Bernie can't handle the economy because he's irresponsible with his personal finances!!!

[cali]

Last edited Sun May 24, 2015, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie makes $175,000 a year and he only has assets of about $300,000. Never mind that he maintains 2 residences and D.C. is an expensive city.

Why would you trust Bernie with the economy when he's so bad with money that he doesn't even have a fat stock portfolio??!!

And that Joe Biden- another moron when it comes to personal finances- not to mention Pat Leahy who's been in the Senate for 41 years and whose personal wealth amounts to even less than Bernie's.


Dolts. Don't they know you're supposed to get rich while in Congress.

[cantbeserious]

1. With Bernie's Integrity Intact - One Does Wonder Then About Other Presidential Candidates

eom

[rhett o rick]

70. I bet it's not too late for him to call Goldman-Sachs-O-Gold and they'd deliver him a truck load of

gold. They'd just say he gave them a speech (maybe via Face Time) and they love to give presidential candidates money. No quid pro quo of course "wink, wink".

[7962]

103. Goldman Sachs O Gold....THAT is hilarious!!!

[roguevalley]

87. I was repulsed by biden when it was

reported that he charges the Secret Service rent to use a house on his property when he's home and they have to be there to protect him. Charges. Rent.

[C Moon]

177. Respect just lost.

[LuvNewcastle]

178. WTF?

I'm surprised that's even legal.

[secondwind]

185. maybe he used to rent it out and needs the income? the feds are paying for this... I don't

see anything wrong with that...

An entire house was purchased for the Secret Service folks in Dallas, down the street from George and Laura Bush.

So renting a small house is not big deal.

[Eleanors38]

203. Why doesn't he use his door-firing-through shotgun?

[roguevalley]

220. :D

[Eleanors38]

228. Too painful. He has a shotgun, though I don't follow his recommended use of it...

[bvar22]

297. That is not the worst of it.

MBNA Paid Biden's Son As Biden Backed Bill


how is it phrased....

"avoid the appearance of impropriety"

www.cbsnews.com/news/mbna-paid-bidens-son-as-biden-backed-bill/MBNA Paid Biden's Son As Biden Backed Bill

[MineralMan]

2. Has anyone said such a thing?

If so, please link to it. Or is this something you just thought up?

[cyberswede]

3. Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026624652#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026624652#post42

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=262774

[MineralMan]

6. On May 5?

I see. Oh, well...

[cyberswede]

7. And April 30

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=262760
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=262774

[Dragonfli]

8. On may 23rd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6719511

[MineralMan]

16. Hardly a current topic, is it?

Pretty obscure, which is why I asked the OP for a link.

Links are good, but I understand why one wasn't included, for sure. Nobody cares about this. It's not an issue at all.

[Dragonfli]

34. That was pretty current, perhaps I should have included the year (it was way back in 2015) /nt

[BeanMusical]

116. I remember 2015!

Ah, those were the days.

[rpannier]

186. Some of them appear to be from the beginning of May and one was in April

Did they even have electricity back in April of 2015?
I think people were still dancing the Lindy and driving the Model T back in early May of 2015

I will say, early May 2015 was a swell era though

[Bradical79]

199. Why you digging up old threads?

That post you're responding to is from way back on Sunday. Old news. Who can remember that far back? Why would MineralMan respond to such ancient history? I doubt he remembers what this was all about by now.

[Capt. Obvious]

291. Handlebar mustaches were all the rage back then.

Men were gentlemen and always wore hats.

[rhett o rick]

62. Nice try for cover. Ask for a link and get 6 and you come up with a reason that you

don't accept those links. If it's not an issue, why did you think it important to disparage it?

[cali]

99. interesting isn't it?

first he accuses me of making it up, then when links are posted they're from 3 weeks ago, they're stale- or something. Then because I didn't post the links, they're.... something something wrong. Then when I do post a link stating it's from today, he feels compelled to inform me that the post I linked to was from yesterday. Then there's a scolding about the post regardless of links. Funny, nothing about the ridiculous bullshit "argument" dissing Sanders who he says he's caucusing for.

Kind of the definition of petty.

[cyberswede]

108. don't forget about your poor "form"

[rhett o rick]

112. Sadly we bite on the distraction. Should just ignore those that are trying so hard to

distract from H. Clintons record and stances. I can preach it but have a hard time myself if you hadn't noticed.

[Agschmid]

125. If you had posted the links in your OP it would have been a callout, and that isn't okay.

So good move.

[merrily]

171. Never mind that this is not LBN and some DUers actually attempt humor in OPs.

I'm turning myself in for starting a thread about Bernie's hair after seeing many comments about it in media.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12802638

[davidpdx]

272. OMG you should be ashamed of yourself!

I saw an interview with his brother and they are so alike. Two great guys come from one family.

[RiverNoord]

197. Huh - it's interesting how something isn't an issue

until it is. Is there a qualifying test for whether facts that distinguish candidates for office from one other become officially 'issues?' Being included in 'the issues' by at least two corporate mass media machines, maybe?

I read the post and now I find that I do care about the questions it raises. I know I'm not really anybody, certainly not to the extent probably required for the status of the 'not-issue' that nobody cares about to change to something that somebody cares about. I don't have a talk show, nor do I get paid to regularly define what 'the issues' are through the corporate media. I guess you're right.

[cyberswede]

9. And May 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=1900

[hfojvt]

210. ahem - I never said he couldn't handle the economy

simply pointed out that saving $300,000 out of total salary of $3 million is NOT very impressive.

And the same thing I would say about Biden or Leahy. Just because they have not saved very much money, does NOT mean that these people making $170,000 a year for decades are "just like us" in the working class.

But who knows, maybe he feels secure in his job (or the pension he would get if he lost it) and he gives most of his surplus income away rather than saving it.

[bvar22]

231. Of course for you, money is the only measure.

How sad.

[hfojvt]

253. of course I never said it was the only measure

the OP that I responded to was something like 'Bernie is just like us, has less than $500,000 in net worth."

So it was a thread about money.

But yes, people who make $1.5 million over a decade are in a different boat than people making only $150,000 over that same decade or even people making $400,000. That's a fairly simple fact.

So when somebody who makes that $1.5 million (or one of their supporters) claims "I am just like other working class Americans" I've gotta call BS. He/she may help everyday Americans, even fight for policies to benefit them, but they are NOT in the same shoes.

[bvar22]

307. Quit mincing your words. If you want to attack Bernie, say what you mean,

otherwise, I have to call BS on your post.

[cali]

18. Repeatedly- as recently as yesterday.

[MineralMan]

22. So why no link?

Four have been posted, most quit old. You posted no link. This is not a common thing. It's not a serious criticism and has no traction at all. Why not address it in the thread where the isolated comments occurred?

