So Perry saw opportunities,took the risk, invested and they paid off and now he is rich....I do not get why that’s a negative.
The way the Austin area has grown in the past 25 years, Forrest Gump coulsd have become a millionaire in real estate investments.
“So Perry saw opportunities, took the risk, invested and they paid off and now he is rich....I do not get why that’s a negative.”
On the left, because he’s not Obama, Clinton, or some other marxist. On the right, because he’s not sufficiently libertarian for the Paulians, not sufficiently middle of the road for the MittBots, not suffificently anti-illegal for some conservatives, and not Palin for the Palinistas (of which I’m a nominal member, but I’d happily vote for Perry, too).
PS The charge about illegals has some merit, but mostly is the fault of the fedgov and Texas having to deal with the inevitable consequences of fedgov policy. His DREAM act has some radically different limits than the proposed fedgov one, too, but none of the Perry haters cares.
some po’ folks resent others working and making money.
Taking advantage of political position is corrupt. This is the very crony capitalization Sarah is railing against.
OK I'll try to offer a little insight.
To the left, the only acceptable ways to make money are with intellectual pursuits. So people who get rich from practicing law or writing books are admired. Those who get rich selling toothpaste or real estate are considered robber barons who profited from inside info and connections.
All we can do is laugh at them.
Shades of Hillary Clinton and her futures contract windfall?
The way it really works is the insiders who control the development in a region make the young up and coming politician aware of where he or she might invest in land in advance of a major announcement of a new shopping center or manufacturing plant. The risk for these insiders, and those they bring into the know, is much less risky than the average person buying land hoping it will go up.
Nothing illegal here, no money changes hands. The politician might not even know what is coming. He just knows someone big in the development world has told him it might be good to buy some undeveloped land in a specific area of the county. He buys, a year later the new development is announced, and he sells the land for multiples of what he paid.
It happens everyday in America. Former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert was a master at investing in land and then earmarking road projects near his investment land.
Land deals and politicians are as old as the Republic. It is the easiest way for those seeking influence to put money in a politician’s pocket without creating any air of impropriety.
I’m thinkin’ the same thing. Heck, if that opportunity came my way I’d take it too.
“So Perry saw opportunities,took the risk, invested and they paid off and now he is rich....I do not get why that’s a negative.”
It’s not.....unless he was unethical in order to make money. However, I doubt that. Being rich is something Marxists usually see as a negative...even if the rich person is virtuous.
Because that is evil in the mind of a liberal...
If the man did it honestly it’s what America is all about—or used to be. The potential problem for Perry is perception. Too many politicians are poor upon entering elected office, but leave rich.
If those lucrative real estate deals were devoid of political taint then more power to Perry. I seriously doubt it, though.
When I smell smoke I know there is a fire burning somewhere.
It would not be IF there were no favors traded.
While it's unlikely anyone will ever be able to prove favors...the average guy on the street is savvy enough to suspect them and believe they occurred.
It sounds like the “American Dream” as far as I can make out.
Obviously you are not a palinista.
Now don’t go ballistic, but the same thing could have been said about Hillary and her cattle futures.
I still like Perry, but this is very close to the crony capitalism thing Sarah was talking about, even if it’s in a much more benign form.
People in politics have access to information that others don’t have, regardless of whether they make use of it or not. In this case, even if all the transactions are reviewed and found to be totally above-board and on-the-level, there will always be those who are certain that Perry wouldn’t have managed to get such good deals if he’d been an average shmoe.
It’s troubling.
I’m not sure it is portrayed as a negative in that article. I just skimmed through it, but it seemed a pretty factual article, not judging.