|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. You are so retarded you are probably a banker yourself, aren't you.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Okay, trick question, how long do you think it takes for Goldman Sachs to make 400.000 bucks, and who is responsible for their continued ability to do so at this obscene rate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:28
|
|
axeil posted:What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money? My man, these people treat millions of dollars like a middle-class person treats 1 dollar bills. 20 mill is a drop in the ocean of money they have
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. Yes, i'm sure 400k will curtail their dastardly actions, you've figured it out axeil. Hell, lets just get rid of any bribery laws altogether so bankers can enrich politicians while they're still in office and make bankers "poor" with absolutely no expectation of quid pro quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
SunAndSpring posted:My man, these people treat millions of dollars like a middle-class person treats 1 dollar bills. 20 mill is a drop in the ocean of money they have Gotcha, so if they paid Obama more, like a billion instead $400,000 it'd be okay. I agree, Obama should've totally held out for more money. Gotta extract all that surplus value. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. I personally hate them because they unironically say things like "we should provide for everyone but only people who contribute ~*VALUE*~ to society should get anything nice" when they in fact don't contribute value to society steinrokkan posted:You are so retarded you are probably a banker yourself, aren't you. Yes, he works in the finance industry
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think it would result in a net gain in some way. Whether that be through political favors, showing current politicians there's a payout for staying loyal to corporate interests, or even it simply being that Obama's speech will provide value to the company in and of itself. This isn't some clever ruse to steal money from the nefarious bankers, they're making an investment in political capital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
I'm not even sure how one would think that is a good argument, or barring that, a clever one. If one of the accusations is that impropriety is occurring due to a financial transaction, how at all does it follow that the transaction itself is good because it takes money away from one party and gives it to another when that very dynamic is what is being called into question either because of bad optics or nefarious intent. It's loving stupid and applying it to any other situation should make that abundantly clear. This is to say nothing of how little 400k actually represents in terms of financial impact for Cantor Fitzgerald AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Would they pay that much for Bernie Sanders? that's a good question because if they can taint berns with wallstreet speech $$$ maybe it reduces the power of his movement
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:God this whole conversation is really depressing. We can't even convince leftists to take a firm stand against money in politics anymore, even if its obvious that no good (electoral or otherwise) is going to come out of it. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath and I'm not sure that its going to be against the GOP. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
2009 "The financial crisis is a great opportunity to build out our franchise," says Shawn Matthews, the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the firm's investment banking subsidiary. "The dislocation in the financial markets has caused others to take the eye off the ball, allowing us to gain market share." The firm was a prominent player in the trading of credit default swaps, and that market for bond insurance has been battered by the rising defaults in home loans and other debts. Worse, some politicians and regulators, irked by the huge losses rung up by AIG in CDS contracts, have talked about creating a central exchange, much like the New York Stock Exchange, where the bond insurance would trade. Some have proposed doing away with CDS all together. Those changes would significantly curtail, or wipe out, Cantor's profits in its CDS business. What's more, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has subpoenaed Cantor and other traders of CDS contracts to see if the bond insurance was used to manipulate the market. 2010 "Contrary to the claims of some of my critics -- and some of the editorial pages -- I am an ardent believer in the free market," Obama told the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs. "You create jobs." 2016 "it’s no wonder that so many are receptive to the argument that the game is rigged. But amid this understandable frustration, much of it fanned by politicians who would actually make the problem worse rather than better, it is important to remember that capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known. Over the past 25 years, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from nearly 40% to under 10%. Last year, American households enjoyed the largest income gains on record and the poverty rate fell faster than at any point since the 1960s. Wages have risen faster in real terms during this business cycle than in any since the 1970s. These gains would have been impossible without the globalisation and technological transformation that drives some of the anxiety behind our current political debate." - Barack Obama 2017 Obama To Receive $400,000 Speaking Fee At Cantor Fitzgerald Conference
