Bernie Sanders - his super pac, his Wall Street Money, his two hundred thousand dollar salary

[Sun Devil 92]

rdean being an attack dog for a corporate/bought Democrat (Repub- lite)

Say it aint so.

He'll bit himself on the ass before it's over.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

This is to funny.

Turned on his own.

 

[oreo]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

Well, if he paid into Social Security you are forced to take it at 70. Regardless this article is interesting because it comes from the Wall Street Journal.

Look--donations come in from everywhere, what is disturbing is that Sanders always accuses Clinton of getting donations from Wall Street, and apparently he's been getting them too.

 

[rdean]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

Well, if he paid into Social Security you are forced to take it at 70. Regardless this article is interesting because it comes from the Wall Street Journal.

Look--donations come in from everywhere, what is disturbing is that Sanders always accuses Clinton of getting donations from Wall Street, and apparently he's been getting them too.

Yea, but they say he's authentic.

 

[hadit]

LOL at the naïve idea that democrats are going to save the country from the Obama slide.

 

[Dot Com]

rdean being an attack dog for a corporate/bought Democrat (Repub- lite)

Say it aint so.

Bernie is trying to demonize business. He doesn't even know what too big to fail means. Ask him when a company becomes too big to fail or how do you break them up and he doesn't know. He said it needs to be studied. Something he's run on for over a year and he doesn't know? How can that be.
.

It means they're so big, like BoA for example, they take down the economy if they fail and every school child knows that the senate is owned by the banks EXCEPT for you it seems

 

[rdean]

rdean being an attack dog for a corporate/bought Democrat (Repub- lite)

Say it aint so.

Bernie is trying to demonize business. He doesn't even know what too big to fail means. Ask him when a company becomes too big to fail or how do you break them up and he doesn't know. He said it needs to be studied. Something he's run on for over a year and he doesn't know? How can that be.
.

It means they're so big, like BoA for example, they take down the economy if they fail and every school child knows that the senate is owned by the banks EXCEPT for you it seems

I don't believe you read what I wrote in post 20.

Bernie Sanders - his super pac, his Wall Street Money, his two hundred thousand dollar salary

What are they talking about in the clip you posted? Credit and debt. That's why E. Warren wants to break up the banks by what they do. Not just make larger smaller. Credit and debt carries risk. If you have a profitable company with little to no debt, it will never fail. It will never be too big to fail because it doesn't carry enough debt. And debt can be legislated. You can tell a company, any company, they can't take on more debt than a percentage of their assets.
Say in your division of the banks, you end up with a bank that handles risky loans and a bank where people put their life savings and retirement funds. If the lending bank fails, it will not affect retirement loans because they are not allowed to handle those types of accounts. And their debt would obviously be regulated at a higher level because, after all, they are lenders. But if one did fail, it would only affect the rich anyway. Some might lose their jobs, but their savings and 401 would be untouched.
Risky securities like derivatives would be easier to regulate because only lending banks can handle them.
Regulating banks and dividing them into different categories is nothing new.
Some complain about Bill Clinton signing the Glass Steagall roll back. So what if he did. It was veto proof at the time. Americans keep voting Republicans into office and we keep paying the price.

Now here is a really good but at the same time, a strange commentary by Steven Pearlstein. He tries to play both sides but his facts are excellent.

Steven Pearlstein: Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

Check this out:

Did U.S. investment banks create a shadow banking system and derivatives market outside the normal regulatory framework that encouraged sloppy lending and created what turned out to be toxic securities? You betcha.

And did regular banks make some of those bad loans and buy up some of those toxic securities? Yes, they did.

But that was as much a problem at the banks and investment banks that combined as those that remained independent. More significantly, the bulk of the money that flowed through the shadow banking system didn’t come from government-insured bank deposits. It came from money market funds, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign banks and foreign central banks.

A bank doesn’t have to have $1 trillion in assets to be too big to fail. Context matters. It depends on how much it has borrowed from, or lent to, other financial institutions. And it depends on the degree to which the banks are a counterparty on futures, credit-default swaps and other derivatives contracts.

The decision of whether an institution needs to be rescued also depends on the overall state of the market. When markets are strong, the failure of even a highly visible institution might be dismissed as a one-off event. But when markets are nervous, even the failure of a second-tier institution can spook investors and lenders to begin pulling back from all similar institutions, creating a contagion effect that can send global markets crashing.

----------------------------------

It all comes back to debt and risky loans. And allowing banks with 401's and other retirement assets to be used as collateral in risky loans.

If only Bernie could offer some explanation about what he would do. I don't believe he knows. Last night Saturday Night Live skewers Bernie over his inability to explain what he would do.
Yada yada yada.

 

[rdean]

rdean being an attack dog for a corporate/bought Democrat (Repub- lite)

Say it aint so.

Bernie is trying to demonize business. He doesn't even know what too big to fail means. Ask him when a company becomes too big to fail or how do you break them up and he doesn't know. He said it needs to be studied. Something he's run on for over a year and he doesn't know? How can that be.
.

It means they're so big, like BoA for example, they take down the economy if they fail and every school child knows that the senate is owned by the banks EXCEPT for you it seems

I don't believe you read what I wrote in post 20.

