Obama sells out.

[Crackpot]

Having chosen a position the ponytailed rubester will now defend it to the death regardless of how precarious or indefensible the position might be. Oddly this isn't as fatal rubster as one might think since it's combination of foul displays and the general worthlessness of the position in the first place soon convinces most predators it's not worth the hassle and just move on...

[Big RR]

Scooter--

It only becomes a wedge if they choose to make it so through their reaction to it.

But that's the point, isn't it? There are some among the dems who see Wall Street as evil incarnate, others who do not. And when a prominent democrat is seen as cozying up to Wall Street execs, those who see Wall Street as evil will criticize it, and those who don't will say those who are doing the criticizing are stooges of the right (as the article linked by econo states)--the wedge is pretty inevitable.

As for debate re the "appropriateness" of receiving the fees, I am certain each of us can think of some organizations which we would criticize Obama for accepting fees from, even if it doesn't influence government policy one bit; that's all those who see Wall Street firms among those organizations are doing.

Face it, Wall Street isn't giving him money because they like him or want to hear what he says, they are doing it because it somehow gives them something worth that expense. And IMHO, his accepting the money plays right into their scheme.

[Scooter]

when a prominent democrat is seen as cozying up to Wall Street execs

That's exactly my point, why is it that they have to perceive it as "cozying up", irrespective of the context? I have been paid by more than a few corporations to tell them what I thought they needed to hear; whether or not they liked what I had to say was beside the point. Quote me some excerpts from Obama's speeches to these infidels that demonstrate a betrayal of Democratic ideals, and then we can talk.

[BoSoxGal]

I guess we'll see whether he makes his Wall Street remarks publicly available - or not, like Hillary.

What I don't get is - who needs more than $60 million dollars to provide for himself and his family - even unto grandchildren?

Sure, charge wealthy listeners a hefty speaking fee - then donate it to charity. I think that would save him lots of criticism.

[Big RR]

As BSG says, let's see what becomes public--if anything. And while you try and see the best in this situation, I sincerely doubt that they are paying him to tell him what "they needed to hear" (or even why they would want to hear that given the balance of power in Washington), they obviously (at least to me) have some other motive.

Obama may have some Faustian notion that he can beat the devil at his own game, but many before him thought the same thing and did not.

[Crackpot]

So you expect him to come up with a whole new spiel the next time he does this? (Which he then would have to reveal making him have to come up yet another sufficiently different speech etc etc)

[BoSoxGal]

Famous speakers aren't usually paid for secret speeches that can't be shared publicly, they're paid for the prestige of speaking in person and usually participating in a dinner and cocktail schmooze fest adjacent to the speaking engagement. There are plenty of organizations that will still happily pay the President to visit/speak even if the entire transcript was known in advance.

[Crackpot]

If it's all about the access what does it matter what he says?

[Lord Jim]

Having chosen a position the ponytailed rubester will now defend it to the death regardless of how precarious or indefensible the position might be.

[Scooter]

Go ahead, keep bitching about one speaking fee:

Barack and Michelle Obama donate $2 million to summer jobs programs in Chicago

Former President Barack Obama hosted a community event at the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago on Wednesday -- and made some big announcements about the future plans for his center's campus.

The 44th president announced he and his wife, Michelle Obama, will be donating $2 million to summer jobs programs in Chicago.

"One of the things that we will be starting this year is Michelle and I, personally, are going to donate $2 million to our summer jobs programs here in the community, so that right away young people can get to work, and we can start providing opportunities to all of them," Obama said.

"We'll be working with the city, we'll be working with the county, we'll be working with businesses because part of what we want to do is reach young people who might be at risk if they don't have something to do during the summers," Obama continued. "But part of what we also want to do is to reach older youth who may be prepared for apprenticeships because one of the things that this project is going to do is generate jobs."

Obama said the program will be starting immediately, however, the overall process to complete the presidential center will take about four years.

[Big RR]

Good for them, but it's apples and oranges to try and compare the two very different things.

[Bicycle Bill]

House Oversight chair suggests Congress could go after Obama's pension over $400,000 speech

Former president Barack Obama's upcoming speech to investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald has caught the eye of US lawmakers — particularly for the six-figure payment Obama is receiving for the appearance.

At least one lawmaker suggested Congress may evaluate Obama's presidential pension because of it.

House Oversight and Government Reform chair Jason Chaffetz (a Republican representative from Utah; but we could have guessed that, right?) commented in a USA Today story published Wednesday that said lawmakers may reintroduce a bill that would target presidential pensions if a former commander-in-chief earns outside income of at least $400,000.
(rest here — http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-speech-pension-2017-5)

A black man who has never played professional football demands — and gets — a multi-million dollar contract to do just that, and no one even blinks an eye.  A black man who, after all, WAS the POTUS gives a speech and collects a large honorarium for it (but still less than a half-million), and the GOP pols carry on like he's emptying Fort Knox because he is also being paid a pension from the government.

