• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Newly-confirmed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen received around $810,000 in speaking fees from the hedge fund that bailed out one of the primary losers in the recent Gamestop frenzy.


Yellen's financial disclosure shows her making $337,500 for multiple days in Oct. of 2020 from Citadel. She similarly banked $292,500 in October of 2019 and $180,000 in December of that year.

The Senate confirmed Yellen on Monday, making her the first female secretary of the department. She previously chaired the Federal Reserve after an appointment by former President Obama.

Really. What does anyone have to say that is worth $800K? It’s the influence they are selling During the campaign.

Yellen is another grifter grifting.
 
A Trumpist, pretending to take issue with "grifting" and not even being able to identify it.

Oy vey.




Grifting is not accepting private speaking fees. Grifting is doing shit like always steering your security detail to properties you own so that you are effectively being paid for the cost of the secret service guarding you. Or going to China to ostensibly make negotiation gains in one's idiotic trade war, but coming away with nothing but promises China has no intent of keeping and a handful of trademarks for your daughter.
 



Really. What does anyone have to say that is worth $800K? It’s the influence they are selling During the campaign.

Yellen is another grifter grifting.

It would be great to get corporate money out of politics, all the way around - I know you're not suggesting this is merely a Dem problem.

As ingrained as it is in your (and my) political reality, I'm just not sure how. Limit the total allowable earnings during their term, all of a sudden their wife or husband, daughter or son, etc., have something to say that's worth $800k.

Do you think there's a solution, or is this just a bit of venting?
 



Really. What does anyone have to say that is worth $800K? It’s the influence they are selling During the campaign.

Yellen is another grifter grifting.

Trump got 400 grand for a single speech back in 2005, which of course he lied about and said was 1.5 million.

Why do you support such a grifter?
 
A Trumpist, pretending to take issue with "grifting" and not even being able to identify it.

Oy vey.




Grifting is not accepting private speaking fees. Grifting is doing shit like always steering your security detail to properties you own so that you are effectively being paid for the cost of the secret service guarding you. Or going to China to ostensibly make negotiation gains in one's idiotic trade war, but coming away with nothing but promises China has no intent of keeping and a handful of trademarks for your daughter.

I think it's sort of valid, actually...if one looks at it as a problem in government in general, and doesn't attempt to frame it as one side or the other....which I didn't see in the OP, btw....

There is no question that there is too much corporate influence in North American politics, to where all too often their needs are prioritized over the regular citizen. When one tries to understand how that happens, this does appear to be a likely contributor.

I'm not saying there aren't private sector individuals charging exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements...and more power to them, if they have found a market for their thoughts, I'd love to be in their shoes. But it does get a lot more awkward when an elected official is commanding these dues...it's a bad look, and it casts doubt on their ability to do the job they were sent to do, if the needs of the folks they represent clash with the goals of the organizations paying super high fees for "speaking engagements". Not sure knee jerk dismissal is the right reaction here.
 
I think it's sort of valid, actually...if one looks at it as a problem in government in general, and doesn't attempt to frame it as one side or the other....which I didn't see in the OP, btw....

There is no question that there is too much corporate influence in North American politics, to where all to often their needs are prioritized over the regular citizen. When one tries to understand how that happens, this does appear to be a likely contributor.

I'm not saying there aren't private sector individuals charging exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements...and more power to them, if they have found a market for their thoughts, I'd love to be in their shoes. But it does get a lot more awkward when an elected official is commanding these dues...it's a bad look, and it casts doubt on their ability to do the job they were sent to do, if the needs of the folks they represent clash with the goals of the organizations paying super high fees for "speaking engagements". Not sure knee jerk dismissal is the right reaction here.

A lot of people make a shit ton of money off of nothing but speaking, relying on their past history to bring in the dollars.

Magic Johnson makes something like 500 million a year doing it and Abby Wambach a mere 400 million.
 
“They” always want to howl when the other side gets paid!

The politicians will never give up the gravy train voluntarily, imo.
 
A lot of people make a shit ton of money off of nothing but speaking, relying on their past history to bring in the dollars.

Magic Johnson makes something like 500 million a year doing it and Abby Wambach a mere 400 million.


You certain of your numbers?
 
A lot of people make a shit ton of money off of nothing but speaking, relying on their past history to bring in the dollars.

Magic Johnson makes something like 500 million a year doing it and Abby Wambach a mere 400 million.

Repeating from the post you quoted:

I'm not saying there aren't private sector individuals charging exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements...and more power to them, if they have found a market for their thoughts, I'd love to be in their shoes. But it does get a lot more awkward when an elected official is commanding these dues...it's a bad look, and it casts doubt on their ability to do the job they were sent to do, if the needs of the folks they represent clash with the goals of the organizations paying super high fees for "speaking engagements".

Magic Johnson doesn't have to choose who to serve. He has no obligation to anyone but himself. I think that's the key difference here.
 
I think it's sort of valid, actually...if one looks at it as a problem in government in general, and doesn't attempt to frame it as one side or the other....which I didn't see in the OP, btw....

There is no question that there is too much corporate influence in North American politics, to where all to often their needs are prioritized over the regular citizen. When one tries to understand how that happens, this does appear to be a likely contributor.

I'm not saying there aren't private sector individuals charging exorbitant amounts of money for speaking engagements...and more power to them, if they have found a market for their thoughts, I'd love to be in their shoes. But it does get a lot more awkward when an elected official is commanding these dues...it's a bad look, and it casts doubt on their ability to do the job they were sent to do, if the needs of the folks they represent clash with the goals of the organizations paying super high fees for "speaking engagements". Not sure knee jerk dismissal is the right reaction here.

If we're being specific, none of what I either of us said fits the definition:


Definition of grift
transitive verb
: to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)

intransitive verb
: to acquire money or property illicitly




But I have generally heard it used to describe an individual using official powers to direct wealth to himself or his cronies. Which makes some sense, since 'grift' likely comes from 'graft'.

graft
noun (2)
Definition of graft (Entry 3 of 5)
: the acquisition of gain (such as money) in dishonest or questionable ways also : illegal or unfair gain




I don't see leaving an official position that one obtained because of one's expertise in an area, and then getting paid to give talks about that area "grift". The article is about speaking fees made when she wasn't in any sort of official role:

Yellen's financial disclosure shows her making $337,500 for multiple days in Oct. of 2020 from Citadel. She similarly banked $292,500 in October of 2019 and $180,000 in December of that year.

Compare with:

Yellen was a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from 1994 to 1997 and again from 2010 to 2018. She chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 1999 and was the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco from 2004 to 2010. She served as vice-chair of the Federal Reserve from 2010 to 2014. In 2014, Yellen was nominated by President Barack Obama to succeed Ben Bernanke as chair of the Federal Reserve.[2] She served one term from 2014 to 2018 and was not re-appointed by President Donald Trump.[3]

 
If we're being specific, none of what I either of us said fits the definition:


Definition of grift
transitive verb
: to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game)

intransitive verb
: to acquire money or property illicitly




But I have generally heard it used to describe an individual using official powers to direct wealth to himself or his cronies. Which makes some sense, since 'grift' likely comes from 'graft'.

graft
noun (2)
Definition of graft (Entry 3 of 5)
: the acquisition of gain (such as money) in dishonest or questionable ways also : illegal or unfair gain




I don't see leaving an official position that one obtained because of one's expertise in an area, and then getting paid to give talks about that area "grift".

Yeah, yeah, word choice was poor, and obviously meant to be inflammatory, or at minimum express frustration. All speech is polarized these days, if you haven't been able to develop some filters I don't know how you get through your day. ;)

The payment is the issue here, and what it pays for. Do you believe that corporations do not invest in major influence in government? If not, I think we can still have this chat, poorly chosen words notwithstanding. :)
 
Lol - imagine being the poor soul tasked with trying to explain hedge funds, Robin Hood, and GameSpot to Joe Biden.
 
Last edited:
"But, Trump!!"

Just pointing out that a lot of people get paid a lot of money for talking, it is not rare or out of the ordinary. Wanted to use an example you folks could relate to
 
Just pointing out that a lot of people get paid a lot of money for talking, it is not rare or out of the ordinary. Wanted to use an example you folks could relate to
Yeah, I had already deleted that after seeing your second post.
 
As I've had to explain to a number of Trump Fans over the years, Just Because Someone Else Did It, Doesn't Make It Right For Someone On Your Team To Do It.

F Yellen and the Government for protecting the big funds from competition with the little guys. For those of you who think Regulation is a way to crank down on Big Bad Business, think hard about this example, and ask who you really think regulation is written to protect.
 



Really. What does anyone have to say that is worth $800K? It’s the influence they are selling During the campaign.

Yellen is another grifter grifting.

Are you jealous that nobody's paying you to speak anywhere?
 
