Trump family gets Billions from Saudi’s in shady deals

[TexasTiger 14,524]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-saudi-arabia

[aubiefifty 18,444]

you have done it now buster. the trump butt kissers do not allow trump stuff to be posted anymore. it hurts their feelings...................

[SaltyTiger 8,664]

Appears to be a bit shady but “ well trod path”. 

[TexasTiger 14,524]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Appears to be a bit shady but “ well trod path”. 

Unprecedented magnitude, especially 6 months after Jared was in the WH heading up Saudi relations.

[auburnatl1 6,293]

I tend to avoid the “which side is the most corrupt” threads. Dear lord they both are. To the core.  The issue is the army professional politicians, on either side - this is their lifetime career. It does corrupt, it does change them, and they become hopelessly parasitical. I’ll pick on aoc because she’s supposedly a redistribution of wealth socialist - a 33 year old congressman and former bartender. Net worth already: $13million. She’ll be worth 9 figures before she’s done. But before the maga guys go nuts - search on net worth of republicans. Just a creepy.

The issue is duration and endless re-elections. It should be a tour of duty, not a lifetime money grab.  It’s Central America   stuff. To me: this is the heart of government cancer.

Edited July 15, 2023 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 14,524]

26 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I tend to avoid the “which side is the most corrupt” threads. Dear lord they both are. To the core.  The issue is the army professional politicians, on either side - this is their lifetime career. It does corrupt, it does change them, and they become hopelessly parasitical. I’ll pick on aoc because she’s supposedly a redistribution of wealth socialist - a 33 year old congressman and former bartender. Net worth already: $13million. She’ll be worth 9 figures before she’s done. But before the maga guys go nuts - search on net worth of republicans. Just a creepy.

The issue is duration and endless re-elections. It should be a tour of duty, not a lifetime money grab.  It’s Central America   stuff. To me: this is the heart of government cancer.

Link to your source, please.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-worth-164632205.html

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/03/facebook-posts/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-isnt-worth-29-million-her/

[AU9377 6,109]

33 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I tend to avoid the “which side is the most corrupt” threads. Dear lord they both are. To the core.  The issue is the army professional politicians, on either side - this is their lifetime career. It does corrupt, it does change them, and they become hopelessly parasitical. I’ll pick on aoc because she’s supposedly a redistribution of wealth socialist - a 33 year old congressman and former bartender. Net worth already: $13million. She’ll be worth 9 figures before she’s done. But before the maga guys go nuts - search on net worth of republicans. Just a creepy.

The issue is duration and endless re-elections. It should be a tour of duty, not a lifetime money grab.  It’s Central America   stuff. To me: this is the heart of government cancer.

I don't disagree really, but I believe that the cancer starts with lobbyists and PACs.  When someone in politics makes money from speaking engagements outside their district, writing books and other legitimate routes, I'm not worried so much.  However, when the money is coming from special interests, even if funneled thru PACs, there has to be some way to control the sources and amounts allowed.

There are some congressmen that can barely afford to live in or near D.C. while Congress is in session without renting an apartment with several other representatives.  That number has dwindled in recent years due to the fact that, in most districts, it costs so much to run an effective campaign that someone usually has wealth before they are elected.  Where that wealth comes from is important, as more and more special interest groups choose and fund candidates long before we know what their names are. 

I'm not against term limits, but that discussion needs to be part of a larger discussion about the rules of how Congress conducts business.  Committees are a critical part of how legislation gets advanced and public hearings get conducted.  The longer someone is in office, the more prestigious their committee assignments usually are.  Some states and districts are reluctant to limiting terms due to the additional influence their particular representative may have because of their longevity in D.C.

Edited July 15, 2023 by AU9377

[SaltyTiger 8,664]

48 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Unprecedented magnitude, especially 6 months after Jared was in the WH heading up Saudi relations.

Understand. I suppose the Trumps are better at corruption than the others.

[AU9377 6,109]

I have been consistent on this topic.  There is likely nothing whatsoever illegal about Kushner and the other Trump kids taking these unbelievably large amounts of money for no reason other than who they are related to.  Even so, it smells to high heaven.  This does deserve a higher level of scrutiny simply due to the fact that Kushner was a paid member of the Executive branch with an office in the White House. 

Imagine if Hillary or Joe Biden etc had given their kid an office in the White House.  The outrage would have been seismic.

[auburnatl1 6,293]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Link to your source, please.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-worth-164632205.html

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/apr/03/facebook-posts/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-isnt-worth-29-million-her/

To your point - after searching more, she does vary wildly and I don’t want to distract the issue with links and attacking the source wars. How about Obama instead (since there’s more consensus and he’s expectedly more documented)?

