Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-19-2012, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,296 posts, read 121,111,670 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Your post says he was hired as a VP. Big deal. You can go to the SEC website. He didn't make big money until much later. I'm sure he was earning a fair salary in 1980. He wasn't really wealthy until much later.

Since you like links, here you go:

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Home Page)
You're not working as a VP for minimum wage. My DH was once called a VP and he was certainly making a professional salary, enough so that I, with two small children did not have to work outside the home. We weren't rolling in it, but we weren't poor either. We had good health insurance. We had two cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2012, 08:12 AM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,041,614 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by quality guy View Post
Gee, and all this time I thought you were a nanny?
Very Funny....


I LOVE TO LAUGH! - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 12:14 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,186 posts, read 12,358,409 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain View Post
People tend to travel in circles of their own economic level. I don't think the Romney's were the ones everyone pitied because he would not get Ann a housekeeper, nurseryman, driver, nanny, maid, etc, while everyone else in their economic bracket had staff.

Come on, they had five houses. Do people here think the woman opened all of these houses herself, and took care of them? Do you know how much dust is accumulated in all of these houses, even if they are kept vacant for most of the year? And how tall the grass would be if left untended?

They had people 'doing' for them, probably all along because even in the beginning they had investment income on top of salaries.

Exactly But yet there are people on this forum that think the romneys live just like them. The republican spin doctors found a leak and exploited it and the weak-kneed dumbocrats fell for it and threw Ms Rosen under the bus for basically speaking the truth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 12:21 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,186 posts, read 12,358,409 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Your post says he was hired as a VP. Big deal. You can go to the SEC website. He didn't make big money until much later. I'm sure he was earning a fair salary in 1980. He wasn't really wealthy until much later.

Since you like links, here you go:

Www.sec.gov

But it does it state how much wealth that both of their families had either. One more thing, how many people become VP of large companies in a year and not make/have money? Just curious
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 12:36 PM
 
Location: The Cascade Foothills
10,942 posts, read 10,285,399 times
Reputation: 6476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
Did it bother you when Obama said "We are the ones we've been waiting for!"?

I nearly spit up my dinner when I heard it but apparently this was just the kind of conceit the nation craved.
Yes, "we" meaning a collective "we" - he was not referring to just himself or just himself and Michelle. He was referring to himself and his supporters and all of us who want something better for this country.

"It's our turn" means nothing more than a couple of rich, spoiled kids who think they are "owed" the White House - because it's their "turn."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,443,465 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You're not working as a VP for minimum wage. My DH was once called a VP and he was certainly making a professional salary, enough so that I, with two small children did not have to work outside the home. We weren't rolling in it, but we weren't poor either. We had good health insurance. We had two cars.
So you guys must be filthy rich right now. Cool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,296 posts, read 121,111,670 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
So you guys must be filthy rich right now. Cool.
Oh, give me a break! I said we weren't living on minimum wage. That company failed, eventually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,443,465 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, give me a break! I said we weren't living on minimum wage. That company failed, eventually.
So he was a VP and wealthy but you guys weren't. I see a contradiction. Stop while you can.

Romney is rich. He didn't get filthy rich until much later. The timing is central to the debate. During the '70's, while she was raising those babies, it wasn't all nannies and housekeepers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,296 posts, read 121,111,670 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
So he was a VP and wealthy but you guys weren't. I see a contradiction. Stop while you can.

Romney is rich. He didn't get filthy rich until much later. The timing is central to the debate. During the '70's, while she was raising those babies, it wasn't all nannies and housekeepers.
I didn't say either of us (DH and I OR the Romneys) were wealthy. I said we weren't poor. DH was making a "professional" salary. We owned a home. The Romenys weren't poor either. They weren't filthy rich at that point, but they could certainly have afforded a nanny or a housekeeper. We had a cleaning lady 1X a week at that point in time.

You keep twisting this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2012, 12:00 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,186 posts, read 12,358,409 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
So he was a VP and wealthy but you guys weren't. I see a contradiction. Stop while you can.

Romney is rich. He didn't get filthy rich until much later. The timing is central to the debate. During the '70's, while she was raising those babies, it wasn't all nannies and housekeepers.

It is kind of hard to believe that a ex-govenor's son who has been fed a silver spoon for most of his life all of the sudden is'nt? And then in a short period of time becomes a multi-millionaire? Really????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top