The Debates

[candrew]

It's a little tougher with political grandstanding because these guys are speaking to a large audience of useful idiots instead of a room full of professionals at a conference. It's hard to moderate these without injecting a bias whether intended or not--or just perceived.

Ah, No. Romney wasn't trying to express an opinion or a viewpoint. This is nothing more than a simple binary situation that could easily be verified. Either Obama said it or he didn't say it. And he did. I don't think a room full of professionals is required to grasp that type of basic distinction.

The only people still confused about this are the right wing nut jobs that choose to be confused.

 

[Stoked]

Ah, No. Romney wasn't trying to express an opinion or a viewpoint. This is nothing more than a simple binary situation that could easily be verified. Either Obama said it or he didn't say it. And he did. I don't think a room full of professionals is required to grasp that type of basic distinction.

The only people still confused about this are the right wing nut jobs that choose to be confused.

Hahaha, I guess Candy Crowley herself is a right wing nut job.

 

[candrew]

Hahaha, I guess Candy Crowley herself is a right wing nut job.

If she is she is doing a horrible job of it.

She is getting skewered by the right wing media.

And deservedly so. Her supposed backtrack (which wasn't really a backtrack) after the debate was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at trying to be fair and balanced just for the sake of being fair and balanced.

 

[Stoked]

If she is she is doing a horrible job of it.

She is getting skewered by the right wing media.

And deservedly so. Her supposed backtrack (which wasn't really a backtrack) after the debate was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at trying to be fair and balanced just for the sake of being fair and balanced.

How did that hook taste?

 

[One Brow]

The only reason it would be somewhat important is that it was an attack point from the Obama campaign against Romney, and it turns out Obama is in almost exactly the same situation.

Well, except that Obama has no control over what his pensions invest in (since they are common to all former illinois legislators), and Romney is able to give instructions to the trust that controls his wealth.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Well, except that Obama has no control over what his pensions invest in (since they are common to all former illinois legislators), and Romney is able to give instructions to the trust that controls his wealth.

Atwood emphasized that neither Obama nor any other participant in the retirement system has anything to do with selecting investments for the fund.

Miller concurred with that, and added that Romney legitimately can claim that he has similar distance from foreign investments made through his individual retirement accounts.

Ok, take up your argument with the expert consulted on the issue.

While you often can choose the types of investments you want to invest in, and how much you want out there globally and how much you want somewhere else, it is not the same as actually choosing the companies and countries that your investment managers choose to invest in. You choose the fund or investment, and it is those managers or funds that make the decisions based on certain criteria. Are you sure any of your IRA, 401K, or other similar investments don't have a piece of a Chinese company in their fund somewhere? I think you've been watching too many movies or something.

 

[Stoked]

Ok, take up your argument with the expert consulted on the issue.

While you often can choose the types of investments you want to invest in, and how much you want out there globally and how much you want somewhere else, it is not the same as actually choosing the companies and countries that your investment managers choose to invest in. You choose the fund or investment, and it is those managers or funds that make the decisions based on certain criteria. Are you sure any of your IRA, 401K, or other similar investments don't have a piece of a Chinese company in their fund somewhere? I think you've been watching too many movies or something.

That puts that issue to rest lol.

 

[One Brow]

Ok, take up your argument with the expert consulted on the issue.

When running for the Senate, Romney made a point of saying that kennedy had a great deal more control over his blind trust that Kennedy let on. Nor has Romney flipped on that position; his entire argument is that Obama has the same type of control.

I don't think it's a big deal that Romney has money in China, by the way. I'm just pointing out that criticizing Obama over investments he has zero control over seems a poor response.

 

[Stoked]

When running for the Senate, Romney made a point of saying that kennedy had a great deal more control over his blind trust that Kennedy let on. Nor has Romney flipped on that position; his entire argument is that Obama has the same type of control.

I don't think it's a big deal that Romney has money in China, by the way. I'm just pointing out that criticizing Obama over investments he has zero control over seems a poor response.

Just as poor as Obama attacking him over it in the first place. So do we all agree that the entire "issue" is stupid and should be dropped?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I don't think it's a big deal that Romney has money in China, by the way. I'm just pointing out that criticizing Obama over investments he has zero control over seems a poor response.

Just as poor as Obama attacking him over it in the first place. So do we all agree that the entire "issue" is stupid and should be dropped?

I think we can all agree it's a non issue then, can we all agree it's an even playing field? That was my point, they are basically the same in this regard. Neither should have grounds to attack the other as they are both in the same place.

 

[Stoked]

I think we can all agree it's a non issue then, can we all agree it's an even playing field? That was my point, they are basically the same in this regard. Neither should have grounds to attack the other as they are both in the same place.

Agreed.

 

[One Brow]

Just as poor as Obama attacking him over it in the first place. So do we all agree that the entire "issue" is stupid and should be dropped?

Yes.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I agree this "money in China" is a non issue. But I do want to point out that they are not equal.

Most pensions are not like IRAs or 401ks where you can pick funds and invest how you want. Most pensions (every job I have ever worked that had one was this way) are totally managed by someone else. You have no control whatsoever how the money is invested.

Most (all) 401ks and IRAs allow you to have total control. You pick the funds and investments. And most of them (all of them) have options for funds that only invest in U.S. companies. Often you will see them listed as US Small Cap, or US Large Cap, or something like that.

Having said that, I don't think it's a big deal if either of these guys have a mutual fund that invests in some Chinese company.

What IS a big deal is if you run for president based on your business experience, refuse to release a fair amount of your tax returns, have Swiss bank accounts and money stashed in the Cayman Islands, are known to be a "pioneer of outsourcing," and then attack someone else because their public pension happened to have a mutual fund that invested in China.

