2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Is Bernie Sanders Invested On Wall Street?
Railing against Wall Street on the campaign trail but still profiting from its biggest corporations
Garnet News
Marcus Johnson
Bernie Sanders’ entire campaign is based on the central themes of honesty, integrity, and trust. Sanders and his surrogates have carefully crafted his image as the only honest politician in the race, as the only person you should trust to elect as President. The argument is that while Hillary Clinton is corrupt, and beholden to big money interests, Sanders is not—he frequently touts that he doesn’t even have a Super PAC.
Perhaps Sanders biggest campaign issue is Wall Street. In the November debate, he went on record saying he believes Wall Street’s business model is illegitimate, that it is actually “fraud.” Sanders has campaigned on massive Wall Street reform, and a break-up of the big banks.
With such an anti-Wall Street platform, one would think that Sanders didn’t own any stock at all. But not only does Sanders own stock, he actually is invested in several industries that he’s heavily criticized.
Sanders has railed against the “Big Banks,” “Big Pharma,” and “Big Oil” but that hasn’t stopped him from investing in and profiting from any of those industries. I went to OpenSecrets.org to take a look at the assets Bernie Sanders reported in 2014. You can take a look at some of the funds he is invested in below: (image at link)
I looked into the holdings of several of these funds to see what kinds of companies he decided to invest in. It turns out that while Sanders is railing against Wall Street on the campaign trail, he’s actually profiting from his investments in some of the biggest corporations in America.
http://garnetnews.com/2016/04/04/bernie-sanders-invested-wall-street/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)When has Bernie ever stated he was against capitalism?
gotta love the troll bait by HRC supporters, lots o' desperation on their part...
Yavin4
(37,126 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)all know why, even if some cannot accept the reality. 
<<<--- OMG, there is a birdie!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They all have capitalist systems today. In the West a number of them have certain socialist institutions. Some have large national banks. Some have free higher public education. Many provide stipends to parents with young children. They, like we, have free education K-12 and a number of them have free or nearly free pre-school education.
The list of socialist programs, programs that function well and serve not just the interests of the people as a whole but the individuals within their society, is longer in some countries than others but at their foundations, these countries are mixed, CAPITALIST with some beneficial socialist programs.
We rank with a couple of very, very poor countries in our lack of paid family leave for new mothers. We are in terms of social programs very backward.
Bernie is popular among the younger generation precisely because he favors changing our society so that we work together and support each other.
The main reason that we don't have these beneficial socialist programs is racism. Selfish white people did not want to fund healthcare for all or pre-school for all and other such programs because they did not want to pay the costs of these programs for people of color. Sheer racism and selfishness.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)their wealth in off-shore tax haven accounts.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Hey at least be intellectually honest in your GOP type strikes...
But at least HRC has this going for her...
Yavin4
(37,126 posts)He said it. Don't blame me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)socialists are not against the stock exchange by the way. I don't blame you, I blame the atrocious American educational system. By the way you know what else is socialist in this country? GASP I KNOW... public roads, police, fire, public schools and universities (not for long if we can prevent it), Social Security, Medicare... portions of the ACA.
As I said, I blame the atrocious educational system
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)he wants his red scare back.
Yavin4
(37,126 posts)Why can't you accept it?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)sounds fine.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
elljay
(1,178 posts)for the HRC supporters to discuss her positions and why they support them. I can respect someone who has looked at the issues and made a decision based on them. A lot of people support intervention in the Middle East and international trade agreements. A lot of people are moderates. A lot of people are not interested in too much change to the way they live. Why not admit it? It makes it seem as if many HRC supporters are either truly ignorant of her positions or embarrassed that they support them, neither of which is compelling.
synergie
(1,901 posts)supporter to explain how he plans to achieve anything, but all that they seem to come up with is personal abuse, ranting against the confederacy and right wing smears about how evil she is.
I have no heard any critique of her actual policy positions, nor any comparisons to his. Those who have actually done the work, see her with workable plans and policies weighed against nothing of substance.
Why not admit that BS doesn't have any substance, that it's all just rhetoric and with no grasp on how reality works? Even his own finances and choices made are pragmatic and don't mesh well with the things he says. I mean, it's as if BS supporters truly are ignorant of how reality works in general or they truly believe that the Presidency has powers that it does not, and that little birds and magic waves of the hand will somehow address foreign policy realities, and domestic issues, and somehow create a single payer plan that hasn't been thought through, much less fleshed out. Is this the reason that instead of contrasting plans and policies, the BSers have been using right wing smears, character assassinations based on long debunked lies, and fresh new ones made up by the campaign?