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
I still like ron paul's thing where he goes "well if I have the $$$ it gets used for good and if the banks has the $$$ it used for evil" excuse
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think it would result in a net gain in some way. Whether that be through political favors, showing current politicians there's a payout for staying loyal to corporate interests, or even it simply being that Obama's speech will provide value to the company in and of itself. This isn't some clever ruse to steal money from the nefarious bankers, they're making an investment in political capital. It can't just be a vanity "we got a cool speaker" thing? I doubt companies really think former athletes and hollywood stars are fountains of wisdom but they get to come and speak. I mean, we also have no idea what he's going to say. If his speech is "you guys need to help defend the ACA" is the speech now okay? Again, given how fractured the party is and how pissed people seem to get about finance I'm totally fine with advocating for him not to do the speech. Where it irritates me is that the group of people getting upset about this will just find something else tomorrow that proves the Democrats Are The Real Bad Guys. There's no pleasing them unless you meet 100% of their ridiculous criteria and then the minute you slip up even a little they'll abandon you en masse and stab you in the back. Fansy posted:
He's right though. In the aggregate things are getting better. The problem is there are some people for whom things are getting worse or not getting as better and they're lashing out. These people should be provided for, however the existence of these folks doesn't undermine his argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:They wouldn't be spending the money if they didn't think it would result in a net gain in some way. Whether that be through political favors, showing current politicians there's a payout for staying loyal to corporate interests, or even it simply being that Obama's speech will provide value to the company in and of itself. This isn't some clever ruse to steal money from the nefarious bankers, they're making an investment in political capital. I agree Obama shouldn't be accepting six-figure checks from banks, but this is something of a tortured interpretation of the bank's motivations. They wanted a big-name speaker to impress their stakeholders. That's their motivation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:There's no pleasing them unless you meet 100% of their ridiculous criteria and then the minute you slip up even a little they'll abandon you en masse and stab you in the back. Which is why all the leftists raced to stab Bernie in the back when it came out he was supporting someone with a history of voting for pro-life legislation. Oh wait, that never happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
I'm an extremely stupid person so I guess when the financial industry does it's best to subvert and dodge regulations and crashes the world economy as a result, not one of them is effectively punished or curtailed when a milquetoast centrist Democrat takes power on a wave of populist backlash, and said Democrat, the effective number one face of the party, goes on to get a bunch of money from that industry after the whole thing is over... I guess I may be extremely stupid but I feel like the Democratic party doesn't really give a poo poo about what their party planks are supposed to be, or me as a constituent, or really anything other than getting a payout. But who am I to say? I am extremely stupid.
idiotsavant fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:It can't just be a vanity "we got a cool speaker" thing? I doubt companies really think former athletes and hollywood stars are fountains of wisdom but they get to come and speak. Yeah, we get you are super salty because you are in finance and also have poo poo opinions you share to people who dislike you, thus making you more salty. How about you spare us all and become a Republican or Libertarian instead? I'm sure they won't stab you in the back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:It can't just be a vanity "we got a cool speaker" thing? I doubt companies really think former athletes and hollywood stars are fountains of wisdom but they get to come and speak. fsif posted:I agree Obama shouldn't be accepting six-figure checks from banks, but this is something of a tortured interpretation of the bank's motivations. Those would both fall under "providing value in and of themselves" in my mind but I'll admit I phrased it poorly. It's hardly "abandoning and backstabbing en masse" to complain about someone doing a lovely thing on an internet forum. We can complain about these things and still support them come election year. In between elections you should be trying to figure out where and why you should change, especially after a year like 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout. Obama's DOJ indicted one of their traders for fraud 4 months ago. So obviously this is a naked bribe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout. Obama's DOJ indicted one of their traders for fraud 4 months ago. So obviously this is a naked bribe. No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. EDIT: Actually that joke is ironic given the extent of financial connection between the most important monasteries and the wealthy in middle ages Europe. Oh well. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. But don't you know that everyone who didn't vote didn't vote because Hilary took money from big banks? How will Obama ever be president again after this
