Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Sunday, August 26, 2012

The Romney Tower

Kind of puts things into perspective, dunnit?

Why does anyone feel compelled to compile such a stack, anyways? My mind goes back to Jack Nicholson's great line to John Huston in Chinatown: "How much better are ya gonna eat?" If Romney's fortune were reduced to one quarter of what it is now, would he even notice, in terms of how he eats, drinks, clothes himself and so forth?
I wonder if there are religious implications. Perhaps Romney likes to make money off of the real world then bring back the huge tithe for Mormon believers.

I wonder if Romney won't release his tax returns because of THE CHARITIES are all Mormon charities that he donates to.
I think that is obvious, Alessandro.

My point in this post reflects a riff I've been doing in real life for decades. I often ask people one question: How much money would you need to pile up if your goal was to live comfortably for the rest of your life without ever having to work again? When I first asked that question (around 1980), people routinely said: "A million bucks."

All right, I would say. I can understand why someone would work his ass off to get a million bucks. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

But why would anyone in his right mind work his ass off for that SECOND million bucks?

I just can't understand why anyone would do that. To me, there's just too much to enjoy in life. So once you've reached a point where you don't have to work at a job any more -- quit while you're ahead. Relax and enjoy yourself.

(In modern terms, the "time to quit" figure may be higher than a million bucks. But you get the point...)

Yes, he's rich. So what? Nobody thought it significant that Kerry was rich. I'm not voting for him, but that's not because he's rich.

If Obama actually had a record of achievement in his first term, we'd be hearing about that instead of crap like this.

You're right. And this is a Big Issue :-)

I even wonder about people who are getting say £50-70K a year, plus loads of freebie travel. That's if you can use the word "travel" to describe going to shit-arsed conferences in hotels, which might as well be in their home country. Why don't they just save some for a few years and then retire from the disgusting rat race? What the hell's wrong with the dudes?

It's pathetic how psychology has linked up so little with radical social critique. A linkage could be extremely down to earth and mean something.

Reich's concept of 'emotional plague' was great, but his followers talk like sex-obsessed Scientologists - or medics with couches, promoting talking cures. Laing said a few bits of what was obvious, and got hailed as great. Unfortunately the star system works against the audience going any further.

But I digress...

How much money would a person want, to reach a position where they felt comfortable not giving a damn about money?

That depends on what country they'd feel good living in.

Have you had a look at Ecuador's "universal citizenship" policy?

Apparently, spend $25K on a property that you live in for 2 years, and you get permanent residency.

(Other countries sell residency for money, but the amounts of money they ask for are huge - sometimes a million USD, and money spent on where you live doesn't count.)
No one cares that Romney is rich. We care that Romney and those like him are not contributing their fair share of the tax burden this country needs to progress and to ensure the vitality of its citizens.
No one cares that Romney is rich. We care that Romney and those like him are not contributing their fair share of the tax burden this country needs to progress and to ensure the vitality of its citizens.

That's a fair critique, and one I certainly support. I would argue, though, that this administration has been spectacularly unwilling to do anything about it (and that the substantial personal fortunes of the Congressional leadership, as well as the institutionalized bribery we laughingly call "campaign finance", make it pretty unlikely that anything will be done about it by any future administration.

It's the notion that Romney's wealth is somehow particularly egregious that bugs me, when it's in line with a number of Congresspeople of both legacy parties (Issa, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.).

And if you're seriously claiming that Romney's wealth isn't the issue, then I don't understand the point of Joseph's graphic.

I'm not voting for Romney because I think his policies are stupid, not because he happens to have a lot of money.

I'm not voting for Obama because he doesn't have any policies (or any discernible principles) - and because he's a war criminal and a murderer.

Charles Eisenstein observed recently that most things (sex, food, etc.) have a satiety factor. But for some people, there's never enough money, no matter how much they have.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic