Jon Stewart Slams Romney as 'Rich' While Being Mum on His Own Wealth
One of Jon Stewart's favorite targets these days is GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, whom the Comedy Central host has called a “multi, multi,multi, multi-millionaire” while carefully avoiding the fact that he too is considered to be very wealthy.
Perhaps Stewart's harshest criticism of the former Massachusetts governor came on January 24 when he asked:
“How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year while paying the effective tax rate of the guy who has to scan your shoes in the airport?”
Using Romney's newly released tax returns, the 49-year-old comedian calculated the candidate's income as “almost $57,000 per day!”
But in an article in the Daily Caller, reporter Sandy Nelson indicated that “Stewart's own income level brings him and his wife Tracey to approximately $41,000 a day,” a number derived from the comedian's annual salary of $15 million and an estimation of his net worth at $80 million.
While $80 million doesn’t yet put Stewart into the same wealth bracket as Romney, he is already on pace to be richer than the former Massachusetts governor when he reaches his age.
These figures show that Stewart makes more than 300 times the median American salary, a fact you'll never hear on The Daily Show.
“And then there are the houses,” Nelson adds.
“When Arizona Sen. John McCain ran for president in 2008, he was criticized for not knowing how many houses he owned (The answer was seven.)...Stewart is well on his way to McCain country, with three opulent mansions whose combined value is $12.8million.”
But technically, the satirist doesn’t own those homes: They were purchased through private trusts named after his pets to protect those assets from lawsuits, to diminish state tax liability, and to avoid public scrutiny.
In 2005, Stewart bought a two-story Manhattan penthouse for $5.8 million and then bought two adjacent lakefront mansions in Red Bank, New Jersey, during 2009 and 2010.
But despite the satirist's jokes to the contrary, being wealthy doesn't mean having no problems.
In 2007 and 2008, the New York Department of State issued liens against the comedian and his wife for not paying their taxes in full, according to documents that refer to the Stewarts as “tax delinquents.”
The Empire State issued its first “state tax warrant” for the couple’s failure to pay $476.03, sending the notice to the address of the KLS Professional Advisors Group, the financial firm that manages Stewart’s money.
New York later issued a second lien in September 2008, this time a $3,225.63 demand to Stewart’s wife Tracey—erroneously spelled “Tracy” but sent to the address of the Stewarts’ trusts.
Responding to the Daily Caller article, John Nolte at Breitbart.com stated that the information regarding Stewart's wealth going public will not have any impact on his comedy.
Of course, that means nothing to Stewart as he continues to carry Obama's water and launch divisive class warfare attacks from the platform of a super PAC known as Comedy Central to attack Mitt Romney's wealth.
Nolte concluded that Stewart is “the monkey at the end of Obama and the mainstream media's leash—the pet whose name they should use to purchase their own opulent mansions with.”
- Randy Hall's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
There's a name for that.
Submitted by James Youngblood on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:32pm.
I believe Jon Stewart is what is called a "Limousine Liberal".
J. Youngblood
All that money, and no
Submitted by rockyracoon on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:42pm.
All that money, and no discernible talent. Ain't America a great country??!!
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Rich liberals like Jon
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 2:46pm.
Rich liberals like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore always talk about the "rich" as if they consist of "those people over there" and they are not part of that group.
Apparently being rich is a matter of ideology rather than financial condition, the same way being black is a matter of ideology rather than skin color.
Liberals, Democrats, Marxist
Submitted by clancie on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 3:02pm.
Liberals, Democrats, Marxist are always trying to divide people into classes of some sort. It's their own racism that shines through, unable and incapable to discussing issues. Stewart is a buffoonish proud idiot and political bigot, who finds delight in slandering and maligning everyone not of his own political persuasion.
Romney made his own money
Submitted by Mike009 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 7:47pm.
Romney got rich while he was in the private sector, not while he was holding public office.
Romney made his own money
Submitted by Mike009 on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 7:47pm.
Romney got rich while he was in the private sector, not while he was holding public office.
Entrenchment
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:40pm.
Jon Stewart is yet another in a long line of Leftists who want the barriers to entry raised to such levels that we little people understand that our job is TO KNOW OUR PLACE.
In other words, Mr. Stewart is longing to be permanently entrenched as an aristocrat like a lot of other wealthy Leftists.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
clown
Submitted by VB on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:48pm.
Only in American a socialist jester makes an obscene amount of money, while attacking the society that allows him to make a living.
not quite
Submitted by Caley on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:15pm.
I don't see pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency of position or character as 'attacking the society.'
When Stewart makes fun of his
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 8:29pm.
When Stewart makes fun of his own hypocrisy, then maybe you'll have a point. Until then, Back To Your Bridge!
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Stewart
Submitted by Caley on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:14pm.
This is a facetious argument. Stewart is not running for President and currying favor as someone who cares for the welfare of the common man ; he's a comedian. There's a slight difference.
Caley presents a facetious counter-argument
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:19pm.
Actually your counter-"argument" is facetious. Running for President or not, Stewart is attacking someone for being just like him: having monetary success.