Pure unlinked meta. Poor form, IMO.

[arcane1]

23. Post #8 links to an example from yesterday n/t

[MineralMan]

24. My question is about why the OP

Included no link.

[cali]

31. why does it matter so much that I post a link? A link is a link.

In fact, I think it's a little odd that this bothers you so much, but each to their own.

[MineralMan]

35. A link is a point of reference, so people will understand

what you're talking about. You did not reference the reason for your post, so I asked. Now I understand the reason for skipping the link. I'm still not sure why you didn't address this in the thread where it occurred. But that's OK. Never mind. Really.

[bvar22]

223. You have posted ZERO links in rebuttal to the 6 links that have been provided.

We know what THAT means, Hmmmmm?

[MineralMan]

229. It's not my OP. I asked for a link in response

to the OP, because there was no link in the OP.

[bvar22]

238. Lazy?... unmotivated?.....Skill Deficit?....

Or just spamming a thread?

[BuelahWitch]

241. He's also kicking it

But don't tell him!

[MineralMan]

243. You decide. I don't care.

[bvar22]

303. If you really "don't care",

you wouldn't have posted so many times to this thread accusing and trying to shame the OP of doing the same things YOU are doing.

Little things like that catch my attention.
I guess it is all those years debating conservatives.
I rarely comment about something if I "don't care".

Please Proceed.

[2banon]

256. For Petty Sakes! Give it a Break!! n/t

[2banon]

299. Hey there bvar22.. was this a case of misdirected reply? (I hope)

I think you accidently hit the reply button to the wrong post..

cuz if memory serves, you and I are on the same page... unless I'm suffering from a sudden case of dementia, which is possible. LOL!

[bvar22]

302. Yes, a misdirected reply.

I'm the one suffering from a sudden case of dementia.
Things should gt pretty funny over the next few years
as I slowly fade away.

[2banon]

306. LOL! It's happened to me on a few occasions, curse the floating curser!

I always enjoy reading you, so that's why I was a little surprised. but the fact that we shared the same pov on many issues but as it happens, that in particular to the person I'm sure you intended. Actually, it's best that this happened, no further explanation required.

[rhett o rick]

65. First it was no link. Then is was old links. Now it's why didn't someone else give the link.

This must be important to you to go to such an effort to discredit it.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Cognitive dissonance

nt

[rhett o rick]

74. Bingo. nm

[cyberswede]

75. Right?

He seems pretty invested. Whatevs.

[BeanMusical]

81. He's very concerned.

[cali]

107. Funny that someone who claims to be a Bernie supporter

would be so eager to discredit the op, post in this thread 7 or 8 times, harping on links and bad form, and never acknowledge how ridiculous it is for someont to try and smear Bernie this way.

[BeanMusical]

115. Yup, very true.

[Fuddnik]

196. That's why I just ignore some.

They'll just keep trying to distract, even after they've lost the argument.

Wash, rinse, repeat.....ad infinitum.

[rhett o rick]

201. Yes I should do the same. nm

[Marr]

117. Pick a spot, will you, please?

[hootinholler]

123. Wait a minute That's a goal

Not goal posts, your point is invalid!

[MineralMan]

124. Why? I'm not playing a game.

No score is being recorded and there are no goalposts.

There may be a game going on, but I don't do team sports. Thanks for your reply, though.

[cali]

25. here, from today

but perhaps you think this is just great form. and it's over and over again. Such nonsense is laughable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6719511

[MineralMan]

38. Yesterday, actually.

[hootinholler]

78. Next you'll be asking for a link from tomorrow. n/t

[cali]

100. lol, perfect, hoot

[BeanMusical]

119. Rofl!

[Go Vols]

245. lol

[davidpdx]

273. The definition of moving the goal posts

Maybe they better start cashing their paychecks before a certain campaign goes belly up like it did last time.

[cyberswede]

79. Jesus Christ, cali - that's from YESTERDAY!!!1

Everyone knows that's EXPIRED as a topic by now.

[hootinholler]

82. Yes to be current we need

A link from tomorrow!

[cali]

101. mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Hey, but I got schooled!

MM graciously corrected ignorant me.

[Marr]

118. Yesterday?! No one was ALIVE back then!

[BeanMusical]

121. Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away.

[bvar22]

212. When you find yourself in a hole,

stop digging.You'll only make things worse.
It is at this point that a wise man would do a Mea Culpa to regain credibility
instead of Doubling Down on a losing hand.

[Doctor_J]

15. well, there's four examples. And why would May fourth make a difference? now don't you feel

silly?

[Logical]

27. LOL, you got your link to it and still dismiss it. Classic. nt

[MineralMan]

30. I do dismiss it. It's obscure and unimportant.

It should have been addressed in the thread where it was posted, not as a Meta thread with no link to the statement. So, I asked for a link, which someone else had to provide. Bad form.

[cali]

32. bwahahahaha.

your concern over my bad form is cracking me up. Oh, my gosh. Someone else had to provide you with a link. How awful. dweadful. just terrible.

[Logical]

33. Lighten up! nt

[MineralMan]

42. No, thanks.

[grasswire]

59. You must think you're in charge here. nt

[L0oniX]

68. +1

[SixString]

71. +2

[MineralMan]

88. Nope. I do have an opinion, though.

Are you saying I can't voice it? Ironic.

[Logical]

109. LOL, sort of taking an ass kicking in this thread. nt

[MineralMan]

111. Am I?

I always consider the source. You might enjoy my thread from yesterday evening. It was about a visit to a local hardware store.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026718738

[Agschmid]

126. I don't feel you are, and I understand your point.

Cali couldn't post the link it would have made it meta... it still is let's be honest.

[merrily]

172. Well, if we're REALLY being honest, the only meta that gets locked in GD is meta from DU's left.

I've even seen hosts of GD chase the OP into the Populist Group to pile on there.

DU's right can call us out all they want, as viciously as they want, for as many posts as they want and no one locks it.

This is but one example. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026518865

But, let a member of DU's left try anything remotely similar and it's locked in under a half dozen posts.

At least, this is a relatively light-hearted OP.

[Agschmid]

181. That's just not true.

Sorry you feel that way.

Remember if no one alerts it doesn't even get discussed as to whether or not it should be locked.

Half your hosts are from DU's left so things are locked fairly IMO.

[Go Vols]

247. Agree

[merrily]

270. No offense intended, but your perception does not necessarily = truth.

Have you ever seen a GD thread locked, then, not one but two, GD hosts chasing someone into a group? I have.

