Simple Romney question

It was $374K I believe. It sounds bad when he said that $374K for speakers fees wasn't very much. Realize that it was 6 or 7 speeches at about $60K a pop. Contrast that with Bill Clinton who made $7.5M for giving 36 speeches in 2009; $5.7M for giving 25 speeches in 2008.

Sarah Palin gets six figure income for giving a single speech. Al Gore gets $100,000 per speech and all travel expenses paid. So, yes, $60K a speech isn't "very much".

It doesn't mean that he's out of touch with the common man (though he may very well be) it means that he's not getting paid as much as other politicians for giving speeches.

 

Capital One is listed among the "100 Best Places to Work" by Fortune Magazine, and employs more than 28,000 people worldwide. That's not bad, even if their major goal isn't totally altruistic.

 

Can you name the last President that worried about paying a bill?

Why suddenly is it now a concern because Romney is running?

 

Obama? You mean when he was living with his banking/oil company executive grandparents?

Obama came from a well off family.

Just because his mother chose to be a graduate student doesn't make the family poor.

 

I should also add that Obama never had to worry about paying a bill because there was always someone else's money at the ready for him to use.

Political graft has been his stock and trade from day one.

That's why his answer to every problem is to get the money from someone else to throw at a problem (more accurately as a cover to spread it around to his friends).

Instead of worrying about the relative wealth of a candidate you should be more concerned about their individual character.

Too bad character wasn't a consideration in Obama's election.

 

Until a common man manages to run for president without being shot down by the media and rumors, all candidates will be people 'out of touch with the common man'.

I am still extremely disappointed that Herman Cain did not stick it out to the end. He at least asked hard questions and had a plan that was unique and got people talking until he was railroaded.

 

Unfortunately that has ceased to be a consideration since oh, about 1940.

 

I have yet to understand how reducing the amount of money someone else makes will help the man who has trouble paying his light bill...

Could someone please let me know how that works?

Or, are you speaking of some Marxist redistribution of wealth scheme? If so, I'll continue to have trouble paying my light bill forever and prefer that state to being under the thumb of some government party or official. Freedom first, and I'll make what I can -- and expect to keep what I make -- thank you very much!

 

Most people cannot identify with this man, the million dollar Romney, no matter how he made it. Marxist redistribution? I'd rather "they sold all their possessions and gave to each other, not one person had need of anything."

 

I like that description...

I also like later when Paul had to take up a collection for them from the other churches in Gentile lands because they were now all poor and destitute because they gave everything away.

I find that Jesus told us to count the cost and to make sure that there was enough in the storehouse. I also find that God preserved His people by filling the barns in Egypt well before He sent a famine into the land to further His elective purposes.

So, we can get all communist in our thinking from an EXAMPLE (description) in Scripture and miss the bigger point, that God calls us to work before we eat, to take care of our families from our work and wealth, and then to support those who cannot accomplish that on their own -- not to institute some form of collectivism that required a later bail out.

 

He's getting paid on the bottom scale of the going rate for giving political speeches.

Romney was not dismissing the needs of the poor. He was stating that as far as government assistance to that economic sector was concerned there are programs in place. His concern is the economic situation of the middle class and what government can do to help them out, i.e. lowering the capital gains tax rate, eliminate the death tax, etc.

I was unaware that it is necessary to personally experience the same trials and tribulations as others in order to empathize with people. If that is a necessary criteria that would eliminate at least 50% of all candidates, and likely 99% of them. How can Romney know what it is like to be a breast cancer survivor? How can Obama understand a soldier's post traumatic stress disorder? Michelle Bachmann obviously can't relate to most prostate cancer victims. Gingrich has no clue about menopause.

Don't fall for the class warfare arguments. That is Obama's campaign theme. He's got to run on the income fairness issue because he sure as heck can't run on his achievements!