Discussion: Reports: Obama Takes $400K Fee To Speak At Investment Bank's Conference

[barbara63]

Obama signed legislation that will tax his Earned Income for that speech at a greater rate than he would have had to pay before he took office.

[diveguy99]

he always was a corporate whore

[isthisrob]

Go for it, Mr. President. I hope you make hundreds of millions. EARNED.

[paulw]

I hope he donates the money somewhere good (with that advance, he has no need for it except to fund things he approves of) but mostly I’m glad it’s $400K and a speaking slot that didn’t go to some similarly high-profile wingnut.

He would have to give a speech like that every week to even approach the take of a middling hedge-fund manager.

[isthisrob]

Do fuck off.

[ncsteve]

I cannot for the life of me understand what you find objectionable or disappointing about receiving a large book advance.

[mattinpa]

@nemo

Agreed, but we actually do live in a world where 30% of the Democratic party is more interested in virtuous optics than substantive outcomes. That has to be taken into account. When children are present, you change your behavior.

I remember when Obama told a rally audience that if they didn’t go out and vote, he would take it personally. Maybe he was telling the simple truth and he’s no longer in a mood to give up four hundred thousand bucks in the vain hope of impressing people who were too self-righteous to get off their couches and vote for Hillary.

[trumpdog]

@modelman

If HRC hadn’t taken the Goldman Sachs money, or had given it away, or had donated it, perhaps she would be president. We might not be in Trumpworld.

Wall Street speeches were not the cause of her loss.

@littlegirlblue

Our kleptocrat speaks like a child and is robbing the country. His salary is approximately the same amount, he says he’ll donate it but he won’t, so I say hooray to a president who worked hard, came from nothing, struggled against discrimination, became a brilliant student, learned early on how to form coherent sentences, endured mocking and criticism for eight years, and still got things done So as long as as an individual’s pocket is not being picked, I say go for it. “Optics”? Fuck them. His supporters remain his supporters. Though clearly there are still opponents resisting his presidency.

Well said.

[littlegirlblue]

You get the Cut To The Chase Intertube Truthy award. Surprised we haven’t seen suggestions that President Obama don a hair shirt and plead with a bankster to take it back.

[thepsyker]

Here is how the NY Times facebook page is characterizing the story:

Barack Obama has begun the process of cashing in.

They must just be giddy to have an excuse to go after a Democrat again.

[bd2999]

Who cares? It is quite a bit of money but if somebody is willing to pay it for him to talk than that is the system that we have. Capitalism and all of that jazz. It still does not work for everybody though. Sure the conservative voter will be selective and go after him for this.

[alliebean]

@bd2999

Sure the conservative voter will be selective and go after him for this.

It’s the conservative voters that are paying him.

I truly do not understand why people care. Would they rather he not speak to bankers at all? Or do they want him to say, no, no, that’s too much. I’ll just take $100,000 for the speech. I mean, seriously. What? By getting in the room with these people, he has a chance to push the policies that we all agree with. He has their ear and they have to dig in and pay him for it. Good for him.

[ncsteve]

Historically, people who rush out to attack Obama for fake “corruption” have invariably come out of it with third degree ass burns once all the facts are in. You’d think the NYT would be capable of learning that lesson by now.

[agio]

I don’t begrudge him the opportunity to speak but it would be politically smart to do something publicly philanthropic with his speaking fees.

[captaincommonsense]

@tena

Well there go his chances of being elected president - we all know that Hillary lost because she gave speeches to Goldman Sachs…

…and thus the thread was won.

[alliebean]

@agio

I don’t begrudge him the opportunity to speak but it would be politically smart to do something publicly philanthropic with his speaking fees.

I think the Obamas will do tremendous philanthropy whether he donates these fees or not.

@ncsteve

You’d think the NYT would be capable of learning that lesson by now.

This would be hilarious if it wasn’t really so tragic.

[pluckyinky]

@modelman

If HRC hadn’t taken the Goldman Sachs money, or had given it away, or had donated it, perhaps she would be president.

She donated most of it. This was the dumbest, most ridiculous knock against her that that piece of shit Sanders used against her. Every famous person has a fucking speaking/appearance fee. Even the chair throwing, hair pulling girls on the Bad Girls Club have a speaking fee. The person who gets voted off third on Survivor has an appearance fee. Clinton’s was the exact same as Colin Powell who obviously didn’t have the added appeal of having been FLOTUS and a Senator.

This was little more than a sexist line of attack because it has never been leveled against a man. Never. And for the record, PP’s speaking fee is $1.5 million, literally the highest one out there. But please, Bernie, tell us how it’s so awful that Clinton did what every fucking man before her did, what every one who follows her does, what you do you fucking hypocritical asshole? Die soon.

[littlegirlblue]

If Russia hadn’t interfered with the election to the extent it did and if James Comey hadn’t kept pounding on emails, and if there hadn’t been voter suppression in 14 states, maybe she’d have had a better chance of winning. Simplistic explanations don’t apply to this election.

[drtv]

Our Republican “masters” should be touting this development–A man making the most of his gifts to command large speaking fees.

Nah. It’s Obama.

[tena]

Thank you.

I’m so very glad you knew it was snark.