The Debates

[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.

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.





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.

Is it even legal to tell a private company (pensions are run by private companies, just like 401ks and IRAs) that they can't invest in otherwise legal mutual funds?

Like that would fly...

 

[Stoked]

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.





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.

No he did not. He was to busy voting "present" on any bill up for vote.

 

[franklin]

Is it even legal to tell a private company (pensions are run by private companies, just like 401ks and IRAs) that they can't invest in otherwise legal mutual funds?

Like that would fly...

ublic pensions are private? Okey doke.
Public servants can't vote on where public pension funds are invested? Okey doke.
Public pensions are unregulated? Okey doke.

 

[SaltyDawg]

ublic pensions are private? Okey doke.
Public servants can't vote on where public pension funds are invested? Okey doke.
Public pensions are unregulated? Okey doke.

Public pensions are administered by private companies, yes. And no, the participants (or general public) do not get to say how the money is invested.

 

[nightmare3983]

No he did not. He was to busy voting "present" on any bill up for vote.

Whoa whoa whoa Stoked. He was busy voting "present" because he needed to focus on how to become president and change the United States. He was thinking big.

 

[Stoked]

Whoa whoa whoa Stoked. He was busy voting "present" because he needed to focus on how to become president and change the United States. He was thinking big.

Lol, in all fairness those votes where at the state level. They were also a very small % of his total votes. Under 5% I believe.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Public pensions are administered by private companies, yes. And no, the participants (or general public) do not get to say how the money is invested.

A main difference between 401k/IRA investments is the payout. It is paid out through time while the other can be taken all at one time. Trust me, someone is deciding on what the pension is invested in and that person will definitely listen to or take orders from Leaders in a State Government. Pensions just like other investments are given with instructions to the person carrying out that plan by the person/organization giving the money. It's not a invest in whatever you want to deal. Keep dreaming they are sooooo different.

 

[franklin]

Public pensions are administered by private companies, yes.

Some of the funds are allocated to private investment vehicles. Some are not. Pension assets are highly regulated already. Claiming congress has no say in how the funds are invested demonstrates how little you know of the matter.

And no, the participants (or general public) do not get to say how the money is invested.

Nice try grasping at straws trying to deflect the original question. It's been stated multiple times specifically as public servants and not the general public (who could hold a referendum on the matter so you're wrong on that front as well).