2017 Democratic Thread

[illinilaw08]

I'm only okay if he's using it to funnel the wealth from plutocrats to something good, but it's just going to his own bank account I'm sure.

 

It really is like the final blow to the optimism people placed on him in 2008.

 

Yeah, this is one of those issues where I really don't see the outrage. Obama can both provide a lot of positive value to underserved communities AND earn money speaking on Wall Street. But maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees.

[LittleHurt05]

There are so many ways for him to make money that don't involve this skeezy backdoor speech circuit. He has a $60 mill book deal and was a many millionaire from his previous books. He wants to stay involved and "mold the next generation of leaders" then this is a good start.

 

How does this prevent him from staying involved or "molding the next generation of leaders"? I don't see how we are in a position to judge his finances and tell him where he can and can't earn his money, especially when he has fully earned opportunities like this. I highly doubt the guy is just going to cruise the speech circuit and disappear from the public eye. Good for him I say.

[bmags]

Symbolism matters. The government to absurdly paid speaking gig pipeline is rich, and for many it is a symbol of elites paying for access. It would be meaningful to specifically not entertain these. That isn't to say he can't do any paid speaking gigs, but the 250-400k ones are frankly absurd.

 

He obviously can still stay involved, but for those he is trying to reach out there will be a stigma of "you are saying this to my face but then you go yuck it up with a bunch of bankers at night, and they pay your bills".

 

And please, this isn't a struggling kid going to the nba and earning those millions. He isn't destitute, he'll have 200k pension for life and a 60 mill book deal which he can spin into revenue generating public book tour.

[caulfield12]

So, all elected officials are now held to the Jimmy Carter standard of donating all speech monies to Habitat or their local church?

 

That sounds very unAmerican to me.

 

If that's all he did, sure. But I'm pretty certain he will spend the majority of his time doing low or lesser paid community/grassroots organizing type events and using Wall Street monies to subsidize them as well as Democratic Party-related party building.

 

Let's not forget Citizens United, and the fact Trump has already raised $41 million plus in the first three months of 2017. He and Bernie Sanders far away are the biggest stars of the Democratic Party, and he can leverage those monies in many positive ways. Same with Michelle Obama, for that matter.

 

If he turns out to be worse than both Clinton's on this front, I'll be shocked.

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, this is one of those issues where I really don't see the outrage. Obama can both provide a lot of positive value to underserved communities AND earn money speaking on Wall Street. But maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

Doesn't it look bad for a guy that tried to be the "every man" and pretend like he was for Main Street, not Wall Street? At least he's doing it AFTER his political career, but still. He'll be endorsing people in the future.

 

Hillary got knocked for this big time and through political osmosis Dems will be hurt by it too. Tough to trumpet the BS line that only the GOP is in the pockets of Wall Street when two of the biggest names in the party do the same thing (this obviously assumes that Obama will continue with a speaking tour ala the Clintons).

 

[illinilaw08]

Doesn't it look bad for a guy that tried to be the "every man" and pretend like he was for Main Street, not Wall Street? At least he's doing it AFTER his political career, but still. He'll be endorsing people in the future.

 

Hillary got knocked for this big time and through political osmosis Dems will be hurt by it too. Tough to trumpet the BS line that only the GOP is in the pockets of Wall Street when two of the biggest names in the party do the same thing (this obviously assumes that Obama will continue with a speaking tour ala the Clintons).

 

Why does being for "Main Street" mean you can't also work with Wall Street? I mean, when the stock market does well, that's good for millions of American's retirements, not just for hedge fund managers. Can Obama not bring up progressive policies when he's giving a $400k speech to Goldman Sachs? I thought it was dumb that Hillary Clinton got dinged for this, and I think it's silly if this hurts Obama's message in the future.

 

I'll be disappointed in Obama if come 2018 he's still doing the vacation/book deal/speaking tour to the detriment of using his wealth and celebrity for good.

[caulfield12]

Bernie Sanders has three houses.

 

Obama and the Clinton's are too friendly with Wall Street.

 

John Edwards was super rich and his pretending to be a populist and Everyman landed in disaster.