And Stewart does not care in the slightest for the "welfare of the common man". He wants the common man to be put in his place and to stay there forever. Your hero Stewart wants to be permanently entrenched as an aristocrat. And to him, you are a useful idiot to achieving that end.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The premise holds no water.
Submitted by Caley on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 4:33pm.
Again, Romney is running for the highest office in America. How Romney portrays himself to the public to curry favor is important. You're suggesting that a critic or satirist needs to be poor before they are allowed to point out Romney's inconsistencies and hypocrisies? That's absurd. You actually believe that Stewart is attacking Romney's business success? If so, you've missed the point.
The welfare of the people in this country is not part of Stewart's job description. He's an entertainer, an entertainer who makes social commentary. He's not campaigning for votes. You can either watch his show or choose to ignore him. It's curious that his comedic take on Romney bothers you so. Or do I need to submit my bank balance before I'm allowed to comment?
The premise of all this is nonsense, unless you only wish to discredit Jon Stewart. It's a false equivalency. Discrediting my own opinion by aligning me as somehow idolizing Stewart is specious and your name calling only diminishes your own intelligence.
It is called hypocrisy, Caley.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 4:47pm.
Both are public figures and held to the same standards, unless you are trying to emulate the same double standards as the liberal trolls who are also hours-old posters.
If you wish to bandy about intelligence, I am a psychiatrist more than happy to discuss finer points of your cognitive dissonance.
Can we get better mayfly trolls in here?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:44pm.
He is awfully insecure about his own intelligence, and I can see that in the way he wags his finger in my face, lecturing me about mine.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You are going out of your way to miss the point
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:42pm.
The premise of all this is nonsense, unless you only wish to discredit Jon Stewart. It's a false equivalency. Discrediting my own opinion by aligning me as somehow idolizing Stewart is specious and your name calling only diminishes your own intelligence. It is 100% extremely accurate. Jon Stewart is busy attacking Romney for being rich, which for Leftists such as yourself, is to be a criminal. Yet Stewart is rich himself.
None of your ranting and petulant whining about "name-calling" changes the fact that you are a useful idiot. Allow me to educate you. This is a term devised by Lenin to describe those who could be duped, even for a short period, while his ilk got their way. The fact that this must be explained to you in fact enhances my intelligence and further cements the view i have of you as being intellectually bankrupt, for that comes on top of your inability to come up with a decent counter-argument.
If you have a problem with me calling you a useful idiot, maybe you will be less whiny if I stick to calling you resentful, envious, and hateful. Or maybe you ought to back away from the keyboard and do some soul-searching: why is the evil rich bastard Stewart a man looking out for "the welfare of the common man" while Romney is simply an evil rich bastard? What exactly is out there to indicate that Stewart is some sort of man of the people while Romney isn't?
Again, Romney is running for the highest office in America. How Romney portrays himself to the public to curry favor is important. You're suggesting that a critic or satirist needs to be poor before they are allowed to point out Romney's inconsistencies and hypocrisies? That's absurd. You actually believe that Stewart is attacking Romney's business success? If so, you've missed the point. Again, Stewart is a hyper-evil rich bastard who is busy attacking Romney for being a hyper-evil rich bastard. Maybe the problem in fact lies with you. Stewart to you is oh so cool (IMHO, he is not remotely funny or entertaining) so you like the fact he is rich and will give him a pass on anything, including the blatant hypocrisy that Stewart has engaged in that you are so invested in defending. Romney is an evil businessman so therefore, in your world, Romney is the most despicable sort to you.
Can you show me where I said that a critic or a satirist (neither of which Stewart is) has to be poor to discuss Romney's inconsistencies and hypocrisies? Also, I once again find it very interesting to see that you will fight and DIE to defend Stewart's biggest, most glaring hypocrisy, yet you eagerly support Romney being attacked in a hypocritical fashion for his.
The welfare of the people in this country is not part of Stewart's job description. And nor is it the job description of government or officials in government. Government, my dear Socialist, does not exist to baby people. He's an entertainer, an entertainer who makes social commentary. He's not campaigning for votes. You can either watch his show or choose to ignore him. It's curious that his comedic take on Romney bothers you so. Or do I need to submit my bank balance before I'm allowed to comment? One, Stewart's take on Romney was supposed to be comedic? That means that Stewart is funny. He is not funny. He is too angry to be a comedian or even a satirist. It's curious that my take on Stewart's "act" bothers YOU so. You can either read my posts or ignore them. You can read and elect not to respond.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Please enlighten us: what is the maximum allowable wealth
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:23pm.
one can have and still care about the common man?
You Stewart fanboyz are always a riot.
MIddle school is out, and the second wave has arrived.
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:05pm.
Caley, just go back to Kos. Your mission here, to appear to be a rational adult, capable of having a conversation with another adult, is a failure.
"Discrediting my own opinion by aligning me as somehow idolizing Stewart is specious and your name calling only diminishes your own intelligence". Well, your opinion is very easy to discredit. And, it's not so much your worship of Stewart, but there is that, but your idolizing of Baracka that underlies everything you post. And that's a reflection on your ability to post anything without sounding like the whiney, entitled, little progressive that you are.
Another mayfly
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 9:35pm.
Caley has been here all of 18 hours. Yet another drive-by Leftist mayfly.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)