Mitt Romney is the epitome of corporate greed
By: Cahir O'Doherty | Published Thursday, January 19, 2012, 11:00 AM | Updated Thursday, January 19, 2012, 11:00 AM
 |
| Mitt Romeny (Pool/ REUTERS) |
In the year of Occupy Wall Street, with a still growing global movement protesting the completely shocking levels of income inequality that are currently choking capitalism around the globe, what does the GOP do?
The select a multimillionaire, their third richest candidate ever to run, the living personification of a Wall Street fat cat, a one percenter who makes $10,000 bets as casually as other people order a slice of pizza, to run for president of the United States -- Mitt Romney.
How tone deaf, really, are the GOP? If you suspect we are living in an alternate universe now, where the 99% lumpenprole, meaning us poor working stiffs, are increasingly ignored by the staggeringly wealthy, meaning Romney and his most ardent Wall Street backers, you'd be unarguably right.
Bluntly, Romney’s richer than Croesus. His wealth actually makes him one of the 3,140 wealthiest people in the country‚ which means he's well beyond just the one percent.
He’s actually in the top tier of the richest 0.001 percent of Americans. He's the 0.001 percent.
It doesn't get much richer than that, folks. Well, not outside of fairy tales. So he probably won’t have to wear a top hat and tails or some spats and a silver cane for most people to figure it out that he’s minted.
It's why he won't release his tax returns, too. He is hiding all that money in plain sight.
Even his own hugely wealthy Political Action Committee (PAC) is reticent to even bring the subject of how just how rich Romney actually is. There’s a good reason for this. They fear that being that spectacularly rich means you, the ordinary voter, won’t be able to relate to him at all.
He doesn’t look like he has ever been late with a Con Ed payment, after all. He doesn’t look like he even knows who pays his Con Ed bill.
------------------
Read more: More US politics news from IrishCentral
Irish American wife charged with slaying husband’s mistress- VIDEOHistorical Irish silent films are now available online - VIDEOS------------------
So his supporters, and in particular his campaign, really don’t want you to think too much about how he made his money. But the fact is that with his background in exactly the sort of pirate capitalism that passes for commerce on Wall Street nowadays, Mitt is really the poster boy for the modern GOP.
Under his leadership he created staggering wealth for the investors and shareholders in his portfolios, but not so much for the working stiffs who populated the companies he hired and fired.
If the recent Bush presidency taught us anything it's this -- tax cuts for the super rich allow them to grow impressively richer, but zero job growth reminds us that creating wealth for America's golden circle doesn't necessarily lead to job creation outside the circle.
This week we learned that the wealth gap in America is now a bigger source of social tension now than racism. Income inequality is at the center of that tension, and it’s something that Romney only wants to dismiss as “class warfare.”
But can you even call it a war if your side keeps on winning?
Voices on the right who might have been expected to criticize his candidacy for a host of predictable reasons have been strangely silent. It turns out there’s a good reason for that.
Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, owns Clear Channel Communications, one of America’s largest media conglomerates. Clear Channel broadcasts conservative luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and many others.
It’s amazing how much you can overlook if your paycheck depends on it. Clear Channel essentially owns the conservative talk radio industry.
But shouldn’t all of these commentators be frank and forthcoming about the ties that bind them? And isn’t there a conflict of interests at work here anyway? How much criticism are any of these pundits going to offer a man who is essentially their employer?
If you want to grasp how rich Romney is you just have to look at his clout. It’s almost enough to make you sorry for Karl Rove.
Banished to the outer darkness by the GOP's acknowledged kingmaker Limbaugh for apostasy, Rove must be eating his own wire-rimmed glasses with indignation and scorn.
That's because Rove generally understands what his colleges -- blinded by their unfathomable contempt for Obama -- have failed to notice -- Romney is the image of the unfettered corporate greed that for the past three decades has been destroying America from the inside.
He’s not hope you can believe in. He’s the man in a suit who signed your severance check without ever knowing who or what you did.
