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

Careful now, or you're going to get a lecture from a former low-level government functionary who left and made the big time...

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

You keep wanting to think there's new shit in the world, but there isn't. All of this stuff is ancient.

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

Oh, for the love of God. If you stop and think just for even a second here, you will get that my concern has everything to do with the idea that the market is doing a good job of establishing the value of his time.

I swear, I don't even care that much about this, but really?

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

Really? So when you read a journalist who is writing on the financial industry, it is not relevant to you whether that journalist is getting paid on the side for services provided to Goldman Sachs?

This is about ethics in journalists who are gaming us.

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

I would have gone with the George Bernard Shaw quote about haggling over the price, but ymmv.

Re: Yeah, I aspire to be a Globalist Cuck
 

You keep wanting to read that into what I've said. Of course there's nothing new (Hint: I cited Plato... kind of an old source, no?) But within the relevant timeline (our lives), the phenomenon I noted is an emerging one.

Those in charge will eventually find new ways to spin myths, and the people will believe them again. But probably not to any meaningful extent here, and not in our lifetimes. The Internet is Just Getting Started...

I'd say we have a higher likelihood of seeing more aggressive direct govt control in the future than a return to management of the masses by narrative.

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

Gawker had more ethics than 75% of financial journalists.

Look at Andrew Ross Sorkin. That's the corruption of that field perfectly encapsulated in human form.

Re: Well, come on, he's white
 

Sure.

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

I disagree. I think you've had a reaction to this situation without really thinking through it. You keep acting like I'm trying to get you to create a rule when all I want to do is understand what types of things are and aren't problematic. You don't want to think about it beyond Cantor? Okay. I guess we're done.

I disagree. Bernie was able to define Hillary as owned by the banks. If he had not, the narrative would have been that Hillary is an insider. Given how fucking corrupt Trump is, I doubt his people would have opened that door. Since it was already blown open, he just hammered away. (And yes, mucho mixed metaphors.)

Then I'm not sure you're saying anything.

This is garbage. You don't know what he's turned down. You only know he took money from Cantor. You don't know his plans--if you don't think he's going to have a foundation or dedicate a great deal of his post political life to some type of charity or public service, then color me very surprised. I guess he needs to make a big show of turning down certain opportunities for you to not be disappointed? Whatever.

No. The whole point is that it's not the same. Taking speaking engagements from numerous sources means you would have to be making decisions to benefit all sorts of industries in order for your soft corruption theory to mean anything. Taking a job in investment banking after being President (and that's exactly what would happen) for huge dollars would mean you'd be more likely to make decisions in office to ensure that job is available.

TM

Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

I'm replying to GGG instead of TM, Ty, or Young Adder because (a) the recent posts on The Soft Corruption of Barry O from all y'all are too long, and (b) I'm too lazy to go back to find the original and shorter version of your respective positions.

I'm with TM and GGG (and Young Adder, IIRC) on this one. There's an element on the left side of of the Democratic Party (yes, Bernie is not a member of the party, but whatever, suck it, pendants) who always pisses and moans that centrists and moderates (a/k/a every Democrat who won the presidency since FDR) are just a form of GOP Lite. Beholden to the special interests. Captured by Wall Steet or the Establishment. Jimmy Carter sells out and puts a Fortune 100 CEO in his cabinet! Can you believe that Bill Clinton appointed Rubin and Summers and, oh yeah, an actual Republican! Obama rolled over for Goldman and JP Morgan during the financial crisis!

So, predictably, Obama gets slammed by the party's left for taking money from the enemy, and the non-leftist wise women/men in the party, along with a good chunk of opinion writers for the MSM and the New MSM tut about "the optics" of it. Chin in hand, they state with profound seriousness that it is unseemly of Obama to take the money, and even if it weren't, it was foolish because it somehow "allows" the GOP to attack him and the Democratic Party itself.

Bullshit. The GOP will attack on anything and everything, and to imply that they wouldn't be on the attack on the issue of big business conspiring with big government is naive at best.

Re: Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

Bingo. And after all these words, I think Ty's position is still best summed up like this:

https://media.giphy.com/media/IMuqnp96sdhyE/giphy.gif

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

Ruy Teixeira:

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

Works for me.

Re: Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

I was done, but then Not Bob pulled me back in, but only to say: I'm a huge Obama fan. His taking money from Cantor hardly changes my opinion of his presidency, or my hopes for his next act. I'm not interested in making common cause with the folks on the left who are more interested in attacking moderate Democrats than in ever getting anything done.

All of that said, I think moderate Democrats have a real problem in that many voters see their program as pretty weak tea, and when party leaders are making hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street firms, it's pretty easy to see how disenchanted voters (as opposed to the left) might conclude that the party isn't that focused on solving their problems. (This is not a problem for Republicans, who don't pretend to be interested in solving their problems but are going to let the free market bestow wealth on the most deserving.) For the broader context, see what I just posted from Ruy Teixeira.

Re: Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

Add "reigniting a spat that had ended" to the list of Wonking's potential perils.

Also, despite evidence to the contrary, I do know the difference between a pedant and a pendant. Now if you'll excuse me, I will go lay prostate on the floor to ease my aching shoulder.

Re: Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

You do you, Not Bob. You keep doing you. I'm gonna do the Daily Dose. Beau Dollar with James Brown. "Who Knows." Right, Not Bob? Who does really know?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kR-eUxkW3s

Re: Insert relevant song lyric here.
 

Thurgreed and I agree all the time now, so we do know. And we will beat you down with endless posts if you disagree.

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

Noah speaks for me.

https://giphy.com/gifs/thedailyshow-xUPGcLTPpjsfviAxna

TM

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

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, but I'm really privileged, so I didn't carry it off well
 

He's figured out America pretty fast.

Why can't people who have lived here their whole lives figure that out?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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 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.

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

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

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

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

Right, because those things are completely similar.

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.

OK.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

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.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

By the way, speaking of moderate democrats, any one have any idea how hard Bernie had to work to find an anti-choice Dem to endorse? That's really not an easy thing.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

There's nothing wrong with any of those policies, but they don't hold a lot of promise for many people. (If you earn minimum wage, are going to go to college, or can get an infrastructure job, you're an exception.) I think we would be better off with much stronger unions, but I don't believe that Democrats are actually going to do things that will move the needle there.

I'm not saying that Democrats are blocking great proposals or doing horrible things. They're certainly better than the Republicans. They just lack a program that will make a difference in the economic lives of most people. I wish I had better solutions.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

Really? I don't think I laughed once. He's no Colbert.

TM

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be rediculous
 

I wasn't asking about Democrats as a whole, but supposed "moderate" dems, whom you had just attacked.

I'm not a moderate Dem, but I know many and think they're key to winning the next round of elections. But today's moderate dem would have been a McGovernite in '72.

I think the centrist wing of the party is trying hard - very hard - to come up with productive solutions, both from a policy perspective and from a political campaign perspective. I am frankly very disappointed in my own progressive wing of the party, particularly the white men in it but also some like Liz Warren, who seem to be casting stones at others without any serious proposals of their own.* They are just whiny little bro flakes.

If you don't have proposals, can I suggest beginning by entertaining some of the proposals others have?


* There is one very solid proposal that has come from the left, which is to push Medicare for all as a healthcare approach. The problem right now is no one has fleshed this out much yet, and someone needs to do the heavy lifting to develop it as a legislative idea in committee.

When I was young, I thought that everyone was Catholic.
 

I recall reading somewhere that Omaha is a pretty Catholic place. (You're talking about the mayor, right?) While the term "Catholic Left" has faded, there's still a few Dorothy Day types running around.