Sanders confuses ‘revenue’ and ‘profit’ as he rails for unionization of video game industry

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders confused “revenue” and “profit” in supporting the efforts to unionize the video game industry. The U.S. senator from Vermont, who’s constantly trailing Vice President Joe Biden in the polls, made the embarrassing basic economics mistake on social media Tuesday. “The video game industry made $43 billion in revenue last year. The workers responsible for that profit deserve to collectively bargain as part of a union. I’m glad to see unions like @IATSE and the broader @GameWorkers movement organizing such workers,” Sanders tweeted. The democratic socialist appears to not differentiate between “profit” and “revenue” – the money company brings in before it deducts workers’ wages and other expenses needed to produce the product. This means that Sanders’ plea for workers to get a share of “that profit” was fulfilled as he was pointing out to revenue. While the video game industry indeed brought around $43 billion in revenue in the U.S. last year, or about $135 billion worldwide, the profit figure is multiple times lower than the revenue. This isn’t the first time Sanders appears to have confused revenue of a company with profit for making a political point. Earlier this month, Sanders crashed Walmart’s annual shareholders’ meeting, where he urged the shareholders to ensure living wages for the workers as “the American people are sick and tired of subsidizing the greed of some of the largest and most profitable corporations in this country.” While Walmart is indeed the company that brings the most revenue in the U.S., its profit put the company only as the 40th on the Fortune 500 list and is just 99th when ranked profit per employee thanks to its 2.3 million workforce.

Bernie is who he is; a socialist.  He had his honeymoon in Moscow, in the then-USSR.  The fact that he doesn’t understand basic economics shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with half a brain.

Carol Roth: Calling socialism ‘democratic’ is like putting lipstick on a pig

When asked in a recent townhall by a Harvard student whose family fled Soviet Russia why he embraced the same type of socialist policies that had failed there and worldwide, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did what he always does. He deflected. According to Sanders, he isn’t advocating for that kind of socialism. No, he has dressed his philosophy up with a fancy moniker called “democratic socialism.” It’s a phrase that many on the far left have embraced as they push anti-free market propaganda and policies that seek to concentrate more power within the hands of a few political elites. They can call it “democratic socialism,” but socialism is so awful and flawed that no modifier can make it palatable — garbage by any other name still stinks. In fact, adding “democratic” to socialism is basically the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. Socialism is a system set up for failure by design. The true definition of socialism is the government owning the means of production and having a few people — those aforementioned political elite- decide what’s in everyone else’s best interest. It stands in stark contrast to free markets, which give everyone individual choice and free choice to make those decisions for themselves. Supposing you had the smartest people around (which is not usually something associated with politicians) with perfect and trustworthy moral intent (also not something associated with politicians), the structure of having a small number of people decide how to allocate resources is still an impossible task. Even with the assistance of AI models or other technology, no group of people have the right incentives and knowledge to replicate the complex yet elegant work of the free market to efficiently and effectively allocate resources. With hundreds of thousands or even millions of products and services in the U.S., the task of allocating the right amount of resources and deciding how much of each good or service to create at any one time, who should create them, how they should be created, how they should reach potential consumers, pricing and other market factors is impossible for any group of planners. It’s why countries like India have seen famines during times where they had plenty of food in the country; they lacked the right incentives to get the product to the people who needed it. It’s also why pure socialism has failed every single time it has been tried with horrific consequences and isn’t known for amazing innovations, either. In his quest to soften socialism, Sanders has tweeted that “Democratic Socialism means democracy.” But, the “democracy” descriptor is no picnic either. Our founding fathers intentionally created a federal republic (or constitutional republic or whatever similar phrase you prefer) and not a democracy, because of democracy’s inherent flaws. As Ben Franklin so aptly described it, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Mob rule doesn’t make something a good, right or moral idea. Good intentions often lead to poor outcomes. Additionally, when the democratic label is invoked, it’s often a neon sign advertising that something is amiss. What we all know as “North Korea” brands itself as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (which also boldly claims on its website is where “all the people are completely liberated from exploitation and oppression”). Similarly, East Germany prior to German reunification was known as the German Democratic Republic. Though I can’t speak for Sanders, hopefully, the rest of us can all agree these are not exactly the types of regimes we want to be emulating. So, if throwing “democratic” in front of socialism given the other countries who have used that over time doesn’t scare you enough, the concept of any degree of socialism should. We have let too much of that central type of planning seep into our system. And, when Sanders tweets, “My definition of democratic socialism is creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on top,” what he is advocating for is exactly that type of control where “what is in everyone’s best interests” is decided by the handful of elite politicians that comprise our government. Our country was founded on the concept of individual rights, including property rights and freedom. The government’s job was to protect those rights and our freedoms; and that’s it. Over time, that has begun to erode. The government has not only infringed upon our rights but also exceeded their powers by becoming intermediaries in markets and redistributors of wealth. From education to health care to retirement planning, whether by cronyism, nationalization or regulation, more government intervention has taken hold. And, everywhere the government has done so, costs have gone up and quality has gone down. Because whether you have a full socialist system, a mixed system or a democratic socialist system, interference by government will always produce inferior outcomes than in a free market, in whole or in part. Movement towards free markets creates prosperity and movement towards socialism thwarts it. We must come together to reject socialism by any name — in whole or in part — and work to find advocates who will undertake the difficult task of taking away power, decisions and actions from the elites in government and returning it to the people and the markets where it rightly belongs. Sanders and his ilk are dead wrong and as history demonstrates, any socialism — democratic or otherwise — will be entirely at our own loss. No amount of lipstick can make that pig of socialism attractive.

