Aha, those will be cancelled and forgiven if Bernie wins presidency.
Or Elizabeth for that matter.

...who is worth $27 million, and he's campaigning to get HIS $50,000 student debt cancelled!

he is worth only $500,000 in RISKY stocks. Could crumble in a bad market.

Is Khanna really pushing for student loan forgiveness? Even if he is not, he should pay it off because he has the dough.

They both own what each other has. But then I like Khanna. Just keeping the facts straight. Hey, Biden married up. Sorry if I killed the mood

It applies to wealth acquired AFTER marriage.
His wife inherited the wealth from her businessman father BEFORE marriage,
which can be covered by a prenup.

And Ohio is common law iirc.

Why would anyone who has that level of assets still be paying on student loans? He graduated from law school in 2001 and makes a good income. If I was in a similar position, I would have paid that debt off entirely just to avoid the hassle of having to make monthly payments and avoiding the interest.

Just kidding.

You can't take it if your income is higher than about $90,000.

tech stocks than interest charges on student loan. Why sell his money making tech stocks to pay the cheap student loan?

I understand why people take out the student loans--parents teaching their children to be financially responsible, parents saving for their own retirement, young adults building up their credit rating, etc.

I also understand why the person in debt may not rush to pay their loans--just starting employment, building up emergency funds, and paying for their routine expenses (food, clothing, shelter, transportation).

However, it becomes difficult to sympathize with those who argue about the debt burden associated with student loans if the borrower is speculating on stocks, high-dollar real estate, and other business ventures. Meanwhile, the loan provider remains on the hook if the speculative investments falter and the debtor defaults on the loan. The original purpose of the student loan(s) is to provide an opportunity for students to learn rather than provide a financial cushion to gamble on investments. Would this speculative behavior be acceptable if the borrower was applying for a small business loan rather than a student loan?

I have 2 kids recently graduated from college. What I learned from them surprised me.
Some of their friends were going on vacations and buying cars with student loan money.

But there are genuinely deserving students who do not abuse their student loans.
So......a blanket pardon of student loan is unfair to them and others.

I think that even conservatives see the value of providing for a well educated workforce since it helps them make money and reduces the burden on social welfare programs.

However, in about six or seven more weeks we will be looking at social media filled with the spring break experiences of students across the country. Imagine the optics when there is a split screen on TV of our candidates talking about student debt forgiveness juxtaposed against the scene of students on the beach guzzling alcohol and exhibiting lewd behavior. Most adults are not going to want to condone those rites of passage with a message telling the students to "party 'til you drop with your student loan money that you'll never have to repay."

You're correct that it isn't fair that the refusal of a blanket pardon of a student loan affects people who might deserve a break, but it only takes a few people that take advantage of a particular situation who can ruin a good thing for everyone else.

Wonder how many other people around Sanders are well off but still have large amounts of student debt they're hoping to have forgiven?

You might want to review my response in post #12 as to why I have ethical considerations about debt forgiveness.

Although, one smells it more frequently than napalm in Vietnam.

railing against millionaires and Wall Street? Oh the irony!

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

He's worth more than $27 million, still owes $50,000 in student loans, and is campaigning for across the board student debt relief.

This is about their choice of fund manager? This is how much we're scraping the barrel to find "dirt" on people associated with Bernie?

but maximizing any little perceived flaw in Biden.

That would be hypocrisy²

pushed for & voted for the 2005 bankruptcy bill which gave a big, wet kiss to wall street banksters while screwing 100's of thousands of hard working Americans.

....to cancel that $50K.

Quite interesting.

It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with all those millions actually being his wifes assets. This reporting was done in 2016, and they were married in 2015. It's not a case of him sitting on millions of dollars for years and stubbornly refusing to pay off his loans.

For the schools he went to, 50k is light debt which points to him having been paying it down. I wouldn't be surprised if it that debt was now paid off in full, compliments of the money he married into but we'd need more numbers than just 2016 to determine that.

Its all anybody should get out of that. Finding something nefarious out of it is crossing the line of all reason to smear a candidate you dont like.

....has MILLIONS invested in Goldman Sachs. Plus, Sanders has railed against the rich not paying taxes, but his campaign co-chair has millions of dollars invested in TAX FREE accounts.

Not a good look, to be nice.

Some people, sadly, still think we're in the days where women were required to hand their assets over to their husbands to manage.

I'm assuming that these reportings are like taxes. 2016, you pay for 2015 and such.

So the reporting for 2016 would be listing assets from 2015.

You're basing your entire argument on him having some control over where the money is invested. Money that he had no sort of access to until 2015, when he was married. All of those investments would have been made by his wife, prior to them being married. So yeah, it has everything to do with his wife since SHE would have been the one making all the choices.

Which has nothing to do with Bernie, anyways.

...who constantly rails against the 1% and "Wall Street".

With Bernie that allegedly show Bernie is a hypocrite because the congressman has investments. First off, this is an attack on the Congressman, because it is not Bernie's investments, and is essentially a shameless effort to defame a good Democrat in order to try and make Bernie look bad.

One, you only have numbers up to 2016.

Two, all that money that he 'supposedly' has access to and chose to invest in Goldman Sachs? Yeah, his wifes. Who he married in 2015.

Three, given what schools he went to him having 50k remaining in student debt in 2016 isn't much of a surprise.

Four, all those millions that he could have paid that debt off with? Yeah, his wifes. While he may have access to that money, it wouldn't have been until they were married. So the debt isn't a surprise, even with the newfound money that belongs to his wife.

Five, that debt is very likely paid off in full by this point since, you know... Rich wife. Be nice to have more years to look at besides 2016.

So yeah... His wife is rich. Lucky him. The reporting requires potential to access, not direct ownership. More recent numbers would better serve whatever point you're trying make I suppose, but with what you provided... His wife is rich, and likely made those 'interesting' investment choices HERSELF before getting married. And even with more accurate numbers, it'd still be her money and ultimately her choice in where to invest it.

All those multimillions in stock, and assorted changes, are his wifes investments which he (As we are long past the times when women were expected to give control of their financial assets to their husbands) has no control over.

Do you have anything that shows him owning millions of dollars in goldmans stock? Because, so far, everything you've provided has listed it as being his wifes property. Not his own property. Not a joint asset. But his wifes property, hers to invest as she sees fit irrelevant to whatever opinions her husband has of them.

And as for his student loans, the numbers aren't entirely accurate since they're provided in a range. 2016 was 50,001-100,000, and the most recent shows as 15,001-50,000. Quite a wide range, but it's still enough to show that he is paying them down rather than him sitting on the debt in hopes of it getting erased like you're implying he is.

Seriously - Anything 'Interesting', aside from the fact that his wife makes her own financial choices and that he (Like many other college grads) took out a large amount of student loans and is working to pay them off?

Is this what I am seeing?

Biden supporters pointing out that a man should take his wife’s assets away, and put her in her place?

Shows exactly the thought trains of supporters of a man who has to physically touch every female he comes in contact with.


Guess what folks- there are a whole lot of married couples now- dual income couples, that have “his money” and “her money”, and if that’s what makes them happy, fine. It’s not up to me to judge whether their relationship requires her to pay off his loan as a dowery of marriage.

California is a community property state and unless there is a prenup, those funds belong to Ro Khanna jointly.

If there is a prenup in place, he won't have to disclose those items which suggests that there is no prenup -- which means that money is HIS also.

No where did anyone claim anything about "putting the wife in place."

It would be fairer if he were to ask his wife to help him out rather than to expect working Americans to pay his college debt off for him through loan forgiveness...especially with his household sitting on $27,500,000 dollars.

That doesn't give you enough information to determine how much the debt was originally, nor how much was being paid off per year.

You can't claim that he's isn't paying off the debt unless you have additional years to compare against. That said, for the schools he went to 50k is debt is light.

My husband and I saved to put three kids through college. They went to fine state university schools where tuition was reasonable. Two of them had scholarship and grant money. We used tuition payment plans and some federally funded loans. The loans are paid off in full.

Sorry, but it's not right to expect middle and working class people to pay off the debt of a sitting congressman who has a six figure salary, $500,00 in personal assets, and a wife who is a multimillionaire.

He had 50k in debt in 2016. How much was it prior in 2015? What was the debt's value in 2017?

If you want to claim that he is a mooch who is refusing to pay that debt down, you NEED a 2nd years reporting in order to establish a pattern.

I know it's his wife's money but no doubt it directly benefits his family. should Can you trust a person to push through climate change should he work in a Sanders administration? If he feels the way he says he does on the climate why can't he convince his wife to divest? If he can't convince his wife about the seriousness of climate change, he can't convince anyone.

He was at a Cisco Systems shareholder meeting complaining that the dividend wasn't large enough.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/46210230

receiving donations from anyone with a financial institution job on Wall Street is instantly and permanently corrupt and unfit for office.

That Wall Street must be "taken on" (whatever that means) or else ... oligarch or billionaires and scary very very bad things. One would think that if you wanted revolution you'd be careful about not profiting from Goldman Sachs and Wall Street's evil. Otherwise you'd be a regular person with a financial portfolio (status quo, which now means something very very bad) and not a hypocrite.

One of those, or something.

KnR

assets honestly. His wife has money too. I'm OK with all of that. I don't need for Democrats to wear sack cloth and ashes. I don't purity test Warren's wealth, I don't purity test Bernie's wealth, I don't purity test Hillary's wealth. I'm actually happy that it's possible for people to get rich in America. I'm not even mad about Jeff Bezos' wealth.

The "outrage" coming from this campaign seems to be VERY INCONSISTENT. Why is it that one person's association with Goldman Sachs is bad, and then they shrug their shoulders and look away for another? Are they completely unaware that we can actually see and read and research?

All I'm trying to point out is that mature and rational voters do not like hypocrisy, or anything that comes close to being hypocritical. Voters also dislike duplicity and based on this article, I think they have exposed a LOT of that.