Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Just think of the conspiracies if they did fuck up. 

[henrygandorf 29192]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

weird you went that way with it. As I started to read it I thought you were going to say those docs must have been shitting their britches. imagine fucking up Bernie's surgery. Oy vey!

i would worry more about the billing department at the hospital.

"don't file anything, just let him leave."

[bad_teammate 13215]

Just think of the conspiracies if they did fuck up. 

Hillary planted that blockage.

[henrygandorf 29192]

"but his arteries..."

[Hank Kingsley 20966]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

[bad_teammate 13215]

16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20966]

Looks like they can't pry Bernie away from the video poker slot machine down the hallway. 

 

[Js1 85372]

Well Vegas and Phoenix are where old people go to die and be mummified

[gmr548 16580]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:49 AM, Rougarou said:

For like the last 3 pay periods I thought I'd gotten a micro raise that HR forgot to tell me about or something because I was netting like $300 more than usual. I compared pay stubs and come to find out, the government stopped taking social security out of my check. Upon further investigation (google, because I'm a finance dummy lol), it appears that once you pay in X amount to Social Security a year, you get to stop paying in. That is rad. Is Bernie cool with this? 

For the middle-class working stiffs like me this amounts to an extra night out at the local steakhouse chain after soccer practice and is a real win and good guy. Genuinely curious if Bern favors these max contributions and limits because for all the talk about being for the middle-class and the labor are we talking about the same thing? Or is this a more measured take that someone like Pete or Warren would have?

I don't mean to be a dick, but this post is so tone deaf/out of touch that I am not even sure if you're serious or trolling. There just isn't another way to phrase that so I'm sorry if that comes off harsh.

A point of clarification: That cap on SS contributions is at income over something like $125,000. With an individual income at that level - and hitting it in Q3 - you are easily in the top 20 percent of income earners, probably higher higher. In Texas you'd be pushing top ten percent. So, most importantly, nice humblebrag. Also, if $600 per month (assuming two pay periods) is a meal at Outback, well, that's another conversation entirely.

Again, don't take this personally. I know Americans are sensitive about admitting their financial comfort. I am not accusing you of not being middle class or whatever because there are a lot of other factors to that discussion - location, family size, etc. that can and have been parsed out in a specific thread. But when someone says "working class," be it Bernie, Warren, Trump, or whoever, they are not talking about the top ten percent of income earners.

And for the record, that cap should be eliminated, IMO.

[Dbeasy 15067]

I don't mean to be a dick, but this post is so tone deaf/out of touch that I am not even sure if you're serious or trolling. There just isn't another way to phrase that so I'm sorry if that comes off harsh.
A point of clarification: That cap on SS contributions is at income over something like $125,000. With an individual income at that level - and hitting it in Q3 - you are easily in the top 20 percent of income earners, probably higher higher. In Texas you'd be pushing top ten percent. So, most importantly, nice humblebrag. Also, if $600 per month (assuming two pay periods) is a meal at Outback, well, that's another conversation entirely.
Again, don't take this personally. I know Americans are sensitive about admitting their financial comfort. I am not accusing you of not being middle class or whatever because there are a lot of other factors to that discussion - location, family size, etc. that can and have been parsed out in a specific thread. But when someone says "working class," be it Bernie, Warren, Trump, or whoever, they are not talking about the top ten percent of income earners.
And for the record, that cap should be eliminated, IMO.

It’s very dangerous to look solely at annual income without also understanding the value of pensions that kick in after 20 or 30 years of working. There are many jobs still out there, such as military, government, and union jobs, that may well pay under $100k per year but have retirement present value of millions of dollars. People don’t understand the present value of these pensions especially if they include medical benefits.

[bad_teammate 13215]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Looks like they can't pry Bernie away from the video poker slot machine down the hallway. 

 

Heading to his vacation home(s) soon. No worries.

(He's soooooooooooooooooo old.)

[elfenix 34287]

A point of clarification: That cap on SS contributions is at income over something like $125,000. With an individual income at that level - and hitting it in Q3 - you are easily in the top 20 percent of income earners, probably higher higher. In Texas you'd be pushing top ten percent.

