A recurring argument in support of Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations goes like this: Mitt will fix the American economy because, as a successful businessman, he knows how to make money. Mitt Romney undeniably possesses great wealth, but let's examine the argument that he "knows how to make money."
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, while apparently a man of humble origins, ran the American Motors Company and served as the governor of Michigan. It is safe to say that Willard came into this world, already worth at least seven figures. The man seems to think eating tuna fish sandwiches represents financial exigency.
Barack Obama has humbler origins. Depending on whom you ask, Obama was either born in Hawaii to a middle-class Kansan woman and her Kenyan husband and grew up in conditions of greater or lesser scarcity, or he is the anti-Christ, born in Kenya and the subject of an elaborate and ongoing conspiracy to mask his unholy origins so he can lead the United States to its ultimate downfall and bring about the Rapture, leaving behing a blasted Hellscape of suffering and deprivation. Either way, though, the young Barack was hardly rich. And yet, somehow, even before his election to the presidency, Barack Obama had become quite wealthy, an established member of "the one percent."
So, if we're comparing candidates based on their ability to make money, shouldn't we give the edge to Obama? Romney changed millions into more millions, but President Obama made millions out of nothing! Kind of like when Jesus turned a fish and a loaf of bread into tuna fish sandwiches for everybody.
Of course, Romney supporters would probably have condemned Jesus for forcing so many people into the indignity of eating tuna fish.