Perhaps this lack off a compelling argument for Bernie, and this fondness of personal attacks from right wing sources which all apart with the least bit of research is WHY Bernie can't actually win voters, why he's losing in the pledged delegate race and the Superdelegates, who actually understand his weakness on policy and are familiar with his failure to actually effectively DO anything?
Accusing your opponents of your own flaws is easy, addressing your own deficiencies and the reams of evidence that show how this has been a problem for the BS camp really might make your scolding a bit more credible, what homework have you done, and why has it left so many supposed supporters of Bernie with nothing but right wing smears, and racist and misogynistic attacks? Why can't they argue FOR their candidate, rather than AGAINST his opponent? Do you truly have nothing here other than the name calling, the projection and the inappropriate attacks?
Take a good long look around that glass enclosure you're standing in before you throw stones.
Bernie is hoist on his own petard, here. Some homework on anyone's part would have made that apparent, but for some reason no one has bothered to do that. One wonders why.
elljay
(1,178 posts)No critique of her actual policy positions? Really? I actually work for a living, so here is the link I found in 15 seconds http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017334782
There are so many more, such as TPP support, fracking, minimum wage, intervention in ME conflicts, international trade agreements, all of which position differences you will find in oh so many postings on this site explaining why Bernie supporters do not support Hillary. Note - if you get your information from the Hillary group, you will find that pretty much anyone who has tried to post such differences has been immediately banned.
Oh, and since you proved my point by failing to point out why, precisely, you support Hillary's positions, even that you know what any of them are, you are now my first DU ignore. I have no interest in hearing from people who either do not know why they support a candidate or cannot honestly admit that they support that candidate's positions.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)And on what days?
You can't tell 'em without a scorecard.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Yes, most of the stuff you assert as her positions are not actually positions she holds, so yes, there is Soooooooooooooooooooo much, none of it based on anyone doing their homework, just hysterically asserting things that are contrary to reality.
Again, the anti-Hillary brigade is not arguing policies, just how much they *hate* her and how evil she is and then accusing her of lying, as the Daily Caller/Freeperville/virulently anti-Clinton writers who can't conceal their personal feelings hurl more personal, nonsensical crap, not an honest assessment of her ACTUAL positions, just false assertions and personal attacks.
I get my information from actual sources, not the echo chamber as you BS folks seem to enjoy doing and only from those people who only say nasty things about one candidate and fail to address anything about the other. What you'll find is that your assertions about "banning" is not based in reality or truth. If you look around, even in the Hillary group, a protected group, anything that dares to criticize Bernie in any way whatsoever, even by asking simple questions, that thread is locked. NO ONE is allowed to criticize Bernie, and any group, media person or channel that DARES is abused, as the GD-P and the archive makes abundantly clear.
The people who are banned are the ones on this site who had been happily abusing other DUers and voicing racist, misogynistic and otherwise nasty things in the happy knowledge that the BS crew would allow them to stand.
Again, you missed my point, but you did prove how you are not being honest about actually doing any research on her policy positions, the things you assert are ones where there is little difference between the two candidates. So ignore away if you must, but that's kind of the point you can't debate, you won't research and you feel the need to "ignore" when the hypocrisy of your accusations is pointed out,.
When you have no ability to withstand anything that challenges your false and ignorant notions about things you've made no effort to learn about, you are choosing willful ignorance, and then projecting it.
It's how the BS crew here works, and that's not true of people who actually support Bernie in real life, in my experience, they at least LISTEN and have the capacity to LEARN. You have nothing but misinformation and attacks against me and HRC, and NOTHING to support Bernie. Which speaks volumes as to why he's losing, and why so many roll their eyes at his campaign and his eager if ignorant supporters who seem to be fact averse and fond of emotional hatred rather than actual discussion.
Thank you for making my point, and proving that you choose to project and have clearly not done your research from actual sources. The echo chamber is a dangerous thing, we've learned this from the CONS who troll here, it's sad that some need to emulate that model of advocacy.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)So, why then does he invest in it?
Again, seems counterproductive that he invests in these institutions all while condemning them.
Condemns fossil fuels.. and invests in them. Same with Fracking.
Also, it's not troll bait. This is the platform that he stakes everything on, and is the most vocal in his criticism of others. Is it not at all fair to point out that he invests in the very things he condemns?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Again, point out where Bernie is or has made anti-capitalism statements or policy?
I'd love to live in meritocracy but smarter more intelligent folks aren't lifted up in this society like they should be...
Does that make me anti-democratic?
Nope... it just makes me want to work within the 'fabric' that we've created within this society to get closer to a meritocracy
Bernie is trying to work within the capitalism that this society has currently to make it work for us all rather than for the wealthy few
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)It's straight up dishonesty. Must be contagious, Hillary is patient zero.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)'dishonest'? HOW?
Name the other economic system that the US supports that Bernie can use to invest in... I'll wait...
George II
(67,782 posts)....on the news, every stump speech, every debate.
But, here is his Public Financial Disclosure Report:
http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000528_2015_Pres.pdf
DOZENS of investments in Wall Street securities and mutual funds.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)yeah.. please run with that meme, it's working SO well for you and HRC isn't it? notice the momentum and surge that's occurring through this primary cycle? Which candidate is all that moving towards, whose stump speeches and debates are resonating?
Remember MI and that primary?...
PLEASE keep trying to push your narrative attempts, your candidate is Bernie's best advocate with all these...
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)THIS is desperation:
"When has Bernie ever stated he was against capitalism? "
Great gods and goddesses.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)And I'm eating it too!!
Is what I think.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Sanders isn't trying to eliminate banking or investing, just trying address the fraud and abuse. You knew that... right? 
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)THen you can make shit up! 
synergie
(1,901 posts)because his trademark rants about Walls Street don't include much nuance, and his attack strategy isn't about fraud or abuse, but you knew that, right? 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as them complaining about online vitriol.
TheBlackAdder
(29,367 posts).
Of course, the nuance of this post will be ignored, reinforcing its point.
.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Sanders isn't saying that anything involving banks or investment is bad, but that some of the specific actions Wall Street and big banks have done is bad.
But as for why he invests in it, that's the only realistic plan for a full retirement or inheritance we have. Social Security is designed as a minimum. And the Congressional plan is supposed to be pretty good. Not investing in it would be foolish. Sort of like how people like Warren Buffet say they should pay higher rates, yet don't send the government more than the law requires.
polly7
(20,582 posts)money .... he wasn't smart enough to save or invest it wisely.
Response to synergie (Original post)
Post removed
Joob
(1,065 posts)He invested into corporations
Corporations invested into Hillary
Umm...?
He made money off of corporations
Corporations gave Hillary money??
You know what? I'm going to screenshot that article, this is hilarious.
He played the corporations and made money lol
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)corporation proportionately more money?
"he played the corporations and made mone LOL" That's funny.
Joob
(1,065 posts)you're candidate Hillary will get more money from the corporations so she stays in that little pocket.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Bernie's opposition to Wall Street isn't its existence, FFS. It's Wall Street's excesses, to the poisonous greed that's created radical wealth inequality, to it's destruction of our industrial base, etc. He doesn't want to eliminate Wall Street, but to neuter its political power and reform its excesses.
The writer of that article is either agenda-driven...or a simpleton.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)They rolled that one out apparently thinking that people who are angry about their lack of opportunity just hate rich people, when the truth is they don't care who has access to gov't funded college education as long as their kids have better opportunities.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I have often found that these aren't either or propositions.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)How can someone write such an article. It says a lot more about the author than about Bernie.
Bernie invests in funds. He doesn't play the stock market.
Bernie wants to break UP the banks -- into smaller banks -- not break the banks.
A Democratic Socialist is essentially a capitalist who wants to use some of the gains from capitalism to do what the Bible says we should do -- help each other and especially the poor and those who are less fortunate than ourselves. A Democratic Socialist is one who does exactly what the managers of the funds that Bernie invests in does -- try to balance investments and the use of resources including money for the best profit for all investors.
And in the case of government, the investors are ALL OF US, all voters, all citizens, all residents and even the world.
The author needs to sit down and talk to Bernie.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)n/t
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)About 1 OP per hour with the same BS talking point.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Is he supposed to bury his savings in his backyard? His criticisms of Wall Street have to do with systemic economic problems.
Socialism is not a lifestyle choice.
People who are lucky enough to have investments for security/retirement are not hypocrites if they wish the system didn't work that way. Especially if they are dedicating their life's work to making it all more equitable.
smdh
polly7
(20,582 posts)Someone told me the other day he was slopping at the public trough earning money as a politician.
Very strange, the things they're coming up with.
renate
(13,776 posts)And pay his bills with little bits of string.