Yeah, yeah, word choice was poor, and obviously meant to be inflammatory, or at minimum express frustration. All speech is polarized these days, if you haven't been able to develop some filters I don't know how you get through your day. ;)

The payment is the issue here, and what it pays for. Do you believe that corporations do not invest in major influence in government? If not, I think we can still have this chat, poorly chosen words notwithstanding. :)

The article is about speaking fees she charged after leaving the reserve in 2018. It's possible that those companies thought they were making some strange long-term bet that if they paid Yellen a lot, she might just be re-appointed at some time in the future, and might then decide to take certain paths out of a hope to reward the companies for their earlier bet.

I doubt that. I suspect it has more to do with paying someone who was inside for eight years to speak and hoping to gain insights - perhaps not intentionally revealed - into how the Fed operates, so as to be able to predict what the Fed might do in the future in a way that benefits them.

That there is a larger overall corporate investment in government influence doesn't really impact my view that what Yellen did does not seem to be wrong in any way. I'd worry more about PACs, the lobbying structure, donations, and the like.
 
It would be great to get corporate money out of politics, all the way around - I know you're not suggesting this is merely a Dem problem.

As ingrained as it is in your (and my) political reality, I'm just not sure how. Limit the total allowable earnings during their term, all of a sudden their wife or husband, daughter or son, etc., have something to say that's worth $800k.

Do you think there's a solution, or is this just a bit of venting?
Remove the corporate tax deduction for money laundering through speaking fees and other “honorariums”.
 
A Trumpist, pretending to take issue with "grifting" and not even being able to identify it.

Oy vey.




Grifting is not accepting private speaking fees. Grifting is doing shit like always steering your security detail to properties you own so that you are effectively being paid for the cost of the secret service guarding you. Or going to China to ostensibly make negotiation gains in one's idiotic trade war, but coming away with nothing but promises China has no intent of keeping and a handful of trademarks for your daughter.
my reaction woulda been: yadda yadda yadda ;)
 
It would be great to get corporate money out of politics, all the way around - I know you're not suggesting this is merely a Dem problem.

As ingrained as it is in your (and my) political reality, I'm just not sure how. Limit the total allowable earnings during their term, all of a sudden their wife or husband, daughter or son, etc., have something to say that's worth $800k.

Do you think there's a solution, or is this just a bit of venting?
psst - the author of this thread believes IT IS only a Dem problem :p
 
Trump got 400 grand for a single speech back in 2005, which of course he lied about and said was 1.5 million.

Why do you support such a grifter?
because he is MAGA /s
 
“They” always want to howl when the other side gets paid!

The politicians will never give up the gravy train voluntarily, imo.
maybe if the set them in FRONT of the gravy train :cool:
 
The article is about speaking fees she charged after leaving the reserve in 2018. It's possible that those companies thought they were making some strange long-term bet that if they paid Yellen a lot, she might just be re-appointed at some time in the future, and might then decide to take certain paths out of a hope to reward the companies for their earlier bet.

I doubt that. I suspect it has more to do with paying someone who was inside for eight years to speak and hoping to gain insights - perhaps not intentionally revealed - into how the Fed operates, so as to be able to predict what the Fed might do in the future in a way that benefits them.

That there is a larger overall corporate investment in government influence doesn't really impact my view that what Yellen did does not seem to be wrong in any way. I'd worry more about PACs, the lobbying structure, donations, and the like.

Yeah, I mean, as I said in my first response, it's a very difficult thing to figure out, as there is so many ways to say "Yeah, but". You make a perfectly valid point, but in a situation where corporate influence is so obvious, everything becomes suspect.

I guess really the only way to do it would be to do an analysis wherein you look for correlation between exorbitant speaking fees within a predetermined time frame, and see if there was an uptick that could be explained any other way - if someone went from no speaking engagements to tons, if someone went from $50,000 a speech to $800,000, that kind of thing. Then you'd have to look at all their policy decisions and votes, to see if the person both voted for the corporate interest AND against their constituents' interest. You'd have to measure the results for every politician, to determine if there is a trend of influence, and if a correlation emerges, you'd then need to determine what is acceptable during, and before, a term, and come up with laws / rules to deliver that. Of course, this would require all politicians be honest, and that the interests of both corporations and constituents were understood.

All of this sounds very complicated, and expensive...and it would be. It also kind of sounds a lot closer to the kind of government decision making that would lead to a much better government for the people. I just don't know if any of it is possible, or palatable. After giving it this thought, I find myself a little depressed...hehe....
 
Back
Top Bottom