Agreed 100%!!  Well said, Carol.  Carol Roth is the creator of the Future File legacy planning system, a “recovering” investment banker, host of “The Roth Effect” podcast and the New York Times bestselling author of “The Entrepreneur Equation.”  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read anything today here at The Daily Buzz, then READ THIS!!…and then forward it on to all of your liberal/Democrat friends and family members.  Excellent!!!      🙂

Wealthy Americans flee high-tax states, take billions with them: ‘Tax the rich. The rich leave’

The real estate market in some of the richest pockets of the Northeast is flooded with sellers, as homeowners try to unload gorgeous properties — and their high tax rates. There also is evidence that Americans are not just moving to smaller homes in town but fleeing high-tax states altogether as they search for more frugal digs. “Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich. The rich leave,” New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, lamented in February as he announced an anticipated revenue plunge in the Empire State. “And now what do you do?” The population of New York and other high-tax states has posted a demonstrable decline in recent years, sparking a debate on whether there are limits to how much the taxman can squeeze from residents. The issue is particularly acute as the April 15 income tax filing deadline approaches — the first since the Republicans’ tax overhaul capped the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted on federal returns. The $10,000 limit has left governors in high-tax states steaming and has sent Democratic politicians scrambling to try to offer breaks to the same wealthy Americans they usually demand pay their fair share. “It is having a big impact,” said Chris Edwards, tax policy director at the Cato Institute. “There was migration before, but there has always been disputes about the causes with the data. Now I suspect a lot of people are just getting fed up.” Mr. Edwards’ data shows a net outflow in 2016 of almost 600,000 people from the 25 highest-tax states to the 25 lowest, and they took with them roughly $33 billion in income. For the 2018 tax year, the combined state and local tax bill that won’t be deductible comes to $323 billion, according to the Treasury Department’s estimate, and that whopping total will be borne by fewer than 11 million taxpayers. Most of the affected taxpayers are higher earners who already pay most of the nation’s income taxes. The cap on state and local tax deductions affects only those who itemize their returns, which in the past accounted for 27% of filers, according to the IRS. When Republicans pushed through the tax changes in late 2017, they suggested that high-tax states could cut their own taxes, thus saving residents the pain. Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, tried. He proposed a bill to try to reduce taxes for retirees because many have been leaving over high tax bills. Democrat-led states, meanwhile, attempted quirky workarounds, such as giving wealthy taxpayers an option of paying some of their taxes as charitable contributions, thus offering a break to offset the cap on state and local tax deductions. The IRS said it would reject those maneuvers. Migration is one sure way to dodge the hit. The median home price now in Summit, New Jersey, is $868,200 but tops $1.3 million in Darien, Connecticut. Just how many people avail themselves of that option, however, is not clear.

