Debates!!!

Epic · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

I think what is difference is Mitt Romney can take the risk to build his wealth, and he work hard. But he know if he fail, he will not be poor and lose all his money. Because he have support from his wealthy family.

I'll buy that argument.

Epic · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Brass:

I don't pretend to know his history well. I am only giving certain assertions the benefit of the doubt to make the case that I did. In any event, I did note that he came from wealth, which affords and takes for granted some privileges not available to us "soon to haves" (thanks for that, Mitch Daniels).

In any event, all this is just entertainment and contrived drama. I think we all know Obama will win. But it passes the time!

Are you attributing the "soon to haves" line to Mitch Daniels. Obama said it in his SOTU address.

"We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have-nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.â

Maverick74 · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

I think what is difference is Mitt Romney can take the risk to build his wealth, and he work hard. But he know if he fail, he will not be poor and lose all his money. Because he have support from his wealthy family.

That's semi-true. Most my friends do the same except they go into debt and if they fail, they declare bankruptcy. Not the same call option but close.

BTW, something of note here and I've pointed this out before, but Mormons have the highest income per capita of any group of people in the US. Yes, including Jews. They work like there is no tomorrow. It's embedded in their character at a very early age. Take that for what's it's worth.

Epic · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

BTW, something of note here and I've pointed this out before, but Mormons have the highest income per capita of any group of people in the US. Yes, including Jews. They work like there is no tomorrow. It's embedded in their character at a very early age. Take that for what's it's worth.

That's true, and they also have by far the highest number of first generation millionaires per capita.

CaptainObvious · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Epic:

Documented inheritance that Romney kept includes;

1) A car as a wedding gift. To be expected since his dad was CEO of American Motors.

2) Help paying for undergrad school expenses, including travel to visit home.

3) Help in purchasing their first home. He and his wife lived in a $65/month basement apartment while he attended school.

Personally I know a whole lot of people who got that exact same package from their parents who are solidly middle class.

When Romney's father did in fact pass along an inheritance, Romney donated all of it to a university because he had already built his own fortune.

We all know that inherited wealth means more than money and while he certainly had access to plenty of that, he also had the connections and opportunities presented to him that most will never see. In the marathon of life his starting line was at about the 25 mile mark, so let's not pretend he's some poor old farm boy who done real good.
Yes, he has worked harder than most that come from privilege and he certainly has spread around the money to his chosen charities. As stated, kudo's to him for that, and I've also stated that his money, religion, tax rate, etc. are of no concern to me. My post was in reference to what we're learning from these debates, which is absolutely nothing that we didn't already know about him, or the rest of the field. Specifics are what I'm interested in learning, and these guys have come up with nothing of substance. It's a mud slinging contest, nothing more.

Brass · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Epic:

Are you attributing the "soon to haves" line to Mitch Daniels. Obama said it in his SOTU address.

Yes, I am. I think you're mistaken.

Brass · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from trendlover:

I think what is difference is Mitt Romney can take the risk to build his wealth, and he work hard. But he know if he fail, he will not be poor and lose all his money. Because he have support from his wealthy family.

That's a very good point. It's always easier to take a risk when you have a good fallback position. It doesn't take away from what he did, but it does make it easier than for someone who doesn't have this luxury. Again, it just adds context rather than necessarily diminishes.

trendlover · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Maverick74:

That's semi-true. Most my friends do the same except they go into debt and if they fail, they declare bankruptcy. Not the same call option but close.

BTW, something of note here and I've pointed this out before, but Mormons have the highest income per capita of any group of people in the US. Yes, including Jews. They work like there is no tomorrow. It's embedded in their character at a very early age. Take that for what's it's worth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but Mormon and Jews have (systemic) connection in their group in the USA , true?
So if their (call option) is not in the money , they have more money to pay a premium to play this game again. I am not saying that is bad. I am sayin this is advantage

Maverick74 · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

We all know that inherited wealth means more than money and while he certainly had access to plenty of that, he also had the connections and opportunities presented to him that most will never see. In the marathon of life his starting line was at about the 25 mile mark, so let's not pretend he's some poor old farm boy who done real good.
Yes, he has worked harder than most that come from privilege and he certainly has spread around the money to his chosen charities. As stated, kudo's to him for that, and I've also stated that his money, religion, tax rate, etc. are of no concern to me. My post was in reference to what we're learning from these debates, which is absolutely nothing that we didn't already know about him, or the rest of the field. Specifics is what I'm interested in learning, and these guys have come up with nothing of substance. It's a mud slinging contest, nothing more.

Obviously you don't understand the purpose of debates. It's not about laying out a detailed plan for anything. It's about scrutinizing each other's experience and track record. It's called a vetting process. The right does it, the left does it. Once each party has vetted their candidate, they can lay out specifics in the general. Of course we know from history that rarely does a candidate ever follow through on that stuff, but it's there if you want to listen to it.

Ricter · Jan 26, 2012

Quote from Brass:

Yes, I am. I think you're mistaken.

Uhh, I thought Romney used "soon to haves" in his response after the speech...