 

 

Honestly, there's no Democrat who can successfully survive this test. Of course, the Clinton's and Obamas were not rich or 1%ers when they started out in public service (he was routinely mocked for choosing public interest work of social and community organizing). Look at the Kennedys, for example (back when Americans preferred political dynasties). Or Jimmy Carter, the Mother Teresa of politics, for a counter example.

 

If that's the standard, good luck. Especially in the face of Citizens United. As long as you're perceived as genuine/real/authentic, you've got a chance...of course, the counter to this is guys like Romney and Trumpmare are so rich, the theory goes they're not beholden to any corporation, Fox News or to the Koch Brothers.

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[illinilaw08]

Symbolism matters. The government to absurdly paid speaking gig pipeline is rich, and for many it is a symbol of elites paying for access. It would be meaningful to specifically not entertain these. That isn't to say he can't do any paid speaking gigs, but the 250-400k ones are frankly absurd.

 

He obviously can still stay involved, but for those he is trying to reach out there will be a stigma of "you are saying this to my face but then you go yuck it up with a bunch of bankers at night, and they pay your bills".

 

And please, this isn't a struggling kid going to the nba and earning those millions. He isn't destitute, he'll have 200k pension for life and a 60 mill book deal which he can spin into revenue generating public book tour.

 

This is, to me, the biggest issue that the Democrats have had since '00. Barack Obama uses his wealth and celebrity to push progressive policies, but people reject his voice because he also gives speeches to bankers? It's that type of idea that siphoned votes from Gore to Nader in '00. That's what led the Sanders wing of the Democratic party to rail so hard against Clinton after she won the nomination this year.

 

I reserve the right to come back here and say that I'm wrong if Obama stays out of the fray and sits on his wealth. But if he uses his wealth and celebrity to stay engaged and fight for progressive causes, no one should judge him taking money from speaking to bankers...

[caulfield12]

Why does being for "Main Street" mean you can't also work with Wall Street? I mean, when the stock market does well, that's good for millions of American's retirements, not just for hedge fund managers. Can Obama not bring up progressive policies when he's giving a $400k speech to Goldman Sachs? I thought it was dumb that Hillary Clinton got dinged for this, and I think it's silly if this hurts Obama's message in the future.

 

I'll be disappointed in Obama if come 2018 he's still doing the vacation/book deal/speaking tour to the detriment of using his wealth and celebrity for good.

 

 

Every Republican should give back all their capital gains from 1993-2000 and 2009-2016.

 

Especially all those Amazon, FB, Google and Apple investors!!! They're all run by Dems, so Republicans shouldn't be able to invest in them unless they are willing to admit they're hypocrites for supporting Bezos, Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc.

 

Ideological purity.

Edited April 25, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Why does being for "Main Street" mean you can't also work with Wall Street? I mean, when the stock market does well, that's good for millions of American's retirements, not just for hedge fund managers. Can Obama not bring up progressive policies when he's giving a $400k speech to Goldman Sachs? I thought it was dumb that Hillary Clinton got dinged for this, and I think it's silly if this hurts Obama's message in the future.

 

I'll be disappointed in Obama if come 2018 he's still doing the vacation/book deal/speaking tour to the detriment of using his wealth and celebrity for good.

 

But that's not how Obama and Hillary campaigned. They made people with money the enemy. They made Wall Street the enemy. The claimed (falsely) that only the GOP had connections to Wall Street. Oh, Romney's just a rich guy, he can't help the everyday American. Same with Trump. It's been a party line for decades. And now he's playing nice with them? Now he's schmoozing with them for $400k for a day's work? That message of being the party that helps the little guy gets deflated.

 

 

 

[illinilaw08]

But that's not how Obama and Hillary campaigned. They made people with money the enemy. They made Wall Street the enemy. The claimed (falsely) that only the GOP had connections to Wall Street. Oh, Romney's just a rich guy, he can't help the everyday American. Same with Trump. It's been a party line for decades. And now he's playing nice with them? Now he's schmoozing with them for $400k for a day's work? That message of being the party that helps the little guy gets deflated.

