Noam Chomsky gets paid $20K to $30K per speech. Outrage!

[DanTex]

Noam Chomsky
Category: Authors, Foreign Policy, Health and Wellness, Inspirational Speakers, Leadership Speakers, Politics
Booking Fee Range: $20,001 - $30,000 About Fees
Travels From: Please Contact
- See more at: http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Noam-Chomsky#sthash.px688t8z.dpuf

http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/celebritytalentbios/Noam-Chomsky

Who does this guy think he is! Does he know that people work an entire year to make that kind of money? And he just walks in and says some words, and that's it! Oligarch!

[PoliticAverse]

1. Is he running for President? Will he release a transcript of what he said at the speech? n/t

[daleanime]

8. And can I get a copy....

I'm a big fan.

[treestar]

117. Why does that matter? If it's wrong to take money for a speech

then it's wrong, period.

[kristopher]

122. Let me help you: keyword: Government, ethics, conflict of interest

That should get you started.

[treestar]

132. What about writers who influence people?

And are well known to be interviewed on TV? That's a form of power. So we should know who is paying him and assume that his writings and speeches will help them to the extent he can.

[kristopher]

133. Let me help you: keyword: Government, ethics, conflict of interest

[reformist2]

139. If you're running for office, we have a right to know what you said to the banking industry.

[cyberswede]

2. Is he running for President?

I wish...

But seriously, he'd need to give 22 speeches to get to $675,000.

[DanTex]

6. Yeah, 22 speeches for $675K. Brutal. You gotta pity the guy, having to work so hard.

Hillary, making $675K for 3 speeches, totally different story.

[cyberswede]

20. LOL

This thread doesn't demonstrate what you're attempting to demonstrate. I prolly won't kick it again...except to the curb.

[DanTex]

29. The responses have taken it in a new direction of hypocrisy which I hadn't expected, I agree.

I expected "it doesn't matter, it's different, etc." but some of the excuses have been more creative than I thought they would be.

[Ken Burch]

73. Nobody was every saying that it was just wrong for HRC to get paid for giving speeches.

The issue is who does the paying.

If you get that money from corporations, it's going to change you. It.

Your OP is a total strawman.

[treestar]

118. Says who?

A lot of people "get money from corporations." Or insurance companies or other oligarchs, because they work there.

Hillary could make a lot more in a private sector job. And not be giving it to the Clinton Foundation.

This whole thing is so absurd. Bernie would take it if he could get it.

[Ken Burch]

72. It is totally different.

Chomsky isn't appeasing the powerful in any of his speeches.

[DanTex]

74. Totally different. Totally.

[Ken Burch]

82. The issue was never just taking speaking fees and you know it.

We aren't against people simply making money on the lecture circuit.

What matters is who you take the money FROM.

Speaking fees from corporations to a likely presidential candidate(everyone always knew HRC was going to run) are about buying influence in a future presidential administration.

Speaking fees from universities and activist groups to a great scholar speaking with incorruptible views have nothing in common with that.

[DanTex]

83. Of course. It was Hillary taking speech fees. When other people do it, no prob.

[Ken Burch]

88. It matters who you take the fees from.

And I'd say that about anybody who was running for president(which HRC was always planning to do).

Chomsky isn't running for president.

If he was, this might be vaguely comparable.

If he were taking fees from corporations and banks, which is in a totally different and category.

[DanTex]

89. For example, the National Camping Association. Those guys are trouble.

[Ken Burch]

91. That wasn't the one we were talking about.

It's the corporate ones. You take those and you can't ever stand up to corporations afterwards.

[DanTex]

93. Of course. As usual, you cherry pick a couple items out of a long list in order

to misleadingly portray Hillary in the worst light possible. Do you really think people haven't figured out your propaganda strategy?

[Ken Burch]

97. We talked about the ones that matter.

It is not morally neutral to speak to take speaking gigs from Goldman-Sachs.

Chomsky's fees, which are simply standard speaking fees on the circuit, aren't paid by anyone who wants to buy influence with him. And he isn't a presidential candidate.

[DanTex]

98. Cherry picking a few out of a long list, and pretending those are the "ones that matter."

You don't really think I haven't seen this propaganda strategy before, do you?

[marble falls]

111. Its only cherry picking if the campers toss as much at Hillary as the banks do.

[treestar]

120. And it is a variety of organizations

that included the Fragrance Association.

