Cut out the middleman

Romney would rank among richest presidents ever

Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you’re in Romney territory.

He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected — probably in the top four.

He couldn’t top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth. After that, it gets complicated, depending how you rate Thomas Jefferson’s plantation, Herbert Hoover’s millions from mining or John F. Kennedy’s share of the vast family fortune, as well as the finer points of factors like inflation adjustment.

But it’s safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.

The former Massachusetts governor has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million. That easily could make him 50 times richer than Obama, who falls in the still-impressive-to-most-of-us range of $2.2 million to $7.5 million.

If you worried about electing a Wall Street puppet, vote for Romney and cut out the middleman.

This entry was posted in 2012 GOP Primary, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Cut out the middleman

  1. Lola-at-Large says:

    Doesn’t it become clearer and clearer as we discuss Romney’s wealth that OWS is a built-in-for-him campaign tactic against who the Obama admin wants, and presumes, the GOP nominee will be? It’s designed to try to contrast the wealth of these two.

    Obama isn’t sooooo rich if he’s merely worth a couple of mil. Plus, think of all that privilege his ancestors* never had as slaves and as oppressed African-Americans, so it’s really not that bad at all! He’s just making up for lost generations of wealth, so that’s okay. But $250 million? That’s just gross excess. 1%er! 1%er!

    *…wait! But his ancestors aren’t actually African-American. They’re American white and free African. But you know that’s exactly what they’ll suggest as part of his new brand. The contrast and the lingering stink of racism will wipe Obama’s slate clean for a lot of unthinking progs.

  2. 1539days says:

    McCain just said that Romney was on his “very short list” of Vice Presidential candidates in 2008. Really? Could this guy just once do something that doesn’t try to tear down Sarah Palin?

    It’s frankly sad how guys like Huckabee and McCain are now supporting the guy who savaged them in 2008. Now if they want to take my argument that Mitt Romney is a managerial type who will spread hope when he needs to and destroy anyone who gets in his way when necessary, that’s fine. But lying about Romney’s record and their own disdain for him in the past is just pathetic.

  3. foxyladi14 says:

    it reminds me of a three ring circus. 😆

  4. HELENK says:

    they are forgetting that backtrack is the main problem. By trashing each other, he can stand back and do nothing and win.
    That is the worse thing that could happen to this country

  5. DandyTiger says:

    Watching Romney is kind of like watching paint dry. Very expensive paint dry. What a pathetic race that will be if it’s Romney vs. Obama.

    Personally I want as much chaos as possible. I’m thinking Ron Paul is our best chance for that. 🙂

  6. yttik says:

    Oakland OWS seem to be having a melt down.

    Oakland police arrest about 300 Occupy protesters

    I don’t know, maybe by the time we’re finished Romney’s “watching paint dry” will appeal to people. OWS are even starting to alienate their own. Maybe we’re going to elect the 1% just to protect us from the 99%.

  7. HELENK says:

    can he turn things around and do the PTB really want them turned around??

  8. Anthony says:

    Romney: Puppet of Wall Street

    Gingrich: Puppet of AIPAC, Fannie & Freddie (and by default, Wall Street)

    Some choice, huh?

  9. kc says:

    Maybe I wasn’t paying attention when I was younger, but I think we are wittnessing the dying gasps of ‘the establishment’. They have been in charge so long but times are so bad that people are paying more attention now and maybe beginning to realize they have been played by both parties.

  10. angienc says:

    Obama had nothing before he entered politics; Romney — after working at a real job — now makes $20 million a year from investments. Who do you think is more indebted to their corporate donors?

    • DandyTiger says:

      Oh damn, that’s a good point. I may have to rethink voting for Paul now. Now see what you’ve done.

    • Anthony says:

      Which is why my assumption is that Romney is less likely to be “owned” by Wall Street

      • angienc says:

        Exactly — very few people in this world have true “Fuck you money.” Romney is one of them; FDR was another; George Washington & Thomas Jefferson as well. Pretty good company.

        Just saying . . .

        • yttik says:

          That’s a good point. I imagine it’s a lot more difficult to bribe a multi-millionaire. I mean, what do you get a guy who already has everything?

        • Three Wickets says:

          Point isn’t about how much Wall Street controls candidates with campaign money. That is always over imagined imo. It’s about how much a candidate or president believes in the way Wall Street and the expanding world of shadow banking (hedge funds, private equity, basically any unregulated form of big finance trading and gambling) currently works. That world is booming these days with all this easing from the Fed, and regulators barely touch them. Romney definitely believes in this world, so does Obama, and that’s always going favor the rich over working people. Whereas FDR at his core was about the reverse.

        • Three Wickets says:

          This isn’t about capitalism and the American way, it’s about casino gambling for the rich, with odds tilted in their favor and bailout guarantees if they lose too much.

  11. r u reddy says:

    Well this has been my point all along. If one has a choice between voting for a Wall Street Master or a Wall Street Master’s dirty little frontman, why not vote for the Wall Street Master if one believes in Wall Street Mastery?

    And if one doesn’t, one gets it anyway whether Obama or Romney gets elected. Romney would be more truthful about it. So between the two, one is set free to vote for some third choice.

  12. Glenn McGahee says:

    I don’t really blame Romney for his wealth if he was smart enough to earn and make all that money. I too believe he is less likely to be controlled by those corporate machines. He doesn’t necessarily need them. The Obama’s crave wealth and worship celebrity. Romney and his family, especially as Mormons, doesn’t need to worship at the feet of the paymasters.

Comments are closed.