- 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.
Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal
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.www.foxnews.com
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.
Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal
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.www.foxnews.com
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
You certain of your numbers?
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
Definition of GRIFT
to obtain (money or property) illicitly (as in a confidence game); to acquire money or property illicitly… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
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".
"But, Trump!!"
Yeah, I had already deleted that after seeing your second post.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
Yellen received $800G from hedge fund in Gamestop controversy; WH doesn't commit to recusal
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.www.foxnews.com
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.
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.
Remove the corporate tax deduction for money laundering through speaking fees and other “honorariums”.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?
my reaction woulda been: yadda yadda yaddaA 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.
psst - the author of this thread believes IT IS only a Dem problemIt 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?
because he is MAGA /sTrump 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?
maybe if the set them in FRONT of the gravy train“They” always want to howl when the other side gets paid!
The politicians will never give up the gravy train voluntarily, imo.
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.
Remove the corporate tax deduction for money laundering through speaking fees and other “honorariums”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?