That very diversity splits Hillary's interests, if you insist that nobody gets paid for a speech without doing more than the speech.

[kristopher]

128. Help for you also: keyword: Government, ethics, conflict of interest

You'll have to go to the academic literature however, the establishment system has essentially erased the idea from the executive and legislative branch guidance on governance.

[treestar]

119. someone is powerful enough to give him 30K

that's a lot of money. And by the standards set out here, Chomsky would certainly be telling these relatively rich people what they want to hear.

[Ferd Berfel]

87. that's the point.

He's not trying the be the leader of the free world.
He's not going to be creating policies that would be influenced by wall Street bribes and effect peoples lives

What a bull shit attempt legitimize Hillary's shady business deals

[daleanime]

3. And he's running to control what?

[dchill]

4. Well then, either he is underpaid or ...

someone else is overpaid.

[Live and Learn]

5. I think this shows just the opposite of what you intended.

Noam should be worth much more than a speech by Hillary.

[daleanime]

10. +1

[840high]

110. Absolutely.

[treestar]

121. My services should be worth that much

You get paid what the market will bear. It shows exactly what OP intended - wishing Noam got more money doesn't mean there is anyone who will pay him that much.

[elias49]

7. Bah. Can't compare the two.

Come on. Do better.

[DanTex]

9. Of course not. One gets paid huge amounts for public speaking, and the other is Hillary.

[elias49]

11. Who gets huge amounts of money to make public policy.

You can't see the difference?

[DanTex]

16. Uh, no, she doesn't get paid to make public policy, she gets paid to give speeches.

When she makes public policy, she gets paid by the taxpayer.

But it's good to know that you think Chomsky would be disqualified from public office for his speaking fee corruption. I didn't think he would end up under the bus, but there he goes.

[elias49]

21. Bye Dan.

[Vote2016]

12. You should consider self-deleting this because it reflects poorly on you. Chomsky is not taking fees

from a group and then running for public office which regulates that group and claiming that his independence from influence in the process is beyond question.

This analogy makes you sound either disingenuous or unintelligent - neither of which is flattering to you.

[HooptieWagon]

38. No, it should stay up...

...as yet another example of the HRC Group poutrage and ridiculousness. It's great comedy! They just get sillier and sillier...

[joshcryer]

100. The executive does not regulate.

That's the legislative you're thinking about.

[Vote2016]

112. You ought to call Pres. Obama and warn him that he's exceeded his authority on ammunition/gun sales,

immigration, internet policy, coal industry and emissions and other environmental issues, etc.

Usually it's Republicans questioning the presidential capacity to regulate but I guess it's only a short hop for a Hillary supporter to go there.

[joshcryer]

113. EO's can only utilize federal powers already existing.

In some instances, such as the EPA, the courts have shot down the new administrative rules. This is especially true with the SEC, whose enforcement arm is shot down on the regular.

[Vote2016]

114. So are you siding with Obama or the Republican Congress? You were wrong and Obama is right, agreed?

[joshcryer]

115. Obama is right.

But not because he has powers he didn't have before.

He simply had the fortitude to use those powers in his second term.

EO's only go so far.

[Vote2016]

116. Obama is right and the president does have the power to regulate, true?

[HERVEPA]

104. Guess you're too new to know him. He takes pride in spewing the bullshit.

[treestar]

124. So whoever ends up running for President

or indeed any office (it if is acknowledged there even are any other powerful offices) must have a history of no paid speechifying? If Noam wants to run in the future, he can't, right?

[Vote2016]

140. That is nonsense Clinton made up. Sanders never said that. Sanders listed Clinton's profiteering

as Wall Street's chief "attaboy" dispenser as one factor among many that run counter to her laughable claim to be a progressive.

Sanders never said that accepting a speaking fee was disqualifying as a candidate or disqualifying as a progressive.

If you have fallen for the Clinton lie that Sanders said that, please provide a link.

[awake]

13. The true Outrage is that he is payed to little

He would never keep his speeches secret he would be proud to share them

[SoLeftIAmRight]

77. best reply

you got it right

[JRLeft]

14. He's far more knowledgeable than Hillary too, but you can watch his speeches on YouTube.

Noam Chomsky is frickin awesome. Hillary not so much.

[Kall]

15. So

About 10% of Hillary's fee, and he's not running for a position (President) in which he would be responsible for overseeing regulation of these organizations.

Carry on, and good luck with your efforts.

[Fumesucker]

17. I feel good...

[hifiguy]

18. 1. He's not running for anything.

2. That isn't even chump change compared to what HRH gets.

3. He has no governmental or political influence to sell.

See the difference.

[DanTex]

19. And he never should, right? Noam Chomsky is obviously corrupt, agreed?

[libdem4life]

26. We got you don't get it. Fail.

[DanTex]

31. I certainly don't get why Chomsky is a hero for being overpaid, but Hillary is a villain, true.

[libdem4life]

42. When Chomsky speaks to Liberal Groups, he has a message that resonates with theirs. That's how

fees are set...or charged. Also, he is a long term liberal who has written well-received books and whose opinion is valued...at the stated cost. He doesn't do high school graduations. There is this entity called a Speaker's Bureau. I don't know if Chomsky uses it...probably doesn't have to...but it does exist and it determines the market for speaking fees.

Right Wingers don't pay him those fees...in fact they don't want to hear him. And certainly not bankers, et al. Thus, his speaking is not worth anything to them.

It's called the Market. Hillary adds an extra zero to her speeches because it is relative to the results. I guarantee you that once she has lost the Primary, there will be few to no speeches and the fee will likely drop below Chomsky's. She is a one-trick pony...when I'm elected, yada yada. I don't think anyone really needs to SEE her speeches.

[melman]

46. What you don't get

is how embarrassing it is that you think this is clever.

[Live and Learn]

63. Noam was underpaid. Hillary was overpaid unless..... nt

[treestar]

125. Answer the question

Noam is now disqualified forever.

[lob1]

54. One tenth what Hill gets. ONE TENTH!

[ericson00]

22. even worse since Chomsky is also an avowed socialist

shows the hypocrisy of socialism.

[DanTex]

24. That's a good point too. Not very socialist-like of him to charge $30K a pop.

[ericson00]

28. that and Chomsky's Israel-hating

are two huge reasons I can't stand the guy and am very happy he didn't endorse my candidate, Hillary!

There's a reason I call that guy Noam Trotsky.

[Contrary1]

109. "Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered.”

[MrMickeysMom]

23. Somebody!!!!

Please!!1!

"PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!!!!!"

[beam me up scottie]

25. NAILED IT.

[farleftlib]

30. IKR

BTW, I love your kitties. They're adorable.

[MrMickeysMom]

90. ...

IKR?

Thanks for loving kitties... We lost Mr. Mickey September, and it just hasn't been the same. I sense by fall I'll celebrate the election by becoming parents of new kitties. I'm already thinking of names. Mr. Mickey was the twin of Ms Mallory. I names Mickey and Mallory after the characters in Natural Born Killers.

[HooptieWagon]

40. Bingo.

Somebody is craving attention, the poor delicate thing.

[Bjornsdotter]

53. Well you beat me to it. n/t

[Vote2016]

61. lol

[treestar]

126. Dodged the question

Is Noam corrupt or not?

[Iggy Knorr]

130. NO

next IDIOTIC question for fucks sake?

[treestar]

131. Why?

He charges for his speeches, so isn't it relevant as to who has paid him? And might not that affect his writings?

[Iggy Knorr]

135. If Noam were running for public office

then you might have a point, but instead by drawing a false equivalence between chomsky and Clinton and their speeches you end up looking silly.

Why would that stop you now though...

[MrMickeysMom]

142. I'm ready for more silliness!11!!!1!1!!

[mak3cats]

27. And ANOTHER post into the Trash Can. It's overflowing... (eom)

[HooptieWagon]

32. Is he running for president? Cool!

And he'd probably even hand out complimentary transcripts of his speeches.

[DefenseLawyer]

33. Ohhhhhhh....... So close!

[DanTex]

41. Me? I'm a Democrat. The thread is tongue-in-cheek, just like I assume all those threads

bashing Hillary for doing what Chomsky does are as well. I mean, nobody seriously thinks that taking speaking fees is somehow sinful, do they?

[libdem4life]

44. Could have, correction, did fool me. Sounded perfectly on course.

[PoliticAverse]

47. Any politician should be able to accept any $ amount as a speaking fee from any organization...

even while holding office because taking speaking fees isn't "sinful", right?

