“Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?

N

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
“Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney challenged.

In one of the debate’s lighter moments, Obama countered, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.”

Another Obama inaccuracy ?...( LIE )

OBAMA
As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month’s election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

Also, the federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

The remarks sparked some audience laughter — and yet another Romney rebuke.

(Taxpayers paying the entire amount)

ROMNEY

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.
So, as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.
Will cost taxpayers nothing.
 
bravo said:
“Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney challenged.

In one of the debate’s lighter moments, Obama countered, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.”

Another Obama inaccuracy ?...( LIE )

OBAMA
As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month’s election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.

Also, the federal budget spends about $3 million annually for the four living ex-presidents. Obama also will get Secret Service protection.

In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama’s pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

The remarks sparked some audience laughter — and yet another Romney rebuke.

(Taxpayers paying the entire amount)

ROMNEY

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.
So, as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.
Will cost taxpayers nothing.
Click to expand...


reagan and the bushes got a public pension, too. Kwitcherbellyachin'.

And LOL about Romney's so-called blind trust.

[...] government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.
Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."
 
1 out of 43 people who take on the top job of the nation (remember one of them was President twice after losing his reelection bid)... Yeah, I think we can afford to give those people a pension. Seriously, when Romney gets elected he'll get all of those things as well.
 
I thought the whole issue with the pensions was being invested either in overseas companies or U.S. companies that do business overseas?
 
Aren't we defining pension a little to tightly here considering the context in which Romeny used it? I mean, Romney's point (ostensibly) is that the Presdient has some manner of investments in China and ought not criticize Mr. Romney's investments in China. But I don't think those investments are part of any formal pension the President has though his service in the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate or as President. He's instead talking about retirement investments more generally like 401ks or IRAs and the like and Mr. Romeny's investment portfolio is indeed quite a bit larger than Obama's.
 
christiefan915 said:
reagan and the bushes got a public pension, too. Kwitcherbellyachin'.

And LOL about Romney's so-called blind trust.

[...] government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.
Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."
Click to expand...

Ancient history....same with Clinton, Carter, etc.....

Multimillionaires like Rockefeller, Pelosi, Kerry, etc...also cost the taxpayers millions....all irrelevant to TODAY and the debate....

Romney will cost the taxpayers nothing for his public service so far.....he lives on his own money, not the taxpayers.
 
Damocles said:
1 out of 43 people who take on the top job of the nation (remember one of them was President twice after losing his reelection bid)... Yeah, I think we can afford to give those people a pension. Seriously, when Romney gets elected he'll get all of those things as well.
Click to expand...


Affording it is not the point....the debate lies and mis-characterizations are.....

why does everyone have to spin the topic to make some other irrelevant point ?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Aren't we defining pension a little to tightly here considering the context in which Romeny used it? I mean, Romney's point (ostensibly) is that the Presdient has some manner of investments in China and ought not criticize Mr. Romney's investments in China. But I don't think those investments are part of any formal pension the President has though his service in the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate or as President. He's instead talking about retirement investments more generally like 401ks or IRAs and the like and Mr. Romeny's investment portfolio is indeed quite a bit larger than Obama's.
Click to expand...

Pension has a definition and in the context it was used has meaning....in the case of any president, its a taxpayer funded benefit of employment.....

and ALL pension funds have investments world wide....Romney was making that undeniable point about investments......

Romneys investment portfolio is personal assets.....in a blind trust....

The size of their assets is not the point .... and just a smokescreen to confuse the issue of the disingenuous foreign investments charge.....hypocritical.
 
bravo said:
Pension has a definition and in the context it was used has meaning....in the case of any president, its a taxpayer funded benefit of employment.....

and ALL pension funds have investments world wide....Romney was making that undeniable point about investments......

Romneys investment portfolio is personal assets.....in a blind trust....

The size of their assets is not the point .... and just a smokescreen to confuse the issue of the disingenuous foreign investments charge.....hypocritical.
Click to expand...

How about refuting this article about the blind trust that isn't?

[...] government ethics experts and election lawyers told ABC News that Romney's trust might not be quite as blind as he has long maintained. That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts.

"The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."
 
There is nothing to refute.....you show no proof that Romney is directly managing the assets in this trust.....

As a candidate, he has no power over the country's economic policies and thus no conflict of interest....

If elected, he will adhere to what the law requires..... just another smokescreen to confuse an irrelevant issue at this time...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/20/157119003/just-how-blind-are-blind-trusts-anyway


You should be flattered, I think poor Rana has a crush on you....
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
There is nothing to refute.....you show no proof that Romney is directly managing the assets in this trust.....

As a candidate, he has no power over the country's economic policies and thus no conflict of interest....

If elected, he will adhere to what the law requires..... just another smokescreen to confuse an irrelevant issue at this time...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/20/157119003/just-how-blind-are-blind-trusts-anyway


You should be flattered, I think poor Rana has a crush on you....
Click to expand...

Your link says the same thing mine did.

Romney said Ted Kennedy's blind trust was "an age-old ruse". Guess it's not such a ruse when the shoe's on the other foot, huh.

 
I'm still confused. What are the differences between having a blind trust as a federal office holder and having a blind trust not as a federal office holder?
 
christiefan915 said:
Your link says the same thing mine did.

Romney said Ted Kennedy's blind trust was "an age-old ruse". Guess it's not such a ruse when the shoe's on the other foot, huh.

Click to expand...

The law is the law....no one is breaking the law or will break it.....
Romneys trust is more that 10 years old, not just ginned up since he became a candidate...

You're pissing into the wind and whining about nothing, concocting an issue where there is none.....

nice attempt ... only because you must defend Obamas attempted character assassination....noisy but lame.
 
Damocles said:
1 out of 43 people who take on the top job of the nation (remember one of them was President twice after losing his reelection bid)... Yeah, I think we can afford to give those people a pension. Seriously, when Romney gets elected he'll get all of those things as well.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the secret service protection. But with thier book deals they don't need it. They did it for Truman. Time to cut it for all of them. None of them need it
 
bravo said:
“Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension? Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” Romney challenged.

In one of the debate’s lighter moments, Obama countered, “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long. I don’t check it that often.”

Another Obama inaccuracy ?...( LIE )
Click to expand...

in all fairness, after the election, Romney's pension will be identical to Obama's.....
 
I think we can all agree that a one-term US Congressman (serving only for two years and at only a fraction of the important of a four year one-term president) is far more of a drain to our society than a president when he or she walks away from DC with lifetime benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top