Bernie can't handle the economy because he's irresponsible with his personal finances!!!

[whatthehey]

295. Don't see the connection

I have not the slightest qualm in reiterating that a man paid into deep six figures the last 25 years with excellent benefits is either unusually charitable or unusually poor at money management to have amassed only 300k in net worth (essentially with a net income of about 9k a month he managed to save only 1k of that on average even if he just stuffed it in a mattress with no gains at all, which is both unrealistic and prima facie evidence of terible money management were it true). I've never met the man, but I would make a confident guess that untouchable generous lifetime pension and healthcare benefits played a great part in his decisions in personal finance. He surely has less incentive to build a nest-egg than most of us do, and no I don't begrudge him, or any politician, those benefits. They are fleabites in a budgetary sense and no more than other democracies provide for retired elected officials

However, that's bugger all to do with economic stewardship of a 16T GDP, inasmuch as Presidents do so. It's a facile RWNJ canard that the government should be run like a business, let alone a household. There are two main branches of economics for a reason, and presidents have little involvement with the micro side once elected. I have neither the data nor the inclination to correlate personal financial management and macro-economic success of US Presidents, and they skew to the wealthy side in a decidedly non-normal fashion anyway, but just anecdotally we can see there is no sure connection. Clinton came from a poor background to sizable wealth, much of it post-WH, and saw a burgeoning US economy. Shrub was born to wealth and influence but did spectacularly well increasing his personal net worth (Daddy's contacts were a major help, but as yet Daddy's cash is still Daddy's) while buggering the US economy with an inverted pineapple.

I for one would be very happy to see Sanders manage the US economy, or rather his team do so (no not picking on him here either, Presidents do not personally manage economies). Assuming some of their ideas got past Congress, I would guesstimate we'd see a major but temporary Wall Street panic (aka buying opportunity) in the first couple of years followed by a nice recovery both on Main Street AND Wall Street once more cash flowed to the demographics with the highest (and most local) MPC and we saw the benefits of government infrastructure spending multipliers. Unlike the hyperpartisans on either side, one of the advantages I would give Sanders over Clinton is that long term he would I feel do better for investors than she would, albeit with some messy chaos while the traders panicked about short-term shocks like HFT taxes and paranoia over the S word.