• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

Not that I really have anything against wealthy politicians, but to put things in perspective:

Clinton Net Worth: 80 million.
Reid Net Worth: 3.4 million
Pelosi Net Worth: 35.5 million
Obama Net Worth: 10.5 million (mostly from book royalties)

Romney Net Worth: 250 million

Good for him. I hope he becomes President and fixes our budget problem since he clearly knows how to do it.
 
More class warfare....please continue with your jealousy. That damn Ann, she made good decisions in her life...how dare she not have 5 kids with 5 different dads who aren't around.

WTF. I am not jealous at all, and Ann made a decision to stay home. That's the decision she made. I don't think that that is neither a bad nor good decision. I don't judge women based on such decisions, but the fact remains that a middle class housewife and a upper, 1%, housewife live in two different worlds. Pointing that out isn't class warfare... get a grip
 
Good for him. I hope he becomes President and fixes our budget problem since he clearly knows how to do it.

I don't see the accumulation of personal wealth as evidence that the individual in question will be effective at implementing macroeconomic (fiscal and monetary) policies that'll bring this country back on track. I really don't think there is much of a correlation.
 
ITA...and if you have kids you can put them in daycare for strangers to raise, so you can make money because you don't trust the man you married.

I think it's pretty obvious who is judging women in this thread.
 
George Washington, owned other Human Beings as chattel and did absolutely nothing to set the moral record straight as President of the United States. Exactly how did that work out morally for Washington?

Being "good" means more than being opportunistic, and being an effective leader is neither a right, nor a sure fire guarantee of undeserved privilege.

Every world power in history was built on the backs of slavery. Stop pretending America invented it. It was ugly, it was abolished, and now your pathetic party tries with all its might to keep the racial tensions churning, a la Trayvon Martin.
 
Michelle Obumble is fair game. She has been an advocate of her husband's failed administration. Now, the kids are off limits. I was PISSED when people made fun of Chelsea Clinton; SS agents I know always said she was a delightful and polite young lady. And while she was not beautiful (hardly her fault) she was always neat and she was in great shape.
If Michelle is fair game, then Ann Romney is fair game. She's out campaigning for her husband as well.
 
I don't see the accumulation of personal wealth as evidence that the individual in question will be effective at implementing macroeconomic (fiscal and monetary) policies that'll bring this country back on track. I really don't think there is much of a correlation.

Well, I don't either as evidenced by the former and current President we have. I was speaking more about his history of fixing economic issues.
 
I have nothing against Mitt Romney, but if you actually look into and do some research on how private equity firms such as Bain Capital operate, you'll realize that "risk" is a relative term.

No doubt, whatsoever. Private Venture firms, are not at all interested in the employee base of the companies they get involved with. For many of these firms, it is essentially one step away from a hostile take-over. They don't just "invest" passively and then walk away. They want management control of the entity and they typically make radical decisions with respect to who stays on board and who goes home packing. They will pack your bags for you and send you to the front door with a pink slip in a heartbeat, if you don't fit their agenda.

That's definitely not the Employee Friendly picture that Mitt, has been rolling around the country, painting for himself. Do they help to financial rescue some of the entities they get involved with? Sure, no doubt - 100% true. Others would say that they prey on the weak, pump the company's stock profile on the street and then Dump & Run. There's money in that kind of deal too, but it does not speak to one's abundance of integrity, no doubt.

If Romney, was involved in true (pure) Venture Capital deals from the ground-up (start-ups, incubators, first/second round funding, etc.), then that is truly Entrepreneurial and that is one of the purest forms of sincere risk taking. But, if he was involved in what I call Vulture Capital, then that's a horse of another color, entirely.
 
If Michelle is fair game, then Ann Romney is fair game. She's out campaigning for her husband as well.

I agree with this.
 
Every world power in history was built on the backs of slavery. Stop pretending America invented it.

He didn't say America invented it.

It was ugly, it was abolished, and now your pathetic party tries with all its might to keep the racial tensions churning, a la Trayvon Martin.

PW4000 stated quite clearly that he's neither a Dem nor a Repub.

Any other irrelevant arguments you would like to make?
 
No doubt, whatsoever. Private Venture firms, are not at all interested in the employee base of the companies they get involved with. For many of these firms, it is essentially one step away from a hostile take-over. They don't just "invest" passively and then walk away. They want management control of the entity and they typically make radical decisions with respect to who stays on board and who goes home packing. They will pack your bags for you and send you to the front door with a pink slip in a heartbeat, if you don't fit their agenda.