+$70m. He was a college professor. I won’t even bring up the Clinton’s.  

And these are just disclosed domestic amounts. 

[AU9377 6,109]

47 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

To your point - after searching more, she does vary wildly and I don’t want to distract the issue with links and attacking the source wars. How about Obama instead (since there’s more consensus and he’s expectedly more documented)?

+$70m. He was a college professor. I won’t even bring up the Clinton’s.  

And these are just disclosed domestic amounts. 

I don't think there is anything that we can do about an elected official reaching celebrity status and cashing in on that after leaving office.  Ronald Reagan was the first former President to get paid over $100k per speaking engagement after he left office and when questioned about it he said something to the effect of "welcome to America."  When Obama was first elected to the Senate, he still drove a car with rusted out door jams from all the salt on the roads in Chicago.  Three years later, he was in the White House.  John McCain put it best when he pointed out that he didn't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but that there was no denying that his life story is nothing less than the very essence of what we have touted and proclaimed to be the American dream for 200 years.

Where I would draw the line would be if an elected official made discretionary decisions, while in office, benefiting a corporation or foreign entity and thereafter stepped down from that office and profited from that decision by way of a business relationship or paid position with that same entity.  That becomes an ethical problem.

Some entity employing the same official based on the value of having a former President, Senator, Congressman etc on their letterhead doesn't pose the same ethical problem. 

In reality, there isn't much that we can do about foreign corporations offering positions to the family members of elected officials either.  All we can do is put safeguards in place in order to ensure that the favorable relationship that these corporations or individuals are attempting to foster doesn't result in tangible influence.

Edited July 15, 2023 by AU9377

[auburnatl1 6,293]

4 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I don't think there is anything that we can do about an elected official reaching celebrity status and cashing in on that after leaving office.  Ronald Reagan was the first former President to get paid over $100k per speaking engagement after he left office and when questioned about it he said something to the effect of "welcome to America."  When Obama was first elected to the Senate, he still drove a car with rusted out door jams from all the salt on the roads in Chicago.  Three years later, he was in the White House.  John McCain put it best when he pointed out that he didn't agree with a lot of Obama's policies, but that there was no denying that his life story is nothing less than the very essence of what we have touted and proclaimed to be the American dream for 200 years.

Where I would draw the line would be if an elected official made discretionary decisions, while in office, benefiting a corporation or foreign entity and thereafter stepped down from that office and profited from that decision by way of a business relationship or paid position with that same entity.  That becomes an ethical problem.

Some entity employing the same official based on the value of having a former President, Senator, Congressman etc on their letterhead doesn't pose the same ethical problem. 

In reality, there isn't much that we can do about foreign corporations offering positions to the family members of elected officials either.  All we can do is put safeguards in place in order to ensure that the favorable relationship that these corporations or individuals are attempting to foster doesn't result in tangible influence.

Fair. Though I do think  the hypocrisy is cringe worthy.  The net worth factor is simply one tangible. There are others. Ie look at the % of republicans that went against trump seeking re-election vs those that weren’t. Graham, Cruz, and Rubio have completely compromised themselves and not voted their initial values in years. Biden was a blue color, protect the common man guy 40 years ago.  Now he’s got dummy corps and a kid who’s who’s been heavily leeching off of political privilege. At best.

Career politicians break more thing than they fix . Too much temptation. 

 

[Gowebb11 10,035]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Fair. Though I do think  the hypocrisy is cringe worthy.  The net worth factor is simply one tangible. There are others. Ie look at the % of republicans that went against trump seeking re-election vs those that weren’t. Graham, Cruz, and Rubio have completely compromised themselves and not voted their initial values in years. Biden was a blue color, protect the common man guy 40 years ago.  Now he’s got dummy corps and a kid who’s who’s been heavily leeching off of political privilege. At best.

Career politicians break more thing than they fix . Too much temptation. 

 

You’ve made some excellent points in your posts on this topic. I would add another peril of having 30 and 40 year careers: omnipotent power. People like Pelosi and McConnell don’t give a rats rear end what their constituents think. They have established monarchies and are bankrolled by their corporate masters. That’s who they are beholden to, not the people of their districts. 

[DKW 86 7,946]

"Lord, please, let it be proveable to everyone in the nation..."

Signed me.

[I_M4_AU 9,051]

Just now, DKW 86 said:

"Lord, please, let it be proveable to everyone in the nation..."

Signed me.

And hurry.

