While I have no intention of voting Republican this year when I read the
sentence "The New York Times reported Thursday that a Romney family blind
trust has between $100,000 and $250,000 invested in a Bain Capital fund that
recently acquired Uniview Technologies, "Blind Trust... so
really it's a non issue. With it being blind who cares?
Really!? This is so not an issue! Anyone who has ever had investments in
mutual funds or trusts realizes that you don't know all the companies that fund
is a part of. I have a few of these funds and everytime I sit down to review
them it is a new list! I'm sure his opponents will really twist this around
Hey, and just so you know, Romney pays his taxes too. Desperate article and
accusation to hurt Romney. Blind means Romney had nothing to do with it.
Well now that Mitt knows, he should have his trust administrator get rid of the
stock. Being that he is a man of great moral character.
This is a hit job by the New York Times. By being blind, the Romney Trust is
not controlled by Romney but by the trust's advisors. The New York Times
probably knew before Mitt that the Trust owned part of this company. And it
probably took them days to discover it. and that is with the Times likely
intent to find something in the Trust that they could deem controversial.
American politics hits new lows almost dily...
This is why investors should always know where their money is going and what it
is doing. Many American millionaires are unknowingly financing human rights
I don't buy the whole "blind trust" argument, it is his money, he is
responsible ultimately responsible for how it is used - period. At the same
time, this is hardly a huge issue. Its security camera systems for crying out
loud. These types of systems are deployed throughout the world. I am willing
to be the big new fancy down town mall in Salt Lake uses one of these systems.
So this is a BIG non-issue.
The lead sentence of the article is absurd. One could just as easily write that
the USA is rapidly evolving into a "surveillance state" as we increasing
see cameras at intersections, in government buildings, airports, and many other
public places, and that anyone who owns a stake in the companies that produce
the components of the monitoring equipment stands to gain from our country's
"Orwellian buildup." He didn't "duck the question,"
as the "journalist" reports. His response was straight forward and
clear: he hadn't read the article so he couldn't comment. How about
an article like this: "Romney embarks on auto industry jobs creation
program by purchasing two Cadillacs, a Mustang, and a truck, buying American
cars when he could afford a Mercedes." Or, if you don't like him,
"Romney fails in private construction industry job creation efforts by
limiting his La Jolla home expansion to 7,000 square feet when he clearly could
afford 14,000 square feet." Or "Romney contributes to Solyndra
bankruptcy woes by not buying their solar panels for all his homes."
Many American consumers, like you and me, are contributing to human rights
abuses worldwide as we buy Apple and Nike products or anything else made in
China, clothing sewn in Southeast Asia, gasoline refined from Middle East and
Venezuelan oil, products with copper from Africa, etc. Let's have our
government create a list of approved items to consume from approved companies
that don't contribute to human rights abuses so we can have a clear conscience.
I for one am going to stop supporting companies that make cameras because I
can't in good conscience support the porn industry's use of cameras. Who will
join the cause?
@79Ute: Better throw away your cell phone then... *gasp* it has a camera built
If you have not figured it out already....Mitt Romney has money in virtually,
Re: no fit in SG 1:23 p.m. March 18, 2012"If you have not figured it
out already....Mitt Romney has money in virtually, everything!"Not a bad quality to have a US President who understands finances. Currently
we're headed for bankruptcy and Romney has proven that he has what it takes to
balance our federal budget.
That's the point, Delta Foxtrot, the world is too complex for us to be as
simplistic as you suggest investors should be when something they own may
tangentially involve an activity we don't approve. Universities, for example,
make a big deal of not investing in companies that do something counter to the
values of the university (for example, not investing in companies that did
business with South Africa during the apartheid era). Most of them found it
impossible to observe that policy except where the targeted company directly did
something that constituted a human rights violation. They couldn't stop the
distribution of products to South Africa by boycotting companies in the
distribution chain. Criticizing Romney because the trustee of his blind trust
invested in a mutual fund which owns stock in a company that makes equipment
purchased by the Chinese government, among others, isn't going to stop Chinese
government human rights violations. It's as silly as suggesting that we should
boycott Canon because some of their products are purchased to film porn. You
apparently missed the sarcasm.