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.
The Debates
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
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.
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.
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?
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.
Yes.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
This. I'm all for rational debate, but it's difficult to do that while wading through falsehoods, mischaracterizations, and hyperbole.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
What are you guys talking about? What did I say that was controversial or false?