Average annual wages of 90-95% of income earners was $118,400 in 2017.

https://www.epi.org/blog/top-1-0-percent-reaches-highest-wages-ever-up-157-percent-since-1979/

[Rougarou 594]

Where would a rather nuanced or specific policy position (like a cap on SS contributions from income) be listed? I can't find anything that seems substantial from any D candidate when I google "policy positions on social security cap" or variations thereof. This isn't a topic that gets a ton of headlines (or even a bullet point that I've seen on a website), but I'm interested in learning more about.

[elfenix 34287]

Warren's SS tax plan is at the bottom of this medium post

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/social-security

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

Warren's SS tax plan is at the bottom of this medium post

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/social-security

Hey

hey....

get outta here!

BERNARD has legislation on this (whitepaper linked)

The Expand Social Security Act of 2019 removes the cap.

The bill would also ensure that Social Security could pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 52 years, according to the retirement system’s chief actuary. It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year – pay the same rate into the retirement system as everyone else already pays. Current law caps the amount of income subject to payroll taxes at $132,900.

[elfenix 34287]

Sorry, forgot I was in the Bernie thread after diving into the income percentiles

[bad_teammate 13215]

Can we trust a candidate who is bossed around by his wife?! How is he going to handle Putin?

[bad_teammate 13215]

I love this guy

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year

Holy shit is this true?  I would have guessed 250k would put you at top 10%-ish. 

[bad_teammate 13215]

Holy shit is this true?  I would have guessed 250k would put you at top 10%-ish. 

Yup.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Good shit, I love Liz but Bernie (correctly) identifies Wall St., billionaires, and the insurance execs as outright enemies and not just people who need to be reigned in.

 

[Anastasis 23475]

9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year

There is a slight of hand involved in pivoting the rhetoric from wealth to income.  The top 2% of Americans by net worth are in the $5-6MM total asset range. And using income level, it makes a fairly big difference whether you are talking individual or household numbers. Household numbers put 250k ~ 5%ile. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Yup.

This is absolutely amazing to me. We don’t spend shit, drive our vehicles for 10+ years, and save “normally” (401k, 529, little on side).  One earner in top 1.5%, other  on the other end of the spectrum (good for society and getting to heaven, not bank acct type career). And sure af don’t feel like we are doing more than “OK”. Feels right square in the “middle class” lifestyle, even “lower middle class” tbh.  I guess you have to be a dual top 2-3% earner to be doing “good”.  Absolutely stunned only 13% of people have six figure incomes.  I need to re-evaluate some things.  
 

apologies for any detail. Back to your scheduled Bernie shenanigans. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

Yep, Bernie definitely isn't covered more unfavorably by the media. Whoo boy

 

 

[bad_teammate 13215]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This is absolutely amazing to me. We don’t spend shit, drive our vehicles for 10+ years, and save “normally” (401k, 529, little on side).  One earner in top 1.5%, other  on the other end of the spectrum (good for society and getting to heaven, not bank acct type career). And sure af don’t feel like we are doing more than “OK”. Feels right square in the “middle class” lifestyle, even “lower middle class” tbh.  I guess you have to be a dual top 2-3% earner to be doing “good”.  Absolutely stunned only 13% of people have six figure incomes.  I need to re-evaluate some things.  
 

apologies for any detail. Back to your scheduled Bernie shenanigans. 

That first paragraph IS the whole point of the Bernie shenanigans. The unfairness of the economic system we live in is the single most important underlying factor in the entire Sanders platform. There is nothing more important to this movement than the realization that economic suffering is the center of basically every issue and that the neoliberal economics of the last 40 years have been geared entirely towards enriching a very tiny few at the expense of the 99%.

Wealth concentration is security concentration. Wealth concentration is freedom concentration. The simple existence of a billionaire class ruins the lives of not only the bottom 50%, but the bottom 80+%.