That's definitely not the Employee Friendly picture that Mitt, has been rolling around the country, painting for himself. Do they help to financial rescue some of the entities they get involved with? Sure, no doubt - 100% true. Others would say that they prey on the weak, pump the company's stock profile on the street and then Dump & Run. There's money in that kind of deal too, but it does not speak to one's abundance of integrity, no doubt.

If Romney, was involved in true (pure) Venture Capital deals from the ground-up (start-ups, incubators, first/second round funding, etc.), then that is truly Entrepreneurial and that is one of the purest forms of sincere risk taking. But, if he was involved in what I call Vulture Capital, then that's a horse of another color, entirely.

I would say that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
 
If that Presidential candidate came through his/her period of impoverishment and failure, while learning to apply to his/her life the lessons taken from it - then yes, he or she could end up being the most effective President America has ever known.

Often times, more can be learned from failure, than is learned from untainted (unrestricted) success.

I find that people pretty much end up exactly where they deserve to be. You could divide up all the money in the U.S. equally among us, and in five years it'd be right back where it started.
 
Well, I don't either as evidenced by the former and current President we have. I was speaking more about his history of fixing economic issues.

And, once again, I don't see a correlation between being able to accumulate personal wealth and being effective at fixing the COUNTRY'S economic issues.
 
Not that I really have anything against wealthy politicians, but to put things in perspective:

Clinton Net Worth: 80 million.
Reid Net Worth: 3.4 million
Pelosi Net Worth: 35.5 million
Obama Net Worth: 10.5 million (mostly from book royalties)

Romney Net Worth: 250 million

Which tells me Romney has a vastly better understanding on how to generate revenue, versus debt, than Obama.
 
Which tells me Romney has a vastly better understanding on how to generate revenue, versus debt, than Obama.
Have you ever considered that the others had different priorities than "generating wealth" for themselves? Also, being able to run a business is not the same as running a country.
 
Not that I really have anything against wealthy politicians, but to put things in perspective:

Clinton Net Worth: 80 million.
Reid Net Worth: 3.4 million
Pelosi Net Worth: 35.5 million
Obama Net Worth: 10.5 million (mostly from book royalties)

Romney Net Worth: 250 million

I guess it sucks to be at the low end of the millionaire club?
 
Which tells me Romney has a vastly better understanding on how to generate revenue, versus debt, than Obama.

I repeat:

I don't see the accumulation of personal wealth as evidence that the individual in question will be effective at implementing macroeconomic (fiscal and monetary) policies that'll bring this country back on track. I really don't think there is much of a correlation.

And, once again, I don't see a correlation between being able to accumulate personal wealth and being effective at fixing the COUNTRY'S economic issues.

Exhibit A: Herman Cain and the 9-9-9 plan.
 
Have you ever considered that the others had different priorities than "generating wealth" for themselves? Also, being able to run a business is not the same as running a country.

Yes, it is, especially right now in these times. You can't continually spend money you don't have with impunity. That's universal.
 
then I'd say you don't understand how a marriage is supposed to work. there is no "my" money or "his" money...it's all OUR money no matter who's name is on the paycheck



even with a job...are you not dependent on your employer's money? they could go out of business, you could get fired or laid off



again shows a lack of understanding of how a marriage is supposed to work. we discuss major expenditures but my wife never has to ask my permission to spend money



with court ordered alimony garnished from his wages if he doesn't want to pay it.



yes you can.



that's what alimony and life insurance is for.





If those are your concerns, then I'd say you chose poorly when you picked a husband

sounds to me like you assume all men are douchebags.

1. I am not married
2. I know how marriages are SUPPOSED to work, but I am a realist and I understand that there is a high divorce rate today.
3. Women, housewives, and trophywives do happen to marry douchebags. I am not saying all men are douchebags, but men who get married and expect their wife to not work and just be trophies are douchebags. Golddigging women and wannabe trophywives are no better. Such marriages won't last, obviously, and women shouldn't look at men as if they are nothing but bank accounts.
4. Before you tell me not steroetype, I am not saying that every rich husband and SAHM have this arrangement. I am simply criticizing your attitude in suggesting it's absolutely fine for women to not work and want a man to provide for them.

If I have children and have a daughter, I'd at least want her to have a good education so she has something to fall back on in case her fairytale, rich working husband and SAHM arrangement doesn't work out.
 
Do you understand what a non-sequitur is?

Yes, and I didn't create one.

At some point, we have to stop digging this hole. And Obama only knows the big government way, which is to keep digging with other people's shovels until we run out of shovels.
 
As it turns out, this Fox News talking point is a lie. She's not an advisory for Obama or the DNC.

Surprised?

But Rush is running the RNC, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom