SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended his oft-cited statistic showing that the three richest billionaires in the U.S. own more wealth than the poorest 50 percent of the country, after Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler claimed the fact was "not especially meaningful." (Photo: Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images)
After Sanders Points Out Poorest Have Zero or Negative Wealth, WaPo Fact Checker Slammed for Calling That Fact 'Not Especially Meaningful'
The notion "that it's 'not meaningful' that the bottom 50 percent of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt—is a completely nonsensical take," wrote one journalist
Jul 01, 2019
Critics of massive wealth inequality in the United States defended a statistic frequently cited by 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday after Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column, claimed the fact that the bottom half of the country has zero or negative wealth was "not especially meaningful."
The statistic in question was brought up most recently by Sanders during the Democratic primary debate last week:
"We have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America," Sanders said.
The statement, Kessler said, is factually true--but he rejected Sanders's suggestion that the inequality evidenced by the fact means that a major correction to the U.S. economy is required.
"This snappy talking point is based on numbers that add up, but it's also a question of comparing apples to oranges," Kessler wrote. "But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful."
Critics denounced Kessler's suggestion that the notion of 50 percent of the population of the world's richest country carrying so much debt that any wealth they own is canceled out, could hold no meaning about the state of the nation's economic system.
The column, wrote Sanders's speechwriter, David Sirota, should be filed under "things you can't make up."
"Glenn Kessler's logic here--that it's 'not meaningful' that the bottom 50 percent of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they do have--is a completely nonsensical take," wrote journalist Matthew Chapman.
\u201cI'm with Sirota on this one. @GlennKessler's logic here \u2014 that it's "not meaningful" that the bottom 50% of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they *do* have \u2014 is a completely nonsensical take.\u201d— Matthew Chapman (@Matthew Chapman) 1562007568
Kessler's dismissal of the plight of middle-income and lower-income Americans was indicative of the desire of many to ignore "perfectly correct data" which "point out ugly truths" about the United States, wrote Greg Greene, a blogger for Planned Parenthood Action.
\u201c\u2026 and in holding to his assumptions, Kessler insists on scolding folks \u2014 like Bernie Sanders, or AOC \u2014 who, use perfectly correct data to point out the ugly truths hidden by his green eyeshade. https://t.co/Nkyaisp4EH\u201d— Greg Greene (parody) (@Greg Greene (parody)) 1561580204
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Critics of massive wealth inequality in the United States defended a statistic frequently cited by 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday after Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column, claimed the fact that the bottom half of the country has zero or negative wealth was "not especially meaningful."
The statistic in question was brought up most recently by Sanders during the Democratic primary debate last week:
"We have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America," Sanders said.
The statement, Kessler said, is factually true--but he rejected Sanders's suggestion that the inequality evidenced by the fact means that a major correction to the U.S. economy is required.
"This snappy talking point is based on numbers that add up, but it's also a question of comparing apples to oranges," Kessler wrote. "But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful."
Critics denounced Kessler's suggestion that the notion of 50 percent of the population of the world's richest country carrying so much debt that any wealth they own is canceled out, could hold no meaning about the state of the nation's economic system.
The column, wrote Sanders's speechwriter, David Sirota, should be filed under "things you can't make up."
"Glenn Kessler's logic here--that it's 'not meaningful' that the bottom 50 percent of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they do have--is a completely nonsensical take," wrote journalist Matthew Chapman.
\u201cI'm with Sirota on this one. @GlennKessler's logic here \u2014 that it's "not meaningful" that the bottom 50% of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they *do* have \u2014 is a completely nonsensical take.\u201d— Matthew Chapman (@Matthew Chapman) 1562007568
Kessler's dismissal of the plight of middle-income and lower-income Americans was indicative of the desire of many to ignore "perfectly correct data" which "point out ugly truths" about the United States, wrote Greg Greene, a blogger for Planned Parenthood Action.
\u201c\u2026 and in holding to his assumptions, Kessler insists on scolding folks \u2014 like Bernie Sanders, or AOC \u2014 who, use perfectly correct data to point out the ugly truths hidden by his green eyeshade. https://t.co/Nkyaisp4EH\u201d— Greg Greene (parody) (@Greg Greene (parody)) 1561580204
Critics of massive wealth inequality in the United States defended a statistic frequently cited by 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday after Glenn Kessler, author of the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" column, claimed the fact that the bottom half of the country has zero or negative wealth was "not especially meaningful."
The statistic in question was brought up most recently by Sanders during the Democratic primary debate last week:
"We have three people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom half of America," Sanders said.
The statement, Kessler said, is factually true--but he rejected Sanders's suggestion that the inequality evidenced by the fact means that a major correction to the U.S. economy is required.
"This snappy talking point is based on numbers that add up, but it's also a question of comparing apples to oranges," Kessler wrote. "But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful."
Critics denounced Kessler's suggestion that the notion of 50 percent of the population of the world's richest country carrying so much debt that any wealth they own is canceled out, could hold no meaning about the state of the nation's economic system.
The column, wrote Sanders's speechwriter, David Sirota, should be filed under "things you can't make up."
"Glenn Kessler's logic here--that it's 'not meaningful' that the bottom 50 percent of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they do have--is a completely nonsensical take," wrote journalist Matthew Chapman.
\u201cI'm with Sirota on this one. @GlennKessler's logic here \u2014 that it's "not meaningful" that the bottom 50% of earners have no net worth because they have a bunch of debt that's obscuring all the assets they *do* have \u2014 is a completely nonsensical take.\u201d— Matthew Chapman (@Matthew Chapman) 1562007568
Kessler's dismissal of the plight of middle-income and lower-income Americans was indicative of the desire of many to ignore "perfectly correct data" which "point out ugly truths" about the United States, wrote Greg Greene, a blogger for Planned Parenthood Action.
\u201c\u2026 and in holding to his assumptions, Kessler insists on scolding folks \u2014 like Bernie Sanders, or AOC \u2014 who, use perfectly correct data to point out the ugly truths hidden by his green eyeshade. https://t.co/Nkyaisp4EH\u201d— Greg Greene (parody) (@Greg Greene (parody)) 1561580204
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.