Sanders Institute: total 2017 donations:$459K. Total spent on salaries for Jane's son and 2 other

[pnwmom]

staffers: about $250K.

So staffer salaries (not including any other overhead) for this Think Tank cost more than half of donations. By IRS regulation, the purpose of the Institute must be non-partisan. Are the "Fellows" paid? What exactly does the Sanders Institute do?

If Bernie Sanders plans to run in 2020, maybe he should reconsider this.

https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/29/sanders-institute-little-show-first-year-500k/

Less attention has been paid to The Sanders Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit without disclosure requirements whose mission must be chiefly non-partisan. A VTDigger analysis of organization’s maiden year found little original work from the think tank, which took in nearly a half-million dollars in contributions and grants last year.

SNIP

Jane Sanders wears many hats at the institute: founder, fellow, fundraiser and a non-voting member of the board of directors. The institute is being run by her son, David Driscoll, a political neophyte who previously worked at Burton Snowboards. His estimated salary for the job is $100,000.

SNIP

In a June 2017 interview with USA Today, Jane Sanders said the institute would be producing and distributing “original content,” yet the organization’s website is largely filled with recycled work. In its first year, the group has released just four press releases, three of which were released in its first month of existence.

Under the organization’s “Research and Reports” section of its website, there are 18 posts, 16 of which are reposted from other sources, including from federal agencies and institute fellows. The remaining two posts are authored by Sanders Institute staffers. One is a breakdown of how citizens can contact their elected representatives; the text of the other — entitled A Freedom Budget For All Americans — is attributed to Wikipedia.

SNIP

Neither Jane nor any of the founding fellows are paid. There are just three paid staffers: Driscoll (whose estimated salary is $100,000), Ellyn Heald, who directs the fellows program, and Colleen Lineweaver, the director of research. (Tax documents estimate Heald and Lineweaver’s annual salaries at around $75,000 each.)

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=813250230


Foundation Status Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)

Deductibility Contributions are deductible

Affiliation Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).

Group Name [Not Applicable]

Ruling Date December, 2017

Asset Amount $159,308

Income Amount $459,206

Form 990 Revenue Amount $459,206

Latest Form 990 Return December, 2017

[Me.]

1. Frankly Reminds Me Of When Jane Paid Her Daughter

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2018, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Big cash from the Burlington College Funds.

Can you imagine if the Clinton Foundation was being run like this?

[pnwmom]

2. Yes, the article makes that connection, too. n/t

[DFW]

28. I actually got to discuss that very subject with Bill Clinton

He remarked that when he was in office, many charity initiatives that were government-sponsored had expenses that ate up 25% of the total budget. He then said that his post-presidency initiatives managed to get expenses down to 4% of the total budget. To the obvious question of "how come the expenses were so high before?" he immediately answered, "because we were stupid, that's why!"

[Me.]

41. The Clintons Always Had A Good Charity Watch Rating As Far As I Can Tell

and I'm glad they got expenses down. But three salaries which eat up 50% of the budget is due to a pattern and not stupidity in my opinion

[DFW]

94. Well.....

It doesn't seem to be the result of mismanagement or carelessness, if that's what you mean. With so few employees, it hardly seems like an oversight. Maybe they had fixed the salaries in advance and hoped for a bigger budget? I have no insight into their organization, just the numbers that we all see.

[Me.]

99. You Would Have A Point

if this wasn't developing into a pattern where her children are concerned

[DFW]

102. True

I was trying to ignore the unignorable in search of the improbable.

[Me.]

104. ...

[George II]

69. So the Clinton Foundation early on went from 25% to 4%. The Sanders Institute....

....has a long way to go from 54%.

[DFW]

93. Only if you assume that is a goal of theirs

I have no knowledge of what they consider to be an optimal ratio.

[DFW]

103. Also, to clarify:

It wasn't the expenses of the Clinton Foundation or the CGI that went down from 25% to 4%. Bill Clinton was making the comparison of the expenses incurred by government organizations to the ones he set up after he left office. The post presidency outfits he set up do not deserve credit for bringing down their expenses from 25% to 4% because those outfits never had expenses as high as 25% to begin with. They had already wised up, probably aided by a lack of bureaucratic baggage that Clinton's people had already shed before getting started.

