SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President Barack Obama railed against "fat cat bankers" on the campaign trail, but appeared to change his tune in office. (Photo: Getty)
Obama Under Fire for $400K Speech to Wall Street 'Fat Cats'
Former President Barack Obama's first speech since leaving office will be a richly-compensated appearance at Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald
Apr 26, 2017
Former President Barack Obama is garnering criticism for netting a whopping $400,000 for his first major speech since leaving office--a speech to Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, scheduled to take place in September.
Progressives were deeply disappointed by Obama's approach to Wall Street during his presidency, and many are condemning his lucrative Wall Street speaking fee as an apparent retroactive reward for his administration's soft stance toward the one percent.
While Obama railed against "fat cat bankers" on the campaign trail, during his tenure as president he oversaw the massive bailout for the firms responsible for the 2008 crisis, picked former Wall Street executives for his cabinet, and not a single banker went to jail.
As Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post, there are many problems with the arrangement:
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did this, too, as have Hillary Clinton, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. And the more that Wall Street firms give out-of-office presidents and big-name politicians these paydays, the more they become the norm. Other presidents will know that such payments are on the table, and it risks coloring their decisions with regard to Wall Street and special interests.
Which is already happening with Obama, retroactively.
"Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama as a reward for [the lack of prosecutions for anybody involved in the financial crisis]. In that way, it's tough on both precedent and Obama's presidency," Blake observes.
Blake and others also point out that Obama himself criticized such arrangements in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope:
\u201cAlmost as though Obama explained himself why giving $$$ speeches to banksters is bad https://t.co/IT5RnyawaT\u201d— Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn (@Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn) 1493203165
Moreover, observers note that at a time when Democrats are framing President Donald Trump as an enemy of working people, it seems as though the party wouldn't want the former Democratic president to receive such stunning speaking fees from Wall Street. Indeed, right-wing outlet Fox News appeared to jump at the chance to describe the fee as a "huge payday" for Obama.
Many journalists and commentators also took to Twitter to condemn the speech:
oh just because Obama let Wall Street guys get away with the biggest fraud in history, he shouldn't take $400,000 to give a speech to them?
-- sick transit, gloria (@samknight1) April 26, 2017
\u201cSince leaving office, Obama has: \n\n-Gone yachting with R. Branson\n-Endorsed an investment banker in France\n-Taken 400K for a Wall St speech\u201d— Luke Savage (@Luke Savage) 1493139956
\u201cThis is what Obama said literally the same day his $400K Wall Street speech was revealed. The, er, um ... audacity\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1493118573
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Former President Barack Obama is garnering criticism for netting a whopping $400,000 for his first major speech since leaving office--a speech to Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, scheduled to take place in September.
Progressives were deeply disappointed by Obama's approach to Wall Street during his presidency, and many are condemning his lucrative Wall Street speaking fee as an apparent retroactive reward for his administration's soft stance toward the one percent.
While Obama railed against "fat cat bankers" on the campaign trail, during his tenure as president he oversaw the massive bailout for the firms responsible for the 2008 crisis, picked former Wall Street executives for his cabinet, and not a single banker went to jail.
As Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post, there are many problems with the arrangement:
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did this, too, as have Hillary Clinton, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. And the more that Wall Street firms give out-of-office presidents and big-name politicians these paydays, the more they become the norm. Other presidents will know that such payments are on the table, and it risks coloring their decisions with regard to Wall Street and special interests.
Which is already happening with Obama, retroactively.
"Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama as a reward for [the lack of prosecutions for anybody involved in the financial crisis]. In that way, it's tough on both precedent and Obama's presidency," Blake observes.
Blake and others also point out that Obama himself criticized such arrangements in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope:
\u201cAlmost as though Obama explained himself why giving $$$ speeches to banksters is bad https://t.co/IT5RnyawaT\u201d— Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn (@Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn) 1493203165
Moreover, observers note that at a time when Democrats are framing President Donald Trump as an enemy of working people, it seems as though the party wouldn't want the former Democratic president to receive such stunning speaking fees from Wall Street. Indeed, right-wing outlet Fox News appeared to jump at the chance to describe the fee as a "huge payday" for Obama.
Many journalists and commentators also took to Twitter to condemn the speech:
oh just because Obama let Wall Street guys get away with the biggest fraud in history, he shouldn't take $400,000 to give a speech to them?
-- sick transit, gloria (@samknight1) April 26, 2017
\u201cSince leaving office, Obama has: \n\n-Gone yachting with R. Branson\n-Endorsed an investment banker in France\n-Taken 400K for a Wall St speech\u201d— Luke Savage (@Luke Savage) 1493139956
\u201cThis is what Obama said literally the same day his $400K Wall Street speech was revealed. The, er, um ... audacity\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1493118573
Former President Barack Obama is garnering criticism for netting a whopping $400,000 for his first major speech since leaving office--a speech to Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, scheduled to take place in September.
Progressives were deeply disappointed by Obama's approach to Wall Street during his presidency, and many are condemning his lucrative Wall Street speaking fee as an apparent retroactive reward for his administration's soft stance toward the one percent.
While Obama railed against "fat cat bankers" on the campaign trail, during his tenure as president he oversaw the massive bailout for the firms responsible for the 2008 crisis, picked former Wall Street executives for his cabinet, and not a single banker went to jail.
As Aaron Blake writes in the Washington Post, there are many problems with the arrangement:
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did this, too, as have Hillary Clinton, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. And the more that Wall Street firms give out-of-office presidents and big-name politicians these paydays, the more they become the norm. Other presidents will know that such payments are on the table, and it risks coloring their decisions with regard to Wall Street and special interests.
Which is already happening with Obama, retroactively.
"Whether fair or not, it's not difficult to look at Wall Street paying $400,000 to Obama as a reward for [the lack of prosecutions for anybody involved in the financial crisis]. In that way, it's tough on both precedent and Obama's presidency," Blake observes.
Blake and others also point out that Obama himself criticized such arrangements in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope:
\u201cAlmost as though Obama explained himself why giving $$$ speeches to banksters is bad https://t.co/IT5RnyawaT\u201d— Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn (@Jonathan 'Boo and Vote' Cohn) 1493203165
Moreover, observers note that at a time when Democrats are framing President Donald Trump as an enemy of working people, it seems as though the party wouldn't want the former Democratic president to receive such stunning speaking fees from Wall Street. Indeed, right-wing outlet Fox News appeared to jump at the chance to describe the fee as a "huge payday" for Obama.
Many journalists and commentators also took to Twitter to condemn the speech:
oh just because Obama let Wall Street guys get away with the biggest fraud in history, he shouldn't take $400,000 to give a speech to them?
-- sick transit, gloria (@samknight1) April 26, 2017
\u201cSince leaving office, Obama has: \n\n-Gone yachting with R. Branson\n-Endorsed an investment banker in France\n-Taken 400K for a Wall St speech\u201d— Luke Savage (@Luke Savage) 1493139956
\u201cThis is what Obama said literally the same day his $400K Wall Street speech was revealed. The, er, um ... audacity\u201d— Jeff Stein (@Jeff Stein) 1493118573
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.