a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by _refugee_
_refugee_  ·  2757 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Barack Obama's $400,000 speaking fees reveal what few want to admit

Totally on a side bar here and not trying to engage in the "Well, is Barry a sellout?" discussion, but I am driven to point out that some people would turn down an offer like this not because of morals, but because there is no fucking way in hell I would desire to or be able to speak in front of a crowd like that. I cried reading a poem in front of 12 people once; I chronically blush; eeehhhh, I think I would pass.

Edit: OK, on second thought, I might agree if there was absolutely no content requirement. I could say hi and leave, right?

On another note ... what if we waited to call him a sellout until we heard what he had to say? Would be freakin' hilarious if he takes their money and gives a speech about the necessary overhauls he thinks the banking and investment industry needs.

...yeah, sure, he probably isn't going to do that, but if the rest of you are going to make him a sell-out or a bribe-taker or a smart money man, why can't I make him a maverick?





OftenBen  ·  2757 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Would be freakin' hilarious if he takes their money and gives a speech about the necessary overhauls he thinks the banking and investment industry needs.

I would love to see this.

'Thanks for the check guys. You know, you should probably stop buying and selling Senators and members of Congress like NFL free agents.'

kleinbl00  ·  2757 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    You know, I remember having a long conversation with Warren Buffett, who is obviously a friend of mine, but I think he's the greatest investor of our modern era, and he said, you know, I would go and I'd talk to my friends and I'd ask them to explain to me what a default credit swap was, and by the time they got into their fifth minute, I had no idea what they were talking about.And when they got into their tenth minute, I realized they didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

    I mean, Alan Greenspan said, I didn't understand at all what they were trading. So I think it's in everybody's interest to get back to a better transparent model.

    And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations, they're scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared,so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.

    So people are, you know, a little —they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.

    So first and foremost, more transparency,more openness, you know, trying to figure out, we're all in this together, how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country going. And this is, you know, the nerves, the spinal column.

    And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

HIlary Clinton at Goldman Sachs, October 2013

OftenBen  ·  2752 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's a whole lot of words to say 'The little people are starting to become aware of how badly you and I are fucking them.'

kleinbl00  ·  2752 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No it's not. You said you "would love to see" a speech about the necessary overhauls the banking and investment industry needs. Clinton gave that speech. It was leaked by Russia.

You were explicitly given what you asked for. Your response? "I still want to be mad."

OftenBen  ·  2751 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Taken from the passage you cited

    there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.

Translation - We really didn't want to change a single thing about the way you guys do business, because it's good for every senator and congressman and the entire political ecosystem if you guys are stinking rich. The press says that it's your fault that everyone is broke (But we both know that's not true, wink wink nudge nudge) so we had to do SOMETHING or else the little people might have actually gotten upset enough to do something crazy like vote out their sitting senators and congressmen.

Why was the contents of this speech a secret? Why was it politically potent for it to be leaked? Obama just spoke to bankers and to 'mature' people, that's not anything politically potent. Why does it matter?

I asked for someone to actually tell the financier class 'Hey, guess what, we're bringing Glass-Steagall back because you guys literally couldn't stop stealing and making openly consumer-hostile decisions if your lives depended on it. Thanks for the check.'

kleinbl00  ·  2751 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Take out all the insinuations and the fact that you're moving the goalposts now so you can stay outraged, and your comment becomes whitespace.