For more, click on the text above..

Thomas Sowell: The dangers of the ‘social justice’ vision

“Despite how persuasive the words of John Rawls and other ‘social justice’ advocates may be in the world of words, demonstrated facts in the world of reality raise the crucial question as to whether the redistribution of income or wealth can actually be done, in any comprehensive and sustainable sense. Where, instead, there is simply a humanitarian desire to see the less fortunate have better prospects for a better life, the ‘social justice’ argument is both unnecessary and an impediment to joining forces toward that end with others who do not happen to share the implicit assumption of that particular social vision. The undeniable fact that life has never been remotely “fair” – in the sense of presenting equal likelihoods of achieving economic prosperity or other benefits – has led many people to conclude that human biases are the reason. There is no question that human biases have contributed to unfair prospects. But it is a complete non sequitur to say that human biases are the sole, or even primary, causes of unequal prospects, without hard evidence to support that conclusion. When there are major disparities in outcomes among men who are all in the top one percent in IQ, and among siblings raised under the same roof, as well as discriminated-against minorities being more economically successful than those discriminating against them – as happened in the Ottoman Empire, many Southeast Asian countries and much of Eastern Europe, for example – the insistence on believing that human biases are the primary cause of disparities in outcomes ignores a vast range of evidence to the contrary. This is not to say that nothing can be done to offer more people more opportunities. Much has already been done, and much can and will be done. But how it is done can be either helpful or harmful, depending on how well we understand and deal with the world as it is, rather than according to some vision that might seem more attractive, for whatever reason. Despite the inability to confiscate and redistribute human capital, nevertheless human capital is – ironically – one of the few things that can be spread to others without those with it having any less remaining for themselves. But one of the biggest obstacles to this happening is the ‘social justice’ vision, in which the fundamental problem of the less fortunate is not an absence of sufficient human capital, but the presence of other people’s malevolence. For some, abandoning that vision would mean abandoning a moral melodrama, starring themselves as crusaders against the forces of evil. How many are prepared to give up all that – with all its psychic, political and other rewards – is an open question. …Certainly there have been many examples of times and places where money or other physical wealth has been confiscated by governments or looted by mobs. But, physical wealth is a product of human capital – the knowledge, skills, talents and other qualities that exist inside the heads of people – where it cannot be confiscated. Confiscating physical wealth for the purpose of redistribution is confiscating something that will be used up over time, and cannot be replaced without the human capital that created it. Nor is human capital itself easily created by third-party decision-makers. While it is possible to hire teachers and buy books, it is not possible to purchase a cultural past that will prepare and orient all people toward the acquisition of the skills, habits and attitudes that are decisive for human capital.”

Exactly!!  That was an adapted excerpt from “Discrimination and Disparities” (Revised and Enlarged Edition) by Thomas Sowell. Copyright @ 2019. Available from Basic Books, an imprint of Perseus Books, a division of PBG Publishing, LLC, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group, Inc.   Thomas Sowell has taught economics at Cornell, UCLA, Amherst and other academic institutions, and his Basic Economics has been translated into six languages. He is currently a scholar in residence at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has published in both academic journals in such popular media as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine and Fortune, and writes a syndicated column that appears in newspapers across the country.   🙂

Moore: Hillary’s worst ideas on the economy – These could hurt employment, growth and the stock market

