2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTwo Speeches to Banksters equals Bernie's net worth.
And he's been WORKING way past retirement age.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)World's largest corporation and it is anti-Union.
This is what has so many of us Dems disgusted with her Campaign.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Don't forget that.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You can tell a lot by the company one keeps.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)who couldn't give a Damn about anything but "Give Me ...More and More Tax Breaks" while they Offshore their ill-gotten Gains.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I was outraged to learn there's no law stopping Wall Street banks from giving employees multi-million dollar bonuses when they leave their jobs to "serve" the American people as regulators in Washington. Before, I had not imagined it possible, but do they expect similar blind eye behavior from future occupants of the Oval Office?
dsc
(52,162 posts)His net worth figure is inclusive of the loans on his house, which total around 500k assuming a 6% mortgage (based upon his mortgage interest deduction) but exclusive of the value of his houses. Thus his net worth is under reported by at least 500k and maybe considerably more.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Two speeches = $500,000
His net worth statement is $500,000.
I double checked.
dsc
(52,162 posts)I don't know how else to put that.
localroger
(3,629 posts)It is exclusive of home value because, while you have a mortgage, you don't own your home, the mortgage company does. So it isn't an asset.
It is "inclusive of loans" because, well, loans aren't generally assets. But when you have a mortgage, the equity you've earned toward the loan balance is an asset, and toward the end of the payment cycle the entire mortgage gradually becomes an asset which will be traded for the house when it matures. So Bernie's net worth includes the equity he's built up by paying on his mortgage over the years.
The reason they make this nitpicky distinction is that equity is always calculated toward the original mortgage amount even if the value of the property has changed. So if your mortgage is for $300,000 and your house has increased in value to $500,000, your net worth will still gradually accrue toward $300,000 as your mortgage matures. The house isn't yours yet so its increase in value doesn't increase your net worth.
But when you make that last payment, SHAZAM! The house is now yours including all of its change in value over the years. This is why they make that distinction. It's really just an accounting technicality that most people never have to notice, but it does factor in to things like net worth estimates.
Bottom line, no matter how you juggle the figures, Hillary makes Bernie's whole net worth with a couple of speeches. Maybe three if his house has gotten a lot more valuable once he finishes paying off the mortgage.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I make many times less than he does and have much much more in assets and I haven't hit retirement age yet. And we are to trust his math in delegate counts and the national budget? errr derp.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Common law college?
ETA: It's gotta be tough.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)"According to her financial disclosure forms, Hillary Clinton earned $660,000 for just two speeches. That puts her earning more than Bernie Sanders net worth in just two speeches.
Claims that Clinton earned more than Bernie Sanders net worth in a single speech could also be true. Clintons highest paying speech for personal income on record paid $335,000 in August of 2014. At the time, Bernie Sanders net worth was $330,408. That would mean Clinton earned more than Bernie Sanders net worth in a single speech."
Octafish
(55,745 posts)She's pulled out of the depths. The Money Nation record shows she started out $8 million in the red. Now she's worth eight figures.
http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/
Now if she would only apply her strategy to the rest of us who don't have a connection to the financial sector.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)You are pointing out that Bernie can't manage his own money, yet he wants to manage the economy? His 68K in credit card debt shows that he is irresponsible.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)When the banks crashed in 2008 and the auto industry followed, lots of jobs left, never to return. Many had to use their credit cards to stay afloat. Not much changed post bailout for them. Lots of homes foreclosed. Lots of families were left impoverished.
Of course, the bankruptcy laws changed to help the corporations and shaft the individual in 2005.
There aren't as many UAW members as when NAFTA got passed. A lot less. NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994.
It's not all bad, though. What were once-bankrupt car makers and car suppliers are doing great, hiring like crazy. The problem for U.S. workers is that most of the hiring is for new plants overseas.
Consider the case of DELPHI Automotive, a parts maker spun-off when General Motors couldn't make it sufficiently profitable:
Talk about a turnaround. Delphi's epic 2005 bankruptcy exacted high costs on communities, unions and the pensions of salaried retirees. Yet the creative destruction of the four-year ordeal, shaped by management, private equity investors and the demands of the Obama auto task force, produced a global supplier that now offers 33 product lines from 141 manufacturing sites in 33 countries and employs 160,000 worldwide only 5,000 of which work inside the United States.
-- Daniel Howes, Detroit News
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/columnists/daniel-howes/2015/02/18/howes-delphi-surges-quietly-one-regret/23655511/
The above is from a business columnist describing the good work of DELPHI's then-president in turning the company around. "Good work" is, of course, defined in maximizing shareholder value. "Shareholder," seems to me, is defined as "Owner."
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)be retired. I don't think of him as old.