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout. Obama's DOJ indicted one of their former traders for fraud 4 months ago. So obviously this is a naked bribe. fixed edit: hahaha how could you guys have lost so badly and still show such arrogance
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Okay let's try a different tactic. Explain to me how it's hypocritical for Obama to accept 400k from Wall Street while also making a point about the corrupting effects of money in politics. Especially since this is past his presidency. This is technically your claim so burden of proof is on you. It's basically comparable to politicians who "coincidentally" take lucrative jobs at financial/consulting/etc firms after finishing their terms. It's not illegal and it's technically done after they've finished being politicians, but it's still indicative of the very ethically questionable relationship between the politicians and those firms. steinrokkan posted:I love this idea that by taking scraps from companies with multibillion valuations, politicians are fleecing them. That is such a disgustingly transparent lie. Yeah, it's transparently obvious that it's not something the poster actually believes* so much as them thinking "hm how can I possibly score more points in this argument?" *hopefully Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
axeil posted:I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. You are trolling at this point. But the serious answer is that nobody in business (unless they are complete dumbasses) pays money to someone and expects nothing in return. They want to get value out of what they are paying for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:Where it irritates me is that the group of people getting upset about this will just find something else tomorrow that proves the Democrats Are The Real Bad Guys. There's no pleasing them unless you meet 100% of their ridiculous criteria and then the minute you slip up even a little they'll abandon you en masse and stab you in the back. Every single criticism the left has made is countered with exactly this same "purity test" argument. Including the one where we complain that the guy who just got finished loving with the DNC chair election, is now accepting fat checks from Wall Street. If you're going to accuse us of being hard-liners for complaining about that, then might as well break out the guillotines and go full Jacobin after all - if you'll accept nothing less than full acquiescence from the left then it's a joke to consider you allies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Explain to me how it's hypocritical for Obama to accept 400k from Wall Street while also making a point about the corrupting effects of money in politics.  If you can't wrap your mind around this I seriously suggest you seek help. You might have dementia or brain damage. SSNeoman posted:Especially since this is past his presidency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Also just because Republicans are worse villains doesn't mean the Dems aren't currently "bad guys" as well
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. Maybe it's me, but it doesn't seem like too much to ask that Obama would refrain from further tarnishing the Dem name by taking money he literally doesn't need. Kilroy posted:Well I'm all for looking the other way now and again, but as it turns out whenever anyone in the party to the left of Chelsea Clinton says "hey maybe we shouldn't do a thing", you assholes come out of the woodwork to paint the left as a bunch of uncompromising idiots looking for any excuse to Actually they sometimes also claim that leftists spending time and energy trying to reform the Democratic Party is some 11th dimensional chess excuse for not doing anything at all. I think I prefer the purity test accusation since that's at least not self-contradicting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Okay let's try a different tactic. Explain to me how it's hypocritical for Obama to accept 400k from Wall Street while also making a point about the corrupting effects of money in politics. Especially since this is past his presidency. Obama clearly wants to have a constructive role in unifying the party going forward. Acting like a corporate Democrat isn't going to help him, in that regard. The number one thing his legacy does not need, is for him to look more like the Clintons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Going to laugh when Democrats run on a platform of "There's no difference between good and bad things" in 2020 and get sued by @dril for IP theft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
