Now that they are back from a two-week hiatus, you could be sure that they would pick on the juiciest of political topics, the one with the most comedic potential, that took place during their absence and they did not disappoint.
First off, Jon Stewart did a nice job of summarizing the basics of the issue.
Then in the second part, he really rips into what Bain represents.
And finally Stephen Colbert piles on.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
(These clips appeared on July 16, 2012. To get suggestions on how to view clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report outside the US, please see this earlier post.)
The shows were hilarious and both comedians were on a roll last night. My only complaint is that the two-week lull bored me to tears.
Thanks for posting the videos!
Stewart made a point in the first clip that sums up my take. How dare the wealthy refuse to give back to the infrastructure that made their wealth possible in the first place.
Romney may be in even more trouble relative to Bain, in particular, with the source of some of the funding on which the company was founded. It would appear that some of the initial funding was supplied by felons.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/bain-capitals-most-notable-foreign-founding-investors/260050/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bain-creation-20120719,0,192124.story
Amazing.
Each presidential election gets more and more surreal.
“Lying to the SEC is not a felony, it’s an entire industry.”
Too true.
Never mess with a comedian. They can say things that are uncomfortably true and make you laugh. I am convinced (based on no evidence) that somehow our brain is more willing to accept information if it’s funny.
BTW -- I hate that people keep focusing on the $100k/year. The real issue is that Romney completely owned Bain. So as main shareholder he got to pick the board of directors and therefore the officers -- he just happened to pick himself. But the $100k he got as compensation for being CEO is dwarfed by the reduced-tax value of the increase of his shares (for which he pays a pittance of capital gains compared to income) -- that’s why most executives prefer options to direct compensation because, if the company is doing well, they can buy their shares (effectively at a lower-than-market value) and pay a reduced tax on the profits.
Here’s an algorithm for you guys:
-- if it’s legal and involves money, it preferentially benefits the rich
That is all. It’s that simple. The golden rule is not “he who has the gold, makes the rules” it’s that “the rules favor those with the gold.”