‘World’s Poorest President’ Explains Why We Should Kick Rich People Out Of Politics

[Jarhyn]

There is nothing stopping a non-millionaire from getting a few votes. Or even a whole bunch of different non-millionaires from getting a bunch of votes between them. But getting a handful of votes doesn't win elections. And lots of minor player votes doesn't add up to a winner.

If Joe Blow is to stand any chance at all of winning, he needs to, at the bear minimum, have been heard of by more than half of those 125,000,000 people.

By what method do you propose he could achieve this that does not involve large sums of money?

How does a candidate with little or no money get his name known to the voters; much less get his claimed policy positions, sales pitch, and request for support out there for consideration by potential voters?

People can vote FOR a poor person; but they cannot choose to vote IN a poor person - because for that to happen, MOST voters need to have heard of him. And a poor candidate has no way to even cross that minimal hurdle.

Nothing you said there really matters with respect to my point. The fact remains that if the 99% won't vote for a rich person, some not-rich person will surely win. You could create a 99% party that promises it will never run a 1%er ever, and if 99% of the people join it I don't see how it could lose.

Also, Bernie Sanders was practically a bum before entering government and he a) is known and b) has spent many times over what Donald Trump has trying to get elected, so there's something in your point not entirely consistent with observable reality.

He may be an uber-1%er now but Bill Clinton had never had a job paying much more that $30,000 per year before he became president and he won twice.

Rubio is not particularly rich either. Certainly not a 1%er. At least I never see him at the meetings.

That's not actually true though. You obviously understand absolutely nothing of Game Theory, the actual study of such issues.

A rich person can advertise. A poor person cannot. This is because advertising requires disposable income, something that poor people BY DEFINITION do not have. Even IF every poor person had another poor person they wanted to vote for, the poor candidate does not have the means to unify the bloc enough to beat out the effect of advertising. Further, there is the barrier to entry of ballot listing. Because the United States has a limited number of slots on the ballot, the candidates are preselected by people who have influence within the party, campaign contributors, people who have been in office long enough to get bought with campaign contributions, etc. Even without the advertising barrier, there is still the party selection barrier, which to overcome requires money, oftentimes because the gatekeepers see monetary success as a factor of electability, and electability drives party selection.

For instance, some here would probably make an excellent POTUS. Far better than anyone on the ballot, at any rate. But without sufficient money, that just can't happen. Trump can buy a seat next to the Republican candidates. Vermin Supreme cannot.

This dynamic changes entirely if the wealthy cannot both run and remain wealthy, if the wealthy cannot use their wealth to advertise, and if candidacy is selected by some means not involving the decisions of those who are already predisposed to select the wealthy.

That said i dont think wealthy people are incapable of being good representatives. I only think they cannot remain impartial so long as they are given the opportunity to remain wealthy while in office and for somenperiod after to prevent them from buying seats or being bought.

 

[dismal]

Nothing you said there really matters with respect to my point. The fact remains that if the 99% won't vote for a rich person, some not-rich person will surely win. You could create a 99% party that promises it will never run a 1%er ever, and if 99% of the people join it I don't see how it could lose.

Also, Bernie Sanders was practically a bum before entering government and he a) is known and b) has spent many times over what Donald Trump has trying to get elected, so there's something in your point not entirely consistent with observable reality.

He may be an uber-1%er now but Bill Clinton had never had a job paying much more that $30,000 per year before he became president and he won twice.

Rubio is not particularly rich either. Certainly not a 1%er. At least I never see him at the meetings.

How exactly is the bolded possible for a person with no money?

(Hint: it isn't).

One of us seems to have an argument inconsistent with reality; my bet is that it's the one who describes as 'practically a bum' someone who has the ability to then outspend Donald Trump.

It's an easily verifiable fact that the Sanders campaign has spent many times over more money than Trump.

If you lack such a basic understanding of the American political system that you find this easily verifiable reality unimaginable, it seems the problem can be addressed with a little basic research on your end.

 

[dismal]

Nothing you said there really matters with respect to my point. The fact remains that if the 99% won't vote for a rich person, some not-rich person will surely win. You could create a 99% party that promises it will never run a 1%er ever, and if 99% of the people join it I don't see how it could lose.

Also, Bernie Sanders was practically a bum before entering government and he a) is known and b) has spent many times over what Donald Trump has trying to get elected, so there's something in your point not entirely consistent with observable reality.

He may be an uber-1%er now but Bill Clinton had never had a job paying much more that $30,000 per year before he became president and he won twice.