[Agschmid]

278. No one is "chased" into a group.

Remember DU hosts are volunteers, we are also posters. No matter what we do we aren't going to make everyone happy with our decision, it sucks when you get a thread locked, and it sucks to have to do it sometimes.

Hell I fell handicapped because I know that if I lock a thread that may clearly be meta someone will accuse me of bias. It happens almost every time.

And if someone feels "chased" into a group (safe haven) maybe they shouldn't be posting something that could be seen as OTT, etc. out on the main boards.

I don't know what you mean by "chased" but maybe you are perceiving something that isn't happening.

In all honestly a lot of the groups aren't really safe havens anyways they are sort of cliquish echo chambers (I guess that's what they are designed to be).

[merrily]

283. Or maybe you are.

I don't know what you mean by "chased" but maybe you are perceiving something that isn't happening.

The fact that you did not observe it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Agschmid]

286. Please describe how someone is chased into a group?

That just doesn't make any sense... why can't they just post it on the open boards? There is an SOP so it would need to meet that guideline but beyond that it should be fine.

[merrily]

305. "Followed" would have been a better word choice than "chased."

[NRaleighLiberal]

150. it's not that you voice it - it is the typically unlovely way you voice most of your opinions.

like fingernails on a chalkboard.

[BeanMusical]

155. Very condescending too.

[NRaleighLiberal]

159. Totally agree.

[SixString]

192. +1

[jeff47]

122. Drew the short straw today? (nt)

[JoePhilly]

276. That was my first thought as well.

Before this thread, I'd never seen anyone mention this topic.

Good thing Cali dedicated an OP to it.

Its a silly criticism ... only surpassed by the subsequent outrage it lead to in this thread.

Can you image if Bernie gets some national traction ... enough such that the GOP starts to attack him? Some here will go insane I think.

[Agschmid]

4. You made it 0-7 just FYI.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Who would alert on this post?

Yeesus.

[cali]

20. Oh, I can imagine.

[MineralMan]

26. If you think it was me, you're wrong.

I asked the question in your thread. That's my practice. I still wonder why you didn't link to the relevant post or comment in the other thread.

[cali]

29. I would never think it was you

and I and others have linked. maybe you should stop digging that hole.

[rpannier]

250. Would have been surprised if it had been you

Usually people who alert don't bother to engage a post as many times as you did
They may make one, possibly two comments if that

[MineralMan]

251. I alert very, very rarely, and only when

someone makes an ugly personal attack on someone other than myself. That's it. I do serve on juries, but many here would be surprised by my votes, I'm sure.

If I disagree with a post, I speak up in the thread.

[Capt. Obvious]

290. Is that so?

On Tue Apr 28, 2015, 12:53 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Election candidate wants gay people jailed, adultery made illegal and rock bands outlawed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026582034

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The OP deliberately disguised the location of this article, using a blind link and deliberately omitting the fact that the location is Ireland. He/she admits that in post #2. This is deceptive and the article is irrelevant to US politics. By trying to deceive DUers, the OP insults everyone's intelligence and attempts to stir up some crap, rather than helping us by providing relevant facts. Deliberate deception. Please read Post #2 and then hide this OP. -MineralMan

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:41 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have GOT to be kidding me. Do you think others can't figure that out? ESPECIALLY since it's in post #2? This is not against the CS of DU. Not even close.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If he was wanting to decieve people, why would he admit to it?

The forum allows for discussion of Foreign politics as well. If you take offense to that Mineralman, feel free to speak to the admins about changing that rule.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is nothing in the DU standards that bars non-US stories.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Or it could be a way of showing the US isn't unique (General Discussion is not limited to US politics, I believe). Your points are valid ones to bring up with the poster in the discussion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We can't read the news anymore?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There was a link. Jumping to conclusions without even trying to follow it seems like a personal problem.

Blind Link to jury results of ugly personal attack on the intelligence of others

[MineralMan]

292. That was an exception, and I signed the alert so it was transparent

about who alerted. It failed, too. The fact that I normally sign my alerts let you find that.

Have a nice day.

[Capt. Obvious]

293. So you only alert on ugly personal attacks on others

except when you don't.

Have a nice day.

[bvar22]

298. Nice Catch, Capt. Obvious.

The best way to catch a phony is the Double Bind,
and you executed it perfectly.

[Logical]

28. I think we all know who did! nt

[7962]

104. I'm beginning to think there are a lot of 12 yr olds on DU. nt

[Rolando]

167. It's the main thing

I don't like about DU

[BuelahWitch]

242. ..but who have huge bank accounts! n/t

[hootinholler]

19. WTF?

This was alerted?



Desperation.

[rhett o rick]

69. If you don't have a good stand on an issue, alert like crazy. nm

[octoberlib]

5. Don't Sanders, Leahy etc. know that pay for play, being bought and paid for

by corporations so they can influence policy and hire them, later on, as lobbyists is the whole point of getting elected ??

[Politicalboi]

10. Bernie needs to find a lobbyist teat

[arcane1]

12. Please tell me nobody was stupid enough to make THAT argument!

This is satire, right?

Right??

[cyberswede]

14. Sadly, not satire - look upthread.

[arcane1]

17. Sigh... I'm going to have to start my Sunday drinking early.

Though I was 100% unsurprised to see one of those names

[rhett o rick]

73. I love the smell of desperation in the morning. nm

[ms liberty]

98. I know...I knew it would be one of three or four members...not surprised. n/t

[Doctor_J]

13. anti Sanders brigade getting very hard to distinguish from the republicans

Exactly the kind of smear hate radio would launch

[Enthusiast]

45. ...

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Doctor_J]

54. If senators aren't rich, they're just not trying!

I'm suspicious. In fact, his relative poverty is a deal breaker.

[Enthusiast]

64. Yes! Where are their priorities?

[cyberswede]

80. I bet he doesn't even balance his checkbook. Philistine.

[OilemFirchen]

46. And they're LEGION here!

Four? Five?

It's an infestation!

[840high]

114. ...

[Kingofalldems]

21. For the record and as a Hillary supporter-

I have not and will not say anything harshly critical of any Democrat.

[Cryptoad]

36. It s a shame all Democrats dont feel that way!

[juajen]

95. For the record: Neither will I.

[Agschmid]

163. As a Bernie supporter, same.

[MaggieD]

37. Who said he should get rich?

My posts are addressing the idea that we should commend him for having a low net worth at his age.

I don't consider that to in any way a plus for him. Let's put it this way. If some guy that that ran a company made that much for that long and had that little in savings would you still think that person is good with money?

I'm just rejecting the talking point that Bernie being relatively poor is a feature.

[arcane1]

43. Is there some sort of "Savings Standard" that we're all supposed to adhere to?

I'm failing to see what the problem is here. Should he be hoarding all his money instead? That would be a waste.

[MaggieD]

49. Yes there is....

Actually.

[arcane1]

52. Of course you'd say that, and not provide it.

At least you provided a good chuckle

[BeanMusical]

67. Lol!

Yes, that poster is Hillarious.

[grasswire]

89. that's one way of putting it

[MaggieD]

93. I'm not your google robot

And it's hard for me to believe it's not common knowledge.

[SwampG8r]

138. more of a Giggle robot

Cause the shit you post sure makes me giggle

[smokey nj]

148. I think it might be the Sangria, but this post made me Lol!

[Agschmid]

164. You need to get out more.

[smokey nj]

165. You need to leave me alone.

[Agschmid]

166. Is something wrong?

[BeanMusical]

149. Lol!

[merrily]

285. If only.

[juajen]

97. Children, children, stop fighting. Its unseemly!

We do have company, you know.

[cali]

44. I'm in awe of your excavatation talents! Remarkable.

you have directly linked his net worth with whether he's qualified to serve as President. You harp on it.

And he doesn't run a company.

[MaggieD]

47. Okay Cali

Whatever you say.

[AZ Progressive]

48. Jumping to conclusions, how mature of you

[thesquanderer]

96. Maybe he gives a lot to charities.

As a long serving member of congress, he will be getting a pension that will keep him "middle class comfortable" for the rest of his life. Once you are assured of being comfortable for life, there is no intrinisc benefit to additional wealth accumulation. He may prefer to do other things with his money.

[PowerToThePeople]

105. By the time I am his age

I may be lucky enough to have a net worth of zero. I think he is doing quite well.

[PosterChild]

153. My spouse, who is the family CFO, and who...

... scrimps and saves for our retirement and for our children's education, would certainly see your point. His low net worth (compared to income and years) would be seen by her as a negative, not a positive. She isn't ideological and such factors influence her decision. It may not be significant overall, but a lot of voters will think that way.

[bvar22]

300. Is Bernie still putting kids through school?

He already has the Best Health care in the World,
and a BIG, FAT Pension for all the years of Public Service.

How much does one person need?

[zeemike]

39. I suspect they project their own desires on him.

Because if they were in his position they would take the money and maximize their wealth.
It is the basic problem we face...greed works it's way to the top.

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. Not a supporter of Senator Sanders at this time, but that criticism makes no sense.

The economy is not personal finances. If he wins the nomination and the general, I expect Senator Sanders to seek the advice and council of the best people he can find.

If he chose to run the economy without the benefit of experts, based only on his own knowledge and judgment, than he would be a remarkably bad President because the economy is a very complex thing that can not be micromanaged by a President who will have a million other demands on his time.

At this time, I will vote for Senator Sanders if he wins the nomination. I don't know who I will vote for in the Primary.

[INdemo]

53. Some would prefer a candidate that

earned 30,000,000 last year but yet can relate to the middle class?

Which is a bunch of BS

[Agnosticsherbet]

61. FDR was a wealthy man and his family earned much of their money from Banking.

The Kennedy's were wealthy and traced their wealth to finances.

Johnson, whose Great Society Programs and war on povery proved the did understand the middle class and poor, was weathy.

So he idea that someone who earned 30 milion a year can not relate to the middle clas is a bunch of bullshit.

And, again, the income earned has no bearing on how that person is gong to handled the ecoomy.

The economy and personal finances are not the same thing.

[Doctor_J]

58. it's from the rove smear boo. Kerry's strength - combat experience - was attacked by Rove. Sanders

strength - not being on the pad of the bankers and other lobbyists - is being attacked by the minions of his opponent.

[Agnosticsherbet]

66. If I want fiction, I will go to the book store and buy a book. Rove's fictions are not entertaining.

I see it as neither a strength or a weakness, and it has not bearing on how a President will handle the national economy.

[A Simple Game]

41. While your example does show poor money management it is far from the worst.

Silly Senator Sanders could be raking in the big bucks by giving 1 hour speeches for $250,000 or more* each not including transportation, housing, and meals which of course are extra. One could even envision making up to 25 or 30 million a year if you included your spouse in the mix.

Only a fool would work full time, if you could call the Senate's schedule full time, for a pittance when there is real money to be made.

*Depends on how much influence the listeners want to exert upon the speaker. But we do have a need for a very high minimum to keep the riff-raff out.

[MaggieD]

51. No he couldn't

Paid speeches are against the rules for Senators.

[Agschmid]

127. That post is out of line.

You have a complaint take it to ADMIN.

You think someone is a sock take it to ADMIN.

It's out of line to post it like that.

[MaggieD]

130. I'm not a sock puppet

Feel free to ask the admins to check. No problem.

[Agschmid]

144. Such a ridiculous post.

Sorry you have to deal with that crap, and I don't even get along with you half the time, but that is out of line.

[cali]

55. How would you know? Without knowing what his expenses are- mortgages for instance

how on earth can you determine what his personal finance skills are?

And no, Senators can't make paid speeches.

[arcane1]

60. He might even *gasp!* spend some of his money! On things he enjoys!

Thereby stimulating the economy!


Of all the lame-ass jokes that pass for "criticism" of Sanders, this has to be the most absurd. When I first saw your OP I expected something from The Onion.

He's been running for president for all of one month, and the best they can do is "He's not rich enough!"

[A Simple Game]

76. What is wrong with you people? Do you all have your sarcasm filters on high?

Can't you tell a post that is bashing Hillary if she isn't named outright?

Would it have helped if I had added

Sanders could be raking in the big bucks by giving 1 hour speeches for $250,000 or more* each

like Hillary on the end?

If you didn't know who is raking in $250,000 or more per speech and along with her husband made 25 million last year then who the hell did you think I was talking about?

In case you need it, check the link provided.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches

Apparently I need to start using the sarcasm thingie more often. Yes I know Senators can't get paid, at least not directly, for giving speeches. I'm sure many find creative ways to bypass this little inconvenience.

[MaggieD]

131. By his net worth versus his pay

[cali]

180. My accountant- any accountant worth his or her salt- would tell you garbage

My ex, also an accountant would tell you the same thing. Without knowing his expenses; mortgages, etc., you can't reasonably make a determination.

[Doctor_J]

56. he'll have a hard time getting bankers to pay $250k to be told that they are what's wrong

Which is what he would tell them.

[arcane1]

57. There is no evidence of "poor money management" whatsoever.

He's not in debt. He has savings. He has a salary and a pension. What's the problem?

[INdemo]

50. Maybe he should find an agent and start giving $500,000

speeches....