 

[Stoked]

I agree this "money in China" is a non issue. But I do want to point out that they are not equal.

Most pensions are not like IRAs or 401ks where you can pick funds and invest how you want. Most pensions (every job I have ever worked that had one was this way) are totally managed by someone else. You have no control whatsoever how the money is invested.

Most (all) 401ks and IRAs allow you to have total control. You pick the funds and investments. And most of them (all of them) have options for funds that only invest in U.S. companies. Often you will see them listed as US Small Cap, or US Large Cap, or something like that.

Having said that, I don't think it's a big deal if either of these guys have a mutual fund that invests in some Chinese company.

What IS a big deal is if you run for president based on your business experience, refuse to release a fair amount of your tax returns, have Swiss bank accounts and money stashed in the Cayman Islands, are known to be a "pioneer of outsourcing," and then attack someone else because their public pension happened to have a mutual fund that invested in China.

There goes any desire for rational debate. Way to ruin any momentum of the board Salty.

 

[Dr. Jones]

There goes any desire for rational debate. Way to ruin any momentum of the board Salty.

This. I'm all for rational debate, but it's difficult to do that while wading through falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and hyperbole.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There goes any desire for rational debate. Way to ruin any momentum of the board Salty.

This. I'm all for rational debate, but it's difficult to do that while wading through falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and hyperbole.

What are you guys talking about? What did I say that was controversial or false?

 

[Stoked]

What are you guys talking about? What did I say that was controversial or false?

I was just ribbing you Salty. All in good fun for me.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I agree this "money in China" is a non issue. But I do want to point out that they are not equal.

What IS a big deal is if you run for president based on your business experience, refuse to release a fair amount of your tax returns, have Swiss bank accounts and money stashed in the Cayman Islands, are known to be a "pioneer of outsourcing," and then attack someone else because their public pension happened to have a mutual fund that invested in China.

You mean it's a big deal to defend yourself after someone has attacked you for having fund investments in China when they have a pension that invests in China?

Keep harping on the tax returns, swiss account, cayman Islands, and "pioneer of outsourcing" schtick. It's a big deal if you don't understand it or if you have an axe to grind.

That pioneer of outsourcing is a play on words. Even if his company used outsourcing to cut costs for the companies they were turning around, outsourcing was around for years and was mainstream at the time. Would you rather have the company go under and all the jobs be lost, or give a few jobs out to somewhere cheaper and save the company and most of the jobs? Seriously.

I still have not seen a copy of your tax returns so you can go ahead and stop asking for someone else's.

The Swiss and Cayman Island accounts were part of an investment package that were disclosed and taxes were paid accordingly. Feel free to stop the Woody Woodpecker act and quit kicking the dead horse that is only an issue for people that don't understand money.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You mean it's a big deal to defend yourself after someone has attacked you for having fund investments in China when they have a pension that invests in China?

Keep harping on the tax returns, swiss account, cayman Islands, and "pioneer of outsourcing" schtick. It's a big deal if you don't understand it or if you have an axe to grind.

That pioneer of outsourcing is a play on words. Even if his company used outsourcing to cut costs for the companies they were turning around, outsourcing was around for years and was mainstream at the time. Would you rather have the company go under and all the jobs be lost, or give a few jobs out to somewhere cheaper and save the company and most of the jobs? Seriously.

I still have not seen a copy of your tax returns so you can go ahead and stop asking for someone else's.

The Swiss and Cayman Island accounts were part of an investment package that were disclosed and taxes were paid accordingly. Feel free to stop the Woody Woodpecker act and quit kicking the dead horse that is only an issue for people that don't understand money.

1: As I pointed out, having a pension which you have no control over that invests in China, is not the same thing as you picking a mutual fund that invests in China. I have no problem with either, but the "defense" doesn't hold water.

2: Whose jobs were saved by outsourcing? I am not buying that argument. If cutting costs was all that mattered, Bain would have taken a smaller piece of the pie and let the jobs stay in America. There are many reports of companies going under with Bain making hundreds of millions in the process.

3: If I ran for president based on my business experience, you'd have a copy of my tax returns.

4: The "investment packages" that you speak of were not mandatory. Romney chose those "investment packages." He wasn't required to invest his money overseas. In fact, I have seen reports of Romney traveling to China and touring a factory before investing in it. He described it as having many teenagers sleeping in bunks, and a barbed wire fence with guard towers supposedly to keep people out. Thus is not the same as a pension, which you have no control over, choosing to invest in a Chinese mutual fund.

 

[franklin]

When running for the Senate, Romney made a point of saying that kennedy had a great deal more control over his blind trust that Kennedy let on. Nor has Romney flipped on that position; his entire argument is that Obama has the same type of control.

I don't think it's a big deal that Romney has money in China, by the way. I'm just pointing out that criticizing Obama over investments he has zero control over seems a poor response.

It's a reaction to a ridiculous assertion about Romney's character. Take away the initial hype and Romney wouldn't have to do all this angling.

Most pensions are not like IRAs or 401ks where you can pick funds and invest how you want. Most pensions (every job I have ever worked that had one was this way) are totally managed by someone else. You have no control whatsoever how the money is invested.

Well, except that Obama has no control over what his pensions invest in (since they are common to all former illinois legislators), and Romney is able to give instructions to the trust that controls his wealth.

Obama was a state senator in Illinois. Did he put up any bills limiting state pension funds from investing in these places that are being demonized? He may not have had control over where they were being invested but he did have full opportunity to put his money where his mouth is by introducing an ethical investing bill.