[George II]

105. I realized that this morning and was going to correct myself. They started out at a very low....

....expense rate.

[lapucelle]

58. Maybe it's different when it's "fellows" at an "institute".

Is Senator Nina Turner a fellow?

[joshcryer]

66. She made millions doing ad buys for Sanders' campaign.

All the ad buys for his campaign were done through Old Towne Media LLC, to the tune of $80 million dollars. A company founded by Jane Sanders' old friends Shelli Hutton-Hartig and Barbara Abar Bougie. I'm sure that she was a "consultant" on those ad buys and that's why the Sanders' won't release their tax returns.

[Me.]

74. We Really Need To See Tax Returns From That Family

[Gothmog]

88. A couple of blue states will have ballot access laws in place for 2020

Sanders will not be able to get onto the ballot unless he releases these returns

[Me.]

98. Good

it's past time he was made to walk his talk

[George II]

68. If it works the way the Vermont Woodworking School worked, the Sanders Institute...

...will go belly up soon.

[grantcart]

70. For a carpentry operation and Burlington closed.

[spooky3]

3. Are they paid benefits too? That's another 30-40%.

[NCTraveler]

4. Continuing a long trend. Nt

[MrsCoffee]

5. I don't think he will run in 2020.

He knows he won’t skate by without being vetted again. He can’t even handle showing his tax returns.

He only gets one pass.

[Gothmog]

89. Under the ballot access laws for a couple of blue states, he will have to release tax returns

I also doubt that sanders will run in 2020. He will not have a choice about releasing all of his tax returns

[Hekate]

6. That's -- interesting. Thanks, pnwmom.

By the way, you okay in your area?

[pnwmom]

8. You're welcome, hekate.

It's kind of cloudy here, but I don't know if it's just weather-related cloudiness or smoke-related. But we're not near the fire itself. Thanks for asking!

[Lucinda]

7. KNR

[JCanete]

9. ooh, a maybe there's an ethical issue here, maybe there isn't post. That is precious little

information to go on to determine whether or not this institute is doing as advertised, and those salaries don't seem outside the realm of normalcy for these sorts of things, do they?

I'm not sure what work they are doing but VTDigger's perusal of their website doesn't seem comprehensive, nor do I trust that source to be unbiased. If they dig up something more substantial more power to them. All of our politicians should be scrutinized and challenged. But this is more weak sauce.

[SidDithers]

10. Unskew those polls!!...nt

Sid

[R B Garr]

11. For the zillionth time, this is about the glaring double standards wherein he holds

Democrats to standards that he does not abide by himself. "precious little information" didn't prevent him from blaming certain Democrats and Democrats in general of all kinds of improprieties. When half your donations go to family salaries, then that looks improper. Sanders' is very concerned with how Democrats may look improper, all without proof and with "precious little information" to go on.

[JCanete]

12. I would agree with you if I thought this rose to that level. But 100,000 for a year is a standard

salary for this sort of thing. If you argue that its nepotism, ....well okayyyy, but it doesn't appear to be a striking level of embezzlement or anything. I mean, I can't speak to what actually is going on there, and its not like I literally know these people personally, but this is not at all the same thing as being cozy with very big money institutions...it is not the same thing at all as getting huge speaking fees from institutions politicians are supposed to regulate. That casts an entirely different cloud whether there was any real impropriety or not.

[pnwmom]

14. In Vermont for someone with zero experience in a job like this? No, it isn't "standard."

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2018, 02:18 PM - Edit history (3)

The average salaries for Program Managers in VT non-profits range from about $80-82K. And jobs like that usually require experience.

But Driscoll's non-profit was founded by his mom, so I guess she waived any experience requirement.

https://www1.salary.com/VT/Program-Manager-Non-Profit-salary.html

[R B Garr]

16. Being "cozy with very big money institutions" is the exact kind of "precious little information"

you are disgruntled about being brought up about Sanders. And I see you revert to the something/something corporations as the standard answer to anything and everything. There is no proof ever provided of policy influenced by speeches, but Tad Devine? That is certainly interesting.