 

Cite for some of this? I mean, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Obama did very well in '08 and '12 fundraising from Wall Street. He also was President when some of the tougher regulations of Wall Street were passed!

 

If we are being very general on the policies of the respective political parties, it's that the Democrats are in favor of greater regulation of industry, blaming corporate greed for things like the '08 financial crisis. The Republicans, by contrast, think that government should get out of the way of business as the job creation engine. The Democrats believe in government safety nets and want to fund that by raising taxes on top earners. The Republicans believe that cutting taxes to the top tax brackets stimulates the economy.

 

At no point did the Obama administration make "people with money the enemy." The Clinton campaign and the Obama administration pitched a narrative of government as a check on corporate greed, and on raising taxes on the wealthy.

 

And (gets on soapbox) this is the absolute worst part of political discourse. Nothing above is actual policy. It's broad generalizations that one side of the political aisle made people with money the enemy, and that accepting money from Wall Street makes the Democrats anti-protections for the little guy...

[Jenksismyhero]

Cite for some of this? I mean, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Obama did very well in '08 and '12 fundraising from Wall Street. He also was President when some of the tougher regulations of Wall Street were passed!

 

If we are being very general on the policies of the respective political parties, it's that the Democrats are in favor of greater regulation of industry, blaming corporate greed for things like the '08 financial crisis. The Republicans, by contrast, think that government should get out of the way of business as the job creation engine. The Democrats believe in government safety nets and want to fund that by raising taxes on top earners. The Republicans believe that cutting taxes to the top tax brackets stimulates the economy.

 

At no point did the Obama administration make "people with money the enemy." The Clinton campaign and the Obama administration pitched a narrative of government as a check on corporate greed, and on raising taxes on the wealthy.

 

And (gets on soapbox) this is the absolute worst part of political discourse. Nothing above is actual policy. It's broad generalizations that one side of the political aisle made people with money the enemy, and that accepting money from Wall Street makes the Democrats anti-protections for the little guy...

 

This took 3 seconds to find.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/mo...unds/index.html

 

I'm sure there are hundreds of examples from both that I can find, but I'm not going to waste the time. You've been living in a bubble if you don't think Dems have railed against the rich and Wall Street while the Repubs tend to protect them. Hell, basic fiscal policy positions tell that story.

 

And yes, ALL politicians do well from Wall Street, which is why it's a joke when Dem candidates pretend like they aren't financially connected.

[caulfield12]

Obama

Clinton

Reagan

Truman

 

Going back to FDR's aristocratic roots, the best presidents have usually come from "non-elite" backgrounds. Obviously, FDR and Kennedy don't fit. You can go all the way back to Lincoln and Trump's role model, Andrew Jackson, should you wish.

 

There definitely is an argument to be made, especially today, that a "non-inside the Beltway" candidate best understands the American people.

 

Look at the Bushes, and their being out of touch. Gore, a political scion. Hillary Clinton, a part of the establishment for going on 30 years. Romney, political roots as deep as it gets. Even Palin and McCain were attractive to people because of their maverick/outsider status. Dole, the establishment if ever there was one symbol of it.

 

Obviously this was a large part of the attraction to Bernie Sanders as well, being from a small/rural state and not being an official member of either political party. If you were to add up the net worth of all the US senators, he'd definitely be in the Bottom 5-10%

Edited April 26, 2017 by caulfield12

[bmags]

This is, to me, the biggest issue that the Democrats have had since '00. Barack Obama uses his wealth and celebrity to push progressive policies, but people reject his voice because he also gives speeches to bankers? It's that type of idea that siphoned votes from Gore to Nader in '00. That's what led the Sanders wing of the Democratic party to rail so hard against Clinton after she won the nomination this year.

 

I reserve the right to come back here and say that I'm wrong if Obama stays out of the fray and sits on his wealth. But if he uses his wealth and celebrity to stay engaged and fight for progressive causes, no one should judge him taking money from speaking to bankers...

 

This is not the biggest issue that the Democrats have made since 2000. On one hand, I actually do sincerely like that you are making this argument. I think in a vacuum it is right. You can take the handouts from orgs with a plush speaking budget and a desire to seem influential and give a stump speech. It is the "I'll take any mother f******s money if they are givin it away" of politics.