Bernie Sanders - his super pac, his Wall Street Money, his two hundred thousand dollar salary

What are they talking about in the clip you posted? Credit and debt. That's why E. Warren wants to break up the banks by what they do. Not just make larger smaller. Credit and debt carries risk. If you have a profitable company with little to no debt, it will never fail. It will never be too big to fail because it doesn't carry enough debt. And debt can be legislated. You can tell a company, any company, they can't take on more debt than a percentage of their assets.
Say in your division of the banks, you end up with a bank that handles risky loans and a bank where people put their life savings and retirement funds. If the lending bank fails, it will not affect retirement loans because they are not allowed to handle those types of accounts. And their debt would obviously be regulated at a higher level because, after all, they are lenders. But if one did fail, it would only affect the rich anyway. Some might lose their jobs, but their savings and 401 would be untouched.
Risky securities like derivatives would be easier to regulate because only lending banks can handle them.
Regulating banks and dividing them into different categories is nothing new.
Some complain about Bill Clinton signing the Glass Steagall roll back. So what if he did. It was veto proof at the time. Americans keep voting Republicans into office and we keep paying the price.

Now here is a really good but at the same time, a strange commentary by Steven Pearlstein. He tries to play both sides but his facts are excellent.

Steven Pearlstein: Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

Check this out:

Did U.S. investment banks create a shadow banking system and derivatives market outside the normal regulatory framework that encouraged sloppy lending and created what turned out to be toxic securities? You betcha.

And did regular banks make some of those bad loans and buy up some of those toxic securities? Yes, they did.

But that was as much a problem at the banks and investment banks that combined as those that remained independent. More significantly, the bulk of the money that flowed through the shadow banking system didn’t come from government-insured bank deposits. It came from money market funds, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign banks and foreign central banks.

A bank doesn’t have to have $1 trillion in assets to be too big to fail. Context matters. It depends on how much it has borrowed from, or lent to, other financial institutions. And it depends on the degree to which the banks are a counterparty on futures, credit-default swaps and other derivatives contracts.

The decision of whether an institution needs to be rescued also depends on the overall state of the market. When markets are strong, the failure of even a highly visible institution might be dismissed as a one-off event. But when markets are nervous, even the failure of a second-tier institution can spook investors and lenders to begin pulling back from all similar institutions, creating a contagion effect that can send global markets crashing.

----------------------------------

It all comes back to debt and risky loans. And allowing banks with 401's and other retirement assets to be used as collateral in risky loans.

If only Bernie could offer some explanation about what he would do. I don't believe he knows. Last night Saturday Night Live skewers Bernie over his inability to explain what he would do.
Yada yada yada.

I bet just about everyone has seen that SNL Bernie skit by now.

Yada yada yada

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

Well, if he paid into Social Security you are forced to take it at 70. Regardless this article is interesting because it comes from the Wall Street Journal.

Look--donations come in from everywhere, what is disturbing is that Sanders always accuses Clinton of getting donations from Wall Street, and apparently he's been getting them too.

Yea, but they say he's authentic.

Next to Hillary...he's the pope.

 

[Billy000]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

His super PAC funding amounts to .02% of his total campaign fundraising. I believe his biggest contributer was from a nurse Union. Who were the Wall Street backers specifically? Do you know? Clearly he could have gotten by without their support.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

His super PAC funding amounts to .02% of his total campaign fundraising. I believe his biggest contributer was from a nurse Union. Who were the Wall Street backers specifically? Do you know? Clearly he could have gotten by without their support.

Asking RDean to provide information is pretty much insane.

 

[rdean]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

His super PAC funding amounts to .02% of his total campaign fundraising. I believe his biggest contributer was from a nurse Union. Who were the Wall Street backers specifically? Do you know? Clearly he could have gotten by without their support.

Clinton: Sanders Accepted Wall Street Money Too, Indirectly

Sanders received donations from the Democratic Party’s main Senate fundraising arm, which had in turn gotten money from Wall Street.

Sanders received funding $37,300 directly from the DSCC to help win his 2006 campaign for Senate, and the party spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party, according to a recent CNN report. Some of the DSCC’s top contributors that year included Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other major banks.

--------------

If Sanders receives the nomination, he gets all that Wall Street money that Mrs. Clinton has been raising for the Democratic Party. Bet he'll stop crying then. Worse, he has not raised any money for the Democratic Party like Mrs. Clinton has. Money which goes to support other Democrats.

Bernie is a carpetbagger.

9-2-14 – Corporate Patriotism: Bernie-Style!

Oh, and Bernie has no problem signing bills that subsidize, corporate-welfare-style, certain industries that are prevalent in Vermont. So that form of welfare is OK, but others are not? And do we need Senators creating and approving 5-year plans like a Politboro hack from the 1980’s?

And corporations are the ones being unpatriotic? Bernie wants to make it harder to find a job. In a recession.

 

[rdean]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

His super PAC funding amounts to .02% of his total campaign fundraising. I believe his biggest contributer was from a nurse Union. Who were the Wall Street backers specifically? Do you know? Clearly he could have gotten by without their support.

Asking RDean to provide information is pretty much insane.

Apology accepted.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors

WASHINGTON—In nearly every speech, Bernie Sanders reminds voters that he doesn’t have a super PAC, doesn’t want money from Wall Street and rejects establishment politics.

Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

As a member of Congress, he regularly attended retreats with Wall Street lobbyists and other donors, and as a candidate for the Senate, he benefited from money that indirectly came from them. Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show.

-----------------------------------------

He is in the top 6% of wage earners.

How does he get so much money from Social Security when he makes over $170,000.00 a year in salary?

His super PAC funding amounts to .02% of his total campaign fundraising. I believe his biggest contributer was from a nurse Union. Who were the Wall Street backers specifically? Do you know? Clearly he could have gotten by without their support.

Asking RDean to provide information is pretty much insane.

Apology accepted.

Case in point.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

Bernie is a carpetbagger.

Funny hearing a Hitlery supporter calling anyone a carpetbagger.

 

[whitehall]

Socialism makes everyone equal (poor) but it doesn't apply to the elites.