Poor Mitt, the man with no judgement just called $700k income "middle income". This man was born without a thimble full of judgement.
Remember, First he jokes he is unemployed to unemployed people. Then his wife says she doesn't feel rich after they brought home 42 million in 2011, then she said she has a horse in every port, then he says 700,000 is middle income.
The joke is that liberals like to classify people into relative groups, and then when other people redefine things (because the terms are relative), they get upset.
Obama says rich is $250,000 and up.
Romney says $700,000 is middle class...pretty clear to me.
Of course, to any Republican, $25,000 is enough to live like a King.
250k is rich?
LOL!! and you guys think that Romney is living in a dream world!
No--a quarter of a million dollars is rich, IMO. Lower end rich, but certainly not hurting.
I bet it seems like a lot to these people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/2 … 22118.html
Yup..I'm around 30,000 and quarter mil is quite rich. But in today's world, where Adelson makes 21.5 billion, and Romney's at 21 million, and Paul is at 5 million.....
$250,000 is chump change, right fellas?
And how much is your favorite Green Party Candidate Roseanne Barr worth? Because I saw somewhere that it's around $80 million.
I think Roseanne remembers where she came from. Mitt had it a little different
She says since women are 1/2 the country, 1/2 her cabinet will be women. And since 1/6 the country is in poverty, 1/6 her cabinet will be poor.
She suggests we hang the bankers, just like Max Keiser. And get rid of the electoral college.
Even though she's rich, she does know that most people are not. And unlike Mitt and the rest of the Republicans, she thinks the 99% of Americans matter as much as the 1%.
In other words, she doesn't like America as it was established.
There are reasons for the electoral college. Unfortunately, we have lost many of the benefits of it over time.
Who are the bankers she wants to hang, and is she serious?
The standard leftist party line...rich conservatives=evil, while rich liberals=just like the rest of us. Is that why you're continually cursing the Koch brothers but Soros gets a pass, even though Soros continually tries to influence public policy through his financial contributions?
It's called Google learn how to use it J.R.
You defend the indefensible yet again Evan. Step back and look at the absurdity of defending this Romney error.
I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not defending Romney.
I'm pointing out the fact that liberals are too short-sighted to see how their foolish ideas can easily back-fire on them.
And what ideas are those Evan since once again you don't give us a complete thought.
If you don't understand what I'm saying already, then it ain't worth spelling it out.
Josak seems to have gotten it.
I think he's saying that Obama decided on a number and Romney decided on another number. Subjectivity can come back to bite you.
I will continue to defend the undefendable -- so long as they are just, or the arguments used against them are unfounded.
IN fact, one of my favorite books is by the same title!
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Undefen … amp;sr=8-1
It's not his fault, he can't help that he is completely disconnected from the reality of his electorate, the people he hangs around with probably do consider that a median wage because they too are entirely blind to the reality of the country they live in and want to represent.
To Evan, sure categoraisation is useful for political discourse BUT the boundaries are not really relative and they must conform to reality, the average wage in the US is about 29 000 that means saying 700 000 is "middle income" is not a matter of relative boundaries but a mathematical falsehood.
"Average", you say? Mean, Median, or Mode?
Relative terms are relative terms. To ME "middle income" is anyone who makes $20-40k/year.
But that's because I use what I am familiar with to judge such relative terms.
Sorry that relative terms can be twisted, but this is how racism and other "labels" work.
Seriously, do you want me to waste both our times by finding out what each of those are and showing none of them are close to 700 000? There are mathematical realities to face, its not a relative thing.
Mean, Median, Mode.
Technically, the "middle" can mean anything between the lowest wage earner (0) and the highest income earner.
I know you're blinded by rage because I'm pointing out the OBVIOUS GLARING FLAW in the argument, but you have realize that "the middle" can be defined in any way that the debater wishes.
Relative terms are HORRIBLE devices for making laws, and governments should NOT be making such horrible laws.
Agree with you on this regarding relative terms. Dividing income classes for purposes of finding a middle income is absurd because the division would be arbitrary. So finding a middle income is meaningless. And finding an average income is meaningless as well because there's no non-arbitrary way to separate the top and bottom incomes that skew the rest.
What you don't realize is that we all already screwed. After the election, regardless of who wins, it will be just a matter of degree.
We have come together to form a more perfect union:
Of the rich
By the rich
For the rich
We seriously need to get perception back to reality.
It would take me 28 years to earn that at my rate.
The man is simply out of touch. He is truly a let them eat cake sort of guy. He is wired all wrong to be president.
Can't believe that a national media-head gets it!
"WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's five-year-long hostile takeover bid for the Republican Party -- and the presidency -- enters its next grinding phase Wednesday with a spin session for reporters in Boston designed to convince them that his nomination is inevitable.
It probably is.