And just because we are complaining about this doesn't mean that we back Trump or plan to sit out in 2018 or 2020. In fact we are complaining about this because the strategy the establishment dems are currently following (and have been following for the past 10 years) has completely hollowed out the party and led to a situation where the GOP only needs 2 more statehouses to start cutting stuff out of the constitution like birthright citizenship, income taxation, and even freedom of religion. We are at a situation where the status quo is hated by all sides of the political spectrum and the dems in power are clinging as hard as they can to that sinking ship. Our only saving grace right now is that Trump turned out far more incompetent than anyone realized and that's not something that is going to hold for long. If something doesn't change NOW about how we conduct ourselves then we are truly hosed, and the rest of nation and world will soon follow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:Again, given how fractured the party is and how pissed people seem to get about finance I'm totally fine with advocating for him not to do the speech. Where it irritates me is that the group of people getting upset about this will just find something else tomorrow that proves the Democrats Are The Real Bad Guys. There's no pleasing them unless you meet 100% of their ridiculous criteria and then the minute you slip up even a little they'll abandon you en masse and stab you in the back. Yes, it's clearly the Sanderistas that are being unreasonable at this point. And give us a break on your "purity tests!!!" nonsense. The Clintonistas on twitter have spent the last two weeks using the Omaha mayoral election as a cudgel against Sanders, out of nothing but pure spite.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Obama clearly wants to have a constructive role in unifying the party going forward. Acting like a corporate Democrat isn't going to help him, in that regard. The number one thing his legacy does not need, is for him to look more like the Clintons. Can we start taking bets on if/when Obama will lead the vanguard against an insurgent left in the party?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
axeil posted:He's right though. In the aggregate things are getting better. The problem is there are some people for whom things are getting worse or not getting as better and they're lashing out. These people should be provided for, however the existence of these folks doesn't undermine his argument. "Things ARE getting better!" "Sure, wages outside the top 20% have been static for thirty years while health costs have only risen, democrats have lost all voice in federal government, our infrastructure is crumbling, our education is falling apart, ocean levels are rising, fascism's resurgent, and American foreign policy is dependent on what the last person on Fox News said, but the finance industry is doing great, so that cancels out all that other poo poo." "Why does the democratic party keep losing elections btw"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:And just because we are complaining about this doesn't mean that we back Trump or plan to sit out in 2018 or 2020. In fact we are complaining about this because the strategy the establishment dems are currently following (and have been following for the past 10 years) has completely hollowed out the party and led to a situation where the GOP only needs 2 more statehouses to start cutting stuff out of the constitution like birthright citizenship, income taxation, and even freedom of religion. Speak for yourself, I am loving done with Dems as they currently are. Blaming everyone but their candidate for their failure to win what should have been an insanely easy election is a really poor look on them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:"Things ARE getting better!" Finance, technology and electronics to be precise. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-is-regressing-into-a-developing-nation-for-most-people quote:In one of these countries live members of what Temin calls the “FTE sector” (named for finance, technology, and electronics, the industries which largely support its growth). These are the 20 percent of Americans who enjoy college educations, have good jobs, and sleep soundly knowing that they have not only enough money to meet life’s challenges, but also social networks to bolster their success. They grow up with parents who read books to them, tutors to help with homework, and plenty of stimulating things to do and places to go. They travel in planes and drive new cars. The citizens of this country see economic growth all around them and exciting possibilities for the future. They make plans, influence policies, and count themselves as lucky to be Americans. We've hit a point where we've got two separate countries labeled America and the Third World America is growing increasingly desperate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Stolen from CSPAM https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/857251680399876096 lol... just lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Speak for yourself, I am loving done with Dems as they currently are. Blaming everyone but their candidate for their failure to win what should have been an insanely easy election is a really poor look on them. Luckily, the unreconstructed Clintonistas here aren't representative of the party as a whole, or even the party's leadership. I'm still optimistic that the Sanderistas will be able to take over between now and 2018.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Stolen from CSPAM That was over 3 months ago, how could you possibly hold him to something so long ago?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama's giving a speech about healthcare at a healthcare conference. The organizer, Cantor Fitzgerald, is a midsize wall street firm that was not a mortgage banking institution before the financial crisis and did not receive a bailout... Mister Fister posted:Stolen from CSPAM It's almost like you don't know how to read. "Go to wall street" doesn't mean "get paid for a speech at a healthcare conference" hth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:29
|
|