 

I made this argument for Clinton, and I still thin it is theoretically right. But there are two things:

1) I think it is a losing argument and it is not the sacrifice Caulfield is making it out to be. It is not banning all speaking engagements, just the closed door, elite org/business ones.

2) I find these speaking engagements to specifically be unseemly. As a whole, it seems to be a "I'm paying you a lot of money to consider my viewpoints!", moreso than the speaker angle "maybe I will convince you about progressive policies".

 

You are criticizing this line being drawn but I think you probably have a line drawn too. If Obama had gone into a law firm with the implicit benefit of having an "insider" they could rely upon for connections on the hill, that would be pretty awful. It wouldn't matter if he also continued on progressive policies. He would also probably never do this.

 

But I also thought he would not so eagerly jump to these types of gigs. My favorite part of him since being a candidate was his very disciplined optics and campaigns that reduced distractions.

 

And that's all this is, it's a distraction. It doesn't mean he's insincere. It doesn't mean he can't advocate for progressive future. But it is a "well why do you have to do that then?" thing. And, contrary to caulfield that this is the most inherently American thing he can do (which come to think of it, generationally rich people taking gobs of money for no reason except they are already rich MAY be the most American thing possible), I don't think this is a particularly big sacrifice. I think it's tiny. Again, it's not all speeches.

[bmags]

Obama

Clinton

Reagan

Truman

 

Going back to FDR's aristocratic roots, the best presidents have usually come from "non-elite" backgrounds. Obviously, FDR and Kennedy don't fit. You can go all the way back to Lincoln and Trump's role model, Andrew Jackson, should you wish.

 

There definitely is an argument to be made, especially today, that a "non-inside the Beltway" candidate best understands the American people.

 

Look at the Bushes, and their being out of touch. Gore, a political scion. Hillary Clinton, a part of the establishment for going on 30 years. Romney, political roots as deep as it gets. Even Palin and McCain were attractive to people because of their maverick/outsider status. Dole, the establishment if ever there was one symbol of it.

 

Obviously this was a large part of the attraction to Bernie Sanders as well, being from a small/rural state and not being an official member of either political party. If you were to add up the net worth of all the US senators, he'd definitely be in the Bottom 5-10%

 

Why did you write any of this down?

 

[illinilaw08]

This took 3 seconds to find.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/mo...unds/index.html

 

I'm sure there are hundreds of examples from both that I can find, but I'm not going to waste the time. You've been living in a bubble if you don't think Dems have railed against the rich and Wall Street while the Repubs tend to protect them. Hell, basic fiscal policy positions tell that story.

 

And yes, ALL politicians do well from Wall Street, which is why it's a joke when Dem candidates pretend like they aren't financially connected.

 

None of those quotes say what you said earlier though. Yes, Dems have railed against income inequality and have hammered at some of the issues on Wall Street to push that argument. But if you specifically argued that the Dems have made people with money the enemy. And that is very much not what either Clinton the candidate or Obama the President have done or said.

[illinilaw08]

This is not the biggest issue that the Democrats have made since 2000. On one hand, I actually do sincerely like that you are making this argument. I think in a vacuum it is right. You can take the handouts from orgs with a plush speaking budget and a desire to seem influential and give a stump speech. It is the "I'll take any mother f******s money if they are givin it away" of politics.

 

I made this argument for Clinton, and I still thin it is theoretically right. But there are two things:

1) I think it is a losing argument and it is not the sacrifice Caulfield is making it out to be. It is not banning all speaking engagements, just the closed door, elite org/business ones.

2) I find these speaking engagements to specifically be unseemly. As a whole, it seems to be a "I'm paying you a lot of money to consider my viewpoints!", moreso than the speaker angle "maybe I will convince you about progressive policies".

 

You are criticizing this line being drawn but I think you probably have a line drawn too. If Obama had gone into a law firm with the implicit benefit of having an "insider" they could rely upon for connections on the hill, that would be pretty awful. It wouldn't matter if he also continued on progressive policies. He would also probably never do this.

