focus on issues not distractions.

of caring for the concerns of working people.

Joe Biden was the Senate sponsor of the Bankruptcy "reform" act of 2005, which introduced the so-called "means test" to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, forcing broke people to pay more to creditors. I guess he was just working for his "constituents" (banks incorporated in Delaware.)

If Joe has no savings, it's only because he already spent the 30 pieces of silver...

take away federal bankruptcy protections from working people who are being squeezed bone-dry. But do it, he did. And it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't given it his blessing. Sad, but true.

They are responding to reporters' questions.

The purchased media typically assists politicians in avoiding such discussions.

That's clearly the important point here, don't you think?

no dice, fuckers.

People who eat maybe one meal a day don't want to hear how you were "dead broke". You and Bill go all Morgan Spurlock and live on 7.25 an hour for a couple of months then maybe we'll listen.

Interesting....Robert Reich butchered Hillary's quote down to three words too

and I still say you can read it both ways
and Robert caught it too otherwise he wouldn't have commented on it.

I don't begrudge them their good fortune. They need to tell us what their plan is for helping the rest of us, though, if they want to be POTUS.

BTW, in order to even be in the running for POTUS a prospective candidate has to have amassed a lot of money, his/her own or someone else's. That's just reality.

Thank you Robert Reich.

...Clintons say given that they came into power through the corporate DLC, removed financial regulation (such as it was) by ending Glass-Seagal, gave us Geithner and Summers, and pal around on golf courses with GW, lending him a friendly legitimacy.

I had this glorious mental image of Steven Seagal enforcing bank regulations.

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Our politics are becoming sickeningly divorced from actual issues and the idea that politicians owe voters a clear explanation of how they will represent their interests.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

anything substantial about any of them.

Makes your words seem less than genuine.

There really is no way around this. If you are saying you want to reduce inequality while massing more wealth than any one person needs for 3 lifetimes, or making more in one year than most people live on for 2 decades, it comes off and just saying whatever it takes to gain their favor.

Its like preaching about climate change then going out to your SUV and setting fire to a pile of tires as you leave.

And no matter how much anyone says it doesn't matter, in the view of most people it matters. When the person saying it doesn't matter is himself a multi-millionaire who also talks about inequality while amassing his unequal wealth that doesn't really help the cause, and just makes him look tone deaf. Preaching about how the 1% need to be knocked down while living firmly entrenched in 1% territory and not taking the steps yourself to address your own inequality just makes you look like a hypocrite.

Want to see a Democratic politician win in a landside? Let somebody like Elizabeth Warren say "My net worth is 14.5 million. That much wealth in one persons hands is just wrong when most people are living paycheck to paycheck. I preach about inequality, I am putting my preaching into action- I am donating everything but $100,000 to charity and from here out when elected will live only off my salary, accepting no favors, special deal or payments from outside interests. I will maintain my savings at no more than $100,000 and donate anything over that to charity and live off my government pension when I retire".

Right now Bernie Sanders is the only one I am aware of who walks the walk as well as talking the talk.

Because Social Security is based on how much you make every year, this would mean 15k less, which means reduced payouts in old age (significantly so for lower income Americans). Or we could increase the payouts for the 15k, but then we lose on funding and starve the program (or force it to go to the general fund, which makes it a target for the Republicans and other Congressional shenanigans).

Also the funding 'vests' at differing rates, the first 9k or so at 90%, would we lose that since that money doesn't exist to be put into the program? Like I said above, think about how this impacts lower income American's, while they'll probably still max out here, the next tier is 35%, that's potentially 5k less a year from that bracket if that's where you fall, which goes up to around 80k, at that point it drops to only 10%. So if we didn't raise the cap, those who max out would get back 1.5k less, while paying 15k less into the program. Unless we go with option 2, but that's another can of worms.

Increase the EITC and raise the personal deduction (double it even), that would go a long way to fix the problem without messing with the complicatedly balanced Social Security program.

which side you are on.

But as for Biden, how does somebody make $370,000 a year and NOT have a savings account? All the millions he has been paid as a Senator and his net worth is only $350,000??

That doesn't make him working class, it just makes him an idiot with his money.

Either that or very, very generous.

Then again, with a Senator's pension, what does he need savings for?