Realtime Mitt Romney wealth accumulation calculator


59 Responses to “Realtime Mitt Romney wealth accumulation calculator”

  1. Thaddeus Van Dyke says:

    with that money he is creating jobs and giving other people a chance at success.

  2. battleborn says:

    Mitt Romney makes an obscene amount of money. Don’t let that distract you from the fact that Obama is far from the average citizen’s wage as well.

    Neither of these people have your best interests at heart. 

  3. Walter Reade says:

    For those who think Mitt makes too much, what would you recommend is a more appropriate income for a presidential candidate?

    Let’s have a hard number. No weaseling.

    • $15, 130 per year.

      (Source: )

    • Peter Zanon says:

      $32,140 per year.
      Lazy search for “Median personal income”  in the USA and I found $32,140 for the population age 25 or older in 2005. That’s more than I make, and I live pretty comfortably.

      If the presidential elections were truly fair, it’s just common sense we’d get candidates who are actually representative of the people we know and meet. Above all people want honest candidates who represent *average people*, who are not just buddies with Wall St. CEO’s, or party puppets, or come from aristicratic households that only make up a tiny, tiny percentile of people.

      • Walter Reade says:

        It would be interesting to know when the last time a political candidate actually made that much or less. But, yeah, to be fair, I suppose we should elect a homeless guy every now and then.

      • penguinchris says:

        I don’t want an “average” person in the white house. I also don’t want someone who’s rich and out of touch, of course. The ideal person fits somewhere in between, but more than likely it has nothing to do with how much money they make.

        • Bev Haut says:

          Same here. I want someone who’s smarter than I am in the White House. I want someone who can come up with creative solutions to real problems. If it’s just about the money, hell, put in Warren Buffett.

        • Peter Zanon says:

           Exactly, it has nothing to do with how much money they make.

          Which means that *if* elections had any chance of changing anything or any hope of fairness, we would expect elected representatives to on average represent all income percentiles relatively evenly (ie a flat-line if graphed). Instead we have the vast majority in the top couple percentiles and almost none from any other, which shows that democracy is completely and irreparably broken. Depressing conclusion perhaps but I don’t see any other way to read it.

    • bcsizemo says:

      Honestly at this point why does the President even need money while in office?

      He has use of free housing, free transportation, and I’m sure all of his expenses can be paid for through the position.  Not even considering the fact that presidential candidates are capable of extracting tons of money from people for their election.  With the left overs 4 years of living with little expenses should be easy.  (Yes I know they can’t keep the money, but seriously over a BILLION on  campaign spending…that’s asinine.)

      So I say it should be an unpaid position.  I mean you get free health care and security for life.

      -The same should go for the Congress and Senate, minus free health care.

      • malindrome says:

        Actually, the president does have to pay household expenses (like food and laundry) out of pocket.  Apparently, the food costs especially add up, considering the large number of state guests in the household and security issues.

    • Josh Baker says:

       75,000 seems generous enough to be still in touch with the majority of the population

    • Lemoutan says:

      They’d pretty much be set for life. The ‘hard number’ is probably, actually, zero.

    • Wreckrob8 says:

      In the UK David Cameron is worth about £4 million which is considered to be enough to put him seriously out of touch with the average voter. Any salary which does not attract higher rates of PAYE (pay as you earn) income tax would be acceptable (less than £34370 in 2012-13). I think all MPs (cabinet ministers included) should live in council houses (public housing) while the House is in session to prevent fraudulent expenses claims. On their allowable salary they would not be able to afford much of a London mortgage.

  4. jackalopemonger says:

    Rather than “Romney Just Made”, a more accurate description would be “Romney’s Estate Just Generated”, as Romney himself didn’t lift a finger to earn that money.

  5. Does such a person exist that would fit  accurate representation of “average people” with the relevant experience need for presidency plus the absence of “massive cash-flow”? I don’t think you get one without the other. Picking on solely Romney is somewhat ridiculous. Obama comes from being a US Senator (who make, based on Google-findings a  woppin’ $176,000/year – not exactly an example of today’s “99%”).

  6. travtastic says:

    You all mock the job creation of the 1%, but there’s plenty of people making money as interweb political shills.

  7. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Well, this was a fascinating tour of talking points.  Was.

  8. Seraphim_72 says:

    Antinous, Having just watched that train wreck of a comment that you had to deal with I have a new appreciation for what you put up with. I am sorry I ever irritated you, and they do not pay you enough.