[DFW]

34. What rings the alarm bells

It is not whether the salaries are "standard" or not, but rather that out of a $459,000 budget, that over 50% of the money went for salaries. The next logical question is: how many salaries were paid out of the $250,000, and when the answer is, "three," THEN one might be forgiven for asking who received the payouts.

[JCanete]

35. Well you tell me, typically when peopel are hired to run such institutions, are they

assigned a percentage of the total donations to act as their salary, or are their salaries specified? I would expect the typical case to be the latter, but this isn't my area of expertise. So if this institution took in more money, I wouldn't expect those salaries to be any higher, but if it took in less, wouldn't there still be an expectation to pay those hired to run it at the rate they were hired?

[pnwmom]

76. With so little money to handle, it's hard to understand why they need 3 people handling it. n/t

[JCanete]

78. Well is that what they are all getting paid to do? Handle the money? Or to work on projects?

The thing that's dumb about this article, among many things, is that it doesn't bother to show a comparison of output from fledgling organizations on average, or a range of outputs depending on long-term versus short-term goals...which admittedly would be hard...but

they are making assertions that they are pulling presumably out of thin air, about what exactly should be produced by this time, and they aren't even getting into how long the things the team did produce might have taken in research and composition. That seems entirely absent in their piece. They didn't say "and it's one page with bullet points..." They just said the organization has only done a couple of things that its made public. and then it says this, without at all bothering to account for man hours...


"The most significant original report The Sanders Institute has been involved with advocated for Medicare For All, and was completed in conjunction with the National Nurses United (NNU), a labor union that threw its support behind Sanders’ presidential bid. Sanders Institute fellow Michael Lighty, as well as Jane Sanders and Driscoll, helped draft the report, which was funded by NNU"


Also, don't you find anything astonishingly disingenuous about calling a fledgling organization like Our Revolution's results mixed, when by the articles own admission Our Revolution has around a 50 percent success rate? Is that mixed success really? Heh...yeah, technically. But nobody would say that shit if a new Baseball team were created and it went 500 in its first couple seasons. Especially if it were playing without cleats and mitts. The article also seems to simply want to talk shit. VTDIGGER is never focused. it just throws everything at the wall that is disparaging of Sanders. Why is the Our Revolution stuff even in this piece?

[pnwmom]

82. As far as I can tell, their only "project" is the website and the content on it.

And most of the content is articles posted by their Fellows, for free, and other articles re-posted from other sites.

I don't think the donors of $459K got their money's worth, unless their chief aim was to pay good salaries to the three staffers.

Compare the web page of David Driscoll, Jane's son, to that of Ellyn Heald, Program Director, and Colleen Jackson, the research director.

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/about/staff/driscoll

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/about/staff/heald

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/about/jackson

[Gothmog]

91. No that is not standard and may be a violation of the tax code

There are no contingent fee type non-profits in the real world where the employees make a percentage of the money raised. Such an arrangement does not pass the smell test and is not done in the real world. I will check with my tax partner but I am sure that this type of arrangement is illegal. It is clearly unethical

[JCanete]

92. I know that. Or I assumed that. This is not seemingly what is happening is it? They are taking a

salary as defined. Which means that it has no bearing on how much money the institute takes in. So people pointing out that it is half of what the institution has as of yet taken in...I'm not sure what their point is. and this isn't a charity. the money taken in seems like it is designed to pay for the research and the studies produced, which means it isn't a surprise that it would go to staffing. The point is, at this point this is a non-story unless you want to hit the nepotism angle hard. Sadly that's not an area that is particularly favorable to a lot of our politicians.

On the other hand, if I missed some evidence that suggests these employees are actually taking a percentage of the funding coming in, by all means produce that.

[R B Garr]

100. I can think of many qualified people who would work for far less

than $100,000 per year. To not be accountable to anyone while earning 6-figures is especially grand.

