It has been reported elsewhere (in a "protected" group) that Senator Sanders has....

[George II]

...the lowest net worth in the Senate:

"It's implying that he's a "Rich" white politician? Of all the US senators, he has the lowest net worth."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037427

For the record, of the 538 members of Congress he's ahead of 200 other members, and there are 19 other Senators with lower net worth than him, including his fellow Vermont Senatory Patrick Leahy.

http://media.cq.com/50Richest/

Where do people come up with this stuff? Can't people at least be a little genuine with their claims?

[RobertEarl]

1. My gawd, He's a capitalist!!

I can't wait til the republicans blast him with having some money. Oh, wait, they won't do that........

[arcane1]

2. Well, that's a deal-breaker. A single DUer exaggerated their numbers.

That's all it takes to lose my vote. And every moron will agree with me.

[ibegurpard]

3. I don't care about the personal wealth of any of them.

Do you?

[Armstead]

25. I do. We should be consistent.

We should be consistent, and not do the ziggly about whether a particular issue is favorable or unfavorable to our particular candidate.

It a legitimate question applied to Clinton, Sanders, and every other politician.

Fortunately it works in Sanders favor. While no one has to hold a benefit to help him pay the rent, he has not accumulated a large amount of wealth or used his office for personal enrichment.

[SMC22307]

4. Shocking. Someone was wrong on the internet.

[artislife]

5. Great

another thread to trash.

[gordianot]

6. Maybe if he wore a hair shirt. (please do not take offense)

I saw a lead in for a lame joke. I am impressed by your fact checking rare lately on DU. I vow not to emphasize his poverty. If in his place I would feather the nest. Anyone who focuses on legislators poverty are holding to a ridiculous standard.

[cyberswede]

7. ...and a DU thread once implied he was irresponsible with $ due to his low net worth.

So...which is the "real" issue?

[Cleita]

10. The real issue is poo slinging.

Throw everything you can at the candidate and see what sticks. This is a non issue. Bernie is worth less than half a million dollars and that includes a condo he owns in Vermont.

[cali]

22. not just one thread. And not just one poster. And it wasn't implied. it was flat out stated

[giftedgirl77]

8. Ahh that's why I didn't see it, I have them in the trashcan.

[840high]

9. Why do you come up with this

stuff?

[neverforget]

11. Well he said this about the rally in Portland on Sunday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=506328

[cyberswede]

13. Weird stuff to hang one's hat on...

but funny in the end.

[Oilwellian]

39. Do you mean this end?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251506057#post108

[DemocraticWing]

12. His net worth is $330,000

He's certainly not hurting, but part of me is surprised that any significant portion of Congress is lower than that. For a political system controlled by billionaires, quite a few politicians basically just have a decent investment portfolio and a good house.

[jfern]

15. My god? $330,000?

He might be able to afford half of a 2 bedroom condo around here? Truly he is very rich.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. If you own a home or a condo almost anywhere in the northeast your net worth is going to be in that

range from your real estate alone. If you are in your 60-70s you should have some retirement savings as well. 330,000 puts Mr. Sanders somewhere between $200,000 … 34th percentile and $500,000 … 18th percentile according to the WSJ.

[George II]

37. He's been earning at least $170,000 a year since he entered Congress in 1989....

....for simplicity sake, assume $175K per year for 26 years, that's more than $5.5M.

If he's pissed away more than $5M in 26 years, do you really want him running a multi-trillion dollar government?

[DemocraticWing]

40. The Clintons apparently pissed away $2M in 8 years and were "flat broke"

See how ridiculous that sounds? Also, Representatives made $96,000 when he entered Congress. That rose over time, but his salary didn't top $170,000 until 2009.

Trollin', trollin', trollin', just go keep on trollin'...

[George II]

41. My mistake, I was looking at the "2014 dollars" column.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

So from 1989 through now he's only earned $3M (not to mention the $200,000 "severance package" his wife received when she left Burlington College)

So instead of pissing away $5M he only pissed away almost $3M. Doesn't sound like the life of a frugal socialist, does it?

You do realize the nature of expenses for a President when he leaves office, don't you?

[delrem]

14. Jeez, take them all out and shoot them already!!

His total net worth is what? Something close to 1 hrs work for Hillary Clinton, talking to execs at Goldman Sachs? The cad!!

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. That would mean Hillary Clinton makes more in an hour...

Than the net worth of a majority in Congress.

Interesting.

[delrem]

35. $315,000 to speak to eBay; $325,000 to speak to Cisco.