34 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.eiriamach | Jan 21, 2012, 04:53 AM EST
Tom Swinford, I greatly appreciate your commentary (and I agree with it). You always give us something to think about.
upsceach | Jan 20, 2012, 10:10 PM EST
if this man gets elected anyone who thinks that he cares about the ordinary man is away with the fairies.
upsceach | Jan 20, 2012, 06:59 PM EST
eiriamach, excellent commentary - and very much on point. My compliments.
eiriamach | Jan 20, 2012, 06:05 PM EST
On "the common good," faberm1, begin with Aristotle (or Plato) and work your way forward through the millennia of moral philosophy, political philosophy, and theology to John Rawls' Theory of Justice, and don't neglect any of the social contract theorists along the way. If you've read Karl Marx's *Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,* then you have some sense of Marx's humanist interest in the flourishing of human nature within a system of pure democracy that serves "the common good." But I suspect you've never read any Marx or any other philosopher, whether labeled "socialist" or political theorist. Such writers raise enduring questions, open questions, questions that we seriously need to re-examine today, and democratic movements like Occupy Wall St are prompting us to do so. Get with the program. How, I wonder, does anyone get a degree in law without ever taking a philosophy course, at least logic, ethics, political philosophy?
eiriamach | Jan 20, 2012, 05:40 PM EST
If you want not to change the system, faberm, you're a little late to the ball game. Begin with the 1947 passage of the Taft Hartley Act, written and lobbied through Congress by big business in an attempt to halt the success of labor unions, whose membership and success in raising the median wage and growing the middle class was at its peak. Fast forward to the 1990s, to the invention of nefarious techniques for making money from paper--no, I'm not talking about Georgia-Pacific or Weyerhaeuser Corp., but about fancy-wancy inventions of Wall St such as credit-default swaps, designed to pass along the serious risk exposure of mortgages and other fixed-income contracts to pension funds, charitable trusts, 401ks, etc. Finance replaced manufacturing as the primary contributor to domestic wealth while banks and other lenders wrote mortgages designed to screw the homeowners along with the government insurance agencies and the unwary consumers who bought the worthless new paper investments. HUGE changes in the American economic system that we once called capitalism have emerged from organized greed over just a few decades. This is no longer a system that we can wax nostalgic about; it's not your grandpa's "free enterprise" and has not been free or fair for a long time! No one needs a Ph.D. in economics to sniff out the corruption that now inhabits our economic system.
allentown | Jan 20, 2012, 04:47 PM EST
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. Illegal aliens must go home and enter the USA legally. Obamacare will be repealed. Tax rates for corporations will be lowered to 25% to create jobs. Obama doesn't have a clue about making the economy grow. All Romney positions and his opinion on President Obama.
hollabackgurl | Jan 20, 2012, 11:30 AM EST
Romney's not an employer, he made his money through vulture capitalism, buying and selling companies regardless of who worked there, what they did, or how profitable it was - his ambition was only to enrich his small group of shareholders, that is all.
hollabackgurl | Jan 20, 2012, 10:44 AM EST
I am alweays a bit wary when someone attempts to make a case for a point of view by establishing his/her educational accomplishments and/or experience. Morons have been known to get advances degrees. I do believe that the combination of capitalism as an economic system and democcracy as a political system afford a society the greatest opportunity for wealth creation - no question. But unregulated, unfettered capitalism is every bit as brutal and heartless as socialism/communism - and every bit as destructive to society - as we have surely seen in the recent past. Canada has largely escaped the self-inflicted wounds that in the U.S. are continuing to bleed. Why? Because Canada's financial institutions and corporations are effectively regulated precisely to prevent the kinds of excesses that have brought us to our knees. Australia and New Zealand are other examples of prudent, effective oversight and there are a few examples in Europe too. Free-market capitalism, without effective constraints, brings out the very worst in human behavior, unrestrained greed, corruption and incompetence. Capitalism can be regulated to do what it does best: create a good life for the greatest number of people. Socialism, on the other hand, can never be fixed because it is based fundamentally on a false premise - that we are all absolutely equal in every respect- individual initiative counts for nothing - and so there is little incentive in these societies for what my mother called 'get up and go.'
faberm1 | Jan 20, 2012, 08:36 AM EST
@ eiriamach I am not a bit confused. YOU are confused. The examples you gave are not caused by free market economics. They were caused by the destruction of free market economics. (prohibition, etc were caused by creating illegal markets BY government intervention). I have a degree in Finance, a Masters in Economics and a Doctorate in Law, and I stand by my comments. Your comments about "common good" echo something strangely familiar. They sound like Karl Marx, the father of Communism. You need to go take an Economics 101 course. The traditional American system has provided more personal wealth and freedom than the world and history have ever known. We would be wise to stop those who desire to change it radically.
awoken32 | Jan 20, 2012, 04:58 AM EST
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE FOR THE PEOPLE,THE REST ARE PURE FAKE AN IN THE POCKET OF THE ELITE,THEY COULDNT CARE LESS ABOUT THE PEOPLE,THEY ARE IN IT FOR SHORT TERM PERSONAL GAIN,AN THE POWER ELITE WILL JUST USE THEM TO TAKE AWAY MORE FREEDOMS AN CONTINIUE THERE ATTACK ON THE POOR AN MIDDLE CLASSES AN KEEP UP THEIR ILLEGAL WARS,IF YOU CANT SEE THROUGH THEIR BS BY NOW,YOU NEED TO WAKE UP,RON PAUL=REAL PERSON
AlunPalmer | Jan 20, 2012, 12:26 AM EST
I don't think envy is the right word. It's not that people want his money (although I'm sure they wouldn't spit at it), rather it's that they don't want people like him controlling the country. By this, I mean people who get their income from Wall Street instead of from working. Even CEOs work for a living, but not the likes of Romney.
hollabackgurl | Jan 19, 2012, 10:12 PM EST
I don't see envy anywhere in this article, what I see is (and agree with) is that now is probably not the best time to select a presidential candidate who's richer than Midas. Because he doesn't understand the little guy and he has never understood the little guy and 2012 is going to be about the little guy.
lokionline | Jan 19, 2012, 09:38 PM EST
The 'envy' card is being played I notice... What a red herring... The issue is fairness and opportunity, both of which have taken a beating in the past 30 years.
hollabackgurl | Jan 19, 2012, 08:58 PM EST
Mitt Romney never met payrolls either: he bought and sold companies to enrich his shareholders, hiring and firing anyone who got in the way. That's not an employer, that's a pirate.
RustySax | Jan 19, 2012, 08:18 PM EST
Although I am NOT a Romney supporter (nor King Obama), O'Doherty's comments sound exactly like someone who has never had to meet a payroll. Until that time that he does, take his comments with a grain of salt - one that has had a drop of water spilled on it.
cillowen | Jan 19, 2012, 07:21 PM EST
Romney an abomination - a blood sucker. Notice his Miss America demeanor as he steps on stage. Ya'll know he has much to hide. That Gingrich piece of dirt makes one wanna p44uke. Paul the fuuugly raves on and on he'll have us all sowing potatoes on rooftop gardens ... whereever. Santorum another zero.
cillowen | Jan 19, 2012, 07:20 PM EST
Romney an abomination - a blood sucker. Notice his Miss America demeanor as he steps on stage.
eiriamach | Jan 19, 2012, 03:09 PM EST
wilhoef and John425 both take the "At least Romney...." approach to O'Doherty's criticism of Romney's corporate greed. These words "At least Romney...." concede the truth-- that Romney IS the epitome of corporate greed, and then they add that he could be worse! As the GOP likes to say about Obama's presidency, "Things could be worse" is not a winning campaign strategy. Things could be a lot worse, and they will be, if a shill for the 1% wins the 2012 election.
Nicomax | Jan 19, 2012, 02:49 PM EST
Comparing the rich no matter their political leanings misses the point. We have huge revenue deficits in this country, and since we continue to be the 'policeman of the world', we need more revenue to do so. Allowing the 'carried interest crowd to pay only 15% of their income is not enough to meet our obligations. They will need to cough some more, which may cause them to cut back on one or two homes, but so be it.
FastEddy | Jan 19, 2012, 01:59 PM EST
As opposed to what? Government greed? The demofascist elites are the real greedy taxsucker donkeys in the US bathroom. Talk like this from a clueless backwater socialist will certainly go along way toward attracting businesses to Ireland ... Not!
eiriamach | Jan 19, 2012, 12:25 PM EST
faberm1 confuses restrained capitalism with socialism. There are many other economic structures besides socialism and organized-greed capitalism. I call it "organized greed" in the same sense that we saw the rise of "organized crime" for a generation in the USA following the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Prohibition. There were windfall profits to be made by anyone willing to to run liquor into the USA for illegal sales. The criminals organized successfully and went on to exploit prostitution, drugs, businesses, etc. We had the wisdom to repeal Prohibition in 1933. Have we become such fools again that we'll constrain economic opportunity for the 99% and leave the capitalist raiders of our national wealth perfectly free to market worthless financial investments to pension funds, to shut down unions, to discard the minimum wage, to cut public employment to the bone, to ship factories and jobs to third-world countries where owners like Nike exploit child labor and avoid US taxes, and all in the name of "free enterprise"? It ain't free--look at how many of us pay the price for others' windfalls. A little restraint, in the form of government regulation of financial corporations, can turn the situation around if we do it in time. It's not "envy," francisquinn, and it's not "Un-American," faberm1; it's the common good, the America we keep re-inventing for all of us to live in.