[TexasTiger 14,524]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

To your point - after searching more, she does vary wildly and I don’t want to distract the issue with links and attacking the source wars. How about Obama instead (since there’s more consensus and he’s expectedly more documented)?

+$70m. He was a college professor. I won’t even bring up the Clinton’s.  

And these are just disclosed domestic amounts. 

That’s a helluva switch. How’d he & Michelle make that money? 

[aubiefifty 18,444]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s a helluva switch. How’d he & Michelle make that money? 

 

newsweek.com

 

Barack Obama's Net Worth Surges After Leaving the White House, Thanks to Wall Street

Chris Riotta

~4 minutes

---

Former President Barack Obama and billionaire Richard Branson kitesurf during Obama's vacation on Branson's Moskito island. Reuters

There are valid reasons to be concerned by a president's earnings, including after their tenure in the Oval Office. Where a former commander-in-chief earns his or her income–and the company they choose to keep after serving as the leader of the free world–could speak to their basic values in a way policies and legislation cannot.

So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed.

Related: Obama's Return to Public Life: Charming But Flat

How could it be that Obama, the smooth-talking Democratic candidate in 2008 who slammed Wall Street greed and resonated with the working class in a way his party has since been unable to authentically recreate, is living his post-presidential life like an elitist one percenter?

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama participating in the National Christmas Tree lighting in Washington, December 1, 2016. Reuters

Obama will receive an annual pension of over $200,000, after vetoing a bill passed by Congress in 2016 that would have capped each former president's pension to that threshold. He raked in $400,000–the equivalent to his annual presidential salary–for a 90-minute interview Thursday in midtown Manhattan, where he spoke with a presidential historian on things like income inequality and civic engagement. He's set to earn another $400,000 for a 60-minute speech during a conference hosted by the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

And he doesn't plan on slowing down any time soon: Harry Walker Agency, which represents the former president and his wife along the speaking circuit, is scheduling new appointments for the Obamas every single week.

Virtually every single president in modern American history has earned serious cash following their time in office. In fact, their years spent serving in the White House are typically their least-paid.

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a 2014 interview with Diane Sawyer. "We struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy."

The Clintons, as well as former President George W. Bush, earned millions following their time in the peoples' house, receiving six-figure checks for Wall Street speeches and book tours. But the Obamas are set to earn an unprecedented post-presidency income, and its alarming his critics, supporters and other Democrats alike.

"I was troubled by that," Warren said when she learned Obama was charging $400,000 for his upcoming speech. "The influence of money, I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington."

But don't take her word for it: Obama once told his supporters he wasn't tied up in corporate interests or the snake-like stronghold bankers and investment firms seem to have over many elected officials in the U.S.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama said in 2009.

Maybe that Obama should have a talk with 2017 Obama.

 

it was very easy to google this but natty appears to not have been interested in the truth and would rather  would rather make obama look bad. he also called me out on not calling out dems when i just posted about rfk jr this morning which seems  odd like maybe he did not look he just assumed something?

[auburnatl1 6,293]

13 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

 

newsweek.com

 

Barack Obama's Net Worth Surges After Leaving the White House, Thanks to Wall Street

Chris Riotta

~4 minutes

---

Former President Barack Obama and billionaire Richard Branson kitesurf during Obama's vacation on Branson's Moskito island. Reuters

There are valid reasons to be concerned by a president's earnings, including after their tenure in the Oval Office. Where a former commander-in-chief earns his or her income–and the company they choose to keep after serving as the leader of the free world–could speak to their basic values in a way policies and legislation cannot.

So when some Americans, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, saw former President Barack Obama accepting $400,000 speeches from Wall Street, signing book deals worth $65 million and vacationing with billionaires off the coast of Tahiti in a $300 million yacht, you can bet they were perplexed.

Related: Obama's Return to Public Life: Charming But Flat

How could it be that Obama, the smooth-talking Democratic candidate in 2008 who slammed Wall Street greed and resonated with the working class in a way his party has since been unable to authentically recreate, is living his post-presidential life like an elitist one percenter?

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama participating in the National Christmas Tree lighting in Washington, December 1, 2016. Reuters

Obama will receive an annual pension of over $200,000, after vetoing a bill passed by Congress in 2016 that would have capped each former president's pension to that threshold. He raked in $400,000–the equivalent to his annual presidential salary–for a 90-minute interview Thursday in midtown Manhattan, where he spoke with a presidential historian on things like income inequality and civic engagement. He's set to earn another $400,000 for a 60-minute speech during a conference hosted by the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald.

And he doesn't plan on slowing down any time soon: Harry Walker Agency, which represents the former president and his wife along the speaking circuit, is scheduling new appointments for the Obamas every single week.

Virtually every single president in modern American history has earned serious cash following their time in office. In fact, their years spent serving in the White House are typically their least-paid.

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a 2014 interview with Diane Sawyer. "We struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy."

The Clintons, as well as former President George W. Bush, earned millions following their time in the peoples' house, receiving six-figure checks for Wall Street speeches and book tours. But the Obamas are set to earn an unprecedented post-presidency income, and its alarming his critics, supporters and other Democrats alike.

"I was troubled by that," Warren said when she learned Obama was charging $400,000 for his upcoming speech. "The influence of money, I describe it as a snake that slithers through Washington."

But don't take her word for it: Obama once told his supporters he wasn't tied up in corporate interests or the snake-like stronghold bankers and investment firms seem to have over many elected officials in the U.S.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama said in 2009.

Maybe that Obama should have a talk with 2017 Obama.

 

it was very easy to google this but natty appears to not have been interested in the truth and would rather  would rather make obama look bad. he also called me out on not calling out dems when i just posted about rfk jr this morning which seems  odd like maybe he did not look he just assumed something?

I was using obama as an example. Do you think the republicans are any better?  Both sides are a mess

[TexasTiger 14,524]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I was using obama as an example. Do you think the republicans are any better?  Both sides are a mess

No, but the Obamas made most of their money from books that sold well:

https://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/announcements/a-promised-land-by-barack-obama-sells-more-than-3-3-million-units-in-u-s-and-canada-in-its-first-month-of-publication/#:~:text=A PROMISED LAND was released,million copies in print worldwide.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/books/michelle-obama-new-book.html#:~:text=Michelle Obama's 2018 memoir%2C “Becoming,to be published on Nov.

[auburnatl1 6,293]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

No, but the Obamas made most of their money from books that sold well:

https://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/announcements/a-promised-land-by-barack-obama-sells-more-than-3-3-million-units-in-u-s-and-canada-in-its-first-month-of-publication/#:~:text=A PROMISED LAND was released,million copies in print worldwide.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/books/michelle-obama-new-book.html#:~:text=Michelle Obama's 2018 memoir%2C “Becoming,to be published on Nov.

Yes they did. All legal. And kept all of it. Those damn hoarding generational wealth capitalists. Oh wait…..

[TexasTiger 14,524]

6 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Yes they did. All legal. And kept all of it. Those damn hoarding generational wealth capitalists. Oh wait…..

Not sure how your using that term for recently acquired wealth by the living.

[auburnatl1 6,293]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not sure how your using that term for recently acquired wealth by the living.

Because a career politician who made little to nothing in the private sector is now in the top .005%. Their great great grand children will be wealthy. Again, I have an issue when career politicians take public service and monetize it. Obviously kickbacks are the main concern  but it’s still highly inappropriate. They could have donated all proceeds to charity. Btw Reagan  did exactly the same thing.  

The reason I’m harder on progressives is that they villainize  the wealthy as a platform.
 

 

[TexasTiger 14,524]

25 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Because a career politician who made little to nothing in the private sector is now in the top .005%. Their great great grand children will be wealthy. Again, I have an issue when career politicians take public service and monetize it. Obviously kickbacks are the main concern  but it’s still highly inappropriate. They could have donated all proceeds to charity. Btw Reagan  did exactly the same thing.  

The reason I’m harder on progressives is that they villainize  the wealthy as a platform.
 

 

I don’t villainize folks who earn their wealth honestly and we’ve yet to see how they leave their money. What is highly inappropriate about writing successful books?

[auburnatl1 6,293]

25 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t villainize folks who earn their wealth honestly and we’ve yet to see how they leave their money. What is highly inappropriate about writing successful books?

Why was it a successful book?  Let’s not debate inappropriate . If you don’t see it, me repeating the same point 4 different ways probably wont be useful.

[TexasTiger 14,524]

13 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Why was it a successful book?  Let’s not debate inappropriate . If you don’t see it, me repeating the same point 4 different ways probably wont be useful.

Well, it was successful around the world because he was widely seen as an interesting and historical guy who is a much better than average writer, especially for a political figure. And he writes differently than most politicians. He was a best selling writer before his presidency. She was also widely admired and an effective popular communicator. That's why their books sell better than other President's and First Ladies. Just asserting something is "inappropriate" and refusing to spell out why is frankly, inappropriate. You seem to think distinguishing facts are irrelevant.