Rubio is not particularly rich either. Certainly not a 1%er. At least I never see him at the meetings.

That's not actually true though. You obviously understand absolutely nothing of Game Theory, the actual study of such issues.

A rich person can advertise. A poor person cannot. This is because advertising requires disposable income, something that poor people BY DEFINITION do not have. Even IF every poor person had another poor person they wanted to vote for, the poor candidate does not have the means to unify the bloc enough to beat out the effect of advertising. Further, there is the barrier to entry of ballot listing. Because the United States has a limited number of slots on the ballot, the candidates are preselected by people who have influence within the party, campaign contributors, people who have been in office long enough to get bought with campaign contributions, etc. Even without the advertising barrier, there is still the party selection barrier, which to overcome requires money, oftentimes because the gatekeepers see monetary success as a factor of electability, and electability drives party selection.

For instance, some here would probably make an excellent POTUS. Far better than anyone on the ballot, at any rate. But without sufficient money, that just can't happen. Trump can buy a seat next to the Republican candidates. Vermin Supreme cannot.

This dynamic changes entirely if the wealthy cannot both run and remain wealthy, if the wealthy cannot use their wealth to advertise, and if candidacy is selected by some means not involving the decisions of those who are already predisposed to select the wealthy.

That said i dont think wealthy people are incapable of being good representatives. I only think they cannot remain impartial so long as they are given the opportunity to remain wealthy while in office and for somenperiod after to prevent them from buying seats or being bought.

Game theory? The problem seems to be you acquaintance with easily verifiable facts. It does not take game theory knowledge to establish that Sanders a) is a not rich b) has spent many times more money than Trump on this election.

If you believe this can't be true when it is true the problem is entire rooted in your ignorance of the facts, not game theory.

 

[dismal]

Perhaps this link will help address the ignorance and or unimaginability factor for some in this thread.

The campaign of a guy who spent some of his adult years living in a dirt floor hut has in fact wildly outspent Trump to date:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0

 

[bilby]

How exactly is the bolded possible for a person with no money?

(Hint: it isn't).

One of us seems to have an argument inconsistent with reality; my bet is that it's the one who describes as 'practically a bum' someone who has the ability to then outspend Donald Trump.

It's an easily verifiable fact that the Sanders campaign has spent many times over more money than Trump.

And I do not dispute it in any way, shape or form.

So, from this undisputed fact we must conclude that Sanders was not poor. A person who has millions to spend, or who has the ability to raise such sums to fund a highly speculative venture with a low chance of success (and a Presidential bid has a very low chance of success, even for a wealthy and well connected person - just ask Jeb Bush) is, by any reasonable definition of 'poor', NOT a poor person.

Poor people cannot be elected president in the current US system, any more than a poor person can buy a private jet - there is no law against them trying, but by definition, their poverty prevents them from having any chance at success. The Lear salesman will just laugh them out of his office.

If you lack such a basic understanding of the American political system that you find this easily verifiable reality unimaginable, it seems the problem can be addressed with a little basic research on your end.

it seems that the only failure here is yours - if you think, even for a second, that I have suggested that Sanders has not spent more than Trump, then you seriously need to brush up on your reading skills.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps I can simplify this a bit.

A person who spends large sums of money cannot, by definition, also be poor.

He may have been poor at some point in the past; he may become poor at some future date. But BY DEFINITION people who spend large sums of money are NOT members of the set 'poor people'.

I'm amazed that this simple fact needs to be explained to anyone; but I guess that's 'Political Discussions' for you.

 

[untermensche]

These are the real facts.

Sanders has spent next to nothing from his vast fortune to run for president.

Donald Trump has "lent" his campaign over 10 million dollars of his own money.

It is strange that some think 0 is larger than 10,000,000.

 

[dismal]

It's an easily verifiable fact that the Sanders campaign has spent many times over more money than Trump.

And I do not dispute it in any way, shape or form.

So, from this undisputed fact we must conclude that Sanders was not poor.

So, in other words when confronted with realities that do not match your beliefs you contort the realities.

If Sanders, who was basically a bum who never had a job in his life before entering government, does not count as poor then you're right the poor can't win in this country for the simple reason they can't possibly exist.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is nothing stopping a non-millionaire from getting a few votes. Or even a whole bunch of different non-millionaires from getting a bunch of votes between them. But getting a handful of votes doesn't win elections. And lots of minor player votes doesn't add up to a winner.

If Joe Blow is to stand any chance at all of winning, he needs to, at the bear minimum, have been heard of by more than half of those 125,000,000 people.

