• Bernie Sanders buys 600,000 dollar summer home.
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=shozamar;50857175]I'm not saying he can't be respected by them, I'm saying it's entirely understandable for them to lose some interest, bond or respect with him as a result of this. By empathic credibility I mean how reasonable it is for people to believe that he understands their struggle and will act in their interests.[/QUOTE] But it's not understandable at all if you know the things surrounding him buying the home, like the fact that he makes $170,000 a year or sold another property to get the funds. I mean if you are saying ignorant people won't believe in him sure whatever but it seemed like you were making the case that you yourself don't think he is being authentic.
[QUOTE=shozamar;50857175]I'm not saying he can't be respected by them, I'm saying it's entirely understandable for them to lose some interest, bond or respect with him as a result of this. By empathic credibility I mean how reasonable it is for people to believe that he understands their struggle and will act in their interests.[/QUOTE] But it is already demonstrable that Sanders does act in the interests of those in poverty, so what you're saying is essentially that poor people will lose respect for him if they find out that he isn't poor, which is ridiculous. If that were the case then poor people wouldn't respect [I]any[/I] politicians whatsoever because politicians are categorically leagues beyond the impoverished in terms of wealth and status. I think you're just plain wrong on this one, man.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50856941]People would be losing their shit if Hillary did this.[/QUOTE] Nonsensically as much as their losing their shit over Bernie doing it. Clinton herself lives in a multi million dollar mansion
Bernie Sanders does a lot for the poor in his policy's and support for people who put them in their platforms. Why should I care that his wife sold an old house so they could get a summer home? Most of what he preaches is we should keep money out of politics and tax the rich more, not agaisnt any sort of luxury spending so I do not see this as a contradiction to what he stands for.
[QUOTE=shozamar;50857105]No but there's a difference between retaining some level of empathic credibility with people who earn barely anything and spending $600,000 on a summer home. There's a line to be drawn somewhere quite far before that. [editline]10th August 2016[/editline] Exactly[/QUOTE] So he should literally be burning his money that he earns doing a job because "_____"?
Not sure why this is surprising. After something as stressful as running for president the guy isn't at all strange for buying something to take his mind off of it. If you make $100k plus a year between yourself and your spouse this sort of purchase isn't that extraordinary. Jane has a PhD, and probably makes a pretty decent living herself. The two are probably discrete with their spending and are at the age most people would retire. What a waste of bandwidth.
Criticisms over something like this need to start with explaining how you(the critic) decide what someone should or shouldn't have. Bernie Sanders? So how many houses can he have? How valuable can they be? Can he have a summer house at all, what about a condo? What about a cardboard box in an upscale alley? What metric are you using to determine these things?
[QUOTE=shozamar;50857175]I'm not saying he can't be respected by them, I'm saying it's entirely understandable for them to lose some interest, bond or respect with him as a result of this. By empathic credibility I mean how reasonable it is for people to believe that he understands their struggle and will act in their interests.[/QUOTE] I mean, if a politician decrying wealth inequality sold off all his possessions and lived like a pauper to make his point I'd respect that but it doesn't mean we shouldn't expect politicians, whose salaries are quite high normally, to live comfortably. He was elected to his job at that pay by the people, it's not like he made it by opening sweatshops overseas. Those are the politicians we should be concerned about, the ones whose political opinions are heavily swayed by outside money, or who have business interests which could heavily inform their support of certain policies. Bernie is [I]already a politician[/I] who has [I]already shown that he is willing to vote in the interests of the people[/I]. But because he's buying a summer home, it was all a facade? I don't understand. Famous actors make a lot of money, so should we be worried that they're oppressing us? No, because they're wage-earners. They make their money from their skills. Tons of them give huge contributions to charity every year, does it mean nothing just because they live luxuriously? Of course I think they're paid extremely high amounts, but they're not the problem just as Bernie is not the problem. The people who are using their money to exploit others for their own financial gain are the problem.
Shit Bill Gates is one of the most valuable people in the world but he obviously cares a whole fucking lot about poor people.
[QUOTE=gnampf;50856692][URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290887-sanders-buys-nearly-600k-summer-home"]Oh boy.[/URL] So much for wanting to reduce homelessness when you have two houses.[/QUOTE] Why would he pay for someone else's home with his own hard earn money? The problem won't disappear by having people cough up money, especially a measly sum of $600,000 USD. It's just like saying the president should solve world hunger by dumping money on third world countries. It's shortsighted and dumb.