[MaggieD]

132. He can't - it's illegal for a senator.

The senate rules prohibit it.

[INdemo]

139. My point being of course, was here we have a candidate

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

with Hillary that earned 30Mill last year and we are suppose to believe she understands the challenges of the American Working class,
and as a Wall Street sponsored candidate,she is one of us?

So poor Bernie doesn't have millions and doesn't have an agent and we are to believe he isn't qualified to be President?

[MaggieD]

141. I think you're wrong about that

Earning money in your later years doesn't mean you forget the struggle on the way up. If you don't believe me ask seniors that grew up during the depression.

[TheCowsCameHome]

63. He could start by having less frequent haircuts.

[MaggieD]

133. That's funny!

[hootinholler]

77. Well the Clintons left the White House Dead Broke

What does that say about their skills?

[cyberswede]

85. Oops.

[rhett o rick]

86. Well, after 15 years they are worth over $100,000,000. They must have worked hard for that.

Just sayin'.

[hootinholler]

91. I wonder what that breaks down as per word

Assuming it's from speaker's fees.

[grasswire]

90. snap!

well played, well played

[MaggieD]

134. They left a few million in debt to lawyers

Getting hounded by republicans for 8 years results in lots of personal legal bills.

[INdemo]

140. Wall Street pay backs are obviously very lucrative

The same as Obama can look forward to.

[progree]

176. They bought $4.5 million in homes in 1999-2000, after the M.L. scandal, but were broke in Jan 2001

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 11:26 PM - Edit history (2)

Clinton blurted out to ABC television last year that the Clintons were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

They were indeed saddled with Bill Clinton's huge legal fees from the Lewinsky scandal. But they nonetheless purchased a reported $1.7-million home in Chappaqua, New York in 1999, and a seven-bedroom manor in Washington a year later ((in December 2000 per Politifact)) for $2.85 million

http://news.yahoo.com/achilles-heels-scandals-gaffes-could-haunt-hillary-194942362.html (AFP 4/13/15)

Doesn't show very good money management skills -- they ran up legal bills in the Lewinksky scandal which was mostly in 1998. But then they buy 2 homes worth a combined $4.5 million in 1999-2000, and then leave the White House broke in January 2001. Well, no wonder they were broke (if they were). How many friggin multi-million dollar homes does one need when struggling with lawyer bills?

=====On Edit:======
Politifact on the "dead broke" claim: "Mostly False"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

[Lucky Luciano]

237. Their money mgmt skills were just fine.

They knew the present value of their future cash flows were way north of 4 and a half bucks.

[progree]

240. Yup, their skills in making a ton of money off of their government service

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

If they had such a bright future that they could buy $4.5 million worth of houses before leaving the White House -- because they knew they could make a mint off of books and speeches -- then why the whining about being "dead broke" when they left the White House? And what's with Bill a couple weeks ago saying he has to continue to give the 6 figure speeches "to pay the bills"? As if they live paycheck to paycheck or something like average working Americans

[stonecutter357]

83. don't tax me bro!

[rhett o rick]

84. Support Sen Sanders the Peoples candidate.

[ibewlu606]

92. Rec'd

Remember how HRC said they were "broke" when they left the White House? I guess some people just can't make it on $250k a speech.

[liberal N proud]

94. First I have heard this

But, I recall, it was used to challenge Mittens.

[truebluegreen]

244. Hillary said it in an interview last year(?)

but at the time she and Bill owned two houses worth a couple of million apiece (and had a lot of equity in them) so I guess "broke" is a relative term.

Mittens on the other hand was dead broke in college and had to sell some stock in order to live.

[liberal N proud]

248. Before she knew Bernie was going to run

Do you have a link for that?

[truebluegreen]

249. Yes, it looks like an even bigger gaffe with Bernie in the race

and who knows, maybe it helped inspire him to get in. IIRC it was an interview with Diane Sawyer; I thought it was jaw-droppingly tone deaf even then.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774110

[progree]

259. They bought 2 homes for a combined $4.5 million in 1999 and 2000. Left WH Jan 2001 "dead broke"

Last edited Mon May 25, 2015, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Clinton blurted out to ABC television last year that the Clintons were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

They were indeed saddled with Bill Clinton's huge legal fees from the Lewinsky scandal. But they nonetheless purchased a reported $1.7-million home in Chappaqua, New York in 1999, and a seven-bedroom manor in Washington a year later ((in December 2000 per Politifact)) for $2.85 million

http://news.yahoo.com/achilles-heels-scandals-gaffes-could-haunt-hillary-194942362.html (AFP 4/13/15)

They ran up legal bills in the Lewinksky scandal which was mostly in 1998. But then they buy 2 homes worth a combined $4.5 million in 1999-2000, and then leave the Whitehouse "dead broke" in January 2001. Hmm.

=====
Politifact on the "dead broke" claim: "Mostly False"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/

[BuelahWitch]

309. Would like to see them both try to survive for one week

on a normal senior's Social Security check, no stocks, no bank accounts, no help from "friends." They would know what "dead broke" really means.

[ms liberty]

102. I wonder if those same members dissed the Clintons when Bill ran?

They were not at all wealthy in 1992, and the spin on it then was that it proved they were just regular people; it was played as an asset.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

106. Why should I care about someone's personal finances ?

My friend is a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates with homes in Bermuda, Milan, and Winter Park, Florida. She spent her weekends in 2008 in working class neighborhoods registering Haitians to vote for President Obama in 2008

[Spitfire of ATJ]

110. And he hasn't been caught drunk and naked in public either....

What kind of congressman is THAT?

[Jackpine Radical]

113. And of course, if he DID have money, it would prove that he's

hypocritical about his socialism. Preaches about a leveling of income but hoards his own. I can hear it now. Ain't double binds fun?

[arcane1]

128. That is the damn truth, definitely!

[redstateblues]

129. This trend on DU of demonizing people that have made money

Is really misguided. Money only makes people more of who they already are. I'm in the music business where some people become rich quickly. Some are generous, some are greedy. Some treat their bands really well others not so much. Money doesn't change people.

[Jackpine Radical]

135. Actually, it does.

Too much to dig up right now, but start by looking at recent research by Paul Piff, Dacher Keltner & others on that topic.

[redstateblues]

136. OK then. Let the demonizing continue!

[Jackpine Radical]

142. You made an incorrect statement.

I gave you leads that would explain why you were wrong.

You accuse me of demonizing someone.

[MaggieD]

145. Oh come on - s/he's right

DU has absolute disdain for anyone who is successful. Even if they are a liberal.

[Jackpine Radical]

147. That's a crazy assertion.

[BeanMusical]

154. I second that emotion.

[Alittleliberal]

169. RIP Jerry

[Skittles]

174. complete fucking bullshit

[MaggieD]

205. Uh no - not bullshit

The radical left disdains anyone who has a good income. We are evil! I have been told that many times here!

[cali]

209. truthiness! heaps and heaps of truthiness.

utter and complete bullshit. towering mountain of bullshit.

link to those posts. put up or...

gad, you really are something else. You make stuff up with no shame at all. there's a word for that kind of behavior.

[Skittles]

254. COMPLETE FUCKING BULLSHIT

you are NOT fooling me

[MaggieD]

260. Oh come on

You know it's true.

[Skittles]

265. what I know about you? absolutely right I know it it true

the rest is ABSOLUTE FUCKING BULLSHIT - Democrats do NOT dislike "success" - what they detest is people who get their success by TAKING FROM OTHERS - it's called INEQUALITY and it's something REPUKES claim is "jealousy" of success - BULL FUCKING SHIT

[MaggieD]

266. Not talking about DEMOCRATS

I'm talking about the extreme left. And, yes, many of them do tend to broad brush anyone who is financially successful as evil.

[Skittles]

268. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK

OMFG

*DONE HERE - NOT WORTH MY TIME*

TROLLS ARE THE MAIN REASON FOR THE IGNORE FUNCTION

[MaggieD]

277. All you need to do is search on the word "rich"

On this site. Lots of threads will appear. That prove my point. But I guess it's easier to call me names than accept facts.

[Capt. Obvious]

294. It's why they hate Alan Grayson so much

[GeorgeGist]

183. Success = money

Got it!

[MaggieD]

202. This thread is about money

I guess you missed that.

[cali]

204. actually, maggs, this thread is about mocking

the woefully ignorant blathering about Bernie's finances, and the pathetic use of said blathering to smear Bernie.

[MaggieD]

206. Finances is not money?

But in any case, stuff like this is what you do. If someone pisses you off you create a thread to get back at them. You don't do an actual call out because you know that is against the terms of service. You just wait for your buddies to come in and post links that are out of context.

You just did the same to seabeyond a few days ago, right? Whatever. It's what you do. I think it's immature, but that's just my opinion. I've been reading here for 15 years. Like I told you before, I have your number.

If you're hoping to intimidate me you're out of luck. I don't get myself worked up over your or anyone else on the internet, or even in real life.

[sheshe2]

214. You were alerted on MaggieD.

It was a 2-5 to leave.

[MaggieD]

216. Of course I was - LOL!

Telling certain truths here is not typically well received.

[sheshe2]

218. I know what you mean~

[pscot]

225. and having read the whole thread

I'm having 2nd thoughts about voting to leave it

[Major Nikon]

215. Results...

On Mon May 25, 2015, 02:26 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Finances is not money?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6726038

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack, calls another DUer "immature". Hide it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 25, 2015, 02:41 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster doth protest too much and this reads as a blatant call out.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Immature is the best the alerter has?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Poster sounds a bit worked up.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Because of the smiley face, leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[cali]

230. actually- wrong again, dear maggs. Had I only seen this moronic meme posted

3 or 4 times, I wouldn't have posted this op- but no, it was posted over a dozen times- making shit up is what you do, maggs.

I could care less about intimidating you. But if people are going to make shit up or be intellectually dishonest on the same point repeatedly, I'm going to tcall them on it.

As for you, maggs? Most of DU has your number. And if you think I actually get worked up over you? Sorry to disappoint you. Your truthiness is interesting to me though. You push it to a rare extreme. You're like a little kid who thinks she's getting away with something when everyone can see it.

You lecturing anyone about immaturity, is quite amusing. Making stuff up over and over, is hardly a mark of maturity.

[MaggieD]

234. I'm making up...

What? That the sac cloth and ashes thing doesn't wear well on someone making $15k per month?

It's my opinion, dear. Nothing made up about it.

[cali]

236. this is such a great example of your truthiness. Sack cloth and ashes?

No one- certainly not Bernie- has made any such... whatever. No one is suggesting he's poor. He certainly doesn't do a "sack cloth and ashes" song and dance. truthiness, maggs. Colbert would love you.

What's made up, maggs, is your statement that he doesn't handle his personal finances well. Again, there is no way you can know that without knowing what his expenses are. So yeah, you're making shit up- again.

[MaggieD]

258. Uh huh

Sounds like you had a bad Memorial Day. Mine was awesome. Grilled out, family, beers. Love 3 day weekends.

[Luminous Animal]

257. Sackcloth and ashes? I suggest you look up the meaning of that phrase before you use it again.

[questionseverything]

208. cali u just rock

growing up my dad would tell a story about the most honest guy he ever knew getting elected to the house, making over 100 grand for 2 years and coming back to the district a freaking millionare

the math didnt work...he had to be "on the take"

glad to see bernie is NOT one of those guys

[questionseverything]

198. you showed disdain for sanders because he is only worth 300 k

since most of us are considerably below that financial mark i can only imagine what you think of the rest of us

[MaggieD]

200. Has nothing to do with anyone else

If a person makes $175K per year for 20 plus years, they should have been able to save more than $300K. That's pathetic. It is certainly not a good example, IMO.

[bvar22]

224. You don't have the first clue.

Do you know HOW he chooses to spend his money?

[MaggieD]

263. Badly if he has so little savings...

IMO.

[truebluegreen]

246. That is breathtakingly stupid.

Bernie Sanders has not been making "$175 K per year for 20 plus years" or anything like it, and neither has anyone else in Congress.

[MaggieD]

262. Pretty close...

And his wife makes good money too.

[truebluegreen]

275. Pretty close to what?

It is pretty easy to google "congressional pay" and see pay rates all the way back to 1789, let alone 1990. Here's a hint though--when people complain about Congress giving themselves raises all the time what do you think it means? I think it means they were making less before that.

[MaggieD]

281. Yes it is available

And it has more than kept pace with inflation. If anything they have been overpaid over the last several decades.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf

[truebluegreen]

284. Silly wabbit.

Clearly, I already looked it up. And btw Bernie has only been in the Senate since '06.

And in terms of actually doing stuff for the American people, yes, they as a group are wildly overpaid.
In terms of the cost of maintaining 2 households, one in the DC market, not so much. Unlike some Bernie doesn't camp in his office rent-free, nor does he have subsidized rent on C Street.

[MaggieD]

287. So what?

He was a rep since 1991. His wife also has had good paying jobs. Head of colleges until she was fired, and then a government job working for the state of Vermont. It's ridiculous to say his lack of savings is something to brag about.