But that's low compared to Bill. In 2011 some of Bill's paydays:
"a November speech in Hong Kong to Swedish-based telecom giant Ericsson -- $750,000. Clinton also earned $700,000 for a March speech to a local newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, and $550,000 for a November speech to a business forum in Shanghai, China. He earned $500,000 apiece for three events in Austria and Holland in May and in the United Arab Emirates in December."

It may sound like a lot, twice the net worth of the majority in Congress for just one speech, sometimes delivering 2 a day. To say nothing of comparing it to the minimum wage that these guys are so reluctant to push for raising. But it's all relative, right? Those companies no doubt got a damn good return on investment, or expect a damn good return -- and they have to have good reasons for those expectations. As in: reputation for delivering the goods. None of those companies are in business for charity...

Which is why I don't believe a damn thing those two SAY in a political campaign. They're far too beholden to their owners to be able to follow through on any focus-group tailored campaign promise. Suffice to have professional writers/pollsters/ compose streams of buzz-word packed phrases. Also history shows that Dems (unlike Republicans) don't have to honor campaign promises -- there no downside to forgetting those promises instantly (compare how GHWB's broken promise "Read my lips: no new taxes" damaged him, so he lost his 2nd term).

[ybbor]

17. "Seinfeld, four"

Great episode!

[djean111]

18. Running out of "Meme of the Day" material? n/t

[CharlotteVale]

23. LOL, he's recycling.

[cali]

20. lol. it's been suggested that Hillary doesn't profit personally

from the speeches she gives to bankster and other corporate interests. For.the record, she's mad millions doing so. It's been suggested that these interests aren't gaining access and influence. HILLarious.

[treestar]

21. They figure they can spread it

and it will become an article of faith with many people who never find out it's not true, or refuse to abandon it once they get that information, since they want to believe it so much.

[Andy823]

36. Yep

And the really ironic thing about that is that many of them are the same people that complained about those of us who supported president Obama and use labels like "Obamabots, marching in lock step, Obama worshipers, party loyalists, etc. and not being able to see the facts because we worshiped him so much. Funny when you think about it.

[DanTex]

24. Factual accuracy has never been a big thing with the Hillary-bashers.

[el_bryanto]

26. Good call out. You should be proud of yourself! nt

[sibelian]

27. Oh, my....

I simply don't know how to take this. What to think?

Time for a moment of sombre reflection, methinks...

[cantbeserious]

28. HRC And WJC Reported Taxable Income Of 140 Million Dollars Since 2007

eom

[Warren Stupidity]

31. but but but...

Quick change the subject. Divert! Divert! I know, surely something racist must be going on.

[delrem]

38. Add on what was made 2001-> 2007.

So - $200 million since '01? I think so - I read stats that showed a doubling of yearly taxable income after '07, so it rounds out to $200 million. I mean, what's $20 million on either side?
Add in what isn't "taxable", because the best bankers in the world put it safely away in loopholed "investments".

That's a lot of graft for one political couple - one that's still going strong and is said to be a shoe in for Dem candidate in 2016. Just think about how much more money can be made!
It says a lot about the power of big money, of the oligarchy, doesn't it - that it get away with such blatant buyouts.

So, what's Bernie Sanders' net worth again? Not the lowest? Really? What a cad! And a bounder! A cad and a bounder, I say!

eta: did I use the term 'political graft' wrongly? Should I have used 'payola'? Oh well- it doesn't matter, the Clinton's have amazing support, amazing poll numbers - they're superstars - so everything's JUST FINE!

[dsc]

29. A couple of things

Frankly this seems a bit petty. But, that said, to correct on of the big errors that many posters seem to have, the disclosure form does list mortgages as a liability but not the value of the house as an asset.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/wealth-of-congress-jumps-150-million-50-richest/

Disclosure rules also require lawmakers to list mortgages, which count against net worth, but not home values, which would be one of the biggest assets of many members.

Non-interest-bearing bank accounts also do not have to be disclosed, no matter the value, nor do personal assets such as cars or home furnishings.

end of quote

I only point that out since in many posts up thread of this one, he is being compared to people owning a house in the north east. That comparison is inaccurate. He is worth 300k exclusive of his house and over and above what he owes on that house (if anything). Given that he is 73, this shouldn't be surprising, but I do think apples should be compared to apples.

[gollygee]

30. Bernie is not rich. Other senators might also not be rich. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

32. Duty calls

[kenfrequed]

34. Soo...

Since Bernie doesn't have the absolute lowest net worth of any congressman then... vote Hillary????

Yeah, and people say lefties are purists.