this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
997 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3220 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
997
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/politics
 
  • His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
  • No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
  • Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor's mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] captainlezbian 14 points 3 months ago (6 children)

On one hand that’s good. On the other hand that’s a concerning approach to financial management

[–] xenoclast 44 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's gonna shock you to find out he's a huge proponent of sharing wealth and not hoarding it.

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good, I still would expect him to have retirement plans and the financial habits to achieve them. He’s nearing that age and once he finishes with politics should probably be looking at that.

Fortunately others have mentioned he has government pensions, which are a good financial plan for those who have access to them.

[–] Triasha 2 points 3 months ago

He will be fine, with his teachers pension, and his national guard pension, and his congressional pension, and his governor's pension, and probably his vice president pension.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why? I assume he’s got money in the bank and will have a government pension.

Some people don’t need to hoard as much wealth as possible, if he’s got enough to live comfortably with his family I don’t see the need to hold a ton of investments.

[–] captainlezbian 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I’m gonna be honest sometimes I forget the government still provides pensions. I hear “no financial investments” and my brain goes to “no retirement money” because amongst many people I know that’s what that means. I don’t want my politicians to be rich or money obsessed, but I personally prefer prudent politicians. If I hear that a politician makes enough to save and chooses not to without having other financial strategies to handle retirement then I worry about how they will approach the government coffers. Not in a “spending our money on welfare” sense, but in a spending our welfare and infrastructure money that should be used as an investment in our country’s present and future on something stupid like corporate tax cuts.

And yes I get the irony there, but to me my first thought really was “oh does he not think about his own future?”

Also bonds really shouldn’t be treated like stocks. We want Americans buying bonds. They’re a literal financial investment in this country. If people stop buying American bonds get a passport now because that means they don’t trust this country is so good for it they can offer mediocre returns because the money is all but certain.

[–] Triasha 1 points 3 months ago

He has at least 2 pensions. I think congresspeople and governors probably get something too.

[–] sgtgig 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

He's completely set with pensions. And I am unsure if index funds were specifically ruled out. The article doesn't really detail his wealth, and there's no way someone with his intelligence and pragmatism has completely bungled his finances.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.

I guess that should cover index funds too?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah, he's never going to go hungry or want for medical care for the rest of his life. Like it or not, successful politicians are financially above us peons.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Only concerning to those who control the capital (and the plebs that have been convinced that one day they will be in that position, and when that happens, they'd have reason to be concerned. Any day now).

Not everyone puts the same value on the accumulation of material things (including wealth). In fact, there are many of us who are only really interested in having the means to live a comfortable life and provide for our families.

Everything beyond that is unnecessary to us, and we find the constant, dogged pursuit of wealth at all costs, and the pure avarice that is borne (on a massive, planetary scale) because of it, to be abhorrent.

[–] RagingRobot 5 points 3 months ago

It seems like that was more of a gesture when he took office than a financial strategy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I suppose one might imagine the risk that if he doesn't have "enough" wealth personally, he will be more susceptible to bribes. The steelman version is that he doesn't care about money that much.

[–] captainlezbian 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think the bigger concern for those unaware he has a pension is that he’s bad at his finances, and possibly even a spendthrift. But with knowledge that he’s set with pensions then it makes perfect sense. I still probably would invest if I had a pension because I know how bad not doing so went for many people in the late 20th century, but especially when done out of conviction and to display unwillingness to be bribed as a politician it’s something I respect.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes there seem to be a lot of people of the position that having retirement investments = hoarding wealth...but the majority of us don't get pensions and not having retirement accounts of any kind under those circumstances is horrible financial strategy if you want to do anything other than subsist after retiring.

[–] captainlezbian 3 points 3 months ago

Exactly. I’m happy to pay taxes into social safety nets, and I understand that I’m probably approaching an income where I should be paying more in than I expect to get out. But my 401k and mutual funds aren’t wealth hoarding, they’re me acknowledging the system I live in and not betting my future on things drastically improving in the next 30 years.

My financial goals are to have a little to leave to my loved ones or charity once my wife and I pass on assuming we grow quite old.

But yeah with my family history and occupational risk of cancer I’m not risking everything on the hopes that there’s a social safety net before I’m unable to work