And if it is, Romney's leveraged buyout strategy for the general election will be the same: a scorched-earth assault on an incumbent president the likes of which we haven't seen since television made charisma a prerequisite for winning the White House."
Palin looks like a girl-scout in comparison.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/0 … 26730.html
Santorum is sincere and understands the common people.
I would like to have the ipad manufactured in US and we want 'MADE IN AMERICA' and we want Santorum
I can agree with you.....BUT-he went to Harvard, got a degree, and was a lawyer. In college, he was known as Rooster and could chug beer with the best of them...
ALL these things that libs get smeared for...you'll have to do some "re-classifying" yourselves. maybe.
Santorum isn't sincere. He only believes there is no separation of church and state in order to get votes. Either that or he does not understand the constitution and he is dangerous. One or the other.
He doesn't even have a good high school level command of the English language, he's like a geyser of ignorance. He's unarguably very dangerous, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. It wouldn't be a big deal if no one was listening to them; that many people are in a country that's supposed to be "advanced" is terrifying.
Advanced? We don't need no stinkin' advanced.
We're America the exceptional!
Yeah! Hell, we oughta go backwards, to simpler times I can actually wrap my mind around. Yeah. Come on, son, you don't need none'a that fancy math and science. Help your old man lay the foundation for this log cabin. And then go tell your mother - she should be making us sandwiches, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant - that we need to get that dead weight sister of yours married off, pronto.
That's middle American income? That's what you call the Middle class?
What comes before the poverty level? I guess that's where you'll find me...
What an idiot. Why can't the Republicans oust this loser and give us someone worth voting for? Did you know that 43% of Republicans actually believe that Ron Paul can beat Obama? Yeah, that's right. But something like only 18% of Republicans think Romney can beat him. So why is it that they are sending up a loser to face off with Obama? I don't get that backwards mentality. It was that kind of thinking, which made me run from the party that I had been a member of for over 20 years. I don't do well hanging out with stupid people.
Nobody resents anyone merely for being wealthy. But we do resent those who achieve wealth through questionable practices. How did Romney get rich? Easy. All he did was take over weak companies through "leverage buyouts." That's a uephemism for buying a company, putting them in debt and sacking lots of its workers while pocketing their wages and their pension funds. Nice! Capitalism doesn't work: http://torphour.blogspot.com/
I've also read that he was laundering money at Bain.
Of course, since he had his men come to Massachussetts and erase his records here...good luck finding proof on that one.
It's funny, you guys are willing to bash Romney's work at Bain, but nobody responds when I post factual data about the effect he had with companies, showing the increased revenues, increased jobs, etc...
You mean like Clear Channell? SUSPECT!
Maybe those other little-paying jobs were a cover for their criminal activity?
He is an extremely wealthy man.
http://www.massresistance.org/romney/am … index.html
If the top income is 1,400,000 dollars and the lowest income is ZERO, then yes,$700,000 would be median income. This also points up the gap between rich and poor. About that first figure....it's too low, so, everything has to be adjusted upwards (quite a ways, actually), but the base remains ZERO, which means there is an even bigger gap between them.
It's like Evan G Rogers said - mean, median and mode are completely different things. When he says "median", though, people take it to mean a combination of mean and mode.
Actually, if the richest person in the world earns an income of $7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per year, and the poorest person earns $0.00 per year, then the "middle income" CAN be defined as:
"Anywhere between $0.001/year and $6,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999.99 / year"
... because there are two absolute end points on each side of this figure.
I'm glad that we're all learning how propaganda works.
Yes, we are not providing the propaganda Evan. Look inside. You know 700k is not something main street can relate too. You know it. You won't ever earn it so what is your fascination with it? I have a close relative who has a better chance of earning 700k than anyone else I know. But that does not make it right to call it middle income. Sheesh Evan.
"GAWD, EVAN!!! NOW THAT YOU'RE USING LOGIC TO SHOW THAT MY INITIAL ARGUMENTS ARE COMPLETELY INVALID, I HAVE TO ACT LIKE A HIGH SCHOOL GIRL TO MAKE YOU SEEM IDIOTIC!"
The term "middle income" can mean ANYTHING between the highest income and the lowest income. This is the definition of "middle".
I'm sorry that dictionaries are not provided by Business Insider.
He is referring to the middle of the 1 percent, not the middle of everyone. Sorry you can't understand that.
Actually, I have NO idea what he's referring to: you didn't post the entire quote, so we don't know that for sure. Until you do that, then you're just blowing smoke up a certain nether region.
The article that you DID post to (Another Business Insider self-promotion, I see) was so poorly written that I have no idea what was said in the interview. Each quote was spliced repeatedly.
Here's the transcript that I THINK you are referencing:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46544190/CNBC_EX … _BOX_TODAY
I don't care enough to check if your claim is accurate enough. You have to do your own work. That's how debates work.
