The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000

[Cardinal]

I have no problem at all with Obama or anyone else charging whatever they can make for speaking tours or books, or whatever they wish to do... after leaving office and if no other member of their immediate family (spouse, child) are in public office, especially a high public office.

My statement to you responded to your post about what in your opinion conservatives become angry over regarding people enriching themselves, and I pointed out that conservatives tend to get angry over public servants enriching themselves while in office,

You're trolling me, right?

and Progressives evidently have no problem with public servants enriching themselves while in office but have major problems with private sector entrepreneurs enriching themselves legally in the private sector (the left hated millionaires and billionaires). Your post above seems to follow that same line as as well, unless you are talking solely about enrichment from the private sector after a public servant leaving office, which I have no problem with, and did not address at all in my post. Which if that is the case would mean that your post was either unintentionally off topic by mistaken response, or intentionally misleading to defend public servants enriching themselves while in office. I'm not sure which?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I have no problem at all with Obama or anyone else charging whatever they can make for speaking tours or books, or whatever they wish to do... after leaving office and if no other member of their immediate family (spouse, child) are in public office, especially a high public office.

My statement to you responded to your post about what in your opinion conservatives become angry over regarding people enriching themselves, and I pointed out that conservatives tend to get angry over public servants enriching themselves while in office, and Progressives evidently have no problem with public servants enriching themselves while in office but have major problems with private sector entrepreneurs enriching themselves legally in the private sector (the left hated millionaires and billionaires). Your post above seems to follow that same line as as well, unless you are talking solely about enrichment from the private sector after a public servant leaving office, which I have no problem with, and did not address at all in my post. Which if that is the case would mean that your post was either unintentionally off topic by mistaken response, or intentionally misleading to defend public servants enriching themselves while in office. I'm not sure which?

If anything is the cause of politicans enriching Themselves in office, it is because they are in bed with political lobbyists.

There are two ways of resolving that: ban political lobbying, or increase the salary of elected representatives so that they cannot be lobbied.

 

[apdst]

They only get angry with Democrats have money. Like the Obamas or Soros. When Republicans like Trump have money they get on her knees and worship them

Y'all only get angry when Republicans have money. When Democrats have money, y'all get on your knees and worship them.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Y'all only get angry when Republicans have money. When Democrats have money, y'all get on your knees and worship them.

A Trumpster started this thread. Show me where I started a thread praising rich Dem presidents and condemning rich Republicans.. I'll wait.

 

[apdst]

You make that money by bringing your experience, your perspective and of course your prestige to speaking events or books. There's nothing corrupt about that. If Trump left office today and made eleventy gazillion dollars by using his experience as President to promote his books, tv shows, line of underoos, etc., I'd have no problem with it because he's no longer in office and there isn't the concern that he's crafting government policy as a result of personal profit.

If you see paid speeches and book deals after office as the same thing as profiting off of businesses in office, then you really just don't understand what corruption is.

Obama was worth 1.3 million in 2008. Now, he's worth 40 million.

He increased his his wealth by 20 million while in office.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw1n8a6ALf6JBRarS-RB0AIm&ust=1544477948384604

Obama must be corrupt as a mother****er.

 

[apdst]

A Trumpster started this thread. Show me where I started a thread praising rich Dem presidents and condemning rich Republicans.. I'll wait.

Show us where you criticized Obama for making money off his presidency.

 

[Beaudreaux]

You "liked" this post:

First, the Emoluments Clause is only dealing with foreign emoluments, which is what that post referenced, which is why I added Article Two, Section One, Clause 7 (sometimes referred to as the Domestic Emoluments Clause), and 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, to the thread in the post you quoted to add to the discussion.

If you really mean the above, I have to suppose you have a problem with any president who has ever obtained any income during or after the presidency outside that $400,000.

I do have a major problem with it. I even have a major problem with "blind trusts" because unless they are divested while seen and re-invested elsewhere while blind, they change nothing and the government official can still effect their own investments positively for enrichment.

But then, if that's what you thought you would have to dislike his post because his was partisan hackery aimed solely at the two most recent liberal presidents.

Giving a post a "like" by me doesn't always mean that I agree with the post's intended thought or position, but rather it could be for the unintended and in this case ironic tactic being used that should embarrass the poster if they understood what they actually wrote, and how it affects their own side and their own position. Sometimes a "like" by me is similar to the Southern phrase, Bless Your Heart. It also could be because although I disagree with your point, I think you made a great post - you get some of those "likes" from me from time to time.

Meanwhile, I'm not aware of one single President in modern history who didn't make a dime outside his salary to avoid someone misreading and misapplying the emoulment's clause to him.

I can't either. Well, maybe Carter? Didn't he divest his holdings completely and put his retained earnings into a real and actual blind trust while in office?

But anyway, the position is ridiculous given what Cardinal said. Of course they're going to write books and speak at events. If it was just a shameful dishonest money-grab, people wouldn't pay money to hear what presidents and ex-presidents have to say, or read what they write.

The difference between acceptable and unacceptable for me relates to enrichment in office or out of office.

Now, if you really do think presidents shouldn't have any other source of income and really do apply it to ALL, then I think that's silly.

Then I'm silly. I have no problem with truly blind trusts, but complete divestment should occur prior.

But at least I would know it wasn't partisan hackery.

I presume I will have to live with being silly in your eyes. Which is okay with me.

 

[Cardinal]

Obama was worth 1.3 million in 2008. Now, he's worth 40 million.