This understanding is more important than any of the performative wokeness that the Democrats play in. The rainbow-flag Raytheon logos. The cute gay pride shoes. The gender-neutral pronouns on corporate Twitter accounts. The actual suffering of all of these groups is either 100% attributable to economic powerlessness or at least profoundly exacerbated by economic power/powerlessness.

If you are in the 99%, even at the TOP of that range, the entire system is designed to oppress you until as much is pulled from you as possible to go to the Top 1%. (Really, the top 0.1%.)

We HAVE to redistribute wealth, not just as a one-shot, but as a start to an economic system that is designed to prevent wealth concentration and is designed to provide economic security to everyone. We can have rich people, but not at the expense of everyone. Not to the extent that even people in the Top 10% feel like they're not at the top.

[bad_teammate 13215]

The media spent the entirety of Q3 trying to tear Bernie apart but he STILL outraised everyone. He STILL had more donations/donors than anyone.

[fattyflattie 4639]

Like I said, I’ll do some thinking on it. I can understand the feeling for the few families that have been set since America was founded. I’m not certain how I feel about taking money from people who’ve made it themselves.  Why should we limit what they’ve created themselves, for their families?  Many are the best and the brightest, which is exactly who should be rewarded for their efforts.  America is full of lazy, shitty people too. I don’t necessarily feel they should be awarded just for existing. A lot to dissect.  

[bad_teammate 13215]

39 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Like I said, I’ll do some thinking on it. I can understand the feeling for the few families that have been set since America was founded. I’m not certain how I feel about taking money from people who’ve made it themselves.  Why should we limit what they’ve created themselves, for their families?  Many are the best and the brightest, which is exactly who should be rewarded for their efforts.  America is full of lazy, shitty people too. I don’t necessarily feel they should be awarded just for existing. A lot to dissect.  

A lot to dissect, yeah, but it's worth dissecting.

One thing to think seriously about is what you mean by "made it themselves". I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that basically any billionaire "made" their billions. Most of them "made" an initial product or service which was then actually executed on by thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of others which is what grew whatever company into the billions.

And that's the most generous case for a billionaire.

The reality of the billionaire class is that it primarily exists due to financial speculation and inheritance, not the innovative and positive creation of wealth. The Waltons, Kochs, and Mars family heirs have seen their wealthy increase 6000% since the 1980s. The Waltons are over 9000% up in that time period and they didn't make anything.

I guess if you want to make an argument that an individual should be able to amass as much wealth as possible by any means possible and then leave only a small amount behind in inheritance that would be an interesting conversation, but no rational argument can be made that anyone "made" or "earned" an inherited pile of money.

A lot of what you're saying ("made it themselves" and "best and the brightest", "rewarded" and "America is full of lazy people") is just neoliberal capitalist propaganda that you've been spoonfed from birth and should look at far more critically. It is class warfare language, and coming from the wrong side. You feel and experience the alienation created by the 1% but still operate in the rhetorical framework they want you to, and you should break that down.

 

[Anastasis 23475]

This is what it looks like when you use 2000 billionaires in this country to justify tax increases on ~10MM upper middle class working families.

[fattyflattie 4639]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

One thing to think seriously about is what you mean by "made it themselves". I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that basically any billionaire "made" their billions. Most of them "made" an initial product or service which was then actually executed on by thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of others which is what grew whatever company into the billions.

Correct.  The people that executed it for them were paid for their services, and were free to leave for a better gig. Often times these folks are paid very well. See Hilcorp.  There are lots of very rich people who got rich because they (not their grandfather) had a vision.  The ability to have that vision is not worthless, I’d argue quite the opposite.  And let’s not just talk about billionaires, let’s say wealth of 250mm.  
 

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A lot of what you're saying ("made it themselves" and "best and the brightest", "rewarded" and "America is full of lazy people") is just neoliberal capitalist propaganda that you've been spoonfed from birth and should look at far more critically

I disagree. Name me billionaires that created their fortune (not inherited) that aren’t bright. And like you, I live in Houston.  You are being obtuse if you can’t spot lazy. I’m not saying everyone who isn’t rich is lazy; I’m saying there’s a whole shitload of don’t try hard in our society.  A staggering amount of people who are happy to live their entire lives without putting any real effort into advancing their situation. I don’t necessarily feel that should be rewarded.  At a minimum I’d need to see the uneducated enrolled in school, the part time workers working full time, anyone convicted of a crime not eligible moving forwards, etc. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

This is why I love Liz's wealth tax idea.  No human being needs a billion dollars.  That is obscene and serves no purpose whatsoever to the greater good of the world. I don't care how much you give to charity, the scope of a billion (or more) dollars is beyond the comprehension of most people.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Fatty, have you met this Brad guy? I think the two of you would really hit it off. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is why I love Liz's wealth tax idea.  No human being needs a billion dollars.  That is obscene and serves no purpose whatsoever to the greater good of the world. I don't care how much you give to charity, the scope of a billion (or more) dollars is beyond the comprehension of most people.

It's pretty damn simple. Have 999 million dollars that you still couldn't spend in 10 lifetimes and ensure your next 10 generations off offspring will be well off, 3 people having more wealth than the majority of the country is grotesque any way you look at it.

[bad_teammate 13215]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Correct.  The people that executed it for them were paid for their services, and were free to leave for a better gig.

But what if a system is created where that "better gig" doesn't really exist as an option? Why do you hold it on faith that a "better gig" is always available when you actually know from life experience that it isn't true?

The larger question: Why do you let the narrative you've been sold outweigh the evidence you have lived? Free yourself from those mental chains.

Quote

Name me billionaires that created their fortune (not inherited) that aren’t bright.

"Bright" is a vague term. An idiot savant at financial markets can be useless in every aspect of existence other than making money, is he "bright"?

More accurate to your initial assertion, is he the "best" and the "brightest"?

Is he better and brighter than Jim Allison, a man who has 1/10,000th his wealth?

Quote

I’m not saying everyone who isn’t rich is lazy; I’m saying there’s a whole shitload of don’t try hard in our society.  A staggering amount of people who are happy to live their entire lives without putting any real effort into advancing their situation.

Sure, fine, there are "lazy" people out there, whatever that might mean.

But do you really think financial success should be 100% meritocratic? Or is your hostility only pointing downwards?

If it is a meritocracy, we should strip Wyatt Koch of every dollar he has, right?

 

Quote

I don’t necessarily feel that should be rewarded.  At a minimum I’d need to see the uneducated enrolled in school, the part time workers working full time, anyone convicted of a crime not eligible moving forwards, etc. 

Put your negative feelings towards the poor aside, because that is yet another conditioning effort on the part of the wealth class over decades. Those feelings only cloud your rational mind.

Even if we assume that X% of people are lazier or more prone to crime than us (their superiors), what positive benefit is there to not providing for them basic needs and basic opportunities? Does it make the society better to

Is a basic life a "reward"? Who is the authority holding the prizes to be given away and how is that determined? Who is the judge that decides the right amount of hard-working/lazy?

How much of your hostility towards those below you is based on your own fear of falling downward?

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is what it looks like when you use 2000 billionaires in this country to justify tax increases on ~10MM upper middle class working families.

Anastasis can always be counted on to be at his most furious when wealth is threatened with being slightly lessened.

Edited October 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 20966]

The Wyatt Koch video is SO goddamn funny and SO goddamn infuriating. 

 

[Anastasis 23475]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Anastasis can always be counted on to be at his most furious when wealth is threatened with being slightly lessened.

This exchange started with a proposal to increase taxes on something like 20+ million upper middle income workers. You are using a pivot to the wealth of billionaires as a distraction to that point. But carry on. 

[bad_teammate 13215]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You are using a pivot to the wealth of billionaires as a distraction to that point.

To which point, specifically? Did he ever make a specific argument about this 10MM upper middle class that you brought up? I don't see it. Can you point to it?

