I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wish I could not take money to the tune of $65 million. That would be sweet.

eta: Which, by the way, is more than 2x what Clinton and W. got for their memoirs combined. And I have zero problem with that. I am much more likely to buy and read his memoir than theirs.

Bill Clinton has been making $50 million a year in speaking fees since he left office.

Also: http://crescentspeak.com/black-man-c...-getting-paid/

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Bill Clinton has been making $50 million a year in speaking fees since he left office.

Also: http://crescentspeak.com/black-man-c...-getting-paid/

TM

As it happens, I believe that the subject of what he has been doing did come up recently, during last year's election.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Bill Clinton has been making $50 million a year in speaking fees since he left office.

Also: http://crescentspeak.com/black-man-c...-getting-paid/

TM

Serious question, particularly for those who have been to such speeches. Do they say anything worth that money? They no longer have any official power and do not seem to offer insight into the inner workings in a way that I would be interested. Does it get the company an advantage in some way? If I was a shareholder or principal in a company paying that sort of money to an out-of-power speaker, I would be voting for a new Board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Serious question, particularly for those who have been to such speeches. Do they say anything worth that money? They no longer have any official power and do not seem to offer insight into the inner workings in a way that I would be interested. Does it get the company an advantage in some way? If I was a shareholder or principal in a company paying that sort of money to an out-of-power speaker, I would be voting for a new Board.

I am familiar with a company that paid HRC to come and speak, as a part of an initiative to improve the lot of women at the company. Clearly, the value of doing that is > 0, but also clearly it is impossible to quantify in any real way. But an awful lot of marketing seems to me to be a waste too, and that spending rolls merrily along, so who knows.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Serious question, particularly for those who have been to such speeches. Do they say anything worth that money? They no longer have any official power and do not seem to offer insight into the inner workings in a way that I would be interested. Does it get the company an advantage in some way? If I was a shareholder or principal in a company paying that sort of money to an out-of-power speaker, I would be voting for a new Board.

I'd suggested this earlier but you may not have been around, but if you want the perspective of a CEO who hired Clinton for a speech and was happy with it, pick up The Disruptor's Feast by Frits van Paasschen. Fritz was a college classmate which is why I picked it up, but in talking about how he led Starwood and tried to set a tone and steer people's thinking to a more global outlook he talked about having Bill Clinton speak at one of their annual meetings. From the sounds of it, what he had to say was a pretty standard CGI type of speech, and wouldn't have been new to anyone listening, but it let Fritz set a tone for what they were talking about at the conference and that is what he wanted. The celebrity seemed to help as much as the message.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wish I could not take money to the tune of $65 million. That would be sweet.

eta: Which, by the way, is more than 2x what Clinton and W. got for their memoirs combined. And I have zero problem with that. I am much more likely to buy and read his memoir than theirs.

Wait, you're upset that he's getting $400K from the company that suffered most in 9/11, and one with among the most active charitable programs out there for American companies, but the idea of a $65 million payout from Bertelsmann and Pearson, big German and British multinationals in each case, doesn't bother you?

And the reason is you think you might buy the wares of the multinationals?

Do you have any logic here?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wait, you're upset that he's getting $400K from the company that suffered most in 9/11, and one with among the most active charitable programs out there for American companies, but the idea of a $65 million payout from Bertelsmann and Pearson, big German and British multinationals in each case, doesn't bother you?

And the reason is you think you might buy the wares of the multinationals?

Do you have any logic here?

Yes, thanks for asking. The length of this conversation may be creating the impression that I care about this more than I do. The ownership of the company doesn't matter to me as much as the facts that Obama has to write a book for the one and just show up and give a speech for the other, and that the publisher is going to receive concrete value from selling copies of the book. YMMV.

AON, Hasan Minhaj killed at last night -- worth watching.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes, thanks for asking. The length of this conversation may be creating the impression that I care about this more than I do. The ownership of the company doesn't matter to me as much as the facts that Obama has to write a book for the one and just show up and give a speech for the other, and that the publisher is going to receive concrete value from selling copies of the book. YMMV.

Hmmm. So the associate who writes the brief the clerks read is worth more than the Partner who stands up and argues the case? Showing up and giving a speech is something I at least find a nontrivial delivery myself.

