Pages

 

Recent Pages by Destro (Destro):
Louis C.K. explains environmentalism to Christians Obama thanks Putin for help in Boston FBI investigated older Boston terrorist 2 years ago at the request of a foreign govt Captured terrorist will not be Mirandized (He will not be advised of his rights) Dedicated to Boston: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - The Impression That I Get

Jump to bottom

36 comments

1 alinuxguru  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 8:59:04am

See? He did not lie. He just defines Middle class as people between 2 and 7%. The other 92% are the very poor. And, we already know how concerned he is about the poor.

2 Randall Gross  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 9:26:55am
3 nines09  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 9:52:18am

Reality is what ever Mitt Romney's handlers say it is. Whoever last spoke into Mitts ear, their words pop out of his mouth first. The debates should be fascinating. I'll bet Mitt gets bludgeoned so bad he walks off with a limp.

4 jogiff  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 9:59:48am

And he doesn't care about the "very poor" either. I guess that everyone with an income of less than $100,000 is very poor in his mind.

5 Charleston Chew  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:00:58am

This couldn't be more timely - the Census Bureau just reported this week that Americans' median household income fell 1.5 percent to $50,053 last year.

Would someone please buy Romney a newspaper.

6 dragonfire1981  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:01:40am

Even if it was household income he was talking about he was way off.

The only way his numbers make sense is if he is only factoring in white men over age 45. Hmm...

7 dragonfire1981  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:02:02am

re: #5 Charleston Chew

This couldn't be more timely - the Census Bureau just reported this week that Americans' median household income fell 1.5 percent to $50,053 last year.

Would someone please buy Romney a newspaper.

That isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch.

8 Destro  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:03:44am

re: #5 Charleston Chew

This couldn't be more timely - the Census Bureau just reported this week that Americans' median household income fell 1.5 percent to $50,053 last year.

Would someone please buy Romney a newspaper.

I guess Romeny thinks people making $50/year must live in a barn like his horse Rafalca (who actually makes more money and pays less taxes.

9 CarleeCork  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:11:15am

Talk about being out-of-touch. Damn!

10 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:15:43am

"and less". You left that part out of your headline.

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

11 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:20:22am

re: #10 KingKenrod

"and less". You left that part out of your headline.

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

This was the quote:

$200,000 to $250,000 and less.

He gives a range, and then says 'or less'. If you give a range, what does 'or less' mean? Is he just saying he has no idea what the answer is?

12 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:26:12am

re: #11 Obdicut

This was the quote:

He gives a range, and then says 'or less'. If you give a range, what does 'or less' mean? Is he just saying he has no idea what the answer is?

The range may be for people in different tax situations - individual vs married filing jointly vs married filing separately. I'm not sure - Romney's own plan calls for tax breaks for those with an AGI below 200K.

If you read the transcript, I think he was correcting the implication that the study Stephanopoulos mentioned set 100K as some kind of barrier between those who would have to have their taxes raised and those who would get tax breaks.

13 ReamWorks SKG  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:29:33am

Although is this any less out of touch than Obama believing that people who make more than $250,000 are super-wealthy?

(Still, I'm voting for Obama!)

14 euphgeek  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:40:14am

How long until this is part of a campaign ad for Obama?

15 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:45:23am

re: #12 KingKenrod

The range may be for people in different tax situations - individual vs married filing jointly vs married filing separately. I'm not sure - Romney's own plan calls for tax breaks for those with an AGI below 200K.

If you read the transcript, I think he was correcting the implication that the study Stephanopoulos mentioned set 100K as some kind of barrier between those who would have to have their taxes raised and those who would get tax breaks.

I read the transcript. I don't find that a convincing interpretation, no. The question he's directly answering is this:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

So he's at least defining $200-250,000 as the high range of middle income, which still makes no sense unless you're thinking of terms in a very skewed, logarithmic scale.

16 Eclectic Infidel  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:51:54am

Yup.He's one of us.

17 MichaelJ  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:54:40am

re: #13 ReamWorks SKG

Although is this any less out of touch than Obama believing that people who make more than $250,000 are super-wealthy?

(Still, I'm voting for Obama!)

Do you really need to ask that question? The $250k and up income earners comprise less than 2% of our population. I don't think he ever referred to $250k earners as "super-wealthy". I would agree that anyone who makes this much per year may not be super-wealthy, but they ain't hurting either. Don't forget $250k is the lowest income that is included.

