Is Romney for real?

1. 61

   Petra Vlahposted 12 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 America's meddle class according to Mitt’s math? I, for one, may be just above poverty line

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Petra,
      Can you provide a link to this statement?
      Not that I doubt it for a second.
      Just that there will be vehement deniers.
      
      
      Is it possible he was misquoted? Taken out of context?
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The statement was made by Romney himself today on "Good morning America" .Stephonopoulis tried to let him off the hook and asked if he meant $100 thousand, but Romney repeated his nonsense. The story was also reported on Yahoo finances (and that's where I read it)
         As for his remarks being taken out of contest, let's face it:  Romney himself is out of contest by his own making

         replyreport
         1. 80

            JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi, Petra....I just read the full transcript of that interview, and here's the direct quotes from Stephonopoulis and Romney:
            
            GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
            MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
            
            Romney's answer proves that he is totally out of touch with Americans who aren't at his level of wealth.  And, if he doesn't know what "middle income" is, he certainly doesn't know anything about low income or what the people who try to live on low incomes struggle with every day. That includes people around the poverty level trying to raise children. It includes the elderly and disabled living only on a limited Social Security benefit (which the GOP would like to reduce or privatize).
            
            When Texas state treasurer and future governor Ann Richards said in her keynote speech at the 1988 DNC that George H.W. Bush was "born with a silver foot in his mouth", she could have been speaking just as easily of Mitt Romney! 
            
            Jaye

            replyreport
            1. 80

               JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The late Ann Richards was quite a woman and quite a politician. Unfortunately, she didn't surround herself with good advisers when she was Texas governor, which led to George W. Bush's rich buddies being able to buy the governorship for him later.  I wish she was still around to give her "take" on Romney and Ryan. She always cut to the chase and sometimes to the quick.
               
               Jaye

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey Jaye,
                  I remember Ann Richards vividly and I can only imagine what would she say about Romney. She did have a big mouth and she was speaking the inconvenient truth in a loud voice so no wonder they cut her out of the Governor's position. Being a democrat and a woman does not exactly reflect the Texas "values" either

                  replyreport
            2. 80

               JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Here's the link to the transcript of the interview:
               
               http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … tt-romney/

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Reading the transcript makes me wonder if Romney graduated from high school.

                  replyreport
      2. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Here's a link:   http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/14-6
         
         "How does GOP presidential hopeful and multi-millionaire Mitt Romney define 'middle class' in the United States?
         
         "Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney said on Friday in an interview with ABC News. According to his response to a question about whether or not he considers "middle class" income for Americans to be somewhere around "$100,000" by ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday, Romney rejected that number.
         
         "No," Romney said. "Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."
         
         "But, as recent numbers from the US Census Bureau attest, the US median annual household income in 2011 was only $50,054. That's 1.5 percent decrease from the previous year and evidence of continuous trend of decline..."

         replyreport
      3. 78

         TIMETRAVELER2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This statement was all over Yahoo today, right on the front page.  He wasn't misquoted, but a few reporters left out the words "or less"...which made all the difference in what he was trying to say.  However, he would have done better to use the IRS $53,000 per year number instead.  Just another Romney goof!!

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That "less" some reporters left out means less than 250.000?! I guess so, because about the 200.00 Romney had no doubts

            replyreport
   2. 75

      Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "But in fairness to Romney, his definition of middle-class is identical the one used by most Democrats, including President Obama. For the last two years, Democrats have defended “middle class” tax cuts that apply to all income under $250,000. Obama touts them in his stump speech—“I’ve cut taxes for folks who need it—middle-class families, small business owners”
      
      
      Both sides are out of touch, not just the GOP.
      