It strikes me the reaction to Obama' getting paid for speaking is an emotional reaction from people who have been listening to the HDS sufferers over the years. I understand the emotional reaction. Wall Street bad, associating with it in any way, evil. But that reaction falls apart under even very simple analysis or self-reflection because it simply isn't logical or sensibly applied. Obviously, you've persuaded no one here with any of your arguments, across the whole spectrum from Adder to Sebby.

But people cling to their vitriol.

I'm sure it's not the biggest issue in the world to you, but this is a theme that has been used to undermine good people and candidates for a while and it obviously elicits a strong (and, yes, emotional) reaction of disgust from many of us. So far I'm finding my emotional reaction easier to logically validate than yours.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hmmm. So the associate who writes the brief the clerks read is worth more than the Partner who stands up and argues the case? Showing up and giving a speech is something I at least find a nontrivial delivery myself.

It's hard to tell whether you are being intentionally obtuse about what I tried to say or whether you are just using me to respond to things that other people have said. I have never questioned that Obama is "worth" what Cantor is willing to pay. My concern is about the politic impact for Democrats.

It strikes me the reaction to Obama' getting paid for speaking is an emotional reaction from people who have been listening to the HDS sufferers over the years. I understand the emotional reaction. Wall Street bad, associating with it in any way, evil. But that reaction falls apart under even very simple analysis or self-reflection because it simply isn't logical or sensibly applied.

I can't speak to the emotional reaction you're describing because I can think of only three people who I've seen say that Obama taking Cantor's money is a bad idea (Matt Yglesias, Josh Barro and (maybe) Brian Beutler), and none of them have been what I would describe as emotional, nor are they disposed to think Wall St is bad.

As for me, my view is very simple. He doesn't need it, and it's bad for Democrats, so I wish he wouldn't take the money. The example of Jimmy Carter is instructive. It strikes me that the reaction to what I'm saying is fundamentally emotional, as if I'm trolling Obama. No one thinks he needs the money. No one thinks it's good for the Democratic Party. But everyone likes Obama and wants the best for him, so the wagons are circled.

Obviously, you've persuaded no one here with any of your arguments, across the whole spectrum from Adder to Sebby.

If I haven't convinced anyone, well, that's life in the big city.

But people cling to their vitriol.

What vitriol? I really don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sure it's not the biggest issue in the world to you, but this is a theme that has been used to undermine good people and candidates for a while and it obviously elicits a strong (and, yes, emotional) reaction of disgust from many of us. So far I'm finding my emotional reaction easier to logically validate than yours.

What's the theme that you object to? Again, it feels like you're responding to someone else rather than to me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's hard to tell whether you are being intentionally obtuse about what I tried to say or whether you are just using me to respond to things that other people have said. I have never questioned that Obama is "worth" what Cantor is willing to pay. My concern is about the politic impact for Democrats.

I was addressing your logic that he somehow delivering a book was delivering something of value while delivering a speech was not. It just seemed an odd and illogical point to make when I suspect most of us get paid mostly for talking.

But you won't get it. You have no sensible logical reason for him not to do speaking engagements. Hiding behind "it looks bad" doesn't work unless you can explain in a coherent way why you think it looks bad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I was addressing your logic that he somehow delivering a book was delivering something of value while delivering a speech was not. It just seemed an odd and illogical point to make when I suspect most of us get paid mostly for talking.

But you won't get it. You have no sensible logical reason for him not to do speaking engagements. Hiding behind "it looks bad" doesn't work unless you can explain in a coherent way why you think it looks bad.

If you don't get that there are a lot of Americans who think that $400K is a lot of money for giving a speech and that politicians are too interested in self-enrichment and helping the rich, then I don't know how to help you. I'm not hiding behind anything. To a lot of people, it looks bad, and some of them vote.

Rather than insist than I'm not being logical, which is at least as unpersuasive as anything I've said, you could point out that I'm not solving anything, and that it's easy to criticize Obama for taking the engagement.

eta: The more fundamental problem, of which this is a reminder, is that the policies backed by moderate Democrats have not done much for ordinary people over the last decade. The economy is doing OK, but the gains are being captured by the richest. If Democrats had a better response to that, Cantor's offer would seem like less of an issue.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you don't get that there are a lot of Americans who think that $400K is a lot of money for giving a speech and that politicians are too interested in self-enrichment and helping the rich, then I don't know how to help you. I'm not hiding behind anything. To a lot of people, it looks bad, and some of them vote.