You keep trying to dismiss the article, but you actually confirm the information provided, which is that there is little to show for their efforts except salaries to family members. The article states that the VTDigger tried to get copies of their produced work, like the Nurses Association report, but they were refused. You keep leaving the relevant parts out.

[uponit7771]

18. +1

[pnwmom]

13. Where's the transparency he's always calling for? n/t

[Me.]

15. Quite!

[brush]

77. Come on. Half the money raised goes to 3 salaries. That's hardly weak sauce.

Much, much higher than other charities.

[JCanete]

79. The Sanders Institute isn't a charity. It is a think tank. nt

[brush]

80. It's a charity for Jane's son and the other two employees.

But seriously, the ratio of salaries v money raise is much too out of wack to similar organizations.

And there's hardly any output. What are they doing to earn those generous salaries?

[JCanete]

81. You don't know what the output is. VTDigger doesn't. They have no idea how many manhours

the work they did with the Nurse's association took, nor do they seem to care. They didn't do much research at all. They don't know whether some of the institution's goals are long-term projects that will come out later, nor do they seem to care. They were told that a piece for the UN had been completed but all they care about is that they so far can't see it. I get that they asked some questions which they have yet to get answers for, but the organization may have good reasons to be hesitant about presenting anything that is not fully cooked.

I'm not saying I have any idea. But clearly VTDigger doesn't have any idea, and that makes this a silly article.

[brush]

83. Only 3 original pieces on web site since inception. Since then just aggregate stuff.

Does it only exist to provide a job for Jane's son and two others?

[JCanete]

84. You didn't bother to answer any of the questions I raised. I undertand that addressing them

might take effort and might yield inconvenient returns, but there are plenty of people who will be entertained by your surface-level analysis, if you prefer.

[brush]

86. I have no responsibility to answer any questions from you when the OP...

plainly says that there are only three original pieces of output on the web site.

Your defense of that family is oh so special but there is a history of funneling money to family members—see the hundreds of thousands to a woodworking shop of a daughter which contributed to the closing of a college, and now a 100k job for a son.

Answer your own questions and maybe the nepotism will be as obvious to you as it is to many of us.

[Gothmog]

90. This is not normal for a non-profit that is actually helping people

Exactly what qualifications do the employees have other than being related to a member of the sanders family?

[Power 2 the People]

17. Oooooooh good. Another Bernie bashing thread to feed the insatiable thirst

of the same handful of posters. Let it go already!

[link:|]

[pnwmom]

21. Why is it Bernie-bashing to discuss the Sanders Institute and how it spends its money?

If Bernie wins the nomination, don't you think that issue will come up in the General?

Shouldn't Bernie be preparing now to answer questions about the Institute?

Or should we just sweep it all under the carpet now and wait for the GOP candidate, in the general election, to lift up the carpet and see what's underneath?

[Gothmog]

39. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet

[JonLP24]

43. The GOP attacks on Bernie are weak compared to the stuff

That I see everyday on this forum. There's only a few of us left on this board so you're really preaching to the chior.

[pnwmom]

45. That's because he hasn't been the nominee. If he had been the nominee instead of Hillary,

the GOP would be throwing the kitchen sink at him.

And nothing about my OP is an attack. We only have a year and half till the primaries. It is time for ALL candidates to get their political houses in order.

[JonLP24]

46. I meant overall on this board

But you don't seem to share the same concern with Avenatti who really would need to get his house in order if he we to run for politics and the GOP can make up some BS or throw in something real with him too.

[pnwmom]

47. I think he is FAR less than Bernie to be the nominee, but of course

if he has issues he should take care of them.

[Farmer-Rick]

32. Same tactics the Russian trolls used during the presidential election

They kept bringing up the possible injuries Bernie or Hillary may or may not have suffered at the hands of establishment Dems or more liberal Dems. Imagined and real injuries were brought up over and over. This encouraged infighting and bickering. Eventually the 2 camps split, losing votes and the election.

[Power 2 the People]

33. I agree Rick. That's why it has to stop.

There is definitely an effort to split us Dems with all of the Bernie bashing. Even if I'm not 100% happy with a candidate in the general I am voting BLUE. Others may be so disgusted by the divisive comments that they may not do that. That scares me. We need to do better and focus our efforts on unifying the party,not dividing it.

[Farmer-Rick]

37. Absolutely

We can't repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

54. Oh please. We are not talking about Russian trolls. Just angry shut-ins.

[R B Garr]

59. Your projections are rather amusing.

California is the most progressive state and it went Hillary. Tens of millions -- All angry shut-ins??

[leftstreet]

65. ...

[yardwork]

49. Since you just joined DU in May 2018 this must be all new to you.

[NurseJackie]

51. You and I are on the same wavelength.

Thanks for saying what I'm thinking.

[Power 2 the People]

56. Anybody new must be a troll??? Grow up

So original! Diminishing anyone who doesn't share your opinions says more about you than it does me. I've done a lot more for the Democratic party over the years than just post on a message board. I guess your 18,000 posts on DU trumps 40 years of activism.

The gleeful posting and re-posting of anti-Bernie propaganda is hurting the cause. It's turning off the young people who support Bernie that come to DU. We need their votes in 2018 and 2020. This nonsense doesn't help.

[Power 2 the People]

52. Been on DU for about 4 years.

Thom Hartmann turned me on to it. Came for all of the articles and discussions. Only decided to start participating this spring because I retired and couldn't sit back while progressives I admire were unfairly disparaged. I'm just hoping we can learn from the election of Agent Orange and unify as Dems for 2018 and 2020.

[R B Garr]

57. +++++

[NurseJackie]

50. Nobody is "bashing" Bernie.

Another Bernie bashing thread

Nobody is "bashing" Bernie.

[Voltaire2]

19. We have a fascist in the White House and a huge

election coming up where we all have to pull together to win, and some of us insist on aggravating the divisions.

Why?

[pnwmom]

20. I think it would be a wise idea, if Bernie is going to run, for him to shut down this "Think Tank"

or at least make sure it is doing good with the donations it is receiving.

Don't you think our candidates should be as strong as possible?

[Voltaire2]

31. 2018.

You want to fight Bernie, save it for 2020.

[pnwmom]

42. If I was trying to FIGHT him, I'd be happy to let him string along with

this foundation, as-is.

But because I think he might run, and I want our candidate to be as strong as possible, whoever it is, I think Bernie should fix this problem now, not wait till it's too late.

[R B Garr]

29. "Aggravating the divisions" would be to have a whole different set of standards for Democrats

than the ones Sanders' himself attacks them about. Transparency, for instance, like taxes and explaining family salaries for your own family while tarnishing others with the patina of corruption and wrongdoing while offering no proof.

[DURHAM D]

22. Did you know this?

Link to tweet

I had no idea.

[pnwmom]

23. I never heard that, and I don't know who that Tweeter is, but I just found this about Credico,

who appeared to support Sanders for a while in the primaries but switched to Jill Stein for the General.

Also, Robert Mueller just subpoenaed Credico.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/11/30/the-intermediary-between-roger-stone-and-wikileaks-was-a-sanders-supporter/

On August 21st, a month and a half before Wikileaks released the first set of emails from John Podesta, Roger Stone tweeted, “Trust me, it will soon [be] Podesta’s time in the barrel.” That, as well as other revelations from Stone about their activities, led a lot of people to wonder who was playing the role of intermediary between he and Julian Assange, who runs an organization that increasingly looks to be operating as a Russian front.

We now have an answer to that question. It was a comedian and radio host named Randy Credico. One of the things I find most interesting about this story is that Credico claims that he was a Jill Stein supporter during the election. Stein has her own issues to answer for when it comes to the Russia investigation, but at least during the primaries, Credico was very public about his support for Bernie Sanders.