18 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 10:56:51am

re: #13 ReamWorks SKG

Although is this any less out of touch than Obama believing that people who make more than $250,000 are super-wealthy?

(Still, I'm voting for Obama!)

When did he say people making more than $250,000 are 'super-wealthy', please?

I'm pretty sure he never said that.

19 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 11:06:04am

re: #15 Obdicut

I read the transcript. I don't find that a convincing interpretation, no. The question he's directly answering is this:

So he's at least defining $200-250,000 as the high range of middle income, which still makes no sense unless you're thinking of terms in a very skewed, logarithmic scale.

Yes, I think that's right - he meant it's the high range of middle income. But I don't know why you think it's skewed. Obama has essentially the same definition - 200K individual and 250K household. He campaigned on those figures in 2008, and they are built into Obamacare as thresholds for additional investment taxes.

20 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 11:07:54am

re: #19 KingKenrod

Yes, I think that's right - he meant it's the high range of middle income. But I don't know why you think it's skewed.

Because he rejects that $100,000 is middle income. So while he thinks $200-250K is the high range, he doesn't think $100,000 is middle, when it's twice the median income.

Obama has essentially the same definition - 200K individual and 250K household. He campaigned on those figures in 2008, and they are built into Obamacare as thresholds for additional investment taxes.

Oh come on, please. Yes, those are thresholds in taxation. How do you get form that that Obama doesn't think $100,000K is middle income?

21 danarchy  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 11:26:28am

Come on now. He was being asked a question about taxes going up on middle income people. You know if he answered $50,000, the headlines the next day would be "Romney plans to raise taxes on anyone making over $50,000"

22 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 11:46:36am

re: #20 Obdicut

Because he rejects that $100,000 is middle income. So while he thinks $200-250K is the high range, he doesn't think $100,000 is middle, when it's twice the median income.

Oh come on, please. Yes, those are thresholds in taxation. How do you get form that that Obama doesn't think $100,000K is middle income?

No, my interpretation is that Romney was rejecting that $100K is the threshold between middle and upper income. Stephanopoulos proposed this threshold (referring to a study) twice.

I'm not the only person who sees it this way. There's an excellent article just up at HuffPo about this (and it's very critical of Romney).

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

Romney responded by saying he hadn't "seen [Feldstein's] precise study" but that there were five studies in total "that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people." Romney would define middle income as $200,000 to $250,000 per year and lower.

23 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:29:02pm

re: #22 KingKenrod

No, my interpretation is that Romney was rejecting that $100K is the threshold between middle and upper income. Stephanopoulos proposed this threshold (referring to a study) twice.

Do you understand that citing a range and then saying "or lower" makes no real sense?

If you ask me what your salary is going to be, and I say "$200,00 to $250,000K or lower", what possible range is there for your salary?

24 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:31:27pm

re: #23 Obdicut

Do you understand that citing a range and then saying "or lower" makes no real sense?

If you ask me what your salary is going to be, and I say "$200,00 to $250,000K or lower", what possible range is there for your salary?

If you were talking about a range of upper limits based on multiple criteria (as I mentioned already single vs married) it makes perfect sense. The upper limit is different in different situations.

25 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:34:02pm

re: #24 KingKenrod

If you were talking about a range of upper limits based on multiple criteria (as I mentioned already single vs married) it makes perfect sense. The upper limit is different in different situations.

But that really wasn't the conversation.

Look:

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Where in that do you see this talk of boundaries, and why ignore that he was asked directly if $100,000 was middle income, and he said "No". You're saying he didn't actually mean "No", he meant, "Yes'?

26 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:37:17pm

re: #25 Obdicut

But that really wasn't the conversation.

Look:

Where in that do you see this talk of boundaries, and why ignore that he was asked directly if $100,000 was middle income, and he said "No". You're saying he didn't actually mean "No", he meant, "Yes'?

As I said, I think Romney was thinking about Stephanopoulos' previous assertion that 100K represented a threshold, not a "typical" or median value. He's saying "no, it's higher than that".

What do you think Romney meant by "and less"?

27 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:42:45pm

re: #26 KingKenrod

As I said, I think Romney was thinking about Stephanopoulos' previous assertion that 100K represented a threshold, not a "typical" or median value. He's saying "no, it's higher than that".

What do you think Romney meant by "and less"?