[truebluegreen]

288. Funny thing is, I'm sure that if he had more savings

you would be caterwauling about him not really being a socialist. Not sucking up to the PTB for self-enrichment is a big plus in my book, and not being obsessed with money is even bigger. So, gosh, I guess we'll never be friends.

[MaggieD]

289. That's absurd

I'm simply responding to the argument that he's some kind of hero because his net worth is low. He's not. Him and his wife get paid very well.

[NRaleighLiberal]

152. must have too much money and feeling a bit exposed!

[cali]

193. that's not not what the op is about

and I don't demonize all people with money. JUst those who are obviously greedy pigs with no thought for those less s fortunate. And a lot of wealthy people don't work hard, they simply inherit money.

[MaggieD]

207. LOL!

Okey dokey then. Cool story, bro.

[NRaleighLiberal]

151. You must be kidding! I've seen many, many people become changed by money

and in nearly all cases, makes them cheap, greedy and fearful.

[BeanMusical]

156. I've seen the same phenomenon.

And there have been some scientific studies:

Keltner has developed a theory of power that aims to present an integrative account of the effects of power on human behaviour, suggesting that the acquisition of power has a disinhibiting effect regarding the social consequences of exercising it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacher_Keltner#Theory_of_Power

And there's the old saying: Power corrupts etc.

[NRaleighLiberal]

158. It is sad and rather sickening to behold. Really sad when friends go that way.

[Rolando]

168. Same thing that happens

when people don't have money

[RoccoR5955]

137. They certainly are desperate in trying to find something wrong with Bernie.

Maybe he lost a lot of stock in the last crash? Maybe he gives his money to charities?
Maybe he doesn't feel that he needs that much money..
They certainly are grabbing at straws here.

[MaggieD]

143. Or desperate to find something right....

I just don't think the fact that he is relativity poor is the great feature his supporters seem to think it is. Not when he's made as much in salary as he has for so long.

[smokey nj]

146. Yeah, it's a real drawback that Bernie Sanders hasn't sold his soul.

[MaggieD]

217. You don't have to sell your soul

To save money when you get paid almost $15k per month. I promise you.

[smokey nj]

226. You think greed is a virtue, we get it.

And if he were wealthy, you'd call him a phony and a hypocrite.

[MaggieD]

227. I think saving responsiblely

.... Is virtue.

[cali]

232. That depends where you live, what your expenses are, etc.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. It's a nice salary but it's hardly big bucks, particularly when you're maintaining two residences.

Why do you pretend to know the first thing about his finances? It's so obvious that you can't know. Why expose your ignorance so proudly?

[truebluegreen]

162. So do you think only rich Senators are worth following?

[Skittles]

175. you can bet she thinks people like Dubya are successful businessmen

[truebluegreen]

189. I remember pointing out to my (alas) RW father

that Dimson ran 3 oil businesses into the ground--in Texas!--and then finally got rich off the taxpayers with a stadium scam. He didn't take it too well.

[BeanMusical]

190. +1

[MaggieD]

222. Dubya is the poster child for a failed business person

I think perhaps your internet psychic skills need more polishing.

[bvar22]

233. And yet, this "failed" businessman walked away with Millions.

Funny how that works.

[MaggieD]

235. Stiil a failed businessman

Being given money doesn't make someone a successful business person.

[bvar22]

239. In reality, W was a successful "businessman".

You must be unfamiliar with his "dealings" in Houston before 2000.
He made good money on inside tips and Eminent Domain to build the new stadium in Houston.

[MaggieD]

261. Nah - a bunch of rich people

Just gave him a lot of money. He was a terrible business person.

[Fumesucker]

279. Dubya had customers who bought what he was selling

He made a good profit off the deal and has retired in wealthy comfort to play golf and paint nudes, the very picture of a successful bidnessman.

[MaggieD]

280. You're free to think he was a good business person

I just disagree.

[Fumesucker]

282. Dubya had a product, convinced people to give him a great deal of money for the product

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

[bvar22]

308. He paints nude dogs, not people.

If he HAS painted a nude, I don't believe I want to see it.

[MaggieD]

221. I don't think evidence....

That you can't save money when you get paid almost $15k per month is something to brag about. It was Bernie folks bragging about his small net worth that I was responding to.

[joshcryer]

157. This is a stupid argument.

But it is sure to be "asked about" by the right wing as some kind of talking point.

[SoapBox]

160. Whoa...you mean to say the money isn't EVERYTHING to them???

That's so cool!

[JaneyVee]

161. President's don't write budgets anyway.

And senators pay isn't all that much. But Sanders is still in the top 5%.

[AzDar]

170. Bernie!!

[progree]

173. He just hasn't learned to cash in on the political system like some other candidates have

[YOHABLO]

179. Oh yeah, like that crook Darell Issa who's worth 450 million?

[DFW]

182. Anyone remember Thomas Jefferson?

He was terrible with his personal finances. After leaving office, he had to sell his personal library to the Government to make ends meet. It formed the nucleus of the Library of Congress after the British burned what was there in the War of 1812 (if you EVER get to see the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress in D.C., it is one of the most beautiful buildings in the city).

Still, he was smart enough to put the USA into debt to borrow money from England for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, while Napoleon needed the money to finance his conquest of Europe. Jefferson was happy to get the additional territory, and Napoleon was happy to get the money (I don't know what the hell George III was thinking) for what, to him, was a far-off wilderness he didn't have time to manage anyway. Not to mention: Monticello stands to this day.

So even if a president or potential president hasn't made a gazillionaire of themselves, I dare say it should not be the most important thing to look at when deciding whether or not to support any particular candidate.

What IS important is whether Bernie, or Hillary, or any Democrat, is for sale. Considering none of them seem to be putting a high priority on private financial betterment from their current situation, I think that the answer in both cases at this point is no.

On to more relevant issues, por favor.

[Thespian2]

184. There you go, Bernie Sanders supporters...

trying to get away with telling the truth...

How dare you...(sarcasm)...

[drynberg]

187. HEY, CALI, MANY OF THESE DESPARATE RETORTS COULD BE AVOIDED BY USING A SIMPLE SARCASM ON BOTTOM

[bvar22]

304. HEY, DRYNBERG,

YOUR POSTS WOULD BE MORE READABLE IF YOU LEARNED TO USE THE LOWER CASE LETTERS.

[Vinca]

188. I guess, according to pundits, that makes Bernie the perfect candidate because

he's not out of touch raking in millions of dollars doing speechs. In fact, he's just like us!

[H2O Man]

191. Recommended.

You are The Best.

[cali]

194. thanks

like you, I try to keep myself intellectually honest.

