and his pension from being the mayor of Burlington, and his income from being a Senator.

Nothing new, no new surprises. Then what else are the Democrats going to complain about?

I suggest that we focus on the issues at hand, not how much money a candidate personally has. I can certainly argue about other candidates who has too much money and time, and zero issues discussed.

Is interesting. Donald Trump hasn’t even characterized it as complaining.

What?? Are you suggesting we should treat him like an ordinary candidate?! Don't make me laugh!!




Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

I agree, but have no reason to believe that it came from sources that undermine his credibility. For example, I'm as economically progressive as you can get (well, almost), but I and my wife have retirement accounts invested in the stock market that we manage and have done quite well with over time.

I have strong issues with Wall Street and large corporations generally. Does the fact that I have saved, invested and profited (somewhat -- I'm by no stretch a millionaire) via that very system disqualify me or undermine the legitimacy of my political views on Wall Street/large corporations?

There are few alternatives. We don't have a robust pension system. Interest rates were 0% for the longest time. Inflation goes up every year of life.

What the actual fuck are you supposed to do?

Plus, he has income most likely from the book deal and speaking fees. It’s amazing how much money some celebs and politicians get for a one hour talk.

I would be more concerned if he isn’t a millionaire. That could indicate he’s poor with managing his money.

organized crime. He's just the type.

As long as it doesn't come from places like the NRA I'm good with it.

Making claim to anything else is agenda driven.

Only recently he dropped "millionaire", but he can't deny he is now in the same 1%.

Elizabeth Warren?

I rail against the one percent as well.
Is there some point there?

But no surprise.

You Seem so heated. This is a long primary. Take a few breaths. How can you be objective when you are so riled up?

For the record. If you were insulting me, I do don’t care what your definition of objectivity is. So...

George’s comment. You’re the one who waded into this.

So...I take that as a yes that was an insult to my objectivity?

...from January of this year:

Bernie's big tax hike would target millionaires and billionaires

https://amp.axios.com/bernie-sanders-estate-tax-billionaires-c48ccaec-72a0-418e-8f0e-5a77a1d3c175.html

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Now, if it's billionaire with a b ... or maybe multi-millionaire and the "multi" is big enough ...

But just plain old net worth = $1M + 1.00? Nope not hardly in the top 1% of wealth in this country. But technically a "millionaire".

then yes, I can see that puts him in the 1%.

But again - and I'm not a fan of his particularly, especially as a candidate in 2020 - what I care about more is how he makes it and how he protects it. Does he stash it in the Caymans and do fancy accounting footwork to avoid taxes? Or does he just pay up? I guess we'll know when we see those tax returns.

Who actually gives a shit about this? People that do are just haters.

Obama are millionaires. Clinton’s are millionaires.

Chill out. We have concerns that you bellowing at us isn’t going to change.

You did make one point. I can only speak for myself. So I’m telling you it’s not about the fact Bernie is a millionaire. I’d actually be surprised if he wasn’t. I’m actually surprised that not all the established politicians aren’t millionaires.

A million after taxes isn’t even that much money.

For me, it’s about the railing against millionaires and billionaires then change the railing to billionaires. It’s about using millionaire as a dog whistle for years and then... whadyaknow... I’m a millionaire!!

But he does focus on billionaires ... because they are the ones who have benefited most by actively slanting the playing field in their favor and against the average person over the past 3-4 decades. They are who we all are concerned about. I know no-one who rails about any measly millionaire today who made their million(s) through hard work or saving. But millionaires are not always paying their fair share and Bernie recognizes and accepts that as a “millionaire” himself ... meaning he’s OK with paying a bigger share himself. I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would objectively have a problem with that. Betnie’s dog whistle has always been about a rigged playing field, not every frigging individual person directly who has had the good fortune to achieve amilluobaire’s worth.

As for me being argumentative, I’m only responding to comments I believe are wrong in their conclusion and hurtful to our being a united force in the end, once we do have a nominee. It’s purposeful and self-defeating. So, yeah, I’m going to argue when I see or hear subjective, unsubstantiated comments or observations meant only to undermine the credibility of one of our candidates or his/her supporters.

Frankly, I don’t believe i’m the one who needs to chill. This was an OP that basically said it’s not a big deal or problem if Bernie Sanders’ net worth is equal to or greater than $1,000,000. Who argued with that?

But don't really give a shit about his net worth being over a million.

What might matter is how he got it and what he's done to protect it.

since he used that economic status to derisively bludgeon our last candidate.

Oh, he didn't bludgeon, he made a valid point.

Many of Bernie's supporters still hate rich people and Hillary in particular. They have a mistaken believe that if corporations and rich people are made poor and made them struggle like them, life would certainly be better for everyone.

Bernie tapped into that class envy and riled up his base. Now that same base is spinning feverishly saying Bernie's new status doesn't bother them.

IOKIYB

But I predicted all this a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago

Link to tweet

how much money he made.. it is ironic that he got his cash off maligning millionaires, tho.

the bullpucky projection and divisiveness.

all about hostility toward those seen as "elites" or "establishment." Populist leaders may be of virtually any ideology, though left-wing populism tends to be antagonistic along class lines, the little people versus the elites, while right-wing pops identify along nationalist lines, our people, our nation.

But the negative, antagonistic energy they're all harnessing and directing to get power is the same wherever they're threatening to destabilize and destroy governments, democracies in particular, around the planet.

Notably, though, Sanders and the Clintons were very alike for most of their lives in caring little for collecting wealth. Only after Bill's presidency and they were in debt and unable to support themselves in DC where they wanted to live that the Clintons set out to pick up easy money by doing speaking engagements and writing books.

Sanders hasn't really yet, though with the end of his working life approaching fast and inevitably being aware of the vast gulf between his means and those all around him, he probably cares somewhat more, as the Clintons did.

But, very on point, Sanders feels no commonality with the liberal Clintons -- in his mind they're corrupt and he's anything but. This even though he's always voted in congress as a +1 to "corrupt" Democrats!

Go figure. I've never understood how he thinks, but I'm sure psychologists can peg him as a type like all of us. Just that he's in a very differently shaped hole from me, the Clintons, the Obamas, most of the other Democratic candidates, that's what I know.

Just wanted to say that.

Regarding populism. I think there are different perspectives on what it is, what it's made up of, and how it manifests. I personally do not adhere to the notion that it is always about hostility or presents as a necessarily hostile entity, unless you limit the definition of hostile to opposition. Granted, in any large group or popular movement, there are those who express their opposition in rancorous ways. But that does not necessarily apply to all members or even the majority in any group or popular movement. I think that is true as far as Bernie supporters go -- they are opponents of a system that is not working for everyone -- really, the majority.

My view is basically that popular movements have been described as "populism"; and the term "populism" has been labeled and portrayed as hostile, rancorous, vengeful, etc., by many political thinkers over time. As a result, that definition has become dogma ... and applied to popular movements routinely. It seems to me quite obvious that any peripheral movement would just by it's existence be the antagonist when it comes to the establishment. There are antagonists and protagonists in every socio-political division, but that doesn't mean that the antagonist is always hostile, hateful, and malevolent.

So I guess this is one of those areas where I take exception and disagree with you Hortensis.

Who was that "book" about, anyway?

of taxes so he is in favor of raising his own. He wants millionaire and billionaire employers to pay fair wages to the employees and not abuse customers and the environment at the expense of more profits for themselves.

The deliberate misunderstanding of Sanders issue with uber wealthy is obvious and supporters of Sanders can differentiate between a Bezos and Nick Hanauer and David Geffen.

So can non- Bernie supports recognize the difference.

Sorry about the yelling.

If you love Bernie, just show the damn taxes you are so sure show nothing.

Jay zus H Cripes!

Either way everyone can get over the damn taxes.

destroying the country, why are we even arguing about what should be obvious?

... for flying in airplanes.

==========

Link to tweet

a millionaire too.