Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (644276)	2/1/2012 3:39:23 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578990

The Obama's reported nearly $2.7 Million in Adjusted Gross Income in 2008. You get that? You think Romney is any more wealthy than Obama? In any real, meanginful sense? The only difference is that Romney actually MADE his money. Obama had never held a meaningful job in his life, except being a senator -- which doesn't put one it that income category. You bullet list of points are all essentially out-of-context. Romney made clear during the interview this morning that the poor have a "safety net" and that to the extent there are problems with it, he'll fix it. Once a person has a few million dollars, whether you have 250M or 10M, there really isn't much difference in the lifestyles. Anyone who can win the presidency today is wealthy by middle-class standards. Period. That includes Obama. Income inequality arguments ARE about envy. Why else would someone complain? Unless he can be shown to have violated tax law, which I can assure he can't, I don't see the problem with his tax returns. The bottom line is that you're just spewing liberal talking points without even thinking them through. For the foreseeable future, only very wealthy people are going to get elected. That is to some extent the political system we've got; but it is also a fact that most people who run for political office are in a position to do so only because they've been financially successful in the past.

To: puborectalis who wrote (644276)	2/1/2012 3:44:57 PM
From: longnshort	6 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578990

Did you vote for Kerry ? he has 3 or more times the money Romney had. How about al gore, he's worth over 100 million, did you vote for John Edwards, more money than Romney, How about JFK or RFK ? thy name is hypocrite. you aren't very bright are you

To: puborectalis who wrote (644276)	2/1/2012 4:16:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578990

"I like being able to fire people," I do as well. If you ran a business would you want to be forced to employ people you didn't want to employ? As a consumer do you want to have to keep payments going forever to anyone that you hire to do a service, even if they keep doing a lousy job? The full quote is after all - "I like to be able to fire people that provide a service to me", without that ability costs would be high, service would tend to be lousy, and few people would be hired (if you can't fire, people get very reluctant to hire") saying that questions about economic inequality are "about envy" Mostly they are about envy.