He increased his his wealth by 20 million while in office.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw1n8a6ALf6JBRarS-RB0AIm&ust=1544477948384604

Obama must be corrupt as a mother****er.

I imagine a good chunk of that came from royalties from the books written before he was President.

 

[Airyaman]

The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! <snip>

Congrats Obama!

 

[Saladin4]

It appears some of these angry white men still have a bad case of "Obama up the ass"......LOL

 

[Beaudreaux]

You're trolling me, right?

I'm actually not, and although we don't agree often I respect you more than trolling you. That's actually my opinion in that post. However, I do want to clarify that my definition of conservative and the current nut-blade pro-anything Trump Conservative definition are not one and the same.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You guys are being really unfair and insulting to Logical1.
The guy used THIRTEEN exclamation points, which means he's telling the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[apdst]

I imagine a good chunk of that came from royalties from the books written before he was President.

"Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" revenued $7.5 million, combined. You're $12.5 million short.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If anything is the cause of politicans enriching Themselves in office, it is because they are in bed with political lobbyists.

There are two ways of resolving that: ban political lobbying, or increase the salary of elected representatives so that they cannot be lobbied.

Actually, no. $174,000.00 a year, plus a large budget for your office, is more than enough for any member of Congress. And, $400,000.00, with ALL your other expenses paid for, is more than enough for any POTUS. If they want to make more money than that they should rejoin the private sector. If they are in public service to make money, they need to leave or be kicked out of public service.

What is need is to enforce the actual laws that are already on the books.

 

[Deuce]

"Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" revenued $7.5 million, combined. You're $12.5 million short.

He gets paid a lot for speaking too.

 

[apdst]

He gets paid a lot for speaking too.

If he did it while he was in office, he's corrupt like a mother****er. Right?

 

[Cardinal]

I'm actually not, and although we don't agree often I respect you more than trolling you. That's actually my opinion in that post. However, I do want to clarify that my definition of conservative and the current nut-blade pro-anything Trump Conservative definition are not one and the same.

It's not a meaningful difference since Trump has taken over the Republican Party and conservatism in general. Republicans are all on a spectrum of conservatism. And if conservatives don't support their political leaders profiting from their businesses as a result of their office, then they're going to have to square that principle with their support of Trump. Because as it stands, there is no demonstrable behavior on the part of conservatives to lead to the conclusion that that is a principle they value.

 

[Cardinal]

"Dreams of my Father" and "Audacity of Hope" revenued $7.5 million, combined. You're $12.5 million short.

Well, detective, figure it out.

 

[apdst]

Well, detective, figure it out.

Obama's a corrupt mother****er. You already figured it out for us.

 

[distraff]

The Obama's are reported to have a net worth of $40,000,000!!! Isnt it about time they stare redistributing it?? Since thats what the commie told us, time for him to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Obama's already pay progressive income taxes for social programs for the poor, and those extra taxes on the rich that were passed during Obama's presidency. Obama gives away about 15-25% of his income to charity.

 

[Cardinal]

Obama's a corrupt mother****er. You already figured it out for us.

Okey dokey annie oakley.

 

[apdst]

Okey dokey annie oakley.

You're falling apart faster than normal. :lamo

 

[Saladin4]

You're falling apart faster than normal. :lamo

President laughs everyday at your "kind"...Don't it make you mad?

 

[JMR]

Conservatives don't get angry over how much people have, as long as they earned that money legitimately. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives get angry over how much money people have that are supposed to be public servants as government employees when those public employees leave public service with millions of dollars (like making $85k/year before getting elected to the Senate and and POTUS and coming out of public service with tens of millions of dollars) versus Progressives that by the evidence seem to defend such enrichment on the backs of tax payers but decry and condemn private sector entrepreneurs that succeed on the private markets and not on public sector tax money. As an example, let's look at Obama who along with other Progressives talk about "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes" and also talk about "redistribution" from the rich to the poor and middles class" when they actually mean that they want to enrich themselves on the back of those that have to earn their money (the middle class and the rich) when the Progressives and the Bernie-ite Socialists enrich themselves off of the hard earned tax money of those that have a real job.

How do you end up with tens of millions of dollars when you make $174,000.00/year for a little less than three years as Senator, and $400,000.00/year for eight years as POTUS? If he didn't have any expenses at all, he would have come out of public service with $522,000.00 from the Senate and $3,200,000.00 from POTUS, a total of $3,722,000.00 during an economic recession where the stock market and real estate market all crashed. So where'd the money come from that wouldn't be a violation of Article One, Section 9, Clause 8, or Article Two, Section One, Clause 7, 5 CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain, or all of the other myriad of laws against enriching yourself while on the federal government's payroll?

This applies to all President's, including Trump, not just Obama. So please don't try to deflect from the actual thread topic with what-about-isms to Trump.

So, I hope that answers your question.

Obama made 15 million dollars from the sale of his two books, which were written prior to his term in office. That should answer your question as to how Obama did it.

Notice, he did not collect fees to join his exclusive clubs, nor did he operate a hotel in Washington DC and collect payments from foreign agents.
He also released his tax returns every year, detailing this income, the taxes paid on it, and the CHARITABLE contributions made each year. I emphasized charitable as it is a term Trump seems unaware of.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Show us where you criticized Obama for making money off his presidency.

lol... The onus is on you.. You brought it up, so put up!!!!

Show me where I started a thread praising rich Dem pres. and condemning rich Republicans..

I'll wait..