wilhoef | Jan 19, 2012, 12:16 PM EST
At least Romney EARNED his money unlike JFK who lived on a Trust Fund made possible by the "bootlegging" of whiskey by his father during Prohibition.
danielk | Jan 19, 2012, 11:42 AM EST
Again, I am stunned by the personal attacks on the writer rather than dealing with the issues. As for faberm1's attempts to use facts, I would point out that the most propserous period in American history was in the post-war period when there were more controls on banks and corporations and less of a gap between rich and poor. Since the 80s, these controls have disappeared (like the middle class is disappearing)and the gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically bringing more social problems. If faberm1 wants to live in a plutocracy rather than a democracy,he/she should say so. Incidentally, the social democratic Scandinaivian countries now have a higher standard of living than the U.S.
awoken32 | Jan 19, 2012, 10:49 AM EST
Ron Paul = Real Person should be the next president,he offers the only alternative to the usual bought an owned cowtowing to the elites,which is all the other candidates,Ron PAUL IS FOR THE PEOPLE AN NOT THE POWER ELITE
MikeRock | Jan 19, 2012, 10:46 AM EST
O'Doherty, you're simply ignorant and can't see beyond the end of your envious nose.
bunkerisland | Jan 19, 2012, 10:45 AM EST
Willard "The Mitt" Romney hires illegal immigrant landscapers to keep the costs down for maintaining his various estates then proposes and immigration policy that would jail and transport them back to their homes. Meanwhile a variety of closed factories around the country are a result of the Romney buy, castrate and sell strategy that allows him to keep his investments in the Cayman Islands. He is not unique. It is part and parcel of many in the American corporate world's money grubbing strategies. Willard perhaps is a little more skilled, a little bit more greedy and a lot richer than many. Not bad for a gringo whose family crossed the Reo Grande. Exploiting workers, immigrants or factory workers has been a long time practice of the Romney family.
johhnyb | Jan 19, 2012, 10:29 AM EST
Come on Cahir. He's not a Catholic and he's a Republican. Of course he's bad. Enough said.
faberm1 | Jan 19, 2012, 10:16 AM EST
Cahir O'Doherty lambasts and criticizes Mitt Romney because he is wealthy. That is wrong and that is SOCIALISM. It is not what America is, was, or is about. To attack someone for being rich is Un-American. Cahir, I don't know if you're American born or not. If you are, then go read the Constitution and read our history again. You obviously don't get it yet. If you are Irish born, please realize this is not Ireland and does not follow British-Style socialism and hopefully it never will or we too will have to export our brightest and best to far away lands. I am not a Romney supporter, but I wrote this comment because I find your article dangerous, destructive and in desperate need of counter-point. Your philosophy has failed WHEREVER in the world it has been tried. A Free-Market America was the engine that produced more human freedom and personal wealth than the world has ever known or seen in its history. Not my viewpoint....those are the facts.
danielk | Jan 19, 2012, 09:58 AM EST
It is refreshing to see an analysis like Cahir's. Whenever someone points out that American society and democracy are being undermined by the growing gap between the super rich and everyone else,they are pilloried for mentioning class. Read the Wall Street Journal and you'll find the elite are not shy about talking about their class interests. I would also point out to EvelynDavey that Romney gets substantial tax breaks for his charity donations. It would be better if he simply paid his just share of taxes. As for the other comments so far, it seems that they do not deal with content but simply launch personal attacks. If you want to defend Romney, then say you think it's good that the rich are getting richer and the vast majority of people are getting poorer and explain why you think this is good.
newnation | Jan 19, 2012, 09:53 AM EST
it's a hopeless cause Cahir, people somehow think this is a good thing!
wyalusingjohn | Jan 19, 2012, 09:52 AM EST
Mr. O'Doherty confuses many voters disenchantment with President OBama's policies and failed leadership with "unfathomable contempt". The stimulus programs and his failure to get the deficit under control are the sticking points in my mind, and yes I do know that Bush also left us in a mess but I do not think that President OBama has the ability to get us out of it.
Fran Connor | Jan 19, 2012, 09:41 AM EST
Another fair and balanced report by Cahir.
EvelynDavey | Jan 19, 2012, 09:38 AM EST
He gives over 10% to his church and charity; do you?
francisquinn | Jan 19, 2012, 09:27 AM EST
Wow: You are green with envy.....