I have to say though, I'm a bit surprised at the number of recs for this op. Sticking to the keeping it intellectually honest thing, the op falls on the petty side. Had this comment been made only once or twice, I wouldn't have bothered with the op, but over a dozen times? It had become ridiculous and disruptive. It's representative of the worst kind of faux criticism: the tarted up smear.

[H2O Man]

195. I'm not surprised.

People like this OP for the same reason that people like Mark Twain. Sometimes intellectually honest includes tongue-in-cheek, with the straightest of face.

[napi21]

211. I'd sure prefer the person who is MY rep, Sen, or Pres. be in a similar financial position as the

majority of the Country. I'm NOT insinuating that most people have $300 in assets. but he's a whole lot closer to us and our experiences than the multi-millionairs are! The very wealthy have no idea what it's like to get an unexpected bill and not know how they're going to be able to pay it!

[hfojvt]

213. they are not supposed to get rich

but when, like Bernie and Joe, they have been paid over $3,000,000 over the last two decades (before Joe became Vice President).

Well, I consider that to already BE rich, especially compared to the approximately $400,000 I have made over the last two decades. I've accumulated about $150,000 in wealth on that income I'd kind of expect a reasonably prudent person to have over $1 million from their income.

Not that they need it - since their pension already makes them set for life. At least Biden was eligible for a full pension in 1993.

So having that safety net, it's not like he needs or needed to save for retirement.

[UglyGreed]

219. Bernie what is wrong with you?

Don't ya know you got to be a greedy SOB to get elected in the US of A!!!!

[uponit7771]

252. hmmmm, he no doubt is closer to Obama in finances than Hillary... hmmmm point of Bernie

[CentralMass]

255. I would appear that acquiring wealth is not Bernie's thing. I register that in the plus column.

[bobjacksonk2832]

264. This is just another reason why I support Bernie in the first place

Unlike so many other politicians, Bernie knows what's best for America. I hope he does become our next president.

[BainsBane]

267. He's in the upper 7 percent of income in this country

which means he has more than 93 percent of Americans. I don't think presenting that income as though it were modest is the way to make an argument to ordinary Americans.

[cali]

269. that is not even close to the point of the op. Do you really need it explained to you?

should I use little words and simple syntax? C'mon.

[BainsBane]

271. I understand the point

and you clearly are unable to see beyond your class prism. You seem to be addressing some point, I'm guessing one person made in a thread somewhere. Yet in addressing a minor point, you construct an argument directed toward a small percentage of economically privileged people who would think the amount of money you speak of is modest, so as to convey that Sanders is one of them. To even think like that suggests a worldview so far removed from ordinary working Americans that it is completely tone death. So yeah, if you're talking to the country club set, that is probably a reasonable approach, but not if you're talking to people who are not well off. For those of us less fortunate, we are met with insults because we fail to understand how insignificant our lives and interests are. So excuse me for introducing a note of reality. Clearly you aren't addressing the plebs such as myself. The arrogant privilege around here is thick and shows that many of you can't begin to imagine what the lives of people who make the median income or less are possibly like. Forgive me for exceeding my place by entering a thread designated for people who think $175k a year is modest, and that he has to keep two residences. The median family of four maintains one residence on $47k a year, and Sanders income is 3.7x that amount. Your message isn't directed at them. It's directed at those privileged enough to imagine Sanders wealth is modest.
You all couldn't be clearer about the fact that you see people like me, without the class privilege to imagine ever earning that amount of money, are beneath you. That is why your brand of politics is destined to fail. It is based on exclusion and complete contempt for anyone other than a select few exactly like yourselves.

My guess if Sanders saw the kind of elitist arrogance that was being carried out in his name, he would be appalled. But many of you will continue to insult people because that kind of arrogant dismissal is central to your political worldview that excludes the majority of Americans as beneath contempt.

[fadedrose]

274. I'd be thrilled with Bernie or Biden

(Warren not so much because we need stong foreign policy experience - and Bernie seems knowledgeable and Biden is)

[bvar22]

301. I've never forgiven Biden for blocking Crdit Card Reform.

" On the Democratic-sponsored amendments discussed below (you can learn a lot from the Role Call Vote Summary, which lists each Amendment to S.256), the voting was consistent. Not even one Republican voted against party lines. Three Democrats consistently voted with the Republicans:

Sen. Nelson (D - Nebraska)
Sen. Johnson (D - South Dakota)
Sen. Carper (D - Delaware)

Also frequently voting with the Republicans:

Sen. Biden (D - Delaware MBNA)


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/03/06/97273/-The-Bankruptcy-Bill-Examined

[whatthehey]

295. Don't see the connection

I have not the slightest qualm in reiterating that a man paid into deep six figures the last 25 years with excellent benefits is either unusually charitable or unusually poor at money management to have amassed only 300k in net worth (essentially with a net income of about 9k a month he managed to save only 1k of that on average even if he just stuffed it in a mattress with no gains at all, which is both unrealistic and prima facie evidence of terible money management were it true). I've never met the man, but I would make a confident guess that untouchable generous lifetime pension and healthcare benefits played a great part in his decisions in personal finance. He surely has less incentive to build a nest-egg than most of us do, and no I don't begrudge him, or any politician, those benefits. They are fleabites in a budgetary sense and no more than other democracies provide for retired elected officials

However, that's bugger all to do with economic stewardship of a 16T GDP, inasmuch as Presidents do so. It's a facile RWNJ canard that the government should be run like a business, let alone a household. There are two main branches of economics for a reason, and presidents have little involvement with the micro side once elected. I have neither the data nor the inclination to correlate personal financial management and macro-economic success of US Presidents, and they skew to the wealthy side in a decidedly non-normal fashion anyway, but just anecdotally we can see there is no sure connection. Clinton came from a poor background to sizable wealth, much of it post-WH, and saw a burgeoning US economy. Shrub was born to wealth and influence but did spectacularly well increasing his personal net worth (Daddy's contacts were a major help, but as yet Daddy's cash is still Daddy's) while buggering the US economy with an inverted pineapple.

I for one would be very happy to see Sanders manage the US economy, or rather his team do so (no not picking on him here either, Presidents do not personally manage economies). Assuming some of their ideas got past Congress, I would guesstimate we'd see a major but temporary Wall Street panic (aka buying opportunity) in the first couple of years followed by a nice recovery both on Main Street AND Wall Street once more cash flowed to the demographics with the highest (and most local) MPC and we saw the benefits of government infrastructure spending multipliers. Unlike the hyperpartisans on either side, one of the advantages I would give Sanders over Clinton is that long term he would I feel do better for investors than she would, albeit with some messy chaos while the traders panicked about short-term shocks like HFT taxes and paranoia over the S word.