SNIP

As you can see from that video, Credico expressed a lot of disgust for Hillary Clinton, going after her on similar charges at the Huffington Post. But here’s the kicker: just after Donald Trump secured the Republican nomination in May, Roger Stone said that Credico was going to start a “Sanders Supporters for Trump” group. That would have been a full month before Clinton secured the Democratic nomination.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/house-intel-stone-credico

Credico “hates Donald Trump,” his lawyer Martin R. Stolar told TPM, but he also doesn’t much care for Hillary Clinton, according to his YouTube feed, having spent the 2016 primary season talking up Bernie Sanders and criticizing Clinton in a series of videos in which he variously does impressions of Bill Clinton, Humphrey Bogart, Henry Fonda and the Geico gecko mascot.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/04/19/inside-the-dirty-tricks-of-roger-stone/

Credico’s estimation of Bernie Sanders did not improve over the winter holidays. On February 10, the day after Sanders enjoyed his first victory in the New Hampshire primary, Credico tweeted “Hate to say it but ‘political revolution’ is no more than a repackaged version of ‘Yes, We Can.’”[19]

Sanders success in New Hampshire started a roller-coaster ride and an extended primary season. While Sanders vastly exceeded expectations, by the time the April 19 New York primary rolled around he was in a win-or-go-home situation.

For Sanders’ supporters, the stakes couldn’t have been higher. As part of the get out the vote effort “a super 36 Hour Comedy and Music marathon” was announced on the campaign website. Running from April 17 up until poll closing on the 19, the event, held at the Commons Café in Brooklyn, featured a list of minor celebrities, stand-up comics and local musical artists.

Randy Credico organized the event at Common Café that ran from April 17 to April 19, serving as the emcee and acting for all the world like the biggest booster of Bernie Sanders in the borough of Brooklyn. His infatuation didn’t last long.

On May 10, Roger Stone appeared on former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth’s NewsMax Prime television program and revealed that Randy Credico was starting a Sanders Supporters for Trump group.[20]

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, Stone was revealing something of considerable importance. Randy Credico, who had initially considered Bernie Sanders an inadequate socialist and an apologist for U.S. imperialism, was now on the Trump train. How many of the people who traipsed through the Common Café three weeks earlier suspected that the emcee would soon be working to help Trump become the president? They never suspected any such thing because they had no idea that Credico and Stone were friends with a history of ratfucking their political opponents.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/10/politics/randy-credico-roger-stone-wikileaks/index.html

Special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed Randy Credico to testify before a grand jury next month, according to Credico's attorney.

Martin Stolar told CNN he received a subpoena Thursday and Credico intends to comply and testify on September 7.
Credico, a comedian and radio show host, will likely meet with Mueller's team for a voluntary interview first. Credico previously declined a request from Mueller's team for a voluntary interview.

[Power 2 the People]

25. Well of course.The Russians plan was to weaken Hillary in the primaries and the general.

Isn't it logical that a Russian plant would enthusiastically try to gain support for her opponents? If her opponents were Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck Credico would have been endorsing them because his true candidate was Trump. Has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. It was a divide and conquer political technique that is old as the hills.

Think about it, HRC's campaign hatched a plan to pump Trump up because he would be the easier candidate to beat. Only a fool would surmise that she was somehow in cahoots with the Trump campaign to get him elected President.

From Politico article They Always Wanted Trump
Inside Team Clinton’s year-long struggle to find a strategy against the opponent they were most eager to face:

So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

“Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
• Ted Cruz
• Donald Trump
• Ben Carson
We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

[link:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428|]

[Uncle Joe]

97. I have no idea why but your post was alerted on.

[redstateblues]

27. I've heard Credico interviewed twice. About as believable as Paige, Stone et al

[WhiteTara]

24. Damn. I am so sick of grifters.

[redstateblues]

26. Grifters was the word that came up as I read this post.

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. Grifters gotta grift.

[obamanut2012]

36. I'm shocked, shocked! There is gambling in this establishment!

n/t

[Gothmog]

38. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[R B Garr]

53. Wow! From snowboard store clerk to a 6-figure salary! This is top-shelf artistry....

[Gothmog]

87. It helps to have the right parents

[Cha]

40. Gotta love good ol VTDigger.. they

don't play.

[Me.]

44. Snowboards Must Be The New Way To Climb The Corporate Ladder

[R B Garr]

55. Dang! I've never lived in snow and didn't realize these types of opportunities

existed! Snowboards are $$$$.

