Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn’t Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into

[CrusaderFrank]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

I'm most excited about getting my new FREE knee replacements

We never have to work again!! It's all free!!

 

[Iceweasel]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

I'm most excited about getting my new FREE knee replacements

So you can spend more time on your obama knee pads?

Kidding!

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Flopper]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

Sander's plan for free public college education is not going to happen even if he's elected and even if the House and Senate were controlled by democrats. Congress would tear the plan to pieces and any resemblance to Bernie's plan would be coincidental. And here's why:

• A large percent of congress attended private schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton who will get nothing. Many smaller, less prestigious private schools schools would not be able to compete with free public college education.
• Bernie's plan excludes administration costs which means either the states or students will have to pay those costs. In addition colleges can tack on all kinds fees in addition to books, and living expenses.
• Taxing speculation on Wall Street sounds good but won't raise enough money and is just not practical.

In the next 10 to 15 years we have got to get more highly trained employees. If not the jobs are going overseas. However, free college for everyone is not the answer. More grants and scholarships are.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 63906

So, he's perfect to run Obama's America!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All I know is that Sanders supporters and going to pay for my free college degree in archaeology

I am super excited about taking some free history courses! Maybe a teaching class & then there's my interest in music & quantum mechanics.

SO EXCITED!

For my Masters in Archaeology, I'm thinking I'll go on a Sanders supporters paid for dig at Baalbeck, Lebanon

Sander's plan for free public college education is not going to happen even if he's elected and even if the House and Senate were controlled by democrats. Congress would tear the plan to pieces and any resemblance to Bernie's plan would be coincidental. And here's why:

• A large percent of congress attended private schools such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton who will get nothing. Many smaller, less prestigious private schools schools would not be able to compete with free public college education.
• Bernie's plan excludes administration costs which means either means the states or students will have to pay those costs. In addition colleges can tack on all kinds fees in addition to tuition.
• Taxing speculation on Wall Street sounds good but won't raise enough money and is just not practical.

In the next 10 to 15 years we have got to get more highly trained employees. If not the jobs are going overseas. However, free college for everyone is not the answer. More grants and scholars are.

yeah, you're just trying to keep me from voting Sanders and passing up my free education paid for by Sanders supporters....nice try

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

Author tries to talk about russia. We're not russia.
Cutting the debt is hurtful:

He mentioned an example of state controlled money. Which is how the state controlled money ends up. Bankrupt.

Hilarious! Our money has virtually always been state controlled.

It said complete control over valuation. Laughing about just proves you're an idiot running your keyboard. The market sets value, the government doesn't decide what your car is worth.

The government adds dollars to the economy and has complete power to tax them away. I do agree that the market does set the value, but the market would cease to exist as we know it without the government. (The government taxes to reduce aggregate demand, control inflation, and create a demand for the dollar by the way.)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

You mean like Democrats have down for Flint, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois?

 

[Dovahkiin]

Point out one incorrect claim made. Shouldn't be hard.

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

You mean like Democrats have down for Flint, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois?

What the hell are you rambling about? This has nothing to do with democrats. American currency is indeed limited by real resources available, we can't just keep spending dollars when we're at maximum output. We're not at maximum output though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You drank the Koolaid. Anyone that says debt is good and the way forward is more debt is flat out stupid.

Jesse's Café Américain: The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory
02 January 2015
The Great Fallacy at the Heart of Modern Monetary Theory



As with all theories that miss the mark, Modern Monetary Theory presents some insights into the matter of course, but seems to hinge on one or two key assumptions that are more matters of assertion than historical or even practical experience. It is founded not so much an economic theory, but on a belief without a firm foundation.

This paragraph taken from Yves Smith's recent article about MMT

"The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER (as a household or private business is).

This issuing capacity means that the government does not face the same kinds of constraints as a private sector user of money, which in turn exposes the fallacy of the household analogy, so beloved in popular economics discourse."

The finances of a sovereign are most assuredly NOT like those of a household. And those of a Bank are not like a household either.

In several ways they can be the inverse of a household in their motivations. For example, when household spending is slack because of an economic shock, the government may wish to engage in more spending to counteract this. Some think it is the role of government to keep the economy out of what is called a liquidity trap or as I understand it a feedback loop of cutbacks that greatly exacerbate the problem of slack demand.

This is one of the points of having a government, that is, to do things that the individual cannot do well alone, no matter how powerful they may think that they are, and to protect the rights of the many from those who are more powerful, both foreign and domestic.

But here is the matter of disputation, emphasis in caps theirs, in italics mine. "The sovereign government cannot become insolvent in its own currency; it can always make all payments as they come due in its own currency because it is the ISSUER of the currency, not simply the USER."

Do you see what is missing here, and more importantly, what is implied?

What is missing is the acknowledgement that the users of a currency, call them 'the market,' can and will and have quite often throughout history questioned the valuation of a currency, and often to the point of practical worthlessness, if certain actions are taken by the sovereign in creating their currency.

This speaks to a principle that I spelled out some time ago, that the practical limit on a sovereign government in printing money is the willingness of the market to accept it at a certain value. And this applies to any sovereign, more readily perhaps if they are smaller and weaker, but always given time nonetheless.

If Russia, for example, were to merely start printing more rubles and set a target valuation for them, they could enforce this internally. And in fact, many sovereigns have done so throughout history. I remember visiting Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and marveling at the disconnect between the official stated valuations and the actions of the ordinary people in seeking alternatives like the US Dollar, gold, diamonds, and even Western style toilet paper, a more useful sort of paper than the ruble.

Technically Russia could not become insolvent in rubles, because they could always print more of them to pay all their debts, make purchases, and salary payments. The great caveat in this is that Russia had to maintain a measure of control and enforcement to make that principle 'stick.'

And this is what probably makes MMT inadvertently statist, and dangerous. That is because this belief only works within a domain in which the state exercises complete control over valuation.

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

You mean like Democrats have down for Flint, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois?

What the hell are you rambling about? This has nothing to do with democrats. American currency is indeed limited by real resources available, we can't just keep spending dollars when we're at maximum output. We're not at maximum output though.

Sorry replied to wrong post.

OK, what "real resources" are limiting the expansion of government credit?

 

[Dovahkiin]

The author of this brings up devaluation as a criticism of MMT, MMT acknowledges devaluation.
MMT says that the government is the monopoly supplier of currency, and that it spends it on its own resource.
Oh, also, people can't just "reject" a currency they need to pay taxes. A state that taxes can't choose to not control the value of currency either. It should be obvious why.
The dollar floats, by the way. No one has decided on a "state value."
Oh, and the author misses a crucial part of MMT: the governments creation of money is LIMITED BY REAL RESOURCES.
For kicks, I will ask this: please cite an example of a sovereign nation using non-convertible, non-pegged, free- floating currency that defaulted on debt denominated in their currency. I will be waiting.

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

You mean like Democrats have down for Flint, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois?

What the hell are you rambling about? This has nothing to do with democrats. American currency is indeed limited by real resources available, we can't just keep spending dollars when we're at maximum output. We're not at maximum output though.

Sorry replied to wrong post.

OK, what "real resources" are limiting the expansion of government credit?

I never said the government can't continue to spend right now safely, hell, if anything, we need more deficit spending to get the economy rolling again. The "recovery" is pathetic, and it's shameful that Obama has now shifted his focus to cutting deficits. What real resources? There is only so much the private/public sector can output, the government can spend to help us reach this point, but any spending after that in excess will obviously harm the economy.

 

[Iceweasel]

I never said the government can't continue to spend right now safely, hell, if anything, we need more deficit spending to get the economy rolling again. The "recovery" is pathetic, and it's shameful that Obama has now shifted his focus to cutting deficits. What real resources? There is only so much the private/public sector can output, the government can spend to help us reach this point, but any spending after that in excess will obviously harm the economy.

The private sector can do much more without government standing on its' neck. You have it all backwards.

 

[Theowl32]

That this man , "leech" is more like it, as his only REAL JOB has been finding ways of sucking a living off us taxpayers. That he even has a following: God help us all.

SNIP:

What a shock.
Bernie Sanders was a bum who didn’t earn a steady paycheck until he was 40 years old. He was a slob who lived in a shack with a dirt floor. He later wrote about masturbation and rape for left-wing rags for $50 a story. The Socialist then wormed his way into politics.

Bernie had his electricity cut off a lot so he’d run an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.

And today he’s running for president so he can take your money and redistribute it.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

all of it here:
Bernie Sanders a Bum Who Didn't Earn His First Steady Paycheck Until Age 40 Then Wormed His Way Into Politics - The Gateway Pundit

Ok, well, when did george bush 2 get HIS first paycheck....just b4 he send 5,000 troops to their death with another 30,000 maimed so the 5 american oil companies could start pumping, KBR, Halliberton and a few other companies can get rich on no bid contracts all the while telling us it was where the terrorists came from so we can get even MORE porked at the gas pump. Yeah, gb had a better idea. Wanna talk about living off the taxpayers? U moron, Tax dollars paid for all that. Dope.