  9. StreetEight says:

    It really would be great to see a site self-described as populated by “happy mutants” take a more mutated, outside the box approach to an electoral contest between a technocratic academic bureaucrat and a technocratic bureaucrat financier, each of whom represents a model that is demonstrably chock full of fail.

  10. J Tim Nyberg says:

    nice – now the web site is apparently down
    go figure

  11. Teller says:

    As I’m typing this, Mitt Romney made some money. So did I, actually, but that’s off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush.

  12. What I find interesting is that the website “” is down and has been down. So I did some research and discovered who owns this website. The following is the registered information:
         Administrative Contact:
          Made, Romney Just
          1234 No Street
          Seattle, Washington 98105
          United States

    Obviously this is all fake…you can do a quick look for yourself by going to try entering in and select whois at the bottom. According to the rules all website registration must be verified as true. That phone number alone is proof that something here is wrong.

  13. Boundegar says:

    And if Romney wins your state by 137 votes, and we get eight more years of Bushism, you’re going to spend that eight years like the dopes who voted for Nader, swearing that “both sides are the same” and “it’s not my fault!”

    Good plan, that one.

  14. a guy called john says:

     > Romney’s company bought out companies that were failing and broke them up to get value from the dismantling of the company

    Erm…no.  Romney’s company bought out perfectly viable companies, loaded them up w/ debt, paid itself/themselves “dividends” and management “fees” which guaranteed a profit for the firm while slowly bleeding the company dry and laying people off.  All that using “perfectly legal” tax laws.

  15. a guy called john says:

     Define “honestly,” please? Legally? With ethics? Morally? Through hard work? What one can get away with?

    “The market determines value”, eh? It seems to be devaluing a lot of important *long*term* things.  One day “the market” will realize its mistake, but it will be too late for “the market” to do anything about it.

    A few years ago real estate was highly valued by “the market,” then one day “the market” was proven wrong.  Or was “the market” right before and after the crash? The market is never wrong — even when it is.

  16. a guy called john says:

    ( Hrm…meant as a reply to your reply, not mine. Why’s it posting about your comment? )

    Wrong again. A lot of the companies sold to PE are family owned where the family wants out. Perfectly viable companies where it can’t or won’t be passed on to the next generation. PE then has no interest in anything other than getting its cut. Read the Buyout of America.

  17. Snig says:

    What democratic president would have invaded Iraq?  Romney opposed Obama’s withdrawl from Iraq.   And a third party president with a democratic and republican congress would be able to get what accomplished exactly?  Obama with half of the congress allied with him has been hobbled, how would someone with no support get something done?   A third party candidate has done what exactly in the history of the nation, besides acting as a spoiler?    Your support of Gary “Ralph Nader” Johnson, other then offering you a comfy seat on your high horse, offers no benefit in dealing with the country’s problems. 

  18. StreetEight says:

    Well as far as foreign policy, civil liberties and Wall Street cronyism go, we’ve already had 3 1/2 more years of Bush-ism, so I hardly think a few more will be a noticeable change.

  19. Navin_Johnson says:

    What democratic president would have invaded Iraq?

    A Democrat cosponsored the law granting the use of military force in Iraq, another bill was sponsored by Al Gore’s running mate Joe Lieberman. Finally, 111 Democrats voted yes for military force in Iraq.

    I’ll enjoy my Green Party vote, which I’m always told is simultaneously *meaningless* but also important as a spoiler…..

  20. Snig says:

    The Democrats and the rest of the world were misled by elements of the Bush adminstration that influenced intelligence agencies to cook the data in order to conform with the ne0-con world view.  Had people in the Green Party not indulged themselves by feeling “important as a spoiler…” in 2000, those people wouldn’t have been in power, and not been able to do so.  Lieberman is a third party candidate currently, and would not have been my choice in the leadership.  He would still have been preferrable to his corresponding opponent, Cheney or for that matter Palin.

  21. Navin_Johnson says:

    The Democrats and the rest of the world were misled by elements of the Bush adminstration that influenced intelligence agencies to cook the data in order to conform with the ne0-con world view.

    That, or they were center right and spineless.  Even old wimpy Barry was speaking at war protests on the eve of the invasion, I know, I was there too.  They let themselves be bullied by (tougher) Republicans and were afraid of looking ‘soft’ nothing more, nothing less.

    Same old weak excuses for wet noodle Democrats, from the (false) and tired Nader spoiler, to WMDs…

Leave a Reply