Show me the quote. Until then, all I know is that YOU claim that HE said something.
In the mean time, YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM was that he said the middle income is around $700,000 remains, actually, correct by definition.
I don't get this, nothing about what Romney said puts 700,000 as middle income.
In fact, he said that he doesn't want the burden of the tax share to increase on middle income taxpayers, or on the majority of taxpayers. 99% goes up to $380,000, so the majority makes much less than that, and that's what I got out of Romney's comments.
Maybe if everyone stops listening he'll go away?
I sure hope not. I would prefer having a president who understands how economics work, we need a lot of help to get back on our feet again.
Unemployment's been going down consistently, people are hiring again, the DOW crested 13K again... I think another four years in the direction of reforming healthcare so the government doesn't go completely bankrupt and investing in education, research, infrastructure and transportation would probably be pretty good for the economy.
The unemployment rate isn't actually going down as much as they say it is. The number of 'no longer unemployed people' includes those who have stopped looking, and those whose benefits have run out.
A more telling factor is to look at the employed workforce percentage.
After the 08-09 drop, it hasn't recovered at all. Real unemployment would actually be between 10 and 11% right now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … _blog.html
Yes, I know, I've seen these numbers. Discouraged workers, though, constitute a completely speculative number; those who did not seek employment for at least 4 weeks before being surveyed would also not be collecting unemployment, because you need to prove that you are searching to do so. That number also includes the dubious "people who'd like a job and are looking", which could be anything from a 16 year old who's never had a job and is looking for one to a 72 year old deciding to rejoin the workforce because social security alone isn't providing enough income. I'd like to have the people in charge of these numbers explain to me why these people are not included and how they calculate their percentages, but we can't all get what we want.
That said, I'm glad you also added the Washington Post article, because the comments are very constructive, intelligently argued and support my point, which is that everyone comes up with a completely different figure for the "real" unemployment number. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind and waiting for the government to spoon-feed me facts, even if I do support the Obama administration. I doubt anyone will ever know the exact number at any given time. People are also continually added to the workforce, so we're not dealing with the same number of workers we had in 2007 for example; recovery is very slow, but even if we had the same number of available jobs we did four or five years ago, all of the newly added workers would still be left out because of lack of growth.
Something to consider, though, even if you believe unswervingly that the numbers are a lie, is that economies are based very largely on psychology. When everyone is telling you that things are only getting worse, if you're an average person, you start behaving differently and maybe even irrationally. There can be no recovery when everyone is prophesying imminent doom. Demonstrating small but consistent growth - even if the post-stimulus factors are a total farce - assuages panic and fosters confidence. It's easy to see recovery when I look around in my city, anyway. From 2008 to about 2010 tons of businesses of every kind were shutting down; we lost our house and so did one of my friends and a whole boatload of other people when the housing market imploded. But lots of new small businesses have been cropping up, lots of people who could happily scooped up inexpensive houses and even crappy retail stores are hiring part time employees again. And I don't mean they only were for Christmas. Even if the true unemployment rate hasn't moved much, the rate for people with a college degree hasn't either, and there are many more jobs available now than there were two years ago.
Workforce percentage is a problem. But a lot of those who are older and out of the workforce have decided they don't want another job.
I have been unemployed for over a year and when I go into the unemployment office, there are always more people there than there was the last time. When I asked the guy assigned to my case what the real number was in North Carolina, he said unemployment is really 16-18%, in the state, not just the county I live in. People forget that they do not include those who have exhausted there unemployment as well as those on welfare. Don't believe everything the government controlled media tells you.
He doesnt understand economics. He understands how to raid a corporation. What will he do, raid your social security?
That's not what he did at Bain. I've posted the facts here before, but none of the Bain-bashers bothered to comment.
In the vast majority of cases, companies ended up with more revenue, more jobs, and more capital than before. Many companies were saved by Bain's actions, one case of a manufacturing plant that went from 200-500 million in losses every year, to 200-300 million in profit every year.
If you stop believing every news article(they are often wrong, like the articles about GE's tax rate) you can find a different picture. Romney did great work at Bain, and Bain's strategy revolved around implementing management that was financially dependent on the success of the company.
Corporate raiders have done a lot of damage over the years. Bain has done damage by loading companies up with credit. Then they could not sustain themselves.
That's just not true. That's what some news articles claim, but the news isn't always right. Would you be interested in me linking you to some of the information I've posted about it?
I dug through news articles and SEC filings for every company I could find, and compared employment numbers and financial situations before and after Bain. As a net effect, companies did FAR better after than before.
If you want to live in a nation where the government takes wealth away from the rich and distributes it, I suggest you look elsewhere.
First, when you compare something like income gains to income levels, the higher brackets will have a higher percentage. If every level increased by 20%, then the top 10% would get far more than 20% of the income gains, because their 20% is worth more than the bottom 10%'s 20%.