You inserted your own argument post-facto and pretended I was deflecting from an imagined argument, because you're a shill and it's sad to see that basically the only thing that animates you is when wealth is threatened.

[bad_teammate 13215]

So is there anyone who is genuinely and honestly opposed to eliminating the SS tax cap on individual incomes? Or is this a red herring from a reactionary fiscal conservative?

[Anastasis 23475]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

basically the only thing that animates you is when wealth is threatened.

I prefer that if we are indeed going to build a tax policy around the concept "tax the billionaires and the extremes of the wealth distribution" that the policies actually target billionaires and the extremes of the wealth. Rhetorical slight of hand such as " It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year –", is counterproductive to having an honest discussion of the issue.  

[bad_teammate 13215]

If there's a rhetorical sleight of hand, shill, it's your assertion that we can either discuss the 0.1% or the 2%, but not both.

- We should eliminate the SS cap on taxable income.

- We should eliminate the billionaire class. (Not by killing the people (yet), but but expropriating the wealth.)

These exist side by side.

[Anastasis 23475]

 

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

These exist side by side.

OK.  Then I think that you should keep them side by side and not blur the concepts of wealth and income in your explanation of a proposal to remove the SS cap. 

 

[bad_teammate 13215]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OK.  Then I think that you should keep them side by side and not blur the concepts of wealth and income in your explanation of a proposal to remove the SS cap.

Where did I do that?

I was responding to a post regarding why someone in the Top 2% feels economically precarious. And that is because of extreme wealth concentration, which is what I went on to discuss.

He did not argue that the SS tax cap shouldn't be raised because of how he feels, he was merely expressing surprise at the statistics and I went on to provide an explanation behind the situation that surprised him.

Would you like to argue that we shouldn't raise the SS tax cap now that you realize that you are inventing this conflict out of nothing?

[Anastasis 23475]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Where did I do that?

I already quoted it.

" It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year –"

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Would you like to argue that we shouldn't raise the SS tax cap now that you realize that you are inventing this conflict out of nothing?

I don't think that we should eliminate the cap.  But I think that if we do eliminate the cap, we should assess the impact of eliminating the cap on SS payout calculations and liabilities, and we need to acknowledge that this represents a tax increase on a substantial number of upper middle income working families. 

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I already quoted it.

" It would extend the program’s solvency by making the wealthiest 1.8 percent of Americans – those with incomes of more than $250,000 a year –"

There's nothing in there about billionaires, so where's the conflation? The discussion regarding billionaires came after this and even that wasn't in the context of a dispute about whether or not the SS tax cap should be eliminated.

Quote

I don't think that we should eliminate the cap.

Cool you should've just started with this and voiced your bad opinion instead of trying to hide it behind a spurious accusation.

Quote

 But I think that if we do eliminate the cap, we should assess the impact of eliminating the cap on SS payout calculations and liabilities, and we need to acknowledge that this represents a tax increase on a substantial number of upper middle income working families. 

What does "upper middle income working families" mean in terms of the income distribution statistics? If you are Top 3% are you "upper middle income"?

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

An idiot savant at financial markets can be useless in every aspect of existence other than making money, is he "bright"?

Yes.  One can be spectacular in one facet, weak in others, and still be bright. To use your point about Jim Allison, while he is brilliant is science, could he pen a bestselling novel? 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Put your negative feelings towards the poor aside, because that is yet another conditioning effort on the part of the wealth class over decades. Those feelings only cloud your rational mind.

I don’t believe that. Poor people hate being poor. It’s not because they were conditioned to hate it, it’s because eating and sleeping in squalor fucking sucks. I imagine  can only miss so many meals before you realize, this sucks.  I am talking poor, not my iphone is a gen 3 and I can’t afford more than an apartment poor. 
 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

what positive benefit is there to not providing for them basic needs and basic opportunities?

We live in America. Peoples basic needs are met. There is literally more opportunity here than anywhere on earth.  Ask anyone who isn’t from here.

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is the judge that decides the right amount of hard-working/lazy?