You're right. This is just absurd. I try to be polite here on DU (and elsewhere), but I genuinely wonder whether some people understand the difference between sensibly investing one's money in order to have some financial security in old age and being a lobbyist for banking regulations that favor the 0.01%.
LexVegas
(6,659 posts)
yodermon
(6,152 posts)for fucks sake this is pathetic.
MADem
(135,425 posts)One lousy summary that tells us he paid less tax as a percentage of his income than a poverty wage worker filing a Form EZ does NOT acquit him well at all.
And what's up with that 56K worth of deductions? He's got more deductions than most Americans have PAY....!
senz
(11,945 posts)Guess what? I don't have to read this ignorance. 
Adios!
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)institutions he invests into.
polly7
(20,582 posts)recklessness and the illegal dealings of those they've invested it with and whose actions "nearly destroyed the U.S. and global economy.
"Millions of Americans lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings.” Sanders continued, “While Wall Street received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world with no strings attached, the American middle class continues to disappear, poverty is increasing and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider.”
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/10-powerful-reasons-why-bernie-scares-wall-street
Where does he blame any individual for putting their money and trust in a bank? Where should they put it??
panader0
(25,816 posts)Response to synergie (Original post)
Stand and Fight This message was self-deleted by its author.
ibegurpard
(17,004 posts)And that many people lost their retirement investments in 08.
The financial industry scammed the public into scrapping pensions for 401K and mutual funds in the 80s and 90s. Oh yeah... they're STILL trying to get us to throw Social Security into the pot as well and I sure as shit don't trust Hillary Clinton to safeguard it.
yodermon
(6,152 posts)likely his 401k or other retirement account.
Wow. We're apparently entering "kitchen sink" mode and this is the best they can do.
Can we go back to talking about Castro again? Soviet honeymoons?
Don't forget Jane. I'm sure the tax returns are chock full of her nefarious activities. <--there you just read it on the internet!! pass it on.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Millions and millions of Americans have some part of their retirement savings (401Ks, mutual funds) invested in companies listed on Wall Street.
That is galaxies apart from glued-at-the-hip fealty to Wall Street.
Hill fans: sorry you're feeling so insecure lately, but try to get some perspective.
Nanjeanne
(5,945 posts)investing in a retirement fund.
He's like to make Wall Street investments safer for everyone - especially those who are dependent on their 401Ks.
Are people really that dense?
synergie
(1,901 posts)And he's against the industries he invests in, in fact he rails against them. Perhaps you missed the forest for the trees here, and yes people do seem to be quite dense about the actual point here.
But I guess when the facts kinda point out the hypocrisy of his rhetoric and his attacks, denseness protects one from the cognitive dissonance of someone railing against the very industries his own funds are invested in.
Nanjeanne
(5,945 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)There are other choices out there.
Nanjeanne
(5,945 posts)stocks.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Hell, some of the funds he's already invested in doesn't have any of those ties (Valic Social awareness fund to name one that has no ties).
On a personal level, I agree this is no big deal. Just about anyone who has a retirement plan likely has similar investments (I know I do). However, not everyone has made their platform condemning said businesses.
synergie
(1,901 posts)The desperate spin and cognitive dissonance is amusing.
synergie
(1,901 posts)much vaunted integrity. But hey, let's not hold him accountable for any hypocrisy or anything. His college students might be able to educate him on why they're asking their institutions to divest from industries that BS is busy railing against, but also investing in.
I mean, extremism is way better than actually doing things, right?
beedle
(1,235 posts)so you can then accuse him of being in the bag for "big wind".
Admit it, if he had any investments other than very generic mutual funds you'd be finding a way to claim that his choices showed he was in some kind of conflict of interest.
synergie
(1,901 posts)it's not coming from me or the HRC camp, or anyone sane.
Admit it, you just don't understand how or why he's been hoist on his own petard here, and but you know it's pretty bad, so you're desperately trying to spin this into something less ridiculously hypocritical, aren't you?
You still don't get why his rants and his rhetoric make what he does personally rather part of the conversation HE introduced, do you?
Conflict of interest in situations like these is a moronic argument to make, it's why it's blowing back on him hard, and why you're all so upset about it. Neither you nor Bernie has a leg to stand on here.
beedle
(1,235 posts)you don't have a clue what a mutual fund is.
You might as well be claiming he's in bed with the credit card companies because he uses credit cards.
He's in bed with the oil industry because he drives a car
He's in bed with big banks because he has a checking account
Meanwhile Clinton is taking more than 200K for a fucking secret speech.
