Mitt Romney: Questions About Wall Street, Income Inequality Are Driven By 'Envy'

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney claimed concerns about Wall Street, financial institutions and income inequality were the result of "envy."

Romney -- who won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday night -- attacked President Barack Obama for promulgating the "politics of envy" during a Wednesday interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "The Today Show." Though his attack was mainly directed at the president, Romney's "envy" remark came after Lauer asked about the concerns of "anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country."

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," Romney said. "I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent... you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of 'one nation under God.'"

The GOP hopeful also said it wasn't necessary to have a public debate about the inequality of wealth distribution in this country, and claimed Obama's focus on this issue was just "part of his campaign rally."

"I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like," Romney said. "But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it'll fail."

During a separate appearance Wednesday morning, Romney admitted he has "an uphill climb" ahead of him in South Carolina, where he finished fourth in the 2008 presidential race.

 

Comments

[OnceProudAmerican]

06:35 PM on 08/02/2012

I don't envy Mitt, I just have no use for his egotistical attitude!
The Britts named him right- Mitt the twit!

[Sherrie Heckendorn]

04:08 AM on 08/02/2012

Does this man really think that americans are so stupid that they will fall for his rhetoric? Its not envy mitt, no, its the facts. We do have a problem with inequality of wealth and unless that is corrected we will have no chance at attaining a thriving economy. History shows over and over what happens to countries that have this kind of inequality and that do nothing to correct the situation. The tax policys and regulations need to be put back to prior 1980 levels. Please everyone do not let this arogant man buy his way into the president of our country. He will drive our country into a depression and it will take decades to escape

[berutokyo]

04:33 AM on 07/31/2012

When Obama, a top 1% citizen raised in wealth himself, mentions the issue, it is absolutely about his campaign rally.

But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed publicly. Keeping it behind the doors of policymakers just means keeping it behind the doors of the top 1%. How many of America's lawmakers made it up there without money? That's right, none.

[findspek]

11:09 AM on 09/08/2012

errr...you should do your homework, Obama was not raised in wealth, by any definition of it. He was raised working class, single mother - and got scholarships. There's not any real debate about that. Yes he's wealthy now (but not by relative comparison to many of his colleagues - who are by far much richer), but that's because politicians are paid well by the state. You can't really blame him for that can you?

[Roxamme]

04:03 AM on 07/31/2012

This man continues to be a bloviated ignoramous and an embarrassment to our country and to our allies. Envy? Is he kidding. He is so out of touch. He has no charm, no diplomatic skills, no common sense and little intelligence. If the Republicans don't make him step down, they will continue to look like fools. He continually insults our allies, continues to make dangerous statements and it is amazing how little he knows about foreign affairs. It is as if he has spent his entire life in a cave. I have seen his 5 sons speak and I have heard his wife speak and I am convinced that I don't want anyone in that family near the White House, no less in it.

[imdroppingdimes]

03:35 AM on 07/31/2012

Life is about taking risks.
A President's job is about taking risks.

Mitt knows nothing about risk.
He negotiated a contract with Bain so that his actions on the job carried no risk.
He made deals with companies-- which in some cases were healthy-- and managed to make huge profits while driving them into the ground.

The fact Mitt Romney knows nothing about risk has only been further exposed by the fact that he can keep America in the dark, and still win the Presidency in November.
That ignorance of risk will prove to be America's bliss.

[Brant Kelsey]

03:02 AM on 07/31/2012

It does not belong in the hands of Corporations or those with unfettered wealth, who rope, manipulate, and select and control what was designed to be a representative government: a representative government of the people for the people and by the people. Not a government by the Corporation, by the Bank, or a consortium of global cabals of wealth. Yes we need change. And that change, in order to be meaningful must come from the bottom up: as has every meaningful preceding change. It has come from necessitated tumult, from riot, from anger, and from fire. And it has come from the street. And it cannot be ignored. Yes, we are the many. If we are truly freedom loving, if we truly believe that all amongst us should be free to believe, to worship, and to live within the precepts of causing no harm, then it should matter not that we are red or we are blue: I believe, I do, I believe there is far more that binds us that separates us, there are the bigoted, surely, but they are the few. It's our show. We need to produce it. No more proxies no more shills.

[JohnSawyer]

02:57 AM on 07/31/2012

When someone steals your wallet, your displeasure towards the thief isn't known as envy for suddenly having more money in their pocket than you.

[Sherrie Heckendorn]

04:09 AM on 08/02/2012

F&F for the best anology yet.

[southernsaint]

02:54 AM on 07/31/2012

Class warfare has been going on since the founding of our country. Only recently has it become public knowledge. If a wealthy man gets hit with difficulties, he has to downsize. If it's a poor person...they have nowhere to go.