Obama's pension amounts to around $207K.  Trump costs the government more than that for one of his weekend trips to Mar-a-Lago.  Sit down and shut up, Mr. Chaffetz, and let Obama have what he's earned.

On the other hand, if a bill like this were to pass that means Trump would also not qualify to get a pension, so maybe there's a silver lining here after all.

-"BB"-

[rubato]

The amount of money paid is out of proportion to the value of the 'work' done for it and out of proportion to the effort. Thus it is a bribe or we could more generously call it a 'gift'. When you accept a gift from someone you are then obliged to them and that obligation affects how you see the world. This is why accepting a gift, to a moral person, is a way of saying that they respect and trust the giver so that they are willing to take on the reciprocal obligation. When a gift is accepted the recipient honors the giver. It is an affirmative statement. This is why, for one example, Planned Parenthood should refuse any gifts from David Dukes.

I am surprised that so few have thought about how all this works.


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

gift

noun
1.
something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.
2.
the act of giving.
3.
something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned:
Those extra points he got in the game were a total gift.

That you view every gift, contrary to the very definition of the term, as coming with strings attached, says far more about you than it does about those you are attempting to slime with innuendo.

In any event, the notion that the payment received is far in excess of the value of the speech is nothing but your ipse dixit. Clearly the fact that very well known people attract such speaking fees with regularity belie your pulled-out-of-your-ass comment.

[Scooter]

Good for them, but it's apples and oranges to try and compare the two very different things.

"Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Someone was quoted as saying that once. I think there are a few billion people who believe he knew what he was talking about.

[rubato]

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0360706552

Much attention has been focused in recent years on the ethical acceptability of physicians receiving gifts from drug companies. Professional guidelines recognize industry gifts as a conflict of interest and establish thresholds prohibiting the exchange of large gifts while expressly allowing for the exchange of small gifts such as pens, note pads, and coffee. Considerable evidence from the social sciences suggests that gifts of negligible value can influence the behavior of the recipient in ways the recipient does not always realize. Policies and guidelines that rely on arbitrary value limits for gift-giving or receipt should be reevaluated.

[Scooter]

So then your harping on the amount of the fee is bullshit, because someone could be influenced by a $10 fee as much as by a $400,000 one.

What was that? I'm sorry, I can't understand you when you keep tripping over your own tongue.

[Lord Jim]

The amount of money paid is out of proportion to the value of the 'work' done for it

On the contrary, it is exactly proportional to the value since that is what this group was willing to pay for it.

Rube, I realize that you understand economics about as well as Donald Trump or Elizabeth Warren, (in other words you know fuck all about it) but try looking up supply and demand, law of

Learn something new...

(I'd suggest that you get a copy of The Wealth Of Nations, but there are a lot of big words and no pictures, so it"s not your type of reading material...)


Donald J. Rube is just completely incapable of admitting to a mistake...

[rubato]

gift

noun
1.
something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present.
2.
the act of giving.
3.
something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned:
Those extra points he got in the game were a total gift.

That you view every gift, contrary to the very definition of the term, as coming with strings attached, says far more about you than it does about those you are attempting to slime with innuendo.

In any event, the notion that the payment received is far in excess of the value of the speech is nothing but your ipse dixit. Clearly the fact that very well known people attract such speaking fees with regularity belie your pulled-out-of-your-ass comment.

One way that corrupt governments cement their rule is by the bestowing of 'gifts' from the ruler to his supporters. The giving of gifts between heads of state in pre-democratic Europe was always with the expectation of changing the behavior of the recipient. When we give generous tips to restaurants we frequent often we expect, and receive, better treatment. The charities we support at a higher level respond with very kind handwritten letters and invitations to future events and personal meetings with officials. I have a friend at work who has very 'transactional' view of the world. I gave him a nice bottle of wine for his birthday with no thought of reciprocation in advance but later realized that he would not be able NOT to reciprocate; he thought that receiving the gift entailed an obligation.

The gift does not have to come with strings attached by the giver (although it sometimes does) the strings are often created by the recipient.

$400,000 for an hours work in delivery and a few hours writing (of course they can be used again and again) is patently more than any cognitive value to even a first blush.

And as a social act accepting a gift honors and flatters the giver. It affirms that the giver is a moral and honorable person or institution in the eyes of the receiver.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

So then your harping on the amount of the fee is bullshit, because someone could be influenced by a $10 fee as much as by a $400,000 one.

What was that? I'm sorry, I can't understand you when you keep tripping over your own tongue.

The research shows that even small amounts are effective. It does not compare the two circumstances.

You should think more deeply about this.


yrs,
rubato