      Here's a link to the full article: http://prospect.org/article/both-romney … ddle-class

      replyreport
   3. 59

      taburkettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is obvious to me that may of you are quite confused.
      median income is not middle income.
      median income is an algorythm calculation based upon the total personal income reported on tax forms
      middle income is identified as the income values identified for the middle portion of those returns based on the actual 50% within the middle portion - thus 25% to 75%
      at the 25% level, the income is below the poverty line.
      However, at the 75% level, it is between $200K and $250K because 25% of all reporting individuals earn more than $250K.
      you may do more research at your leisure at the irs site.
      http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinb … rlim10.pdf

      replyreport
   4. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The problem isn't necessarily the words he uses or what number he specifically believes is middle class. The problem is his utter and complete inability to understand anything about the vast majority of the people in this country. To him the difference between 250k a year and 50k a year on the actual lives of people is inconceivable. Kind of like the average person trying to weigh the impact of using Shantung or Crepe de Chin for the curtains in a cigar room. Even worse than not understanding is that he quite simply doesn't care.
      
      "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax...And my job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." - Mitt Romney.
      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … fundraiser

      replyreport
2. 59

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   I just heard the middle class is now 50k and sinking. Romney is a billionaire. I never met a millionaire who did not think they were poor, because they compare themselves to the really rich. Rummy Romney probably thinks he is poor.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In terms of mind and soul he is indeed poor, no doubt about it.
      The official middle class annual income is $50 thousand per family, but the "qualified" candidate (the best the RP could come up with?!) has no clue, nor does he care.
      I wonder how his campaign will explain this one

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Romney has an incredibly high sense of his own entitlement and little or no connection with ordinary people. And he's about as far as one could be from the old, Puritanical New England traditions of frugality, humility and concern for the community.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Now that Romney reveled his definition of middle class we can actually believe his promise not to rise taxes on them

            replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   He said that is the upper limit of what he considers middle income... In other words, above $250k(not 300k, he didn't say that) a household is no longer in the middle, but at the top. Usually we refer to the people at the top as wealthy, and I seem to remember someone else saying that $250k is when people become 'wealthy'(his initials are BO).
   
   Romney: "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less..."
   
   Would you take as much offense if he said "Middle income is up to $200,000 to $250,000"?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Census Bureau reported that the annual income of the middle class family is $50.000 but in NO WAY between $200-250 thousand as Romney said

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Listen, I was just clarifying what Romney said. He didn't say that median income is 200 to 250k, they were talking about taxes and Romney said 250k and lower won't see tax increases.
         
         Yes, it was poorly worded, but no way liberals will extend the same in-context courtesy that they complain about when Obama words something poorly.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            What Romney has done more than once is much more than "poorly worded" statements.
            IT IS IGNORANCE! about the real economic problems of the middle class. Referring to the Libyan Consulate and calling it an Embassy is also ignorance and only proves how prepared he is to become the world's leader.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Petra, I think you meant to say, "... how unprepared he is to become the world's leader"...
               The more he speaks, the more he reveals.  He has become confused assuming that his nomination  means that his party believes he is qualified.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I was being sarcastic. The best Romney can do for himself is to keep quite. He has given enough ammunition to Obama and I hope Obama will use it wisely.

                  replyreport
   2. 73

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If that is the ceiling for when one becomes "wealthy" what is the lower threshhold for "middle income" or does no one know that number?
      I mean, is "middle income" from $20K to $250K $75k to $250K?
      
      Here is the chart for Federal Poverty Level.
      Maybe we can work this backward.
      ... or not.
      
      http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/to … lines.html

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Moderndayslaveposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Median income in America is around 50K. That would be "Middle Class" last time I checked.
      http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/s … 53033322/1
      . Mitt is a little out of touch with the "Average American"

      replyreport
      1. 80

         JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Only "...a little....?"

         replyreport
4. 59

   Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

   I don't really care what Romney or his boyfriend, Ryan, think. I'm not voting for him.

   replyreport
5. 79

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   Petra....that will be difficult to defend considering the median income according to the last census is $51K annually.  That income level is certainly at the lower end of the Middle Class.  The threshold for poverty is just over $15K in the USA so we have to assume there is an income range somewhere between poverty and the bottom side of the middle class. I believe Romney's comment is aimed more toward to mid point of the middle class income range as opposed to defining the bottom of it.  At best, the $50 dollars annually might define the bottom of the middle class.  At the same time, the $200 - $250 range certainly is a long way from defining "wealthy" especially in light of the fact that a number of young married couples employed in high-tech fields easily have household incomes that approach or exceed the $200K mark.  Just a thought.....

