Saturday, January 31, 2015

If Romney Ran, This Is How Left Wing Media Was Going After Him

Note: This was written a day before Romney announced he was not running.  However, I am still publishing it because it exposes the political bias of one of the most leading newspapers in the country.

In the always Democrat-loving Washington post, there was a recent article: "How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours".

The writer, Philip Bump, obviously knows that 99.99999% of his readers don't own an 11,000 square foot plus home; or, even one half that size.

So, what you do is enter the square footage of your home and then push a button that reads "OK. Humiliate me!".  (Note: I added the exclamation point because I feel its what the writer was thinking when he, or whoever helped him, designed the software)

After doing so, an image representing the size of your house is then superimposed on an image of the first and second floor plans and garage of Romney's California home.  Of course, after you see the results, your wealth envy is supposed to take over and you are supposed to become angry at this rich white guy.

Basically, the sole purpose of this exercise is to disqualify Romney from ever talking about income inequality because rich people simply aren't allowed to talk about ways to improve wealth disparity of others.  Even though Romney founded a company that created 5,400 good paying jobs which, in effect, reduces income equality.  My guess is that the only job the writer of this article ever really created was his own.

But, perhaps, the writer believes that only people below Romney's wealth level are qualified to talk about income inequality.  Thus, Romney with a net worth of $250 million is disqualified.  Yet, it is OK for the $195 million Democrat John Kerry to talk about it.  This, aside from the fact that his wife is a billionaire.  And, of course, Nancy Pelosi, with a net worth of a mere $35 million, can say all she wants as well.  Obama, too, at just $12.2 million -- the 21st richest of all Presidents -- is a shoe-in to talk about income disparity if the $200 million rule is applied.  Even though, under his watch, we have record numbers of poor; the rich got richer; and income inequality deepened.

Then, there's poor Hillary Clinton. With her and Bill's combined wealth at $55 million, she is wholly qualified to talk about how to elevate the poor in America.  Especially, if she runs for President. Now, isn't she?

This whole Washington Post article is nonsense.  People like Romney, only became super rich because they created companies that created jobs.  And, that kind of job creation is why the U.S. is one of the top five countries in the world; when measured by the five elements of the United Nation's Human Development Index: life expectancy, literacy, education, standards of living, and quality of life.

Personally, I would prefer to listen to a job-creator like Romney talk about how to reduce income inequality by stimulating the private sector than any Democrat who only believes that poverty can be erased through handing out taxpayer money.  If the latter was true, why, then, after 50 years of the Democrat's War on Poverty, do we still have such record high levels of it?

I think this article was written out of fear.  The fear that Romney might get nominated and elected President in 2016 and actually do something that Democrats can't seem to do: Create jobs and lift people out of poverty by not simply giving handouts.  A fact that would seriously wound the liberal opinion that only government spending keeps people out of poverty.  In fact, if the government does create a job, it is primarily because the top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all taxes.

Lastly, before I get the typical drivel comment from some Democrat that Romney's Bain & Company took over other companies and cut jobs, you need to know the facts.  Bain generally took over companies that were in or near financial trouble. Companies that probably would go bankrupt and, as such, result in an even greater loss of jobs.  Now, while 22% continued on to bankruptcy and in many cases were forced to close their doors, 70% became success stories and, as such, bankruptcy was averted and jobs were saved.  The final 8% continued to struggle and continue to remain in business for at least 8 years after Bain divested itself.


Philip Bump: Washington Post: How big is Mitt Romney’s California house? Here, compare it to yours:

Washington Post hires ultra-liberal former union bully: Bump:

Bain & Company:

Mitt Romney's Worth:

Kerry's spouse worth $1 billion / Amount is twice what was thought:

2011: The 50 Richest Members of Congress:

Nancy Pelosi defends income equality push:

Barack Obama Worth:

Obama is right to be worried about income inequality — it’s gotten a lot worse under his watch:

Fed: Under Obama, only the richest 10 percent saw incomes rise:

Clinton's Net Worth:

Human Development Index: List of Countries:

That's rich: Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record:

Middle Class Shrinks Further as More Fall Out Instead of Climbing Up:

Obama: If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That:

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs':;postID=434593128244509030

Democrat Senator and possible Democrat nominee for the Presidency Elizabeth Warren:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

Top 10% Pay 71% of all taxes: 2014 Tax Day Chart: Who Pays the Most?:

Romney at Bain Capital: Big Gains, Some Busts - WSJ:

No comments: