The argument against these fees, and against post-office cashouts more broadly, is simple: If public officials are expected to make a lot of money from certain interest groups after they leave office, some voters will reasonably fear that those officials will go easy on those groups while in office, so as not to alienate those groups.

 

My concern is only in part about "optics." It is also substantive: The expectation of a future payday could weigh, even unconsciously, on the way politicians treat interest groups they may expect to receive payments from in the future. A norm that expects politicians to forswear such payments, even after they leave office, would make those politicians less likely to be swayed by their own financial interests when they make policy.

 

And from the second article:

Obama’s administration famously sought no criminal sanctions for Wall Street executives despite their role in what Obama called “driving the economy into a ditch.” How do we know this wasn’t part of an installment payment to Obama for services already rendered, a quid pro quo? We don’t.
It is also hard to make sense out of those fees if they aren’t paying for something more than an hour long speech.

 

Also, Obama is not risking jail time, as his actions are legal. Unethical and illegal are separate things. A bad look? Yes. Unethical? Yes. Illegal? No.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

WOW...seriously??? And....I ask that on two levels.

 

a) He's seriously your favorite President in your lifetime? REALLY???

 

b) And you haven't seen people turn on him? ahem.....Warren?????

Link to comment

Depends on what your definition of "turning on" is. I guess you're interested in a semantics debate on a Monday morning.

 

I define it as heavily criticizing. I consider that as the case since it is very rare that people from one party heavily criticize their prize President right after he leaves office. And...I have seen that. So....yes....some liberals have turned on him.

 

Now...if you want to stick with your little trick of googling a specific phrase...then so be it and you can live in your little google world.

 

The fact is though, some people who supported him have heavily criticized him for the speech. We have seen it right here in this thread.

 

So....if you disagree with me because it doesn't fit into some little google search...then.....gee......sorry.

Link to comment

But if that's the definition we're going with, didn't the Freedom Caucus and/or the moderate Republicans "turn on" Trump for the first iteration of the AHCA?

 

Obama governed as a center-left president who was not as harsh on Wall Street as progressives like Warren on Bernie would've liked. Nothing is going to change that - he's not a far-left progressives dream president. Of course they will criticize him for this. That criticism is nothing new.

 

But yeah, he's still my favorite president. I've only been alive for 3 - Clinton, W & Obama. Well, I guess HW's last year, as I was born in '91. And of course Trump. Of that list, he edges out Clinton by a bit.

Link to comment

But if that's the definition we're going with, didn't the Freedom Caucus and/or the moderate Republicans "turn on" Trump for the first iteration of the AHCA?

 

Obama governed as a center-left president who was not as harsh on Wall Street as progressives like Warren on Bernie would've liked. Nothing is going to change that - he's not a far-left progressives dream president. Of course they will criticize him for this. That criticism is nothing new.

 

But yeah, he's still my favorite president. I've only been alive for 3 - Clinton, W & Obama. Well, I guess HW's last year, as I was born in '91. And of course Trump. Of that list, he edges out Clinton by a bit.

I guess you can say that. But, there have been Republicans that haven't liked Trump. That's been the case throughout the entire campaign.

 

I wasn't expecting this with Obama after he left office.

 

As to your last sentence.....makes sense if those are the only ones to choose from.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I wasn't expecting this with Obama after he left office.

Really? I was, for reasons I outlined in this post over the weekend:

 

It's not like the party unified behind him, and he was never considered a leader of the party in the same way that Trump isn't truly a leader of the Republican party.

Obama never enjoyed unilateral support. Democrats were so worried about their reelection vulnerability after Obamacare was passed and the daily attacks on it by the Republicans that they never could afford to rally around Obama or his policies.

 

If the Republicans lose ground in the mid-terms you can bet they'll treat Trump the same.

 

 

 

 

BRB - the last page or so of conversation in this thread has been a little contentious. I haven't been part of that, so I think you may want to reexamine my last couple of replies here. I'm not trying to "gotcha" you with the Warren thing. I just haven't seen what you're saying (in large part due to the first part of this post). I didn't expect the tone of your response, and think maybe it's based more on the thread than what I'm saying.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

I wasn't expecting this with Obama after he left office.

Really? I was, for reasons I outlined in this post over the weekend:

 

It's not like the party unified behind him, and he was never considered a leader of the party in the same way that Trump isn't truly a leader of the Republican party.

Obama never enjoyed unilateral support. Democrats were so worried about their reelection vulnerability after Obamacare was passed and the daily attacks on it by the Republicans that they never could afford to rally around Obama or his policies.

 

If the Republicans lose ground in the mid-terms you can bet they'll treat Trump the same.

 

 

 

 

BRB - the last page or so of conversation in this thread has been a little contentious. I haven't been part of that, so I think you may want to reexamine my last couple of replies here. I'm not trying to "gotcha" you with the Warren thing. I just haven't seen what you're saying (in large part due to the first part of this post). I didn't expect the tone of your response, and think maybe it's based more on the thread than what I'm saying.

 

Because it seems you took my comment as something more than it was meant to be and then used a google search trick to try to support your comment.

 

I'm simply saying I'm surprised to see criticism of Obama on this issue. You aren't...and that's fine.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Back on the topic on what the Dems need to do to rebuild... I read an story today that said that focus grouped Trump-Obama voters that still largely view the Dems as looking after themselves and not the American people. They feel left behind economically, really disliked Clinton, and twice as many (!) think the party's policies favor the wealthy as those who think Trump's do.

 

The Dems have a messaging problem. People simply don't believe them when they put up someone like Clinton to deliver an economic message, even if it is heavily populist and favors the people, because they construe her as phony. They think the party looks after special interests, including Wall Street, before people. Sanders had a great deal of success since he was seen as genuine, even if his policies were too far left for many people.

 

Dems need to trumpet the hell out of events like THIS is they ever hope to shift the public perception:

 

Republicans are marching ahead with a mammoth 593-page bill to deregulate Wall Street

 

 

Spearheaded by House Finance Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Choice Act begins by throwing out much of the banking oversight passed under President Obama’s administration, mostly through the Dodd-Frank act signed in 2010. But it goes further than that, rolling back oversight in a way that could dramatically exacerbate the likelihood of another financial crisis, according to experts in financial regulation.

 

“It’s a little hard to get your mind around everything this bill does, because there’s almost no area of financial regulation it doesn’t touch,” says Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform. “There’s a bunch of very radical stuff in this bill, and it goes way beyond repealing Dodd-Frank.”

It could also expose the hollowness of Trump’s campaign promises. Trump ran on slamming Wall Street for “getting away with murder” and arguing that Goldman Sachs had "bled our country dry."

But the bill looks to some like a wish list of what advocates and lobbyists for the banking industry have demanded. Among the provisions that have most alarmed progressives on the Hill is its proposed elimination of the “Volcker Rule,” which prevents commercial banks from making certain kinds of speculative and risky trades.

 

Fascinating article. Seems like a really stupid idea that most people would be furious about if they found out. Great opportunity for Dems to finger the GOP as subservient to big money that I entirely expect them to fumble.

Link to comment

I think it's fair to say some constituents are turning on Obama for this; it's evinced by the media coverage in liberal outlets. At least, there's a political power play from the Bernie wing going on. Quite the opportunist, that one :D

 

That's it in a nutshell to me: this is not about Obama, this is about Wall Street money. And I don't think it's unethical because the financial sector is extremely relevant to national fiscal policy and vice versa. This isn't the Backgammon Players' Interest Club or whatever example you want to throw out there. Presidents and politicians are among the types of people who *should* be booking these speaking engagements, I think.

 

Also, Obama is easily the favorite President of my lifetime. Who does he go up against? Bill Clinton? GW? GHW? Trump? That's literally it. We can go back further. Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon?? LBJ got a lot done but wasn't uncompromised. Kennedy?...there are some decent arguments among these but none are without flaws.

Link to comment

Back on the topic on what the Dems need to do to rebuild... I read an story today that said that focus grouped Trump-Obama voters that still largely view the Dems as looking after themselves and not the American people. They feel left behind economically, really disliked Clinton, and twice as many (!) think the party's policies favor the wealthy as those who think Trump's do.

 

The Dems have a messaging problem. People simply don't believe them when they put up someone like Clinton to deliver an economic message, even if it is heavily populist and favors the people, because they construe her as phony. They think the party looks after special interests, including Wall Street, before people. Sanders had a great deal of success since he was seen as genuine, even if his policies were too far left for many people.

 

Dems need to trumpet the hell out of events like THIS is they ever hope to shift the public perception:

 

Republicans are marching ahead with a mammoth 593-page bill to deregulate Wall Street

 

 

Spearheaded by House Finance Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Choice Act begins by throwing out much of the banking oversight passed under President Obama’s administration, mostly through the Dodd-Frank act signed in 2010. But it goes further than that, rolling back oversight in a way that could dramatically exacerbate the likelihood of another financial crisis, according to experts in financial regulation.

 

“It’s a little hard to get your mind around everything this bill does, because there’s almost no area of financial regulation it doesn’t touch,” says Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform. “There’s a bunch of very radical stuff in this bill, and it goes way beyond repealing Dodd-Frank.”

It could also expose the hollowness of Trump’s campaign promises. Trump ran on slamming Wall Street for “getting away with murder” and arguing that Goldman Sachs had "bled our country dry."

But the bill looks to some like a wish list of what advocates and lobbyists for the banking industry have demanded. Among the provisions that have most alarmed progressives on the Hill is its proposed elimination of the “Volcker Rule,” which prevents commercial banks from making certain kinds of speculative and risky trades.

 

Fascinating article. Seems like a really stupid idea that most people would be furious about if they found out. Great opportunity for Dems to finger the GOP as subservient to big money that I entirely expect them to fumble.

The first two paragraphs of your post sum up the Democrats for decades. Look at their main issues.

 

Minorities = People like Jesse Jackson...etc. ranted on and on about those poor black people and all the racism against them. Meanwhile, he's getting rich and living pretty nicely off of all their donations to his Rainbow Coalition. He had all the motivation in the world to not ever solve racial problems and in many ways promote them.

 

Women issues = OK...Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton ....need I say more?

 

Working class/union members = The Dems lived off this group for a long time and what have they done to stop jobs leaving?

 

And...it goes no and on.....

 

It is not surprising to me at all that many people are starting to really question if the Dems mean what they say. And..I agree....this was a major reason why Sanders had the popularity he had and why I a probably respected him the most out of the three....even though I didn't agree with him an much.

Link to comment

Back on the topic on what the Dems need to do to rebuild... I read an story today that said that focus grouped Trump-Obama voters that still largely view the Dems as looking after themselves and not the American people. They feel left behind economically, really disliked Clinton, and twice as many (!) think the party's policies favor the wealthy as those who think Trump's do.

 

The Dems have a messaging problem. People simply don't believe them when they put up someone like Clinton to deliver an economic message, even if it is heavily populist and favors the people, because they construe her as phony. They think the party looks after special interests, including Wall Street, before people. Sanders had a great deal of success since he was seen as genuine, even if his policies were too far left for many people.

 

Dems need to trumpet the hell out of events like THIS is they ever hope to shift the public perception:

 

Republicans are marching ahead with a mammoth 593-page bill to deregulate Wall Street

 

Spearheaded by House Finance Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the Choice Act begins by throwing out much of the banking oversight passed under President Obama’s administration, mostly through the Dodd-Frank act signed in 2010. But it goes further than that, rolling back oversight in a way that could dramatically exacerbate the likelihood of another financial crisis, according to experts in financial regulation.

 

“It’s a little hard to get your mind around everything this bill does, because there’s almost no area of financial regulation it doesn’t touch,” says Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform. “There’s a bunch of very radical stuff in this bill, and it goes way beyond repealing Dodd-Frank.”

 

It could also expose the hollowness of Trump’s campaign promises. Trump ran on slamming Wall Street for “getting away with murder” and arguing that Goldman Sachs had "bled our country dry."

 

But the bill looks to some like a wish list of what advocates and lobbyists for the banking industry have demanded. Among the provisions that have most alarmed progressives on the Hill is its proposed elimination of the “Volcker Rule,” which prevents commercial banks from making certain kinds of speculative and risky trades.

Fascinating article. Seems like a really stupid idea that most people would be furious about if they found out. Great opportunity for Dems to finger the GOP as subservient to big money that I entirely expect them to fumble.

 

Interesting. I'd quibble with the notion that Clinton or the Dems (or the Repubs outside of Trump) had an economic message, let alone a populist one. Can anybody remember any Clinton economic policies? I only remember her flipping from supporting to opposing the TPP.
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...