You are nothing but a ******* bag of cliches and democrat MSNBC talking points. Absolutely nothing else.

Boooooosh and iraaaaaaaq. ******* idiot. Let us know who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs moron. Let us know who propagated the existence of WMDs before Booooosh took office **** face. While you are at it tell us all how many no bid contracts were awarded to Halliburton under clinton. I stopped counting at 4 asshole.

Btw, how many CEOS were busted and put in jail under Booooosh? You realize enron was busted under Booooosh right? You know they did all of their dirty practices in 90s right? You know how many CEOs were busted under Booooosh? I stopped counting at 5.

You are an asshole who I have once again destroyed with rhetorical questions. You have no ability to think for yourself just like the rest of you meat puppets that think like you.

Asshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly you've been asleep next to Rip Van Winkle these past 70 years. American currency is not limited by real resources

Unless you want to completely destroy the economy..

You mean like Democrats have down for Flint, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois?

What the hell are you rambling about? This has nothing to do with democrats. American currency is indeed limited by real resources available, we can't just keep spending dollars when we're at maximum output. We're not at maximum output though.

Sorry replied to wrong post.

OK, what "real resources" are limiting the expansion of government credit?

I never said the government can't continue to spend right now safely, hell, if anything, we need more deficit spending to get the economy rolling again. The "recovery" is pathetic, and it's shameful that Obama has now shifted his focus to cutting deficits. What real resources? There is only so much the private/public sector can output, the government can spend to help us reach this point, but any spending after that in excess will obviously harm the economy.

So the only limit is the extent to which other people continue to finance us, correct?

 

[sjay]

Actually, yes, he can. He doesn't even need to raise taxes to due so, something me and others want him to realize.

You're as loony as Sanders. There is no way to pay the current 19 trillion let alone another 20 trillion. Get your head out of your ass, you're fooling nobody

What makes you think federal taxes fund federal spending? That's where you come up with that assumption.
We're a sovereign currency issuing government, there is no question of "money" scarcity. Money can be scarce for those who use it, you, me, the mcdonalds down the street.. these places can run out of US currency. We issue our own currency, (The us government.) The value of the currency is determined by the supply of and demand for the currency on an exchange. The main point of this basic lesson in this: We have a fiat currency, and the supply of our currency is equal to infinity.

Save it, loon. I have a degree in economics and you're way out in left field, in fact you might not even be in the stadium. Sander's grand plan can't be funded without implementing taxes on a massive level. That's Econ 101

Oh, a degree in economics? Wow, why don't you tell me what the national debt is? Let's see how much your "degree" is worth. Also, Please provide evidence that federal taxes fund federal spending.

Are you some sort of idiot. Google National debt, I don't do loon's work, it's easily available and where exactly do you think the government gets the money? Does it grow on trees? Unicorns shit it out? The government actually produces a product and sells it? You're insane

Actually Sassy you are the one that's mistaken,when the gov.issues the money and controls the money supply they don't have to balance the budget like you or I or your local or city or state governments do.The only possible problem could be interest on the debt.By the way whatever the cost of your econ. degree you should demand a refund ,what I stated above I learned in econ.102

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're as loony as Sanders. There is no way to pay the current 19 trillion let alone another 20 trillion. Get your head out of your ass, you're fooling nobody

What makes you think federal taxes fund federal spending? That's where you come up with that assumption.
We're a sovereign currency issuing government, there is no question of "money" scarcity. Money can be scarce for those who use it, you, me, the mcdonalds down the street.. these places can run out of US currency. We issue our own currency, (The us government.) The value of the currency is determined by the supply of and demand for the currency on an exchange. The main point of this basic lesson in this: We have a fiat currency, and the supply of our currency is equal to infinity.

Save it, loon. I have a degree in economics and you're way out in left field, in fact you might not even be in the stadium. Sander's grand plan can't be funded without implementing taxes on a massive level. That's Econ 101

Oh, a degree in economics? Wow, why don't you tell me what the national debt is? Let's see how much your "degree" is worth. Also, Please provide evidence that federal taxes fund federal spending.

Are you some sort of idiot. Google National debt, I don't do loon's work, it's easily available and where exactly do you think the government gets the money? Does it grow on trees? Unicorns shit it out? The government actually produces a product and sells it? You're insane

Actually Sassy you are the one that's mistaken,when the gov.issues the money and controls the money supply they don't have to balance the budget like you or I or your local or city or state governments do.The only possible problem could be interest on the debt.By the way whatever the cost of your econ. degree you should demand a refund ,what I stated above I learned in econ.102