Loading ...Romney: “I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much”
flockwoodMitt Romney, speaking in South Carolina about his income, told the crowd: “I get speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.”
So, how much is “not very much”?
a.) $27,500 per year?
b.) $82,500 per year?
c.) $192,500 per year?
d.) $275,000 per year?
e.) “Not very much” more than $300,000 per year?
The New York Times reports today: “Financial disclosure forms that candidates are required to file annually shows that Mr. Romney earned $374,327.62 in speakers’ fees from February of 2010 to February of 2011, at an average of $41,592 per speech.”
The full story is here.
January 17th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Times are really bad if Romney has to take a second job that pays “not very much”.
January 19th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Well, considering he could blow that entire wad in one TV commercial blitz, that may not be “very much,” relatively speaking. BTW, what did Obama or others get paid to speak? That’s another “relatively speaking.” I would like to see the full context of his statement.
January 20th, 2012 at 11:39 am
You’re changing the subject. The significant issue isn’t the $374,000. It’s the “not very much” comment. Gov. Romney is correct that the sum is rather small potatoes for a fabulously wealthy presidential candidate. For the rest of us, it is literally a fortune.
Romney’s problem, as explained thoroughly in a previous thread, is the way that he pretends to be someone different from himself. It’s just dishonest. Rich guys have run for office in the past but I don’t recall them being as disingenuous as Romney. Shoot, Gingrich brags about his speaker fees. And yes, President Obama has earned a good bit from sales of his books (as we know from inspecting his tax returns) but he never shrugged that off as pocket change.
January 21st, 2012 at 11:09 am
Sadly, I could retire on one of his speaking fees. How close is he to working America!
February 3rd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
He was speaking relative to expenditures. Obama is spending about $1 billion (really!) on his reelection bid. Romney’s speaker fees wouldn’t even cover the cost of staff donuts in that budget. So, when he says, “Not very much,” he is pretty much dead-on. He could sell off everything he owns, even the clothes off his back and he wouldn’t even cover one-fourth of what the O-man is gonna blow. When he enters office he is going to have to manage trillion-dollar budgets (not to mention deficits). I don’t want some “Joe Six Pack” common man with no experience in real business running the show. We have that now, we need a proven successful pro.
Ted Kennedy was a much richer “rich bastard” than Romney (and never earned a dime of it on his own in private business), yet he constantly identified himself with the “common man.” This is a double standard simply because Romney is conservative.
February 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
“He was speaking relative to expenditures.”
Sorry to keep this thread going but I really can’t let John’s statement go uncorrected. As the transcript clearly shows, Gov. Romney was responding to questions about his income and his tax rate. His remarks had nothing to do with campaign expenditures.
February 9th, 2012 at 9:06 am
Strong words, John. How come the facts are always distorted when the comparison to Obama is present. Ole Mit made roughly 150 million off of managing a hedge fund. Wonder what the value of the fund was? Wonder how many little guys like myself lost on that investment! Seems to me the best way to pick the candidate is to get accurate information from, what, public sources! When you figure that one out, I’ll listen.
February 20th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Perplexed: According to his tax returns, Mitt’s total net worth is about $230 million. As long as he is not printing it, making $150 million in a hedge fund is fine with me. All these investments and moving money around to where it is most productive mean more jobs and more value to the American people and the world overall. He is not pulling money or real value out of the sky. I’m really sorry if you or anyone else was caught on the losing end of such business dealings, but in the long run and overall, more prosperity was produced. There is only so much Romney can eat; the rest of his money is being put to good and efficient use. I would much rather have a person who understands that running things than the current occupant of the Oval Office who thinks he can simply print more and more IOU’s to “stimulate” the economy and thinks ATMs cost jobs.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:05 am
John, couple of things, when you print more money, you devalue the dollar. It make the rich a little less rich and the middle class again takes the hit. If the rich refuse to stimulate the economy, its because of one of 2 things. The risk isn’t worth the gain or they don’t like the President. It should be a game of chess but now its checkers. The Republican party has lost its ideals and now they are a party about the few. The last few Republican Presidents have clearly reinforced this. Republicans call for less government but their actions call for more regulation or more government. I can’t excuse the Democrats either. Clinton had great ideas and brought the country forward in great strides but either poor forethought or an inability to implement what he had in place as President caused great problems in the country too. Lets throw healthcare in the midst of all this too! There needs to be some sort of national investigation on who gets what when a prescription is filled (royalties)and there needs to be justification on why so many Americans are on prescription drugs. These drugs are crippling the work force and have become so addictive that one wonders why they continue to be on the market. In a nutshell, we’re not getting the whole story. Our government has become ineffective because the ability to compromise and effectively govern the masses has virtually disappeared! In my case, I would rather have somebody who has struggled in life in the Oval Office. I really don’t advocate using Frank as a political forum, either.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Well, Perplexed, by posting what seems to me to be purely political stories about Romney, I am inclined to also respond politically. I assume it’s Romney’s connection to Mormonism that influences Mr. Lockwood’s decision to post questionnaires about Mitt’s speaker fees, but I don’t see exactly where the religious connection is in this particular post. I apologize if responding in kind is offensive. In the future, if I make more comments I will try to steer them back to a religious theme. That said, where is the religious connection in this original post? I guess it’s because Romney is one of those weird Mormons. I guess because he doesn’t understand God he doesn’t understand the nature of speaker’s fees?
I don’t think these posts need to always be directly related to religious topics, though. Mr. Lockwood posted a touching memorial to Whitney Houston that wasn’t completely religious in nature. Also other post on Adolph Hitler cronies dyeing and so forth…
Anyway, Perplexed, you make good points in your comments. Our healthcare system is undoubtedly corrupt. One could argue we are only making it more so with more government intervention. Never forget, government is power. It is the force of law, considerably removed from market forces and the will of the individual. It is the disconnect between the person receiving the services or drugs and the person or entity that is paying for them that is at the heart of all the problems. A few people were suffering in the 1960s, so the government tried to “fix” that with Medicare and Medicaid, and it only got much worse from there. Insurance companies do the same, partially because they answer to employers not the person, and also rely on the individual’s understandable ignorance of medical procedures and such. Bringing the individual back into the equation is the answer, and Obamacare does not even approach that.
One more BTW: The Democrats get just as much money, if not more in some areas, from “big business” and “rich bastards” as the Republicans do. Power does not care where it rests, just as long as it retains itself.