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I know Wayne that in politics anything can be explained away whether it makes sense or no, so I can't wait to see how they handle this one.
      Maybe it is Romney time to ask us to define what "IS" - IS, just like Clinton did with an innocent look an his face (LOL)

      replyreport
6. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   This is hilarious...
   
   "Most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses — not when so many folks are just trying to get by... And that’s why I’m calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000 for another year.”
   -Barack Obama
   
   
   I think it is fair to say that trying to define 'middle income' by strict percentages of the population doesn't work.
   
   Technically, if you make over $90k, you are in the top 20% of Americans. That makes you rich, right? $150k puts you in the top 5%.
   
   With our income inequality, it's kind of silly to group together people who make $90k or $150k with people who make millions every year.
   
   Edit: As further justification for his defense of extending the Bush tax-cuts, Obama said "We should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on. Right?"

   replyreport
7. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   Ok, here's a challenge.
   
   Define what income range puts someone in 'middle class'.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Here's what trusty ole Wickipedia says:
      
      The American middle class is a social class in the United States.[1][2] While the concept is typically ambiguous in popular opinion and common language use,[3] contemporary social scientists have put forward several, more or less congruent, theories on the American middle class. Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.
      
      One of first major studies of the middle class in America, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, was made by sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1951. Later sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert of Hamilton College commonly divide the middle class into two sub-groups. Constituting roughly 15% to 20% of households is the upper or professional middle class consisting of highly educated, salaried professionals and managers. Constituting roughly one third of households is the lower middle class consisting mostly of semi-professionals, skilled craftsmen and lower level management.[2][4] Middle-class persons commonly have a comfortable standard of living, significant economic security, considerable work autonomy and rely on their expertise to sustain themselves.[5]
      
          Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year. Ah yes, there's a group of people bound to run into each other while house-hunting.
          —Dante Chinni[3]
      
      Members of the middle class belong to diverse groups which overlap with each other. Overall, middle-class persons, especially upper-middle-class individuals, are characterized by conceptualizing, creating and consulting. Thus, college education is one of the main indicators of middle-class status. Largely attributed to the nature of middle-class occupations, middle class values tend to emphasize independence, adherence to intrinsic standards, valuing innovation and respecting non-conformity.[2][5] Politically more active than other demographics, college educated middle class professionals are split between the two major parties.[6]
      
      Income varies considerably from near the national median to well in excess of $100,000.[2][4] Household income figures, however, do not always reflect class status and standard of living, as they are largely influenced by the number of income earners and fail to recognize household size. It is therefore possible for a large, dual-earner, lower middle class household to out-earn a small, one-earner, upper middle class household.[5] The middle classes are very influential, as they encompass the majority of voters, writers, teachers, journalists, and editors.[7] Most societal trends in the US originate within the middle classes.[8]

      replyreport
   2. 86

      rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even middle class has levels.  Lower middle, working class, upper middle.  Starting somewhere near $40,000 to $100,000+.  Lower middle usually work for upper middle class.  I'm not sure what level indicates wealthy.   The middle class is becoming less middle.
      
      wikipedia link has some interesting stats.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         See, I would say lower middle is around 35-50k, middle middle class $50-100k, and upper middle from $100 to $250k.
         
         But that would put, what, 70-80% of Americans in the 'middle class'. With our income inequality, I do think we have a very wide band of middle class, because it doesn't make sense to label people who make $250k with people who make $50 million.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe it's more of an attitude than a specifc number.
            This is short so I posted entire article from www.pewsocialtrends.org
            
            Middle-Income Economics and Middle-Class Attitudes
            
            A new Pew Research Center report documents a “lost decade” for middle-income Americans, analyzing government data that shows a decline in economic well-being and exploring findings from a new survey that adults who describe themselves as middle class are somewhat more downbeat about their finances and their children’s future than they used to be.
            
            According to data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, mean family incomes declined overall and for each income quintile from 2000 to 2010; this was the first decade since record-keeping began in the 1950s that all income quintiles declined.
            
            In addition, based on data going back to 1970, households in the nation’s upper-income tier now take in a larger share of the nation’s aggregate households income than they used to, while the shares for the middle-income and lower-income tiers have declined.  One reason for this trend is that upper-income households have made larger income gains than other households over recent decades. In addition, the share of adults who are in the middle-income tier (defined as living in households with two-thirds to double the national median income) has shrunk in recent decades: 51% of adults resided in such households in 2010, compared with 61% in 1970.
            
            Looking at wealth data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, the net worth of middle-income families also declined over the decade. Based on data from 2001 to 2010, median net worth–defined as assets minus debt–declined 28% for these families, erasing two decades worth of gains.
            
            A new Pew Research survey, conducted from July 16-26, finds that 49% of American adults describe themselves as middle class; 53% said the same in a 2008 Pew Research survey. Among these self-described middle-class adults, 85% say it is more difficult than a decade ago for the middle class to maintain its standard of living.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               And when all of this declining (income and standard of living) took place, who was the president?!
               Would JaxonRaine care to answer?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, I have to acknowledge first of all that any discussion of who is in charge of the country at any given time is beyond the scope of HP... It's either the fault of the other-side's congress, or the fault of the other-side's president.
                  
                  Secondly, 2000-2010 is a clearly flawed time period to make comparisons. You are comparing the top of one bubble to the bottom of another. It is easy to pick arbitrary time-frames, but harder to justify them. Comparing the top of a boom with the bottom of a bust, however, should be quite clearly an erroneous approach.
                  
                  C: I don't support many of Bush's policies and actions, but regardless it has nothing to do with our current situation. Bush does not equal Obama does not equal Romney.
                  
                  4 - Income and standard of living will go back up and pass previous highs, don't worry about it. This wasn't the first market correction, and it won't be the last.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Independent of who is in the WH and which party controls Congress, right?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Hopefully.
                        
                        The best you can hope for is that the worst policies won't hurt too much

                        replyreport
                  2. 80

                     JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I do not believe you can say with equanimity, Jaxson, that George Bush's tax cuts for the rich and plunging the U.S. into war based on a lie had no effect on the country's economy!  When he took office he inherited a budget surplus that he squandered.  THAT is what led to the mess we're in now!

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Could not agree more

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I could have worded that better. What I was trying to say is that Bush's policies don't matter anymore. Trying to continue to put blame on Bush doesn't help. The only reason people bring it up is to try and equate Romney with Bush, even though their policies are vastly different.
                        
                        Also, Bush did not inherit a budget surplus. Clinton never balanced it, he 'balanced' the budget by borrowing money from one sector of government and putting it in another, it just doesn't work that way.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           You can manipulate the truth any way you want to, but the fact remains - Clinton DID balanced the budget and Bush DID inherit a surplus.
                           By starting two wars (without any evidence and only presuming guilt) he left a big deficit and an ongoing expense for Obama.
                           Let's also remember that the financial disaster started in 2007 and culminated with the collapse of LB in September 2008. Since then until the time Obama took office the rate of people loosing their jobs was about one million a month. True, it went on for another 6 month or so (at a slower rate), but the hemorrhage  could not be stopped; the economy was in life support, whether you want to admit it or not

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Clinton 'balanced' the budget by taking the 'profits' from Social Security and using them to pay off some of our debt.
                              
                              The problem is, those Social Security funds weren't 'profits'. They were funds that were already spoken for(that's part of the reason we are so short on being able to pay future Social Security payments, the government has consistently taken the 'excesses' from the baby boomers, and spent it.
                              
                              If you put money into a retirement account, should the management fund be able to count your contributions as their profit?

                              replyreport
                        2. 69

                           Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, Bush and Romney are different. Bush is much more likeable..However, we don't know what Romney's policies are yet other than what we can deduce from Ryan's Roadmap to Ruin--RRR--gutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, tax cuts for the rich, and trying to balance the budget while unemployment is more than 8 percent, a sure recipe for a double dip recession. Romney may be too smart for that. I sure hope so.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Or...
                              