The latest spin out of Washington is that stock market declines over the last 10 days are due to Donald Trump’s surge in the polls. Well it is true that Wall Street tends to hate change — even when it’s positive. And if Donald Trump is anything, it is a change agent that will rattle the cages in Washington, and perhaps on Wall Street. Investors didn’t respond at all well to President Reagan until his policies were put in place, the economy rocketed forward, and only then did the greatest bull market expansion in American history get launched in 1982. Something else is getting missed here. The Hillary Clinton agenda on the economy and the financial markets. Hillary says she has a cabinet full lot of new ideas on the economy. Unfortunately, most of them are really dimwitted. I’ve identified five of Hillary Clinton’s lousiest ideas that could hurt employment, growth and stocks. 1. Raise the minimum wage to $12 or even $15 an hour. She might as well call this Teenage Job Elimination Act. Even the liberal Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that a $12 an hour minimum wage would reduce the number of starter jobs by as many as one million. Think how much joblessness for teenagers would come from $15. Seattle recently raised its minimum wage to $11 and headed to $15. An independent assessment by the University of Washington finds that so far the law has had the “negative unintended consequence” of fewer hours worked and fewer jobs. Is this what we want for the nation? 2. Hike income tax rates. There isn’t an economic philosophy known to man that says raising taxes will help the economy. But Hillary is going to give it a try to the tune of $1.5 trillion sucked out of the economy. Under Hillary’s plan the income tax rate would rise to above 45 percent and the death tax would go to 65 percent for the very rich. Capital gains taxes would nearly double. History proves that raising tax rates is the least effective way for the federal government to raise revenue. IRS statistics indicate that most of the people who fall into the top one or two percent of income are small business owners — and they are America’s major employers. In the 1980s when income tax rates were slashed from 70% to 28%, the amount of tax revenues over the decade doubled and the share of taxes paid by the rich increased. All you have to do is look at the high tax states like Connecticut, and Illinois and New York and you can see the jobs and people fleeing. Our highest in the world business income tax rate has caused many household name companies, like Burger King and Johnson Controls leaving these shores for more tax hospitable places. Hillary’s plan may speed up this exodus. 3. Subsidize 500 million solar panels. Hillary says this proposal will stop the earth’s temperature from changing and protect us from climate change. But we tried these green energy handouts under Barack Obama and they were a failure. Remember Solyndra? That firm received some $500 million of taxpayer dollars an then went belly up. The Institute for Energy Research estimates a price tag of $200 billion for all these solar panels. That is more than it cost to put a man on the moon during the Apollo project. Solar energy already receives more than $100 of taxpayer subsidy per kilowatt of energy produced for every dollar that goes to oil and gas or coal. Let the free market pick the next great energy source, which may be clean burning natural gas.

Exactly!!  To see economist Stephen Moore’s other two points, click on the text above.  I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and taking a class from, Stephen.  He is now a senior economic advisor to Donald Trump.

‘Million Student March’ Activist Battles FNC’s Cavuto, Calls Capitalism ‘Illegitimate’

Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Your World,” Darletta Scruggs, an organizer for the so-called “Million Student March” movement, battled host Neil Cavuto about the merits free public college and the cancellation of all student debt. Scruggs argued money for war and nuclear weapons shouldn’t take priority over money for education. But she also decried the capitalist system, which argued was not sufficient to meet the public’s needs. “We’re spending our money on wars, we’re spending our money on tax breaks for big, wealthy corporations,” Scruggs said. “This system of capitalism has proven itself illegitimate, and it cannot provide basic things like education, shelter, health care.” Scruggs had no love for Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, calling her the “candidate of Walmart, Wall Street and war.”

This is what our education system is producing; morons like this who have no clue how money works.  Be afraid..  Anyway, to see this exchange, click on the text above.  I feel sorry for Neil..  Wow..

45 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax

Many Americans don’t have to worry about giving Uncle Sam part of their hard-earned cash for their income taxes this year. An estimated 45.3 percent of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.) Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. Despite the fact that rich people paying little in the way of income taxes makes plenty of headlines, this is the exception to the rule: The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay a higher effective income tax rate than any other group (around 23 percent, according to a report released by the Tax Policy Center in 2014) — nearly seven times higher than those in the bottom 50 percent. On average, those in the bottom 40 percent of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20 percent of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87 percent of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam. The top 1 percent of Americans, who have an average income of more than $2.1 million, pay 43.6 percent of all the federal individual income tax in the US; the top 0.1 percent — just 115,000 households, whose average income is more than $9.4 million — pay more than 20 percent of it. When it comes to all federal taxes — individual income, payroll, excise, corporate income and estate taxes — the distributions of who pays what is more spread out. This is partially because nearly everyone pays excise taxes, which include taxes on gasoline, alcohol and cigarettes.

