Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.
trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
His re-election campaign ran out of money! How could that even be possible without massive embezzlement!?
His fake stop the steal con pulled in over 200 mil! Most of that is going to end up in his pocket.
Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid...
And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline...
It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction).
Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question.
his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not.
Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.