Mitt Romney wagered $10,000 of his own money. Barack Obama wagered $500 million taxpayer money. Is it more wrong to gamble with someone else's money?

SLIDESHOW: Gambles.

• RobHom 2011/12/12 22:37:36
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  Because you don't bet with someone else's money.
  
  Frankly this bet thing has been overblown and its all bs.... Romney basically did a "put up or shut up" to Perry....and the little girl bailed out with a wimp excuse. Perry is rich, and if he was so certain of his claims....he would have UPPED THE ANTE!!

  reply
• none 2011/12/12 18:20:24
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +1

  Romney was joking and only the media and ignorant people took it seriously, Obama IS a joke and the joke is on all of us, even the ones foolish enough to vote for him.

  reply
• Classical Liberal 2011/12/12 16:49:38
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +1

  "If the federal government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there would be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman

  reply
• david shiel 2011/12/12 14:39:20
  NO [tell us why not].

  

  Obama is gambling with majic

  reply
• Apache 2011/12/12 14:29:43
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +2

  What I would call Romney's bet is a "Shut up bet". It translates to put your money where your mouth is or shut up. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a socialist who loves to spend other people's money and not his own.
  
  I believe a former governor would be best served to lead because congressmen and senators tend to be Washington insiders with a bad case of White House envy. (Except for Ron Paul who I believe is a man of principal)
  
  On election day here are my choices ranked in order of importance and best chance of winning.
  
  1. Romney. (Worthy business executive able to gain independents and moderate Dems,)
  2. Perry. (I like his Texan attitude, but he should lay off the firewater)
  3. Paul. (An honorable and principled man)
  
  The other candidates do not matter. Gengrich will lose because of his baggage listed here. http://www.realchange.org/gin...
  
  Santorum, Bachmann, and Huntsman are nice people, but don't have a chance in Hell against Obama.
  
  I don't intend to offend anyone, but I believe this is a reality.

  reply
• Classic... to Apache 2011/12/12 16:48:20
  

  +1

  I'd place Paul on top just because of his fundamental understanding of macroeconomics (Romney, as a businessman, would be familiar mostly with microeconomics. They aren't entirely different, and a microeconomic background helps in learning macroeconomics, but they should not be equated.).

  reply
• srini 2011/12/12 14:21:31
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +2

  When it is own-money that is being risked, then others aren't actually paying for your losses and stupidity.

  reply
• All American 2011/12/12 14:07:08
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +3

  At least Romney was betting his own money.

  reply
• RJ~PWCM~JLA 2011/12/12 13:51:02
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +1

  The Zero gambled over $500 million on Solyndra, and how many billion on the Chevy Volt, otherwise known as "The Pinto for the 21st Century"?
  
  How come the Democrats don't care that Soros, the prototypical Wall Street operator, is a convicted inside trader?

  reply
• betz 2011/12/12 11:59:47
  YES [explain why you think so].

  

  +4

  Great analogy....just brilliant. BTW Mr. President....a GOOD bet is one in which you walk away with more money than you wagered. Oops.....one more mark goes on the "I am the worst president in history" side of the chart.
  

  reply