Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

actually you sort of lose on that one dohdough. Mitt's money is some high amount over 75% in a blind trust which is even further removed than a mutual fund in bluechips.

On the other hand, both are 1%ers and have little to no direct management of their money. It's so managed that if you actually asked either one what they're invested in you'd likely get a blank stare.

In the end I call it a draw.

Originally Posted by dafoomie The point is that to criticize someone for investing in a company who manufactures products in China is an absurdity given how dominant that practice is. Obama bought GM with taxpayer dollars, has he demanded that they bring manufacturing back to the US? Only 20% of their vehicles are made here. 2/3rds of its jobs are overseas. What is he doing about it as President?

First, you said it was about personal mutual funds and now, you're shifting goal posts to making it about the auto bailout. "They both do it" is an insipid point when all three actions involve different levels and types of involvement.

Somebody must be a little snippy today after seeing the latest polls.

I'm only as snippy as people are dumbshits and I don't follow polls.

Originally Posted by nasum actually you sort of lose on that one dohdough. Mitt's money is some high amount over 75% in a blind trust which is even further removed than a mutual fund in bluechips. On the other hand, both are 1%ers and have little to no direct management of their money. It's so managed that if you actually asked either one what they're invested in you'd likely get a blank stare. In the end I call it a draw.

I refuse to let your facts get in the way of my ideology.

It's simply a stupid point to be hung up on when they really don't have that much direct management over their personal finances. It's one thing to have a bunch of investment vehicles and another to purposely direct your disaster capital firm to directly invest in a specific manufacturer, which is my entire point.

which sort of invalidates your point as most people in the political realm have little to no control over their private finances. It's pretty semantic at any rate.

As far as where cars are made, it's also sort of pertinent to recall that more than 50% of GM's cars are sold in foreign countries. China buys more GM cars per month than the US does. Would you rather the vehicles be built here then shipped over there and eventually sold at a loss (thus increasing the big scary chinese trade defecit) or built and sold there for a profit? A profit which eventually comes back to the US as taxable repatrioted income?

Originally Posted by nasum which sort of invalidates your point as most people in the political realm have little to no control over their private finances. It's pretty semantic at any rate.

I was under the impression that the whole "Romney investing in Chinese companies" was a Bain thing; not a personal finances one. I think that's where we're missing each other. dafoomie and knoell didn't really clarify it when I brought up the examples of personal vs directorship, so I just ran with it because they're treating it as the same thing.

Was not sure which thread to leave this in but this one seems most appropriate. Hey you guys can vote for whomever you wish but if Obama wins I will most likely fire you all. It could go in the Stay Classy thread I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1951801.html

This mash-up just speaks for itself. People who fall for his I will say anything to get elected mantra really should wonder exactly what he WOULD do if he was President. Right now it could be anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=cPgfzknYd20


I cannot get it to embed for some reason.

Originally Posted by dohdough First, you said it was about personal mutual funds and now, you're shifting goal posts to making it about the auto bailout. "They both do it" is an insipid point when all three actions involve different levels and types of involvement.

I think you're (intentionally) missing the point of Obama's attack ad. Romney's company invested in another company who made products overseas, therefore as President Romney would... ship jobs overseas? Enable others to do so more than Obama has?

Am I to accept this line of reasoning from a man who proudly takes credit for a government bailout of a company who has shifted most of their manufacturing and jobs overseas? And one who has his own money invested (indirectly) in companies who do the same?

Originally Posted by dohdough It's simply a stupid point to be hung up on when they really don't have that much direct management over their personal finances. It's one thing to have a bunch of investment vehicles and another to purposely direct your disaster capital firm to directly invest in a specific manufacturer, which is my entire point.

Obama was invested in two Vanguard funds before he was President. And this company in the ad is one of many of Bain Capital's investment vehicles. The ad in and of itself makes a stupid argument, if you have significant investments there is very little chance of not investing in a company who makes products overseas. As if that is wrong in and of itself.

Should liberals sell their Apple stock because their products are made overseas?

Originally Posted by dafoomie I think you're (intentionally) missing the point of Obama's attack ad. Romney's company invested in another company who made products overseas, therefore as President Romney would... ship jobs overseas? Enable others to do so more than Obama has? Am I to accept this line of reasoning from a man who proudly takes credit for a government bailout of a company who has shifted most of their manufacturing and jobs overseas? And one who has his own money invested (indirectly) in companies who do the same?

Read nasum's post about manufacturing again.

edit: The purpose of the auto bailout is different from investing in a company for profit.

Obama was invested in two Vanguard funds before he was President. And this company in the ad is one of many of Bain Capital's investment vehicles. The ad in and of itself makes a stupid argument, if you have significant investments there is very little chance of not investing in a company who makes products overseas. As if that is wrong in and of itself.

Having money in a mutual fund is different from what Bain did. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

Should liberals sell their Apple stock because their products are made overseas?

Stocks are different from mutual funds. Or are you saying it's ok for cons to be reprehensible people because at least they're not being "hypocritical?"

is anyone really going to watch the VP debate Thursday, i think that is nothing more then a waste of tv time what spongebob could be using

Originally Posted by slidecage is anyone really going to watch the VP debate Thursday, i think that is nothing more then a waste of tv time what spongebob could be using

Yeah, I think its pretty pointless too since everyone knows Biden is quite the fool.

Originally Posted by dohdough Read nasum's post about manufacturing again. edit: The purpose of the auto bailout is different from investing in a company for profit.

But wait, I thought that idea was a profitable one.

Originally Posted by dohdough I was under the impression that the whole "Romney investing in Chinese companies" was a Bain thing; not a personal finances one. I think that's where we're missing each other. dafoomie and knoell didn't really clarify it when I brought up the examples of personal vs directorship, so I just ran with it because they're treating it as the same thing.

It's a rather dubious claim as we're now a global economy. Foreign investment isn't in and of itself a bad thing. Stuff made cheaper so that our consumer dollar can purchase more at retail. I mean hell, there hasn't been a video game actually printed on the disc in the US in ages.

The car thing is silly since those cars built in Asia aren't coming back here. The other side of that coin is that Toyotas sold in the US are built in the US by US workers. We don't purchase those cars with Yen and that money stays local when it is sold at a dealership and serviced anywhere. When the dealership buys the car from the manufacturer, maybe that money goes back to Japan. I've never really looked into that as it doesn't really concern me at any level.
Similar theory would be Target. The HQ is maybe 15 minutes from me but they collect and pay state sales taxes at each of their stores. Well, the payments are made from HQ but to each state's filing thing.

If I'm not mistaken my father's old GM truck was actually built in Canada. So yeah, buy American and all.

bah, canada is just America Jr.

*America's hat.

Quiet, pants.

We're the shirt, Mexico is the pants.

Originally Posted by nasum I mean hell, there hasn't been a video game actually printed on the disc in the US in ages.

Just a pointless point: Not true. Common misconception since almost everything "big" is printed in Mexico. But quite a few companies still do this in the U.S. Like Coral Graphics (They make a lot of the physical Telltale games like the Back to the Future SE and the Sam and Max games) Duplium is another company that manufactures a lot of games as well as DVD's and software

well shit, that obviously invalidates everything I've ever said. Ever.

Totally.
No dude I'm just babbllin' like I do. Useless Jeopardy knowledge to share.