If you know some millennial idiot, or hard-core liberal Dem, that is supporting Bernie, send them this article.  It’s exactly right, and is the sort of thing that the dominantly liberal mainstream media doesn’t have the integrity to report, because it undermines their agenda, and their Democrat peeps.  “Facts ARE stubborn things,” indeed.

Socialism’s strange appeal – ‘Bernie Sanders and socialism are for those who can’t handle reality’

When I was a smart aleck college student I had a sign on my dorm door that read: “Reality is for those who can’t handle drugs.” Maybe the 2016 version should go like this: “Bernie Sanders and socialism are for those who can’t handle reality.” Socialism’s comeback is mystifying to most clear-thinking people. Do people who support Sen. Sanders and socialism walk around with shutters over their eyes so they don’t have to observe the reality of what is happening in the world around them? The remarkable thing about the rise of Bernie Sanders is that his popularity runs in the counter-direction to how socialism is actually working. Liberals used to point to places like France, Italy, Greece and even Cuba as worker paradises that offer citizens lots of free things — child care, health care, higher education, food, housing, a guaranteed income with high minimum wages. Today they are basket cases and in many of these nations the government bonds are junk status. Greece, of course, is modern socialism on steroids. The nation is in de facto bankruptcy because Athens can’t cover the runaway costs of all the free things the government offers — government pensions, paychecks, medical exams, or welfare benefits. Fifty percent of young people don’t have a job and over half of Greeks retire before age 60. The wagon is full and no one is left to pull it. Greece isn’t alone. Argentina, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France — as well as the United States — experimented with quasi-socialist governments in the last decade. Almost all of these countries are in recession or have anemic growth. The comeback of socialism and the obsession with redistributing income and wealth through confiscatory tax rates — helps explain why so many of the wealth producers and employers are on strike. Who wants to invest when the political leaders are threatening to take most of it away for the “common good?” Bernie Sanders points to “socialist success stories” like Sweden and Denmark, but even they have been mugged by a reality that free things for those who don’t work for it can be a recipe for disaster. Now they are moving away from pure-bred Bernie Sanders socialism as we move toward it. Sweden, for example, has cut its corporate income tax and eliminated its inheritance tax — positive steps. As refugees pour into Sweden, the voters are wondering whether the nation can continue to provide so many free services without running out of money. Here at home, we have a “progressive” president who has presided over an economic mess, and now all the Democrats can say as voters rage against the cascade of false promises of “hope and change,” is that we didn’t go far enough in the socialist direction. Mr. Sanders proclaims that “the economic system is rigged” — a talking point that Hillary Clinton is now shouting out herself. The rich aren’t rich because they’ve achieved things — as the narrative goes — they are rich because they’ve cheated. It’s a perverse way to denigrate accomplishment, risk taking and work. If there’s any rigging going on, it’s in Washington. Consider Hillary Clinton who’s never achieved much of anything outside of politics and she’s a multi-millionaire. Last week, the Heritage Foundation released its Economic Freedom of the World index. It should be required reading in every high school and college. Economic freedom is, of course, the opposite of socialism. Nations that are economically free have free trade, small welfare states, low taxes, a light hand of regulation, private ownership of the means of production, and the rule of law. Countries that are economically free have five times the average income ($55,000) of countries that are the least free ($9,000). Not only that, economic freedom is also highly correlated with better education, improved health, and a cleaner environment. The poor do better in nations that are economically free and worse in Bernie Sanders land. In short, countries that are economically free are healthy, wealthy, and wise. his reality seems to be lost on those high on the drug of socialism. • Stephen Moore is an economic consultant with Freedom Works and a Fox News contributor.