I think that Romney has no real clue what a median or average income is in this country, and so was at a loss to answer the question. He's being questioned on his tax plan which, as is being pointed out, is impossible to enact. So, he's squirming around because there is no actual way that he can get the numbers to cooperate.

He then goes on to say:

So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today.

If his plan is to lower taxes on the middle class, and keep taxes on the upper class the same proportion as they are now-- that would mean lowering them too. He's basically saying he will lower taxes for everyone and balance the budget at the same time while tripling defense funding. In other words, he's just lying.

28 Destro  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 12:55:15pm

re: #27 Obdicut


I think that Romney has no real clue what a median or average income is in this country, and so was at a loss to answer the question.

Romney's version of the supermarket scanner moment?

29 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:00:26pm

re: #28 Destro

I think that Romney has no real clue what a median or average income is in this country, and so was at a loss to answer the question.

Romney's version of the supermarket scanner moment?

Well, worse, because this relates to real tax policy, and as I said above, he's just promising the moon and can't actually come close to achieving it, since it's impossible.

30 aagcobb  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:19:59pm

re: #29 Obdicut

Well, worse, because this relates to real tax policy, and as I said above, he's just promising the moon and can't actually come close to achieving it, since it's impossible.

And, amazingly, he even admitted it.

31 KingKenrod  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:20:34pm

re: #27 Obdicut

I think that Romney has no real clue what a median or average income is in this country, and so was at a loss to answer the question. He's being questioned on his tax plan which, as is being pointed out, is impossible to enact. So, he's squirming around because there is no actual way that he can get the numbers to cooperate.

He then goes on to say:

If his plan is to lower taxes on the middle class, and keep taxes on the upper class the same proportion as they are now-- that would mean lowering them too. He's basically saying he will lower taxes for everyone and balance the budget at the same time while tripling defense funding. In other words, he's just lying.

Sure, I agree Romney's plan is a fantasy, lacks even a competent amount of detail, and its focus on deficit reduction during a sluggish economy is downright dangerous. But politicians on the left and right have been using the 200K to 250K threshold as defining the middle class for years, and I don't think Romney is any different, his "plan" states as much when it talks about eliminating capital gains for those making less than 200K. This point is a non-story, you can't just pretend "and less" isn't there.

32 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:29:52pm

re: #31 KingKenrod

No, politicians haven't been using that to define the middle class. They've been using that as a threshold, not as the definition of middle class or middle income.

This point is a non-story, you can't just pretend "and less" isn't there.

This is a much bigger story than Romney just being ignorant of what the middle income is, this is a statement where he promises to cut everyone's taxes. He's campaigned on closing loopholes which would effectively raise a lot of taxes. He's contradicting himself, and, even if he weren't, he's promising to cut everyone's taxes while increasing spending. It's a big goddamn story, because it shows Romney is either completely dishonest or completely clueless about tax policy.

33 Sophia77  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:34:11pm

He is completely clueless. That's the only explanation one can reach.

He honestly doesn't know how the rest of us live and what we live on.

This guy is from another planet. He should go be president of his country club and leave us alone.

34 andres  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 1:34:18pm

re: #22 KingKenrod

No, my interpretation is that Romney was rejecting that $100K is the threshold between middle and upper income. Stephanopoulos proposed this threshold (referring to a study) twice.

But that wasn't the question.

Is $100,000 middle income?

If we go mathematician on that question, it is translated to "is $100,000 inside the range of Middle Income?" His answer was a clear "no".

If you want to give Romney the benefit of the doubt (obviously, we get the doubt, while Romney gets the benefit), it can be said that he defines middle income as the upper range of $200K-$250K and a lower range above $100K. He still have his foot in his mouth.

35 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 3:00:32pm

re: #19 KingKenrod

Yes, I think that's right - he meant it's the high range of middle income. But I don't know why you think it's skewed. Obama has essentially the same definition - 200K individual and 250K household. He campaigned on those figures in 2008, and they are built into Obamacare as thresholds for additional investment taxes.

Obama doesn't define that as the ending of middle class though, but the beginning of upper upper class. $250K is in the top 7% for married filers, and the top 1% for singles.

36 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Fri, Sep 14, 2012 7:32:24pm

Speaking solely of a history class that I had in college, if we treat middle class as a historical thing, he's right. The middle class in, say, 1600's England, was not the median, not by a long shot.

However, this is 21st century America.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 268 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1