                              I dunno, you could, like, look at his record, and look at his outlines he has provided. That should give you some idea.
                              
                              If Romney says he will take care of SS by slowly raising retirement age, and making the tax on the wealthy more progressive, is it really that hard to figure out his plan?

                              replyreport
                              1. 69

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Speaking of Romney-Ryan tax cuts for the rich, here's a moderate, orthodox economists view on tax cuts and economic growth:
                                 
                                 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opini … .html?_r=1
                                 
                                 " ...The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.
                                 
                                 The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.
                                 
                                 "Today, Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan are promising another cut in tax rates and again predicting that good times will follow. But it’s not the easiest case to make. Much as President Obama should be asked to grapple with the economy’s disappointing recent performance (a subject for a planned column), Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would do voters a service by explaining why a cut in tax rates would work better this time than last time...."

                                 replyreport
                           2. 61

                              Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              We already know their answer; "it will stimulate businesses to invest and it will create more jobs" is what they will say. It will work? That I don't know, but looking back at the last decade it seems it may not work this time either

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 US Debt is at 102% of GDP, whether you like it or not, we simply can not get out of this mess without serious entitlement reform.
                                 
                                 Social Security and Medicare make up over 40% of the US Budget (2011 CBO), and trying to "fix the economy" without dealing with them is just an exercise in futility.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Killing the sick and the elderly sounds like a good idea, right? Before we do that, let's better get out of the wars we are involved in and maybe stay away from other countries internal affairs. That should save us plenty

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 75

                                       Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       "Killing the sick and the elderly sounds like a good idea, right?"
                                       
                                       Really? That's what you're going with?

                                       report
                              2. 0

                                 JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Why do people act like Bush proved that corporate tax cuts don't work?

                                 replyreport
8. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   Dependable Ralph, lol.
   
   So, $100k to you? Someone who makes $99,999 is middle class, and someone who makes $100,001 is upper class?

   replyreport
9. 80

   JayeWisdomposted 12 years ago

   Here's another link analyzing the American "middle class" of 2012 and Mitt Romney's statement about it:
   
   http://www.inquisitr.com/332687/middle- … ss-anyway/

   replyreport
10. 0

    JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

    Someone please answer this:
    
    Why is it bad for Romney to use $250,000 as the cutoff point, but not for Obama to do the same thing?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Obama said he will not rise taxes on people making 250 thousand or less WITHOUT specifying those people represented the American middle class. That means Obama is ready to give a break even to the ones that are well off, but not millionairess. So there you have your answer

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          What was that catchy little name President Obama had for that program...
          
          "Middle-Class Tax Cuts"...

          replyreport
       2. 0

          JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          He specifically said "We all agree that we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class, so let's extend the tax cuts for those making under $250,000."(paraphrased)
          
          He has said similar things in other circumstances.

          replyreport
          1. 73

             Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Yeah, butt he did not define the middle class as those between $200 and $250K!
             

             replyreport
             1. 0

                JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Neither did Romney.

                replyreport
                1. 61

                   Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Read the transcript of the interview and see for yourself

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      I did. He said 200,000 to 250,000 and less.
                      
                      You can't just ignore the 'and less' part. It's exactly what Obama has said, just worded differently.

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Seriously? Does Romney mean he will cut taxes for the ones that make less than 250 but more than 200? Just curious....
                         Do you really believe that 98% of Americans belong to that tax bracket?

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            No, it means he will cut taxes for people making less than 200,000 to 250,000.
                            
                            "200,000 to 250,000 and less" means the same thing as "250,000 and less", it's just a poorly-worded phrase.
                            
                            Do you really believe that Romney only wants to cut taxes for those making between 200 and 250k?

                            replyreport
                         2. 75

                            Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            "Seriously? Does Romney mean he will cut taxes for the ones that make less than 250 but more than 200?"
                            
                            I don't remember Obama supporters wanting to be quite so literal when the President had his "you didn't build that" moment...
                            