 

But I also thought he would not so eagerly jump to these types of gigs. My favorite part of him since being a candidate was his very disciplined optics and campaigns that reduced distractions.

 

And that's all this is, it's a distraction. It doesn't mean he's insincere. It doesn't mean he can't advocate for progressive future. But it is a "well why do you have to do that then?" thing. And, contrary to caulfield that this is the most inherently American thing he can do (which come to think of it, generationally rich people taking gobs of money for no reason except they are already rich MAY be the most American thing possible), I don't think this is a particularly big sacrifice. I think it's tiny. Again, it's not all speeches.

 

Fair points, and I see that argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

None of those quotes say what you said earlier though. Yes, Dems have railed against income inequality and have hammered at some of the issues on Wall Street to push that argument. But if you specifically argued that the Dems have made people with money the enemy. And that is very much not what either Clinton the candidate or Obama the President have done or said.

 

When you make a main street v. wall street argument and pretend that you're going to help the little guy and stop the rich from benefiting at the expense of everyone else (all while pretending that you're not in that rich group) you're effectively calling them an enemy. They argue that because of "them" you aren't getting what you should be getting. They might not have explicitly said the word "enemy" before, but that's clearly the intent.

Edited April 26, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[caulfield12]

Why did you write any of this down?

 

The argument was posed that the Dems just don't get it.

 

Neither side does. Time will tell if Trump is more Carter than Reagan/Andrew Jackson, but the days of Inside the Beltway/Establishment politicians getting nominated regularly are on the wane.

 

Voters are too fed up with a broken process, especially when they found out it was rigged from the very beginning against Sanders. At least the GOP didn't rely on so many superdelegates to corrupt their process.

[StrangeSox]

andrew jackson was an awful, awful person and a terrible president

[caulfield12]

When you make a main street v. wall street argument and pretend that you're going to help the little guy and stop the rich from benefiting at the expense of everyone else (all while pretending that you're not in that rich group) you're effectively calling them an enemy. They argue that because of "them" you aren't getting what you should be getting. They might not have explicitly said the word "enemy" before, but that's clearly the intent.

 

Funny word, pretending.

 

That's exactly what Trump did for 18 months with voters.

 

At any rate, Clinton waffled just as much on areas like TPP. The irony is that there is a compelling argument for globalization benefitting consumers (and developing countries), but she was afraid to offend traditional Democratic interest groups.

 

Clinton and Obama didn't come close to the all out class warfare of Al Gore, John Edwards and Bernie Sanders.

[caulfield12]

andrew jackson was an awful, awful person and a terrible president

 

 

Yes, but like Reagan, he has been shape shifted by conservative historians into the People's Champion and populist states' rights warrior against the urban/coastal elites.

 

Irony being that all the Trump's represent that world perhaps as much as anyone in US history.

[illinilaw08]

When you make a main street v. wall street argument and pretend that you're going to help the little guy and stop the rich from benefiting at the expense of everyone else (all while pretending that you're not in that rich group) you're effectively calling them an enemy. They argue that because of "them" you aren't getting what you should be getting. They might not have explicitly said the word "enemy" before, but that's clearly the intent.

 

Umm... can you provide examples of ways in which the Democrats have "pretended" to help the little guy? Because the ACA and Dodd-Frank both were pretty "little guy" friendly pieces of legislation just off the top of my head.

 

Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that discussing the wage gap means you are anti-wealth, and that by fundraising from the wealthy, you are explicitly refusing to help the poor. I really do not understand that logic.

 

I mean, I think that Trump actually did what you are suggesting - telling the little guy he was going to help them and bring back all the jobs while not pushing policies that actually accomplish that. But I fail to see where the Obama administration, and then the Clinton campaign didn't propose policies to help the little guy.

 

You can both help the little guy and not destroy the free market!

[StrangeSox]

Obama's administration did basically nothing to hold the people who got extremely wealthy off of the run-up to the global financial collapse accountable and that left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

[BigSqwert]

Obama's administration did basically nothing to hold the people who got extremely wealthy off of the run-up to the global financial collapse accountable and that left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

 

Yup, this. Pretty much have little interest in the Dem establishment because of this.