Rather than insist than I'm not being logical, which is at least as unpersuasive as anything I've said, you could point out that I'm not solving anything, and that it's easy to criticize Obama for taking the engagement.

Oh God you've heard nothing. It looks bad to a lot of Americans that Obama has an Arabic middle name and that his skin is black. Does he need to change his name and bleach his skin so Democrats can win elections?

If you can't give some substance to the complaint and are going to base everything on appearances, which translates to biases, frankly, you may deserve Donald Trump, a man who seems to care about little but appearances. Push back on the bullshit, don't embrace it. Part of the problem Dems had in the last election was that we hadn't defended Hillary vigorously enough against the attacks that started during the Clinton administration and continued.

The normal response of many so-called progressives to yet another investigation that would ultimately clear Hillary was "Well, they have a point, but it's not that bad" rather than "they're fucking lying assholes out to get her any way they can", which was the case. So when the Berners picked up Issas and Chaffetz's attacks, like the speaking engagements, it was just more of the same.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh God you've heard nothing. It looks bad to a lot of Americans that Obama has an Arabic middle name and that his skin is black. Does he need to change his name and bleach his skin so Democrats can win elections?

Right, because those things are completely similar.

If you can't give some substance to the complaint and are going to base everything on appearances, which translates to biases, frankly, you may deserve Donald Trump, a man who seems to care about little but appearances. Push back on the bullshit, don't embrace it. Part of the problem Dems had in the last election was that we hadn't defended Hillary vigorously enough against the attacks that started during the Clinton administration and continued.

If that was part of the problem, it was at best only part of the problem. See my edit to the prior post. It's an issue because it stands for something real and important.

The normal response of many so-called progressives to yet another investigation that would ultimately clear Hillary was "Well, they have a point, but it's not that bad" rather than "they're fucking lying assholes out to get her any way they can", which was the case. So when the Berners picked up Issas and Chaffetz's attacks, like the speaking engagements, it was just more of the same.

OK.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: The more fundamental problem, of which this is a reminder, is that the policies backed by moderate Democrats have not done much for ordinary people over the last decade. The economy is doing OK, but the gains are being captured by the richest. If Democrats had a better response to that, Cantor's offer would seem like less of an issue.

I don't know who these "moderate" democrats you speak of are. One of the realities of the Congress today is that it is very polarized, and Democrats are more liberal and Republicans are more conservative than ever before. I suspect if we win back the house there will be more moderate democrats in it, but right now there just really aren't. Our last Presidential candidate, Hillary, was certainly not a centrist by any objective measure.

What policies are you focused on? The last time the Dems were able, they raised the minimum wage; when the Rs took back the house, it stagnated. Dems have been tremendously pro-union. ACA turned out to be one of the best job-creators around, pushed through at great political cost. Likewise, we put in place in Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The last time Dems could effectively legislate, we did a lot, but we had a lot of repair work to do. And we spent the political capital that had won the majority doing it, especially healthcare.

However, we're fighting a losing battle on unionization. Anti-trade stuff is a convenient rallying cry for many, but probably does more to undermine working class incomes than help them. There is broad political consensus within the democratic party for raising the minimum wage, protecting unions, implementing financial reform, expanding health care, building infrastructure, and making public higher education more affordable or free. The debate within Democratic party circles is not whether or not to do this things but how much of them to do (e.g., $12 versus $15 minimum wage, a minimum wage that is tiered by market or consistent across the country, single payor, expanded medicare or fuller ACA). The only serious proposal I've seen to address the biggest problem in working incomes, automation, came from Bill Gates.

So what proposals do you think centrist dems are thwarting? What specific horrible things are they doing?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The ownership of the company doesn't matter to me as much as the facts that Obama has to write a book for the one and just show up and give a speech for the other, and that the publisher is going to receive concrete value from selling copies of the book. YMMV.

Let's say his book is 60,000 words. That's $1,083 per word.

Let's say his speech is about and hour at 125 words per minute (no idea about either). That's $53 per word.

Both are writing jobs. He's probably getting paid a lot less for the speech.

ETA: And that's why it's so weird to stake out the position that the issue is how much he's getting paid. If you're anti-Wall Street and think he shouldn't associate with a bond trading firm (which at least some of the complainers don't know isn't a bank), then fine. If you're not, you really shouldn't think the issue his that he's getting a "big" fee.