By what method do you propose he could achieve this that does not involve large sums of money?

How does a candidate with little or no money get his name known to the voters; much less get his claimed policy positions, sales pitch, and request for support out there for consideration by potential voters?

People can vote FOR a poor person; but they cannot choose to vote IN a poor person - because for that to happen, MOST voters need to have heard of him. And a poor candidate has no way to even cross that minimal hurdle.

Nothing you said there really matters with respect to my point. The fact remains that if the 99% won't vote for a rich person, some not-rich person will surely win. You could create a 99% party that promises it will never run a 1%er ever, and if 99% of the people join it I don't see how it could lose.

Also, Bernie Sanders was practically a bum before entering government and he a) is known and b) has spent many times over what Donald Trump has trying to get elected, so there's something in your point not entirely consistent with observable reality.

He may be an uber-1%er now but Bill Clinton had never had a job paying much more that $30,000 per year before he became president and he won twice.

Rubio is not particularly rich either. Certainly not a 1%er. At least I never see him at the meetings.

Rubio and his wife had a combined income of over 2 million over the past 4 years, so yes he is right at or inside the door of the 1% club, and of the dozen Republicans offered as options on the national stage this election, he is the "poorest".

You are correct about Bill Clinton. He was among the poorest US presidents in the last century when he took office. His and Hillary's combined net worth was $700,000 in 1992, a meager 10 times that of the median household at the time.

Bernie's net worth is a mere 3 times that of the median American family. But not all the 99% have identical interests on all issues. The idea that so long as a single candidate is not a millionaire that should be enough to represent 99% of the population is mindbogglingly elitist. Does your license plate say "Let them eat cake!"? For the 99% to get fair representation, something closer to 99% of the candidates should be non-millionaires, rather than 1%. Even if the median office holder was 5 times richer than the median US family that would be a vast improvement over the current 20 times richer.

 

[dismal]

Nothing you said there really matters with respect to my point. The fact remains that if the 99% won't vote for a rich person, some not-rich person will surely win. You could create a 99% party that promises it will never run a 1%er ever, and if 99% of the people join it I don't see how it could lose.

Also, Bernie Sanders was practically a bum before entering government and he a) is known and b) has spent many times over what Donald Trump has trying to get elected, so there's something in your point not entirely consistent with observable reality.

He may be an uber-1%er now but Bill Clinton had never had a job paying much more that $30,000 per year before he became president and he won twice.

Rubio is not particularly rich either. Certainly not a 1%er. At least I never see him at the meetings.

Rubio and his wife had a combined income of over 2 million over the past 4 years, so yes he is right at or inside the door of the 1% club, and of the dozen Republicans offered as options on the national stage this election, he is the "poorest".

You are correct about Bill Clinton. He was among the poorest US presidents in the last century when he took office. His and Hillary's combined net worth was $700,000 in 1992, a meager 10 times that of the median household at the time.

Bernie's net worth is a mere 3 times that of the median American family. But not all the 99% have identical interests on all issues. The idea that so long as a single candidate is not a millionaire that should be enough to represent 99% of the population is mindbogglingly elitist. Does your license plate say "Let them eat cake!"? For the 99% to get fair representation, something closer to 99% of the candidates should be non-millionaires, rather than 1%. Even if the median office holder was 5 times richer than the median US family that would be a vast improvement over the current 20 times richer.

Clinton and Sanders made whatever personnel wealth they had as government employees (well, and Hillary's cattle futures trading).

If "poor people can't win" then they never would have been elected as governors and senators and obtained the riches therefrom.

My guess is Hillary would have been a less successful cattle futures trader if her husband had not been governor as well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... if Americans were educated about how money affects not just individuals but groups and politics, they would be so easily had and the media not so forcefully promoting him.

One more reason to keep fiscal matters complicated and opaque. I don't think 10% of Americans have any clue how the system is rigged.

That's really the problem, not money.

The solution is to vote for transparency, not whether a candidate is wealthy or eats chocolate.

 

[ronburgundy]

Rubio and his wife had a combined income of over 2 million over the past 4 years, so yes he is right at or inside the door of the 1% club, and of the dozen Republicans offered as options on the national stage this election, he is the "poorest".

You are correct about Bill Clinton. He was among the poorest US presidents in the last century when he took office. His and Hillary's combined net worth was $700,000 in 1992, a meager 10 times that of the median household at the time.

