Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands

Yurt said:
he was a dem, he gets a pass...i don't recall the dems complaining about kerry's wealth...now all of a sudden it is bad to be wealthy, yet kerry at the time and now has more wealth than mitt and guess what...he didn't earn it. but thats ok with dung, he has a D after his name.
Click to expand...

And I didn't see repubs complaining about the bushes' wealth, either, so what's your point?
 
Onceler said:
The OP isn't about him having his money; it's about where he parks his money, which is in a place that doesn't add to the American economy.

Personally, this does not bother me - it's symbolic sort of BS. However, it's not bashing him just for being rich, which is something almost everyone in politics at that level is.

STY is the only one I see who laments that we are always electing rich people, because they tend to look out for rich interests. There is probably some truth to that, but that's a pretty non-partisan critique. It has nothing to do w/ saying it's "bad" that Mitt is wealthy.
Click to expand...

the OP isn't about him having money? really? did you even read it? it was cartoons and a video - thurston howell, for the love of money and a cartoon of money bags. yeah....nothing at all to do with money.

:rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
The OP isn't about him having his money; it's about where he parks his money, which is in a place that doesn't add to the American economy.
Click to expand...

1) He has about $8mm out of an estimated $250mm invested in funds in the Caymans.
2) Just because the funds are domiciled in the Caymans doesn't mean they invest their money there. The money is invested throughout the world.
3) He still pays taxes just as he would if he was invested in Fidelity's International Stock funds. Those don't invest in the US or add to our economy. Should we criticize any candidate who has funds invested in International funds?
 
Superfreak said:
1) He has about $8mm out of an estimated $250mm invested in funds in the Caymans.
2) Just because the funds are domiciled in the Caymans doesn't mean they invest their money there. The money is invested throughout the world.
3) He still pays taxes just as he would if he was invested in Fidelity's International Stock funds. Those don't invest in the US or add to our economy. Should we criticize any candidate who has funds invested in International funds?
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir, SF. I said I didn't care, and that it's symbolic BS.
 
Onceler said:
The OP isn't about him having his money; it's about where he parks his money, which is in a place that doesn't add to the American economy.

Personally, this does not bother me - it's symbolic sort of BS. However, it's not bashing him just for being rich, which is something almost everyone in politics at that level is.

STY is the only one I see who laments that we are always electing rich people, because they tend to look out for rich interests. There is probably some truth to that, but that's a pretty non-partisan critique. It has nothing to do w/ saying it's "bad" that Mitt is wealthy.
Click to expand...

It's one of the few things STY is right about, and it is a totally non-partisan observation.
 
Yurt said:
i already denied it. try and read what i post.

that is a fair example. however, it is not often that money keeps people from attending college. you can get in based on grades, you can get scholarships, work your way through. i put myself through college with work and loans. where your example is fair, is more likely the ivy league schools. public education is a different story. however, what would YOU change about that? how would you change the law or rules to make this different?
Click to expand...

And when a person with a degree from state and one with an ivy league degree apply for the same job, who is the more likely hire, assuming all eles is equal?
I already told you, it is too complicated for short simple answers.
A starting point would be better public education. Then maybe less people would vote for conservatives, since it is the conservative ethic to keep the poor poor.

Here is another example for you, a person not of means has a business idea and wants a loan. The reality is that you can only get a loan if you can prove to the bank that you don't really need one. A wealthy person has no problem finacing a business, through banks or otherwise.
 
Return of Dune said:
And when a person with a degree from state and one with an ivy league degree apply for the same job, who is the more likely hire, assuming all eles is equal?
I already told you, it is too complicated for short simple answers.
A starting point would be better public education. Then maybe less people would vote for conservatives, since it is the conservative ethic to keep the poor poor.
Click to expand...

do you even what people post?

1. i'm the one that used the ivy league as a FAIR example of your point. if you bother to actually read what i posted, you would not need to ask that question as i already that does illustrate how money helps.

2. that is a great point about public education. however, what rule or law would you CHANGE so as to not inhibit people from gaining wealth? all you've talked about is private schools vs. public schools. nothing about any laws.

i'm beginning to think the subject is too complicated for you.

let me offer a suggestion that is in line with our original topic:

the law or rule i would change regards student loan repayment. if you are making below a certain income or have assets below a certain amount, your loans should either be forgiven or greatly reduced. this would allow a person who was not wealthy a better chance at obtaining wealth because they wouldn't be spending so much money on the loans.
 
Onceler said:
The OP isn't about him having his money; it's about where he parks his money, which is in a place that doesn't add to the American economy.

Personally, this does not bother me - it's symbolic sort of BS. However, it's not bashing him just for being rich, which is something almost everyone in politics at that level is.
STY is the only one I see who laments that we are always electing rich people, because they tend to look out for rich interests. There is probably some truth to that, but that's a pretty non-partisan critique. It has nothing to do w/ saying it's "bad" that Mitt is wealthy.
Click to expand...

We would hardly have a plutocracy if poor people ran the government, would we?
This is one of the FEW things STY is right about, and it also make the point very well, that the deck is stacked against the poor ever getting rich.
 
tff....snarla and dunceler try to mock me for wondering where onceler is...yet....onceler does the same thing often

you guys and your double standards....lol you're like yappy little dogs
 
Onceler said:
Yurt - can you copy the thread title into your next response?
Click to expand...

why? what does that have to do with the CONTENT of the OP? i can make a thread title "obama sleeps with gennifer flowers" and then post only about clinton....is it your claim the OP is about obama? because that is what you are saying by asking me that question....
 
Yurt said:
why? what does that have to do with the CONTENT of the OP? i can make a thread title "obama sleeps with gennifer flowers" and then post only about clinton....is it your claim the OP is about obama? because that is what you are saying by asking me that question....
Click to expand...

So, you won't copy the thread title into your response?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top