[Cha]

73. You've never lived in snow!

It was fun for long time.. I liked skis!

[Me.]

75. Do SurfBoards Offer The Same Opportunities?

Who needs college...Burlington or otherwise.

[Cha]

72. Or be related to the

honcho.

Me

[George II]

48. One of the three paid staffers, Colleen Lineweaver ($75,000)...

....is married to Shannon Jackson, who is Executive Director of Our Revolution.

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/07/15/essex-native-lead-bernie-sanders-political-organization/87148622/

[DURHAM D]

61. Interesting... nt

[joshcryer]

67. Cronyism to the core.

The whole thing is a graft / bribe setup.

[jalan48]

60. Meh, $495,000? Isn't that what some politicians charge for one speech to a big Wall Street bank?

[George II]

62. Who is that?

[DURHAM D]

63. Well, former office holders with really great ideas get that much.

Unfortunately, currently elected politicians who have been giving the the same old tired speech for 45 years just won't be paid much.

[jalan48]

64. Yeah, that's it for sure.

[pnwmom]

85. It depends on what is done with the money. I applaud politicians who get money from banks

and then use it to pay for millions of doses of vaccines for children, or other worthy causes.

People who take the same amount and use it to pay for a salary for 3 people to maintain a web site, well, they doesn't seem as much worth applauding.

[brush]

95. You mean like the hundreds of thou funneled to a woodworking shop from a failed college's funds?

[Tarheel_Dem]

96. I'd rather take it from Wall St, than from the poor blue collar suckers who thought they were...

supporting a worthy cause. Little did they know, their $27 were being doled out so Jane'$ offspring could come up in the world.

[awesomerwb1]

106. "The new wave of leadership" what?

Which "leadership" do you speak of?

[awesomerwb1]

113. Not asking you for help.

I wanted clarification as to what you meant by "new leadership". New Democratic House majority. ok

[jalan48]

107. Focusing on the current financial set-up is threatening to certain power groups. I expect the

attacks to increase as the message about income inequality spreads.

[R B Garr]

110. Do you think people will believe this when Jane's son

is making $100,000 per year?? These stale talking points are apparently very selective in application.

[jalan48]

111. Yeah-Jane's son makes $100,000 therefore income inequality is not real and I now love my

two low paying jobs with no benefits. That's it!

[R B Garr]

112. He went from a snowboard clerk job to 6-figures.

Income inequality isn’t really a thing for the privileged, so it doesn’t look like people will be afraid of him, lol.

[jalan48]

114. The sky's the limit. Who knows, maybe his next gig will be Chairman of the Board of Walmart.

[R B Garr]

115. This always cracks me up, Your self-imposed restrictions on other

candidates don’t mean anything except to the limited audience who promotes them. A completely arbitrary set of gotchas that no one cares about but you. It’s a closed system.

[jalan48]

116. Laughing all the way to the bank I'm sure.

[R B Garr]

117. LOL, just like Sanders son who went from a snowboard

clerk to a mega 6-figure salary, all while denigrating the “privileged”. I’m sure it’s a real crack up!

[George II]

119. It wouldn't be all that important except.....................his mother gave him the job using....

....other peoples' money.

[R B Garr]

121. Yes, the double standards. It looks like Sanders' benefits

from his popularity, so why begrudge others who are also sought after. Being popular isn’t corrupt.

[George II]

118. Thanks mom.

[R B Garr]

120. Yes, Mom really come through. I can't even imagine having such

good fortune through my divorced parents. Both Sanders’ offspring and the upbringing that Cortez had are way beyond the norm and leagues beyond anything my parents would ever do for us.

[George II]

122. I have to admit, a few years after graduating from college my parents helped me...

....make ends meet. But they used money that they earned working for a living, not asking others to give them.

[budkin]

71. I supported Bernie in 2016, but I won't in 2020

I stand for a lot of what he believes, but there are some things I've learned about him that really make me angry, the latest of which is him saying that the Democratic party only cares about the 1%.