Bernie's In

@revelette2,

Everything or almost everything involves money one way or another, but it doesn't follow (to me) that a president should be required to be good at managing his own personal finances. That's a non sequitur. I understand why you guys want to say that but I'm not buying it. By your logic you should vote for Trump. He's got more money than Hillary...

3 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

It seems like he has found a good balance between enjoying the fruits of his labors and ensuring he has enough to meet his needs.

I agree.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I don't begrudge Sanders the millions he's made through his life. I don't care if the man spent/blew essentially all of it (as he has done).

I don't want that man managing the financial policy of the USA though.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No, Trump is awful at managing his money. If he had sold all his real estate holdings in 1982 and put the money in an index fund, he would have 3-4x as much money as he has now. All his "management" has resulted in terrible returns.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I don't care if the man spent/blew essentially all of it (as he has done).

You can't take it with you. He has set up his finances such that he is not a burden to his family or society. As long as you do that, you should be able to enjoy yourself without guilt.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Would you trust a poor man to manage your retirement funds?
Would you trust a fat man to be your personal trainer?
Would you trust a high school dropout to be your college professor?
Would you trust some who doesn't speak French to teach you French?

1 Reply

@engineer,

I couldn't agree more (I thought I made that clear).

I just don't trust a man whose made those decisions to manage the 16,000,000,000 economy that America has.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Ok. Anyway, you got my drift. Let's not confuse this election with a job interview for some financial manager position.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

I could argue that Sanders has managed his money perfectly and no Wall Street personal finance wiz could have done better (although I think I've read that his wife actually handles the family finances). I don't know what his and his wife's personal goals are, but if it is to enjoy their money, live life to the fullest and not be a burden on anyone, Sanders is a lot closer to meeting his objective than a lot of people I know. You can't say he hasn't done a good job managing his money if accumulating wealth wasn't his goal.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I don't expect the president to personally manage the state coffers. I expect him to nominate people (treasurer, finance minister etc) who are qualified and good at managing the state coffers. Similarly i don't expect the president to be a battle-hardened military leader, but i expect him to pick good military leaders for the top brass. I could go on. A president is not a dictator deciding everything, he cannot and does not need to be good at everything.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Everything or almost everything involves money one way or another, but it doesn't follow (to me) that a president should be required to be good at managing his own personal finances.

No, not by our own we would vote Trump in the case we speaking here. Trump bankrupted several times and each time he profited while he left countless workers and investors blowing in the wind.

Moreover, I was just answering your question what does the ability to manage money have to with the Bernie's campaign, turns out, everything. But he can surround himself with people who can manage money better. My point is, his dreams are not doable because it relies on a lot of variables which frankly are not there. The revolution he speaks of might be there in pockets, but it won't be there in congress where it counts. We went through a period where the polls show people demanded change in the guns laws, the gun industry fought it and won. Perhaps when some of these young folks in a few years can go into government position themselves and change congress, some of those laudable dreams of Sanders can be realized, but the time is not here yet. IMO

1 Reply

@engineer,

If he saved even 5% of his money in a personal savings account he would have done better.

Someone who has chosen to spend 99% of his money is not someone I trust to manage the economy. It's just not.

How can you trust Sanders to grow the wealth of the poorest among us when he's done such a poor job in his personal life?

It's a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do".
Great for Sanders and his personal life. I hope he's enjoyed every minute and every dollar.

Still don't want him running the economy or having such a huge say in economic policy. I don't trust him there anymore.

2 Replies

Quote:

Bernie Sanders on Thursday repudiated the remarks of a surrogate who used the phrase "corporate Democratic whores" on Wednesday night during the Vermont senator's rally in Washington Square Park, after Hillary Clinton's campaign demanded an disavowal from the candidate.

Speaking to a crowd estimated around 27,000 people, health care activist and physician Paul Song ripped into those who, like Clinton, insist on a more incremental approach to reforming the health-care system.

"Medicare-for-all will never happen if we continue to elect corporate Democratic whores who are beholden to big pharma and the private insurance industry instead of us," Song said, according to reports.

Earlier Thursday morning, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri called upon Sanders to "disavow" the language, which Song had already done himself.

Dr. Song's comment was inappropriate and insensitive. There's no room for language like that in our political discourse," Sanders tweeted later Thursday morning.

"I am very sorry for using the term 'whore' to refer to some in congress who are beholden to corporations and not us. It was insensitive," Song tweeted Wednesday night.

source

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Ok, well taken. I think enough of his "dreams" are perfectly doable. All it would take is to retake congress. A dem president -- any of them -- cannot do much with a such dysfunctional parliament. So to me, the congress argument is not convincing.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Ok.....

But if he surrounds himself with people who are qualified and good at managing state coffers then doesn't it reason to expect that those people are going to say "Hey Bern, those policies that you promised everyone in the election; they're going to bankrupt us man. They sound good, but when you run the numbers it just doesn't add up."

The president is the final decision maker for military policy and for laws passed by congress. He also has some limited power through the executive order process.

Bernie has not shown me anything to prove that he's an expert in financial policy (or even adept). He's shown me the exact opposite in his personal finances (do you want to live in a world where people spend 99% of their income and never save anything? We live close enough to that now and it's WHY American's are so struggling so much...relatively speaking).

You bring up the military. I'm not even going to go there.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

You are assuming that Sanders's financial goal was to attain wealth. If he looked at his finances and said "got all I need for the rest of my life", then enjoying his money makes more sense than acquiring more wealth. If that is the case (and we have no idea if it is), then he has not done a poor job in his personal life.

I'm not a big Sanders fan, but I'm not down with the narrative that because he hasn't saved enough to make his children millionaires when he dies that he has failed in the realm of personal finance. It looks like he's bringing his life plane in for a nice, soft landing and that's a success.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Sanders has a rather nice retirement package from the Federal government for all his time in Congress. He has no need to save money. When he retires he will get over $100,000 a year from the Feds for the rest of his life. (Congressional pensions max out at 80% of salary which is probably what Sanders will get.)

This argument that he should have saved money is really a non starter for me. He will have a better retirement than someone that saved $1.5 million with no pension.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Ok, well taken. I think enough of his "dreams" are perfectly doable. All it would take is to retake congress. A dem president -- any of them -- cannot do much with a such dysfunctional parliament. So to me, the congress argument is not convincing.

Your post made no sense, you appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. There is no way right now democrats are going to take over the house. It is just not going to happen with the way the districts are set up and the disinterest people show in mid-term elections. I suspect all these feeling the Bernie people will disappear on the next mid term election. I just hope we take (as in democrats) the senate back. Even if you have a majority, in today's congress you need a supermajority to get controversial bills passed which was the only way we got the affordable health care passed even after compromising with republicans.

1 Reply

@engineer,

No, I'm not assuming that was his goal. It most obviously and decidedly was not his goal. I mean that man didn't save hardly anything. He's going to end his life getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches to corporations and events (just like some are lambasting Hillary for now). He'll write a book and likely make a few million there too (just like the Clinton's did). Sanders is going to be just fine. Good for the man. I truly, truly, am happy for his successes.

But,

His financial policies are way too big. His ideas are way too expensive. His goals, while laudable, are going to cost too much money. He says that we'll pay for all this by, I don't know, magic? The people he'll hire to run the country's finances all disagree with him on financial policy. Nothing in this man's life or in his ideas or in the economic review of professionals leads me to trust Sanders at managing the economic policy of the USA.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

My point was that the president is also the commander in chief, and by your logic, he should have proven his personal value as a soldier before becomming commander in chief...

Your argument says more about YOU and your criteria for a good president than it says about Sanders.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know