[DanTex]

48. Hillary didn't give paid speeches while holding office.

[PoliticAverse]

51. You didn't answer the question. Are speaking fees "sinful" only when a politician holding office

receives them? What about to someone that is running for office? What about to someone that
is probably going to run for office? Are speaking fees ever "sinful" and if so under what circumstances?

[DanTex]

55. In my opinion, public officials shouldn't be giving paid speeches or otherwise receive payments

other than from taxpayers while they are in office. I don't know the details of the law, but I'm pretty sure it's something like that.

As far as during campaigning, it would probably be unwise politically, but I don't know what the legal or ethical ramifications are. If someone is running for congress and gives a paid commencement address, I'm not sure there's a problem, it might even be a campaign opportunity.

[hobbit709]

68. you'll never get beer and travel money.

[betsuni]

35. Oh, not the same. Hillary is a prawn of the Establishment -- SQUID PRO QUO!!!11!!! (nt)

[kath]

36. Congratulations! You are a top contender for the Hilarious Hillarian of the Day award!

Which is the case many times per week lately, putting you in the Hilarious Hillarian Hall of Fame.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

37. Someone completely unrelated to this campaign got paid for something?

That surely makes Hillary's Wall Street connections acceptable!


I'm embarrassed for Hillary supporters at this point.

[HooptieWagon]

45. I'm pretty sure the Hillarians aren't embarrassed.

They seem quite oblivious to how ridiculous they appear.

[hifiguy]

56. I don't think they are capable of being embarrassed.

They excuse away her connections with Henry Kissinger, one of the great butchers of the 20th century. If that doesn't embarrass them, nothing can.

[HooptieWagon]

58. Yep. Boomers know what a monster he is.

I wonder how many millenials googled 'Kissinger' and were horrified. Heck of a job, Hill...most inept campaign, ever.

[cali]

39. What part of he is not planning on running for public office

do you find particularly difficult to understand?

[DanTex]

52. So if he did, you'd object, right? Same with Michael Moore. And if Bernie had ever

given a paid speech before getting elected, that would disqualify him as well. In fact, since Bill's speeches are part of the bash, then if turns out that Jane Sanders ever gave a paid speech, then Bernie's out.

Just so we're clear...

[cali]

57. Yes. If you are planning to run, you should not do it.

And we're not talking some vague shit here. She was planning an immediate run for the highest office in the country and being paid by corporations who spend huge amounts of money lobbying government.

That is appalling. And it is all about greed.

[DanTex]

60. OK, well at least that's consistent.

It would be fun if either of those guys actually ran for office, and we could find out how many people here are serious. Come to think of it, I imagine Nader gave paid speeches before his 2000 run, he had been a public figure for a while.

And it would be particularly funny if it turns out Bernie or Jane Sanders ever gave a paid speech.

But in this case, you are right, if you would refuse to support Moore or Chomsky for the same reason, that's consistent.

[Dems to Win]

43. Hillary cashed in, got rich off her public service. Now she wants our votes.

Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.

And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.

Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.

I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.

The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank or Goldman Sachs might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.

Bernie Sanders 2016

(sorry if you've read this before, there are so many threads on this issue)

[Mnpaul]

67. On top of that

this helped sink her campaign last time and what does she do? Accepts even more money. Stuck on stupid.

[Nanjeanne]

49. That's all? I'd think he could get more.

Is this supposed to mean something in relation to Hillary Clinton and her speaking fees to Wall Street insiders?

[Vinca]

50. Is he running for public office? If not, why should we care?

[redstateblues]

59. I've yet to see any evidence of

Quid pro quo. Some folks on this site are so offended when others prosper. It's amazing the vitriol that spews when successful people endorse Hillary. I have no problem with Hillary making money when she's out of office. Jealousy is an ugly emotion

[DanTex]

62. Exactly. They're upset that she made a lot of money.

I mean, let's face it, she did make a ton of money. Of course, a couple guys named Ben and Jerry have made even more (by selling ice cream to a nation with an obesity epidemic), but somehow those guys are swell.

Don't get me wrong, they are swell. But somehow, when Hillary earns a lot of money, it just makes certain kinds of people angry.

[HERVEPA]

92. Knocking Ben and Jerry now. You are one sick pup.

And nobody's getting you wrong. They get your bullshit posts.

[DanTex]

96. I like Ben and Jerry. And Hillary also. Their being successful doesn't bother me. YMMV.

[HERVEPA]

102. Yeh, that's why you took a stupid shot at them. Nobody's buying your tired act.

[DanTex]

103. You're imagining things. Like Hillary, I consider them successful progressives, and I don't

resent them for it.

[Jefferson23]

64. Chomsky and Hillary Clinton? LOL I have ignored most of these silly threads but pulling out Chomsky

is a real hoot.

Is Gandhi next?

[SamKnause]

66. Is he running for president ???

NO.

[Autumn]

69. He's running for President? How did I miss him in the debates?

Never mind I checked, he isn't. Looks like what he gets paid to give speeches is irrelevant to me.

[Ken Burch]

70. 20K is actually pretty low for speaking fees nowadays.

Not an issue when you aren't seeking the presidency, anyway.

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. Outrage? More like a healthy yawn that goes all the fucking way to my toes...

[TIME TO PANIC]

75. If there is anyone who deserves that much per speech, it's Noam Chomsky.

Plus, he's speaking to the people, not the banks.

[DanTex]

76. Of course. If you like someone, then speech fees are great. If not, then not.

All perfectly logical.

[TIME TO PANIC]

79. The issue isn't what Hillary gets paid; it is who's paying her. n/t

[DanTex]

81. You mean the National Camping Association? Got watch out for those guys.

[TIME TO PANIC]

94. No, I mean Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank Of America, Citigroup, to name a few.

I hope she didn't take the National Camping Association for too much.

[DanTex]

95. Of course. Cherry picking a few names out of a long list to give a false impression.

Dems are used to people doing this kind of stuff to smear Hillary.

[TIME TO PANIC]

101. Smears are based on false accusations.

Was she not paid by those banks to give speeches?

[Matariki]

78. I'm certain you know the issue isn't the amount of money

even though it's an obscene amount, it's barely the point. I'm sure you know that.

[Duckhunter935]

80. bet we can get transcripts

And maybe even tape and watch is speeches. Nice swing and a miss

[whatchamacallit]

84. Let me know when he's doing them for the Vampire Squid

Valid comparison is really not your thing.

[CBGLuthier]

85. Even worse, I hear some college professors get paid to talk to students.

Who do they think they are, Football coaches?

Now, lets see if you can spot the difference between someone who has ideas sharing them and someone who has influence, peddling it.

[Kip Humphrey]

86. Hey Golden Sacks: Noam is one tenth the price and will probably give you much better advice!

[joshcryer]

99. He should get more.

[HassleCat]

105. Trying to be cute and clever sometimes fails.

It happens to me sometimes. Don't worry. Better luck next time.

[Avalux]

106. You are the master of false equivalencies. Cheers!

[AzDar]

107. Does he make policy? Write or vote for Legislation? Then it doesn't fucking MATTER...

I KNOW y'all understand this difference...quite embarrassed for you when you pretend you don't, nonetheless...

[treestar]

129. Isn't he a writer of some influence?

Where do you draw the line then?

And isn't he disqualified from ever running for office now?

[Arazi]

108. 1/10 the fees and no quid pro quo expectations

besides, is HRC v Noam Chomsky speaking to Wall St the same?

Nope, they aren't (has Chomsky ever spoken before any Wall St players?)

[Iggy Knorr]

123. False Equivalance Man to the Rescue

When Trolls Impugned Him, You'll Never Believe What Noam Chomsky Did Next
17 Ways You Personally Benefit From Hillary's Campaign
37 Things You Can Do to Increase Your Disposable Income By Posting Online

Just helping you buzzfeed up your game while you are on Time-out.

[MineralMan]

127. I've heard Noam Chomsky speak. He's overpaid.

EOM

[Iggy Knorr]

136. whats under those rocks, mineral man?

its good to have a hobby and stay active.

[MineralMan]

137. I no longer have a mineral collection.

I sold it, along with all the stock for my mineral specimen business, in 2007. Thanks for asking.

[think]

134. Does Chomsky speak to industries that could benefit from his position in government?

[HassleCat]

138. This needs to be posted many more times

Maybe by the tenth time it will be clever.

[Bradical79]

141. Odd place for this

considering Noam Chomsky ins't a candidate in the primaries as far as I know. If he was, I'd certainly want to scrutinize who he is taking money from.