Secondly, I'm glad to live in a nation where it is so easy to become self-made wealthy.
Third, the top 1% over the past decade includes those who make as little as $200,000, which isn't really a level of success I would say 'you should be paying even more taxes'.
Remember, the top 1% pays 24% income taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 1.8% income taxes. They are already doing more than their fair share, and the money they have isn't just stagnating, it is going into the economy.
The top 1 percent controls over 40 percent of the wealth. We need a wealth tax not an income tax. Even Trump says we need a one time wealth tax to balance the budget and he is hardly a flaming liberal!
Here are some articles revealing the dreadful world of private equity takeovers as we see Romney is a predator:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ … LL20120106
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/po … yoffs.html
People literally died due to Bain's business practices according to articles.
One more point, the reason the bottom 50 percent pay so little tax i because there is massive speculation occurring in all commodities. And not only that, the speculation is like a tax. The rich get that speculation benefit.
I've found the same results from my research, but I think we're wasting our time. MSM talking points are constantly drilled into people's heads, and the MSM is mostly anti-Romney, and that includes FOX. FOX and Rush don't like Mitt because he isn't conservative enough, and the left-leaning news doesn't like him because he's not liberal enough. Romney is being attacked from both sides.
You saw this chart right Habee?
From 2007? Yes, I saw it, but I'm not sure I'm following your argument.
The chart shows that the 1 percent has grown in wealth astronomically, partly by dishonest dealings, and that America has a big problem with distribution of wealth to the top folks. Main street has become considerably poorer for it. You support predators who want even more money to flow to the top.
taking over failed businesses is a part of the economy!
It is the context in which he made his statements. The context revolved around the middle of the 1 percent, 700k.
No, the context of his statements was that he wanted each bracket to keep the same share of the tax burden through the changes. He said that he didn't want the middle income payers, the majority of tax payers, to have an increase in their share of the burden.
He wasn't specifically addressing the 700,000 figure, because he said there is no reason for H&R Block to rate his plan, without the details. He then stated that his plan was across-the-board tax cuts. Honestly, it's such a stretch to say that's what he said, the best you could get away with is saying he avoided the issue of defining 'wealthy'. But, when your plan is to reduce everyone's taxes equally, you don't have to define wealthy. You only have to do that if you say you are only going to raise taxes on the wealthy.
If you reduce taxes by the same percentage it is crazy. Did you ever see this chart Jaxson?
I suggest if this keeps going in the direction it is going the country will implode. While the US is a wealthy nation, we cannot have more of this. Look at the chart and be alarmed. be very alarmed. Habee needs to see this chart.
ok, Santorum or Romney. Select your favorite candidate using this hubpage election
http://emdi.hubpages.com/hub/Hubpages-R … aries-2012
Does the word "sociopath" come to mind? It does when I listen to anything out of Romney's mouth or look at his facial expressions.
Personally, I like a guy who lays his cards on the table and says why he likes HIS candidate without having to say he's his choice because he doesn't like or respect the other candidates. I'm sure it is not "the lesser of all the losers." Or is it?
Truth is, both parties have attacked main street in the past and even now. But in the long run, the Republicans will do more with more war and more housing bubbles, in the future. That is my opinion, but based upon the hostility the Republican candidates have to the Volcker Rule and to those who oppose speculation in futures contracts, I think I am right.
I think it's a great way for Romney to illustrate how disconnected he is from "lower" class Americans. It is only when he accepts the fact that the average American's income is less than $30,000 a year, that he will be able to have a broader understanding of the vast majority of American's concerns and up the number of his supporters. As for $700,000 being middle income, it reminds me of when I was doing inside sales, selling high end windows and doors. A large number of the contractors were pushing $500,000 - $800,000 homes as "middle class" homes. Too bad they're all floundering or out of business now. If Romney doesn't try to relate to the real middle America, perhaps he will meet the same fate politically.
by Petra Vlah4 years ago
In his distorted view, the combined income of a middle class family is between $200 and $300 thousand a year. We know better, but the reality has never been part of his fantasy world. How many of you will qualify as...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155030/Romne … oters.aspxInteresting poll. Our next POTUS will be the one who gets out the voters.
by Susan Reid4 years ago
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
by Petra Vlah4 years ago
At the very specific question “what would you cut in terms of deductions like home mortgages, child allocation and charity contribution in order to reform the tax system and reduce the deficit”, Romney’s response...
by mio cid2 years ago
Income inequality has been growing for decades . Do you consider it a problem ? If so , how would you fix it ?
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
Habee, Rommney is a very flawed and stupid man. You would vote for him? Santorum is even dumber, as he fails to understand that state religion is false religion. Both are losers. Seriously Habee. Romney strapped his dog...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.