Bernie's net worth is a mere 3 times that of the median American family. But not all the 99% have identical interests on all issues. The idea that so long as a single candidate is not a millionaire that should be enough to represent 99% of the population is mindbogglingly elitist. Does your license plate say "Let them eat cake!"? For the 99% to get fair representation, something closer to 99% of the candidates should be non-millionaires, rather than 1%. Even if the median office holder was 5 times richer than the median US family that would be a vast improvement over the current 20 times richer.

Clinton and Sanders made whatever personnel wealth they had as government employees (well, and Hillary's cattle futures trading).

No. The Clinton's were worth $700k before Bill's first term as President. Bill's governor salary was only $35k per year. Household income is what matters, and Hillary's law income was over $100k per year prior to 1992. Plus, they had mad about $400k in investment returns.

But the general point about $ made in office is important. As I already argued, salaries for elected office should be at most something closer to double the median income rather than 8 times as it is now for Congress and the President. The fact that Bernie, the "poorest" presidential candidate this year, has earned about $150K annual salary as a Congressmen for the past 25 years, 8 times the median salary, only proves the point that the more influential the office the more and more improbable that the voters will have anyone who isn't wealthy as an option to vote for.

If "poor people can't win" then they never would have been elected as governors and senators and obtained the riches therefrom.

It isn't a matter of "can't win", as in it being impossible. It's a matter of it being extremely improbable and it being around a thousand times more likely to be elected to a national office, if you are from the 1% most wealthy Americans.

My guess is Hillary would have been a less successful cattle futures trader if her husband had not been governor as well.

Sure, precisely because the rich control government, those that go into government get richer. It is destructive, non-democratic, bi-directional, symbiotic relationship between wealth and political power. That doesn't change, in fact it underscores, the reality that one of the poorest presidents ever elected was still rich before he was elected President, and its not coincidental but a highly reliable causal relationship.

 

[dismal]

It isn't a matter of "can't win", as in it being impossible. It's a matter of it being extremely improbable and it being around a thousand times more likely to be elected to a national office, if you are from the 1% most wealthy Americans.

Well, yeah, if you count sitting and past governors, congressmen, senators and judges as "rich" because of their six figure government salaries it seems unlikely we'll have a poor president.

But I thought the bar was originally set at the 1%ers. When we start talking about Bernie Sanders drawing a congressional salary as evidence the rich control things we have left the realm of common sense.

 

[bilby]

And I do not dispute it in any way, shape or form.

So, from this undisputed fact we must conclude that Sanders was not poor.

So, in other words when confronted with realities that do not match your beliefs you contort the realities.

If Sanders, who was basically a bum who never had a job in his life before entering government, does not count as poor then you're right the poor can't win in this country for the simple reason they can't possibly exist.

If you think that "poor" and "able to spend large sums of money" are synonymous, then it's no wonder you have such a weak grasp of economic realities.

 

[dismal]

So, in other words when confronted with realities that do not match your beliefs you contort the realities.

If Sanders, who was basically a bum who never had a job in his life before entering government, does not count as poor then you're right the poor can't win in this country for the simple reason they can't possibly exist.

If you think that "poor" and "able to spend large sums of money" are synonymous, then it's no wonder you have such a weak grasp of economic realities.

This is not one of your finer moments.

Assuming your goal is not to seem as stupid as possible here, which I can't completely discount, in the USA the campaign is not equal to the person. Bernie Sanders the person does not have the ability to spend a lot of money because he is not rich. The Bernie Sanders for President campaign and pro Sanders PACs on the other hand have raised a crapton of money and have been spending it to try and elect him president. So much money, in fact, that it is laughable to argue Bernie's campaign's problem is that they don't have money to spend. Bernie's campaign's sole problem at this point is he cant get enough Democrats to willingly vote for him.

 

[bilby]

If you think that "poor" and "able to spend large sums of money" are synonymous, then it's no wonder you have such a weak grasp of economic realities.

This is not one of your finer moments.

Assuming your goal is not to seem as stupid as possible here, which I can't completely discount, in the USA the campaign is not equal to the person. Bernie Sanders the person does not have the ability to spend a lot of money because he is not rich. The Bernie Sanders for President campaign and pro Sanders PACs on the other hand have raised a crapton of money and have been spending it to try and elect him president. So much money, in fact, that it is laughable to argue Bernie's campaign's problem is that they don't have money to spend. Bernie's campaign's sole problem at this point is he cant get enough Democrats to willingly vote for him.

I am not suggesting that Sanders doesn't have money to spend. I am simply pointing out that this fact renders him 'not poor', for ANY reasonable definition of 'poor'. Because 'poor' means 'doesn't have money to spend'. That's what the word 'poor' means. It means 'hasn't got the ability to spend money'.

I don't quite grasp why you are struggling with this concept; although your earlier suggestion that "Clinton and Sanders made whatever personnel wealth they had as government employees" suggests that you think having 'only' a Senator's income is sufficient to qualify as 'poor', which could go some way to explaining your confusion.

To clarify, my current household income is similar to the income Sanders got as a Senator, and I am certainly a LONG way from 'poor'; I am able to fly business class around the world for vacations, and never for an instant do I have to worry that I might not be able to afford to eat - or even to wonder if I can afford to eat out at a fancy restaurant, should I wish to do so.

You seem to be unaware of it, but people exist - indeed, they are a very sizable fraction of American citizens - who are not able to afford vacations, or meals out at fancy restaurants, or, in many cases, meals at all. Those people cannot become President. It would be impossible for them to achieve that goal, for purely financial reasons. And one of the barriers to those people, should they wish to make a presidential run, is that NOBODY would form a 'John Doe for President campaign' for a person who couldn't put up any money at all in their own right. They have no more chance of getting a PAC to raise money for them than they have of getting a mortgage on a five bedroom home in an affluent suburb*. Because they are POOR.

Of course, I realise that you have been talking past me this whole time, because you are not actually addressing the chances of the poor; you are addressing the chances of the non-rich - the people who are not millionaires, or not in the 1% - what we might call the middle classes. Those people - people like me, who can't have a Lear jet, but can have a nice vacation on the other side of the planet, and people like Bernie, who has been earning six figures for a couple of decades - could, in principle, become president. But they are no more in touch with, nor able to represent the bums sleeping on park benches, than are the hyper billionaires.

Indeed, your abject failure to grasp that people so poor that a presidential bid is completely impossible for them even exist is a perfect example of the problem - a sizable fraction of Americans are so poor that even you (and I assume you are no richer than I) cannot, or at least do not, really understand just how limited the options and opportunities are for them. Your failure to really understand their lives highlights the fact that you, I, and other people of similar means, are unlikely to be suitable representatives for them - so they are effectively disenfranchised.








*Example may not apply in the immediate run-up to the 2008 crash.

 

[Deepak]

But they are no more in touch with, nor able to represent the bums sleeping on park benches, than are the hyper billionaires.

Maybe things are different in your neck of the woods, and I'm being facetious because I've resided in both your old and new locality, but mobility between poor and middle class, poor and upper class, and even poor and rich us possible in the good ol US of A. The real divide is between the wealthy and the rest, and many people in my and your financial situation aren't as out of touch as you claim.

* See Chris Rock for the difference between rich and wealthy

 

[dismal]

This is not one of your finer moments.

Assuming your goal is not to seem as stupid as possible here, which I can't completely discount, in the USA the campaign is not equal to the person. Bernie Sanders the person does not have the ability to spend a lot of money because he is not rich. The Bernie Sanders for President campaign and pro Sanders PACs on the other hand have raised a crapton of money and have been spending it to try and elect him president. So much money, in fact, that it is laughable to argue Bernie's campaign's problem is that they don't have money to spend. Bernie's campaign's sole problem at this point is he cant get enough Democrats to willingly vote for him.

I am not suggesting that Sanders doesn't have money to spend. I am simply pointing out that this fact renders him 'not poor', for ANY reasonable definition of 'poor'. Because 'poor' means 'doesn't have money to spend'. That's what the word 'poor' means. It means 'hasn't got the ability to spend money'.

I don't quite grasp why you are struggling with this concept; although your earlier suggestion that "Clinton and Sanders made whatever personnel wealth they had as government employees" suggests that you think having 'only' a Senator's income is sufficient to qualify as 'poor', which could go some way to explaining your confusion.

To clarify, my current household income is similar to the income Sanders got as a Senator, and I am certainly a LONG way from 'poor'; I am able to fly business class around the world for vacations, and never for an instant do I have to worry that I might not be able to afford to eat - or even to wonder if I can afford to eat out at a fancy restaurant, should I wish to do so.

You seem to be unaware of it, but people exist - indeed, they are a very sizable fraction of American citizens - who are not able to afford vacations, or meals out at fancy restaurants, or, in many cases, meals at all. Those people cannot become President. It would be impossible for them to achieve that goal, for purely financial reasons. And one of the barriers to those people, should they wish to make a presidential run, is that NOBODY would form a 'John Doe for President campaign' for a person who couldn't put up any money at all in their own right. They have no more chance of getting a PAC to raise money for them than they have of getting a mortgage on a five bedroom home in an affluent suburb*. Because they are POOR.

Of course, I realise that you have been talking past me this whole time, because you are not actually addressing the chances of the poor; you are addressing the chances of the non-rich - the people who are not millionaires, or not in the 1% - what we might call the middle classes. Those people - people like me, who can't have a Lear jet, but can have a nice vacation on the other side of the planet, and people like Bernie, who has been earning six figures for a couple of decades - could, in principle, become president. But they are no more in touch with, nor able to represent the bums sleeping on park benches, than are the hyper billionaires.

Indeed, your abject failure to grasp that people so poor that a presidential bid is completely impossible for them even exist is a perfect example of the problem - a sizable fraction of Americans are so poor that even you (and I assume you are no richer than I) cannot, or at least do not, really understand just how limited the options and opportunities are for them. Your failure to really understand their lives highlights the fact that you, I, and other people of similar means, are unlikely to be suitable representatives for them - so they are effectively disenfranchised.








*Example may not apply in the immediate run-up to the 2008 crash.

Have you considered that if Bernie spent $80 million trying to be President then Berinie doesn't have that $80 million and is poor?

 

[bilby]

I am not suggesting that Sanders doesn't have money to spend. I am simply pointing out that this fact renders him 'not poor', for ANY reasonable definition of 'poor'. Because 'poor' means 'doesn't have money to spend'. That's what the word 'poor' means. It means 'hasn't got the ability to spend money'.

I don't quite grasp why you are struggling with this concept; although your earlier suggestion that "Clinton and Sanders made whatever personnel wealth they had as government employees" suggests that you think having 'only' a Senator's income is sufficient to qualify as 'poor', which could go some way to explaining your confusion.

To clarify, my current household income is similar to the income Sanders got as a Senator, and I am certainly a LONG way from 'poor'; I am able to fly business class around the world for vacations, and never for an instant do I have to worry that I might not be able to afford to eat - or even to wonder if I can afford to eat out at a fancy restaurant, should I wish to do so.

You seem to be unaware of it, but people exist - indeed, they are a very sizable fraction of American citizens - who are not able to afford vacations, or meals out at fancy restaurants, or, in many cases, meals at all. Those people cannot become President. It would be impossible for them to achieve that goal, for purely financial reasons. And one of the barriers to those people, should they wish to make a presidential run, is that NOBODY would form a 'John Doe for President campaign' for a person who couldn't put up any money at all in their own right. They have no more chance of getting a PAC to raise money for them than they have of getting a mortgage on a five bedroom home in an affluent suburb*. Because they are POOR.

Of course, I realise that you have been talking past me this whole time, because you are not actually addressing the chances of the poor; you are addressing the chances of the non-rich - the people who are not millionaires, or not in the 1% - what we might call the middle classes. Those people - people like me, who can't have a Lear jet, but can have a nice vacation on the other side of the planet, and people like Bernie, who has been earning six figures for a couple of decades - could, in principle, become president. But they are no more in touch with, nor able to represent the bums sleeping on park benches, than are the hyper billionaires.

Indeed, your abject failure to grasp that people so poor that a presidential bid is completely impossible for them even exist is a perfect example of the problem - a sizable fraction of Americans are so poor that even you (and I assume you are no richer than I) cannot, or at least do not, really understand just how limited the options and opportunities are for them. Your failure to really understand their lives highlights the fact that you, I, and other people of similar means, are unlikely to be suitable representatives for them - so they are effectively disenfranchised.








*Example may not apply in the immediate run-up to the 2008 crash.

Have you considered that if Bernie spent $80 million trying to be President then Berinie doesn't have that $80 million and is poor?

No, because that isn't the question under discussion.

You can't buy a Lear jet if you are poor. If buying a Lear jet makes you poor, that new fact does not change the original fact, that you had to not be poor in order to buy the Lear jet.

 

[dismal]

Have you considered that if Bernie spent $80 million trying to be President then Berinie doesn't have that $80 million and is poor?

No, because that isn't the question under discussion.

You can't buy a Lear jet if you are poor. If buying a Lear jet makes you poor, that new fact does not change the original fact, that you had to not be poor in order to buy the Lear jet.

A lear jet is an asset. If your campaign raises $80 million to run for president and spends $80 million running for President all you have left is whatever you had before. Plus the satisfaction of winning a few small New England states where white people live.