[Brant Kelsey]

03:17 AM on 07/31/2012

The founding fathers were not adverse to there being a ruling class, men of position and wealth was the original plan; founding fathers were not adverse to the rule of well heeled land owners, in fact, founding documents enable you to see that the path was paved for our own institutionalized plutocracy. Where the founding fathers drew the line, was that the aristocracy should not be of another Nation, it should not be the arm of King George. Those are just the facts. And that is at the heart of the polemic today whether this nation will in fact be outright acknowledged to be a Corpora, though it has been not so clandestinely this for many decades, or will we still lend pretense to the notion, that this is a republic, ruled by a plurality, a government of the people, literally, a government, central, employed and instructed, funded, to do what is in the best interests of the whole of us fundamental. Or are we to be corralled, funneled, roped, as little more than chattel to do the bidding of our corporate benefactors. Relegated to perennial consumers until we ourselves are consumed, and disposed of when our purchasing power wanes, and finally presented with our last opportunity to provide for the economy as a whole, with tubes, and machines, and nurses and doctors and pharmaceuticals relentlessly pumped into our lifeless carcasses, thereby ensuring the return of any wealth we may have claimed being returned to the corporate state?

[southernsaint]

03:27 PM on 07/31/2012

While I agree with some of this, I disagree that the founding fathers were "not adverse to there being a ruling class." Yes, most were. But not all. Much like today these squabbles were over class and funding. Not to mention the educated versus the mass of uneducated. The mob, if you will. We have become so obsessed with being number one that we've never stopped to ask if we want to be. We see things as a game and we aren't successful unless we're spending more than everyone else to have a strong military, weak banking, and a depressed people.

[perthboy]

02:48 AM on 07/31/2012

Talking about dividing America based on wealth - the 99% do not live in gated communities with armed security guards controlling access.

[RepublicanDepression]

02:41 AM on 07/31/2012

Envy? Mitt Romney envies those who can communicate with humans.

[SolidusSnake]

02:40 AM on 07/31/2012

Mitt actually has a point. I AM envious.

I sure wish I had a job where I could bet with money that wasn't mine, tank the global economy, and keep said job without so much as a slap on the wrist.

[Brant Kelsey]

02:38 AM on 07/31/2012

It just dawned on me.............the presidential candidate should be Michele Obama.......she is so incredibly genuine, not in the least artificial or self-absorbed and I have never seen her handle any circumstance without exhibiting outstanding grace..................Michele Obama is real........guess that would never work.

[Ishik]

02:34 AM on 07/31/2012

Wall Street can make as much money as they like as long as they are doing so in an honest way. The LIBOR scandal, the JP Morgan derivative crisis, and Greek debt manipulation scandal by Goldman Sachs that essentially allowed Greece to enter the EU is what makes Wall Street seem like a villain.

The American way of thinking also needs to shift from one guy is running the company successfully to one guy and his team of employees are running the company successfully.

[Brant Kelsey]

03:03 AM on 07/31/2012

Granted the American way of thinking should change to Acting as Americans.........but what is an American these days? Have the precepts, principles, tenets, become so distant that we cannot find our way back? It seems that we are so busy, generally speaking, just keeping our home fronts afloat, avoiding the tyranny of debt. It seems that we are plied with simplistic renditions and talking points, and that each side of the point is fed and contrived.

Is that it? Is it that we keep waiting for a movement, for the inertia of others, to incite us to address what is so visibly failing in our local municipalities, in our Federal, central government. It seems clear, no matter how distracted, Americans know what is has failed and is corrupted, otherwise how can you explain the popularity of the congress being at 11%?

Are we content to see the escalating wholesale erosion of our liberties? Are we content to be told that we are Red and Blue and that what separates us is irreconcilable? Or is there, in the Red and Blue a constituency of Reason? I don't know, I wish I could see a path other than outright overthrow of what is constituted: It seems to me there is a logical and constructive path to return governance where it belongs:

[Ishik]

03:31 AM on 07/31/2012

There should be regulations and those who are enforcing the regulations should not be allowed to mix with those that are regulated. For example, the people in Congress cannot be persecuted for insider trading. That rule should be taken off the books.

SEC employees should sign a contract that prohibits them from working with the people that they regulate unless they have left the job for at least 5 years. There should be transparency in the treasury. Minimal wage should be pegged to inflation and it should be adjusted every 5 or 10 years.

The banking industry should be regulated so that credit default swaps and the derivative market can be clearly accounted for. Part of the problem when the housing market imploded was because the credit default swaps and derivatives became so convoluted that major banks actually had no idea exactly how much risk they had actually taken i[ and how much collateral they needed to retain.

Individual liberties are very important, but it must also be balanced against the well being of a society. Just as there are laws against monopolies, there should be laws that regulates the market to make sure that it is a fair and honest competition between businesses.

[AKARON]

02:30 AM on 07/31/2012

I envy real capitolist like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates but vultures like Mitt Romney only disgusts people who care about America. He is a vulture. Nobody envys a ugly bone picker.

[imdroppingdimes]

02:27 AM on 07/31/2012

An America that puts Mitt Romney in the Oval Office will have shamed the founding fathers and spit on the values that once made this land so great.

The Presidential race shouldn't even be close.

Our citizens must shoulder much of the blame. We must make sure our neighbor knows of these crimes against our country, or their ignorance will lead to America's unraveling.