"rich folks cant speak for poor folks" "whites cant speak for blacks" "men cant speak for women" This is all fucking ridiculous, he bought a house with his own money, so what he deserves something good at the end of this stupid election cycle and he got it (and he still had to give something up for it)
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50857069]I feel like if you knew he made $170,000 a year for being a Congressman (ie someone who doesn't exactly work a 50 hour a week job like some of us do) you'd already take his redistribution of wealth message with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure a lot of Sander's platform was targeted at the ultra-rich who bring in absolutely ridiculous amounts of money that nobody could realistically even spend yet manage to abuse tax loopholes and tax havens to pay less than your average citizen anyways. I live in a household that only brings in like $50-60k per year in total but personally I always saw the redistribution of wealth thing as mainly targeting those who bring in like $500k+ per year or so.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;50856748]The median home value in Vermont is $209,300, $600,000 isn't unreasonable.[/QUOTE] 2.5 times the median isn't unreasonable? especially for a second home, something many people these days are lucky to afford one of I know it's his money and all, but a champion of american socialism and equality is living like a king
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50856923]600,000 is a shack in my city. So he bought a summer home so fucking what he's a senator for over 20 years[/QUOTE] hes a senator, a former mayor and activist also he is 72 years old. hes not wealthy in the way politicians are but hes wealthy in the way retirees are [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;50857460]2.5 times the median isn't unreasonable? especially for a second home, something many people these days are lucky to afford one of I know it's his money and all, but a champion of american socialism and equality is living like a king[/QUOTE] dude 600,000 on exclusive realestate isnt crazy, its also probably a big house for his entire family
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50857394]I'm pretty sure a lot of Sander's platform was targeted at the ultra-rich who bring in absolutely ridiculous amounts of money that nobody could realistically even spend yet manage to abuse tax loopholes and tax havens to pay less than your average citizen anyways. I live in a household that only brings in like $50-60k per year in total but personally I always saw the redistribution of wealth thing as mainly targeting those who bring in like $500k+ per year or so.[/QUOTE] It's amazing how effective conservative propaganda has been at convincing people that whenever someone talks about wealth inequality, they're somehow talking about software engineers making $120k or doctors making $300k, rather than the Illuminati-tier wealthy who hoard hundreds of millions of dollars overseas and use tax havens to pay next to nothing in income taxes. I sometimes wonder if the people who are so repulsed by anti-1% rhetoric have even the most faint understanding of the magnitude of wealth that the actual 1% are holding. It's like when people mention the top 1%, conservatives seem to think of that rich guy down the street who owns a few restaurants.. Like, that is so incredibly far away from the type of wealth people are actually referring to, it's like the difference between a bottle rocket and a NASA shuttle.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50857394]I'm pretty sure a lot of Sander's platform was targeted at the ultra-rich who bring in absolutely ridiculous amounts of money that nobody could realistically even spend yet manage to abuse tax loopholes and tax havens to pay less than your average citizen anyways. I live in a household that only brings in like $50-60k per year in total but personally I always saw the redistribution of wealth thing as mainly targeting those who bring in like $500k+ per year or so.[/QUOTE] 60k is almost twice the median household income in my state
[QUOTE=butre;50857501]60k is almost twice the median household income in my state[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything?
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50856698]This is what your donations paid for lol.[/QUOTE] You have no idea what you are talking about lol I hope the response to this story doesn't look like the post above, since Sanders is probably the least wealthy Senator we have had in a long while.
[QUOTE=srobins;50857500]It's amazing how effective conservative propaganda has been at convincing people that whenever someone talks about wealth inequality, they're somehow talking about software engineers making $120k or doctors making $300k, rather than the Illuminati-tier wealthy who hoard hundreds of millions of dollars overseas and use tax havens to pay next to nothing in income taxes. I sometimes wonder if the people who are so repulsed by anti-1% rhetoric have even the most faint understanding of the magnitude of wealth that the actual 1% are holding. It's like when people mention the top 1%, conservatives seem to think of that rich guy down the street who owns a few restaurants.. Like, that is so incredibly far away from the type of wealth people are actually referring to, it's like the difference between a bottle rocket and a NASA shuttle.[/QUOTE] I think that in many cases it's not even necessarily propaganda that causes the issue. It's more the human mind has a lot of trouble visualizing huge numbers so after a certain point most people just stop understanding exactly how much money these ultra-rich people actually have. Ie: I'd consider $100k an enormous amount of money to have. A million dollars is a "measly" 10x that which is easy enough to get. But a billion dollars is 10,000x as much money. And ten billion is literally the square of that $100k. it's really difficult to wrap your head around just how completely absurd that number is.
living in silicon valley, my first thought was "wow, good deal"
[QUOTE=srobins;50857513]What does that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] he's talking like 50-60k is a small amount of money
Up here in the Northeast $600,000 doesn't buy you much house. Let alone much house on a water front. Good for Bernie he's earned it. I know here in New Hampshire for a decent sized house on a pretty big lake that's on the waterfront will run you $1 million.
The joys of free market, eh Bernie? :v:
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50856698]This is what your donations paid for lol.[/QUOTE] Did Bernie have access to any of those funds directly for personal use?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50858133]The joys of free market, eh Bernie? :v:[/QUOTE] Difference here is, he saved up and sold a house to afford it. He came by the money honestly.
[QUOTE=butre;50858098]he's talking like 50-60k is a small amount of money[/QUOTE] Depending on where you live, it is? I mean, maybe not "small" but somewhere like NYC, 60k isn't a lot of money either. And in the context of the ultra-wealthy and taxing the 1%, it's like spare change.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50858133]The joys of free market, eh Bernie? :v:[/QUOTE] Ah yes, I forgot government employees wouldn't exist in socialism. Oh wait...
[QUOTE=butre;50858098]he's talking like 50-60k is a small amount of money[/QUOTE] income does scale with cost of living, generally speaking 50-60k literally would get you maybe a room with 2 roommates in the bay area
bernie has been in congress for 16 years, making $170,000+ salary, walks to work, flies coach, and generally wears over-sized clothing that looks like he got it from thrift store on impluse no controversy here, pretty sure he didnt take a penny out of his campaign cause he doesnt need to lol
[QUOTE=butre;50858098]he's talking like 50-60k is a small amount of money[/QUOTE] She* And no, 50-60k isn't a small amount. But neither is it an enormous amount. It's right around the average household income for my area. And like others said, it's in fact not that high for places such as NYC or San Francisco. Cities will have a higher average wage than rural areas and metropolitan areas are generally going to be higher than that. Either way that's actually missing the point of what I was saying. The point was that someone who isn't extremely well off (albeit far better off currently than I ever have been at any other point in my life) I'm not going to count someone as rich for making like $200k per year despite the fact that if I had an income like that myself I'd have a lot of trouble even spending it all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.