Bernie Sanders says the 1 percent have screwed-up brains — and science proves he’s right

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Certainly not a Forbes hit piece glorifying the unscrupulous rats who prefer to parade their charitable works.

So then on nothing?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Certainly not a Forbes hit piece glorifying the unscrupulous rats who prefer to parade their charitable works.

So then on nothing?

Ahh to live in that bubble again.

I won't burst it for you.

originally posted by: Pluginn
Yea my feeling as well, when they give to charity I often wonder if it's almost like promoting themselves with showing how good they are, like making up (for the bad) and showing and telling everyone about their good deeds.

So if they give to charity they are just selfish publicity hounds.
If they don't they are just greedy..
I guess no matter what they do its a losing proposition.

a reply to: schuyler

Sheeple, huh? You got anything backing him being in the 1%?

Sanders’ estimated net worth, $330,507, makes him one of the nation’s poorest senators, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Net Worth

That's about 1/20th what it takes to be in the 1%

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ahh to live in that bubble again.

I won't burst it for you.

Please do.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

What I could never understand about the multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires is how they sit on their millions and billions of dollars. I mean how much money do you really need? I'm no millionaire, but I'm satisfied with what I have in life. I could probably buy a bigger and nicer house in a better neighborhood, but I'm honestly content with what I have.

You would think for example, Trump, Gates, or the Waltons would want to give a billion or two towards the homeless, or another cause that would directly help individuals or humanity as a whole. It just seems like people who didn't have money and than became ultra-rich later in life, lose their perspective on reality and where they came from.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

What you are describing here is a socialist idea referred to by Mises as polylogism.

A polylogist would claim that different groups reason in fundamentally different ways: they use different "logics" for deductive inference. Normative polylogism is the claim that these different logics are equally valid. Descriptive polylogism is an empirical claim about different groups, but a descriptive polylogism need not claim equal validity for different "logics". That is, a descriptive polylogist may insist on a universally valid deductive logic while claiming as an empirical matter that some groups use other (incorrect) reasoning strategies.

An adherent of polylogism in the Misesian sense would be a normative polylogist. A normative polylogist might approach an argument by demonstrating how it was correct within a particular logical construct, even if it were incorrect within the logic of the analyst. As Mises noted "this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

I believe it has been given a name sort of.."Affluence" it is a real diagnosis of the ultra spoiled and super rich..

a reply to: AlaskanDad

They have screwed up brains?
Who cares.......they got all the money. That's really all that matters because with all that money, they have all the power. Money talks, BS walks, pure and simple.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Isurrender73

Out of those 70 million you link to 50 of them who give to charity which is .00001%. So the other 99.99999% must be who the OP is referring too.

Have you read the study? The results? The criticism? Do you honestly think it is referring to 70million people except the 50 Forbes listed?

Yes I read the article. The article is talking about more than the 1% but Bernie Sanders was only referring to the 1%.

I have worked with many millionaires, and for the most part making more money was more important to them than their employees. I have worked with a few more generous millionaires but they are the exception not the norm.

The problem with wealth is entitlement. Once someone feels entitled to extraordinary wealth it is virtually impossible for them to relate to the lower class. Those born with wealth have an even deeper disconnect than those who started out in a more middle class setting.

This is my opinion based on my first hand relationships with approximately 100 millionaires.

Would you prefer of I said the article was about a few hundred million people which would be approximately 99.999999% of the wealthy? I'm not seeing how you have helped your opinion with your rebuttal.

Add - Entitlement has the tendency to blind the wealthy of their disconnection. They will often times try to justify their behavior as normal, and their incomes as righteously justified. While their employees work two jobs just to make ends meet.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Bill gates does not have 60 billion in his checking account.
I would guess he has most of that invested in a diversified portfolio including foreign "offshore" accounts.
Only a fool would let that much money collect dust and not dividends.
Those dividends are what he give to charities.

The study had absolutely nothing to do with the 1%, or even the significantly wealthy for that matter. It observed interactions in drivers who had nicer cars at California intersections, and no more than 800 of them. How this equates to "rich people are sociopaths" is beyond me, and is likely the result of identity politics.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I asked if you read the study.

There are at least 3 kinds of 1%ers, The ones born with it, the ones who earned it, and the ones who got it from gaming technicalities and bureaucracies.

Most talented math and engineering graduates are now becoming the ones who game the system, instead of advancing civilization's scientific frontiers.

And the system is there to be gamed because of the good intentions of Sanderites and their kind.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Ahh to live in that bubble again.

I won't burst it for you.

Please do.

If you honestly need insight into the debauchery of the Rothschilds, Carlos Slim, the Rockerfellers etc and publicise their philanthropic endeavours as proof of their benevolence then no amount of evidence will help you.

You believe what you like, I'll do the same.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Meanwhile, Sanders and his wife, Jane, were likely in about the top 5 percent of American income earners last year, according to copies of their 2014 tax returns obtained by Vermont Public Radio.

The Sanders household took in more than $205,000 in 2014, and paid the feds nearly $28,000 in taxes — an effective rate of about 20 percent based on Sanders' taxable income of $141,000. That means they likely earned more than 95 percent of Americans, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau.

So there's that. I'm having a hard time believing his net worth is $330,000. Someone should dig into that a bit.

One unanswered question raised by the returns is the breakdown of the Sanders' $56,377 in itemized federal deductions. The Sanders donated $8,350 to undisclosed charities, Briggs said. But the campaign declined to release any more information about the deductions.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Isurrender73

I asked if you read the study.

I read the scientific American article,,,,, it's complete crap.
Observed behavior of luxury car drivers at an intersection. I hope they didn't pay somebody for that study. Smh..

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Isurrender73

I asked if you read the study.

I don't need to. I have worked with them. And it gets worse the more money they have.

All you have to do is to look at our paid for politicians and laws that generate more wealth for the 1% while crippling the lower and middle class to see it doesn't get better at the top.

Study or no study I stand by everything I said.

Personal experience trumps any study.Elitism and self worth based on wallet size is prevalent and a crippling force in this world of me first, me last, and me alll things in between.

originally posted by: highfromphoenix
Okay I have a question....

I also behave unethically, am unlikely to give to charities and display high levels of narcissism. On top of that I'm selfish and have very little regard for other people.

It seems I should be super rich! WTH?!?!

You are apparently a lazy sociopath then.

It does happen frequently.

;-)

a reply to: Isurrender73

Personal experience trumps any study.Elitism and self worth based on wallet size is prevalent and a crippling force in this world of me first, me last, and me alll things in between.

And what is your experience of the poor?