If you can't see the different they there is only one person making a 'moronic argument'.
think
(11,641 posts)Wednesday, 20 January 2016 00:00
By The Daily Take Team, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed
If you watched Sunday's Democratic debate, you learned something interesting about Bernie Sanders: he voted for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, something Hillary Clinton was all too eager to point out when the two of them got to talking about Wall Street reform.
Sounds pretty bad, right? The guy who goes on and on about how bad Wall Street is actually voted for the bill that crashed economy. So much for all that "political revolution" stuff.
But here's the thing: Hillary Clinton isn't telling a true story about Bernie Sanders and his vote for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or CFMA.
As Robert Scheer has pointed out over at Truthdig, then-Congressman Sanders voted for the CFMA, not because he wanted to, but because he had to.
The CFMA had been shoved into an omnibus spending bill at the last minute as part of a deal between Republicans and President Bill Clinton, and because this was a time when, you know, Congress actually did its job, Sanders bit the bullet and voted for the whole package - CFMA included - to keep the government open.
~Snip~
So what's Gary Gensler - the guy who promoted the CFMA - up to today? Oh, you know, nothing big. He's just the chief financial officer of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Yep, that's right, the CFO of the Hillary Clinton Campaign!...
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34497-the-most-disingenuous-attack-on-bernie-yet
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)owner-interest in speaking out against Wall Street criminal or unethical acts. Therefore, Bernie has standing and his case against Wall Street may proceed.
lakeguy
(1,645 posts)hide his money under the pillow?
synergie
(1,901 posts)divest from funds that invest in industries that he claims to find so reprehensible. Or is he excuse from having to EVER do anything that might match his supposed principles?
Either he is the "jesus like" perfectly principled idealists, or he's a politician saying things while making money by supporting the very things he rails against. Which is it?
inchhigh
(384 posts)His investments are through TIAA Cref (Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association) a non profit investment company in Charlotte, NC and VALIC (Variable Annuity Life Incsurance Company) headquartered in Amerillo, TX. They are both specialists in non-profit Retirement planning and neither is from Wall Street.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)include the industries he rails against and insists are evil on their own?
So these retirement planning investment companies don't invest in Wall Street, and that's not 'technically' true?
I'm sorry, but you're factually and technically incorrect. That's the problem with purity politics, those claiming to be so pure, rarely are, and they cannot live up to their own rhetoric. These are silly attacks he's making and they backfire on him when he fails to do anything more than superficial analysis of what he's saying in his desperation to attack his opponent.
He's technically hoist on his own petard. He should have stuck to actual issues, rather than engaging in poo flinging, he's getting hit by it himself.
jfern
(5,204 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Might spare you a bit of egg on your face.
jfern
(5,204 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)
revbones
(3,660 posts)Sanders is not anti-invesment. Just against banks robbing consumers and companies such as Goldman Sachs robbing all of us.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Plenty of people who are doing what the media has not and are vetting Bernie have found stuff that contradicts his rhetoric and his hype. His voting record also doesn't quite reflect that. But by all means, continue to pretend that David Brock and HRC are somehow to blame for everything that reflects poorly on Bernie, I guess it beats looking at him clearly and asking him to provide a clear vision and plan for accomplishing his agenda. 
revbones
(3,660 posts)His previous m-o was saying things like "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" as part of his slime. He runs a pro-Hillary super-PAC that owns propaganda outlet Blue Nation Review, and he often uses that or Media Matters now to push stupid attacks like this one.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)This is the best you have? Someone who has never said they want capitalism to go away is bad because they invest money.
If this is one of the talking points that came out today, then Sanders has the nomination locked in the bag because this smells of desperation.
OMG! Bernie is workig within the capitalist system as it exists today. Shame on him for not keeping his retirement funds in the mason jar under the sink!
That sounds almost as bad as screaming COMMUNIST!
If that is all the Clintonites have left, Berniie has this in the bag
mainer
(12,313 posts)If the best they can do is scream "Bernie's saving for his retirement!"
mainer
(12,313 posts)What, that's not the point you were trying to disseminate?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Wall Street it is amazing he would risk his savings there. Must be he realizes most of it is not fraudulent.
Stallion
(6,620 posts)Shame shame shame
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)That's the way the system works.
I don't blame him for doing what's necessary to secure an adequate, though not flashy retirement, and I admire him for criticizing the system that demands such games to survive old age. I'm lucky enough to have a small retirement account too, and I am doing the same thing. But that doesn't stop me from being angered at a capitalist system that screws over so many people and cheerfully destroys the environment.
Also, I looked at Bernie's holdings. Looks to me as though he's of the "socially responsible investors" type. But I'm sure you won't let that stop you from bashing him.
Thanks for sharing another Point 3 of the 10 Point Plan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-democrats-10-point-plan-lose-election_b_9605608.html
alarimer
(16,957 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And Clinton feels sorry for Bernie supporters???
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)If he say's their business model is fraud, can he also say: "Complicity"??
Autumn
(47,501 posts)401Ks and IRAs are invested in the stock market so people won't live under bridges when they get old.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)He is a hypocrite.
Obviously you have no problem with climate change and air polution because you breath poluted air every day.
Moronic OP.
When you live in a pile of shit, you are going to get dirty. It does not mean you enjoy it or roll around and make merry in it.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts) jfern
(5,204 posts)The two aren't exclusive.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why has Bernie made such an unwise move? Investing in a fraud scheme when that's what he thinks it is?
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)and those wanting to change the fucked up system would like to be able to eat and have a dry roof over our heads in our retirement, like you.
Jeebuz, where do you folks get your pathetic talking points?
treestar
(82,383 posts)if Wall Street is as he thinks it is, he should put in savings as that would be safer. At least there it won't be used for fraud or stolen. Why invest in what you think is a fraud? Wouldn't you be afraid of losing that money? That's the point. If it is as he says it is, he will have no money for food, dry roof when Wall Street steals it all from him. How hard is that to understand? That's a question, you can't dodge it by calling it a "talking point."
Face it, Bernie does not really believe Wall Street is going to steal his money or he would put it somewhere else. Gold, some more honest exchange if there is one, land, whatever, why put it where you think it is going to be stolen?
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)but I certainly relate to him in trying to navigate an unfair system in an attempt to live an independent old age. Gold and land are investments rife with unfairness and abuses, as I'm sure you well know--abuses every bit as serious as Wall St. stock investments.
It's the system! I don't criticize ordinary workers for trying to make their way through it so they don't wind up a burden to their children in their old age. But I hate the system, i believe it's corrupt, and I want it changed. If the change results in my puny IRA going south, then so be it. I believe Bernie will try and change it and Hillary won't.
Re-reading my post I realize I'm defending Bernie because I am able to relate to him. Something I am unable to do with HRC.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and lost everything end up being a burden on their children?
Obviously, people still think that investing in stocks will make them money. They don't believe it is a corrupt fraud, and neither does Bernie.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)Lord, you people are so determined to win, you are not listening to the very honest concerns and critiques of Bernie supporters.
And as we drift off one by one, good luck in November.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I mean of course people want their person to win - the one they support.
It's obvious to that most people don't buy the extreme rhetoric about Wall Street, including Bernie.
If Hillary and her campaign can be criticized, why can't Bernie's? Bernie is exaggerating a bit on the subject.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)You are saying a person or candidate can't be involved in a system if they are sincere about wanting to change it. I say yes they can. When you say Bernie can't, you are saying I can't either. Yeah, that gets a little personal. HRC is heavily invested, much more so than Bernie, and I don't fault her on that. But there is certainly a difference in degree of Wall Street involvement, wouldn't you agree?
Seriously, what's left of the lower middle class is desperately trying to hang on and you're saying the candidate we most closely identify with is a hypocrite? You'll have trouble winning over votes with that.
jfern
(5,204 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)a foreign exchange? Why invest even a tiny bit if its in something fraudulent?
jfern
(5,204 posts)Mutual funds tend to invest in wide variety of sources. Think of the S&P 500, that could be a mutual fund.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You said he only had a tiny bit in Wall Street. It's all Wall Street.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts) 
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
What?
Cha
(308,486 posts)
Hekate
(96,628 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The Bernie hypocrisy abounds, one day many will see it as clearly as other do.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)He isn't a super rich person. He has to invest for his retirement just like the rest of us. I also own stock, and I am critical of Wall Street. But my husband and I want a retirement.
jillan
(39,451 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,562 posts)It's nearly impossible to NOT own stock in modern America. If you have a 401K or IRA, you own stock. There is no where else to put your money. They have rigged the game that way. If your only investments are a savings account, you're a fool. And if Bernie doesn't have any investable money with a salary of $200,000 or whatever, he's a fool. Besides, if you think Bernie is against companies and investors making money period, you are very much missing the point.