The person you are taking from, to give to another.  The govt takes from all, well some, of us and distributes it as it sees fit.  We have a say with our vote. The American voter is the judge. The top .001% are going to be pouring money into influencing that vote. 
 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How much of your hostility towards those below you is based on your own fear of falling downward?

This is an odd take, but I’ll play. I don’t really have that fear as a college educated American male. Work comes and goes, but falling downward? I guess. Falling downward enough to where I think I am owed other people’s money because they have more, nah.  
 

I’m ok with people having a billion dollars. Maybe they pay a few more points on tax on it.  This is going to strengthen hiding money elsewhere, which benefits no one.  We still live in a society where you can choose where you work, where you live, etc.  If it offends you to work for a billionaire, get a job with the govt, or a non-profit, or whatever.   I think the biggest factor is if you could remove their heavy hand from politics.  Purchasing politicians is bullshit 

[bad_teammate 13215]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

I don’t believe that. Poor people hate being poor. It’s not because they were conditioned to hate it, it’s because eating and sleeping in squalor fucking sucks. I imagine  can only miss so many meals before you realize, this sucks.  I am talking poor, not my iphone is a gen 3 and I can’t afford more than an apartment poor. 

If you're raised in that level of existence (call it whatever you want), then what is the frame of reference for hating it? If I am raised in economic insecurity, then what model do I actually have for understanding other things are possible? How does it impact their ability to lead a life you and I (superior humans) would consider admirable?

Also, do you not understand that people can be defeated and lose hope? People give up all the time.

Quote

We live in America. Peoples basic needs are met. There is literally more opportunity here than anywhere on earth.  Ask anyone who isn’t from here.

We do, in fact, live in a society. That's true.

However, your characterization of the US as the land of most opportunity is statistically false. Our socioeconomic mobility is well below our more social-democratic Western European allies.

And as for asking people not from here, I do and have, and business associates from Europe are often shocked at the deplorable state of our class mobility and social welfare system (and the rate at which we shoot each other and ourselves to death).
 

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The Wyatt Koch video is SO goddamn funny and SO goddamn infuriating. 

 

Kylie Jenner is worth at or almost a Billion dollars because he sister sucked a dick on camera.  

[fattyflattie 4639]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If you're raised in that level of existence (call it whatever you want), then what is the frame of reference for hating it?

Knowing you are hungry and others are not is not hard to understand. Like I stated, I’m talking about poor. Not “why do we have a crappy 3 series and that rich family down the street has an M5”?

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How does it impact their ability to lead a life you and I (superior humans) would consider admirable?

Superior humans? 

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And as for asking people not from here, I do and have, and business associates from Europe are often shocked at the deplorable state of our class mobility and social welfare system (and the rate at which we shoot each other and ourselves to death).

Well our anecdotal experiences vary. Until my recent gig, every company I’ve worked have been international (one headquartered in Europe).  I’ve been told a few times (3?) how lucky we are here that you can actually have a business. You can hang your shingle and make something. Funny thing the last time I was told that, was from a well to do Dutch guy who owns several businesses here.  He has never hurt for money, and was VERY well educated.  But he didn’t “make it” until he got to the US.  I will agree most don’t understand the shooting each other thing.  I was also surprised how racist many of them are, but that’s a whole other deal. 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

So anyways, I decided to stop off in Gstaad on my way home from Lake Como because I heard there was some fresh powder, and I'm in my Chalet drinking brandy before going to the Symphony, and I run into this Austrian guy who's the last remaining Hapsburg heir, and he's telling me how amazing America is because we can start businesses, and I'm like hell yeah bro I know that it's why I am so rich because I trade options derivatives because of the freedom and then I get home and my housekeeper is limping for some reason so I'm like "hey, whatever your  name is, you're scuffing the reclaimed hardwood floors in the second dining room" and she's all like "me so sorry, they amputate my foot I no can pay for insulin" and I'm like "I don't have time for this, America is the greatest country on earth and you just didn't use your opportunity like I did" and then I fired her. So yeah, what's up with this Bernie guy? 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Hank Scorpio