Billionaire bashing ignores economic reality, say class warfare critics

What do Beyonce and Jay Z have in common with Walmart’s Walton family, Dr. Dre and Nike’s Phil Knight? Love them or hate them, as American billionaires, they are a target on the campaign trail. “You’ve got CEOs making 300 times what the average worker is making. The deck is stacked in favor of those at the top,” says a pro-Hillary Clinton political advertisement. “Millionaires and billionaires do not pay their fair share,” fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders said in a recent speech, claiming the wealthy created a “corrupt” political system and a “rigged” economy. But billionaire Jean Paul DeJoria, founder of Patron Tequila, says most wealthy Americans did not get rich because of handouts or a rigged economy. “We look (at) it as stupid politics,” DeJoria said in an interview from his home in Austin, Texas. “That’s what people say to get other people to vote for them, but it’s not accurate.” Wealthy Americans create jobs, according to DeJoria, who began selling papers at 10 and was once so broke he lived out of his car in the parking lot of a Mexican restaurant. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found successful entrepreneurs realize just 3 pertcent of the value of what they produce, while consumers reap the rest, either directly through employment or by social benefit. “If there is a CEO who creates value for shareholders and wealth for the economy, the value they create is so much greater than their compensation,” said Sydney Finkelstein, author of “Superbosses” and a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. Given the blame directed at America’s millionaire class for inequality, the U.S. economic meltdown and our slow recovery, Fox News spent a week analyzing the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest Americans. Admission to the list starts at a record $1.7 billion. In total, the top 400 created or controlled more than 10 million jobs across the country. The top 100 founded companies that employed, on average, 40,000 workers. “These are people giving us jobs. To demonize them is to damage the underlying force of this country,” said management consultant Eric Schiffer. “We are only as good as our people and we don’t want to put our best players on another team. If you tax them, they will leave.” Sanders has proposed a top federal tax income rate of roughly 54 percent, with a capital gains tax rate to match, up from the current 25 percent. The combined federal and state rate for the highest earners would top 76 percent in California and New York. “When you are working 7 or 8 months a year just to pay taxes, what kind of incentive is that?” asks DeJoria. If that were to occur, DeJoria and others predict one of three things will happen. The wealthy will either leave, park their income offshore like many U.S corporations or they will hire the nation’s best tax lawyers to get around the rules. In any case, the U.S. government could very well end up with less, not more revenue. “They’ll look for loopholes or they’ll take their money to another place,” said Finkelstein. “Companies and wealthy individuals have been successful in finding completely legitimate legal ways to minimize tax regulations.” Being jealous of wealthy people is a “very human tendency,” acknowledged Finkelstein. Yet, DeJoria says many young progressive voters don’t see the irony, voicing their antipathy for ‘millionaires and billionaires’ on Bill Gates software or Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook using an IPhone developed by the late Steve Jobs.

Exactly..  And yet, these millennial (and other mostly Democrat) idiots supporting Bernie, Hillary, Obama and so on..are either too stupid or brainwashed to realize that “tax-the-rich” might sound good to those who are jealous of the wealthy.  But, if implemented, such socialism only hurts the little guy.  After all, have ya ever tried getting a job from a janitor.  And, no disrespect to those in the custodial industry.  I thank God they exist!  But, when you’re looking for a job, you go to companies, or individuals that are in a position financially to offer a job.  The wealthy are already wealthy.  And, if taxed at a higher rate, they just shrug their shoulders and move their business elsewhere, or decide not to hire more employees…or just fold their business.  Regardless, its the little guy who loses; NOT the wealthy.  The real stink is that these self-righteous, fascist nazis like Hillary and Bernie are themselves very wealthy.  Hillary who famously said she was “dead broke” is a millionaire many times over (and that’s before you add her ex-president hubby’s millions to the mix).  And, while not as wealthy, Bernie is certainly no pauper.  Yet, both are hypocritically, and disingenuously, trying to get votes by playing the “tax-the-wealthy” card.  At least guys like former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and billionaire businessman Donald Trump (R) are honest about their bank accounts, and understand how money is made and have employed thousands of people; unlike Bernie, Hillary, and Obama who have no clue how money works, or have ever run a payroll…but feed off of the suckers who are dumb enough to vote them into office.  Then, we ALL lose.  Since Obama has been elected our country has had two credit downgrades; the first time that has happened in our nation’s history.  We’re $19 TRILLION in debt, and growing.  Those are just two embarrassing stats attributable to our current fascist-in-chief’s awful economic policies.  Electing either Bernie or Hillary will only make it worse.