                            The fact is, this is a non-story:
                            Yes Romney said that $250K is part of the middle class
                            Yes President Obama said that $250K is part of the middle class
                            
                            Let's worry less about who is classified as "middle class" and worry more about the millions of American Children living in poverty, or the approx 160,000 homeless American Veterans, or ever falling education standards.
                            
                            They can call me rich, poor, or anything in between as long as they fix the problem.

                            replyreport
                            1. 61

                               Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               I AM WITH YOU 100% - those are real problems and need fixing

                               replyreport
                2. 73

                   Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   It's much funnier this way, though.
                   You gotta agree.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                      Meh, it's funny if people play both ways. It gets annoying when everyone has a double standard.
                      
                      If it were just you and habee, I wouldn't bother
                      
                      But, with other people chiming in, I feel it my obligation to bring them to the straight and narrow.

                      replyreport
                      1. 73

                         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                         Props to you for saying "bring them to the straight and narrow" rather than "bring them to THE TRUTH."
                         As you've no doubt figured out by now, only a very few privileged souls here are privvy to THE TRUTH.
                         Sorry to say, you are not one of them.
                         But then, neither am I.
                         

                         replyreport
                         1. 61

                            Petra Vlahposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                            WOW Jaxson
                            you mean I am chiming into my own forum and you feel a need to " bring me to the straight and narrow"?

                            replyreport
                            1. 73

                               Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               Did you mean to respond to my post or Jaxson's?
                               I was kidding with him. He knows.
                               (I think.)

                               replyreport
                            2. 0

                               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                               1 - I was joking with MM.
                               
                               B - Yes, I do feel a need to point out 'THE TRUTH( to MM)'. Your original post very clearly misrepresented what Romney said. He didn't say "The middle class is between $200,000 and $300,000" as you made it sound. He said, as Obama has said, that $250,000 is what he considers the 'cut-off'.

                               replyreport
             2. 75

                Billy Hicksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                "Today the President called on Congress to extend the middle class tax cuts for the 98 percent of Americans making less than $250,000 for another year."
                
                Here's a link to the full article: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/ … businesses
                
                
                

                replyreport
11. 59

    taburkettposted 12 years ago

    It is obvious that many of you are quite confused.
    median income is not middle income.
    middle income is the income values for the middle portion of the tax returns based on the actual returns falling within the portion from 25% to 75%
    at the 75% level, the reported income on those tax forms is between $200K and $250K because 25% of all individual forms show an earning of more than $250K.
    you can check this out at.
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12inwinb … rlim10.pdf

    replyreport
12. 61

    BobbiRantposted 12 years ago

    Whatever the language, we have no concept, sometimes, of the Truly top 1% income.  The top 1% income is such an obscene number it would boggle our minds.  We are talking mega rich when it comes to them.  I do think, however, that those who do not know, such as Mitt, what it was ever like to go without one thin dime in their entire lives, have any concept of the rest of the population.  The rich form an entire group who are apart from us, and the U. S, rich have more in common with the rich in the UK, in France, the Middle East and all around the world than with the likes of us.  They relate to their 'kind' not much else. To get a common person in D.C. would be a very nice thing.  In the early part of America, politicians had 'real' jobs, served in office part time, did not suck off the taxpayers, felt it was their civic duty to serve and did so with pride.  Now we have allowed politicians to become nothing more than cancers on America, no civic duty or pride just the aim to line their pockets and those of their rich friends.  Our pay is crap?  Well destroy unions and then wonder why the pay is junk?  How dumb has America become?  Americans should keep their mouths shut when they are picking cotton then because they failed to speak up when it mattered.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       JayeWisdomposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks for coming to this party, Bobbi, and weighing in on an important topic.

       replyreport
13. 83

    The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago

    Hiring someone is directly related (in a purely rational sense) to the requirements to fill a demand for a product or a service. You have to believe in the demand and be willing to take a risk. Corporations do not exist to create jobs. That is not their mission and will never be their mission. Job creation is a bi-product of their mission to create value and wealth for themselves. If they need to spend money to do this they will. If they don't, they won't. Confidence in the future matters.

    replyreport