>>The last several governors who became president didn't really knocked it out the park, did they?
>>
>>I read recently that 40% of US citizens would have to borrow money to pay for a $400 emergency expense.
>>You can't even get a set of new tires for $400.
>
>>So for a large segment of the US population what those inheritors might call "destruction" would really mean getting things straight.
>
>Second, of that 40% of citizens who would have to borrow money to pay for an emergency expense, I'll ask the impertinent question - of that 40%, how many otherwise could have, had they not managed their money so badly.

Lots if not most of them.
But they didn't.
Why? There are lots of reasons and the principal one is probably the destruction of family life that began during the 60's.
Divorce and single parenting are expensive and inefficient. Two people CAN actually live more cheaply than one and they rarely do in our culture.
I know lots of people on their third and fourth marriages. That was unheard when my kids were growing up.
Like it or not, that 60's culture is now ingrained here and it costs a lot more to live that way.
At the same time, real wages have been declining since the 1970's.
Put the two together and you have a lot of people who can't afford tires for their car.

It's not an issue for a Walmart heir though no matter how badly the screw up their lives.

>

>>Well, right now under Bernie it will be people with family incomes in the 200k to 250K range. Bad idea. Really really really really really really really bad idea.
Yes, that would be a bad idea, if he had proposed it.
Look again..

Bernie and JFK?
Have you read Profiles in Courage?
Bernie ran as an avowed socialist in Vermont.
JFK would have loved that story.