Romney out of touch...thinks middle income is $200,000 - $250,000 per year

page: 13
40
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I have a similar background, but neither parents are professionals, they just worked up the chain about as far as they can go without degrees. Romney is right. Let's all just cut through the crap, do any of these people REALLY think that Romney believes someone making 180k a year are poor? They just have to grasp on to this ridiculousness to feed the narrative that Romney is out of touch. The real ridiculousness is how much nothing the Obama fans want to make this election about when there are so many real substantive problems. I'd be more frightened of a Presidential candidate saying 70k a year (is rich as have many online after Romney's interview) as opposed to one that supposedly thinks that 180k is poor.


Exactly. Romney is clearly stating this is the UPPER limit of middle class. He is not saying anything less is poor, he is saying anything more is definitely upper class. Here is something you won't want to hear. I know people who make MORE than $250k and by no means consider themselves rich, at $300k they still think of themselves as middle class.




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Here in Southern California, $200-$250,000 would be an appropriate income to live in a decent suburb and have a few nice trinkets (nice car or 3, a bit of disposable income, and some nice electronics), but California has an overall higher cost of living that most other states. Personally my houselold only makes about half what Romney thinks is middle class, and we are better off than many around us, yet I still fell pretty poor.

Romney must only know rich middle class people, although he probably thinks they're poor.


Yes, I agree, but not many people make that kind of money in Southern California. My household is two income making approx. $75K a year combined. It is difficult and we have to be so conservative with our money to live decent and make ends meet and set a few dollars aside, not for vacations, but for car repairs and emergencies. Our children are grown and on their own now, so it's just the two of us. I consider us blessed compared to some.

Romney is as out of touch as they come. I don't know where he gets his info, but it's foolishness.
edit on 15-9-2012 by yesterdaysreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
To deny that 100k falls into middle income and then go on to say that middle income is 200-250k or less means that to Romney anything under the ~100k range is considered poverty, and anything about ~100k to 200-250k or less is considered middle class.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, this guy is out of touch.


Wow your comprehension skills need some polishing. Romney is saying middle class does not END at $100k. He is saying $100k is not the cutoff, $200-$250k is the cutoff.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sf18443
It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


So.. at what point are you no longer Middle class, and instead lower class then? when most americans bring home less than 50k a year... I would say, 50k is the median income.. That is the middle.. Even 100k is middle income to me, and probably most families.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sf18443
It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


Ding Ding Ding. We have an actual winner. Good to see a few people have reading comprehension skills.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yesterdaysreality

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Here in Southern California, $200-$250,000 would be an appropriate income to live in a decent suburb and have a few nice trinkets (nice car or 3, a bit of disposable income, and some nice electronics), but California has an overall higher cost of living that most other states. Personally my houselold only makes about half what Romney thinks is middle class, and we are better off than many around us, yet I still fell pretty poor.

Romney must only know rich middle class people, although he probably thinks they're poor.


Yes, I agree, but not many people make that kind of money in Southern California. My household is two income making approx. $75K a year combined. It is difficult and we have to be so conservative with our money to live decent and make ends meet and set a few dollars aside, not for vacations, but for car repairs and emergencies. Our children are grown and on their own now, so it's just the two of us. I consider us blessed compared to some.

Romney is as out of touch as they come. I don't know where he gets his info, but it's foolishness.
edit on 15-9-2012 by yesterdaysreality because: (no reason given)


Did you even listen to what you just wrote? You said $75k is barely getting by, and Romney is out of touch for not thinking $100k is rich. You do realize you just 100% AGREED with Romney right? $100k is NOT rich.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Why does Romney want to be president? Has he ever really come out and said what drives him to aspire to the position?

He may have but I haven’t heard it but I didn’t start paying attention to him until recently.

People usually relate to likeminded and driven people. It isn’t a rule it is my opinion.

When I see articles like this it makes me think about a person’s loyalties and motivation.



Sheldon Adelson Stands To Get $2 Billion Tax Cut If Mitt Romney Is Elected.

Adelson has vowed to spend as much as $100 million to help sway the 2012 election.
.


Cut top tax rates, saving Adelson approximately $1.5 million on his annual compensation as chief executive of his casino company.
• Maintain the special low rates on dividends, potentially saving Adelson nearly $120 million on a single year’s worth of dividends, more than enough to recoup his politi- cal donations.

• Maintain the special low rates on capital gains, allowing Adelson to make back his political donations in capital gains tax cuts just by selling a fraction of his stock.

• Provide a tax windfall of an estimated $1.2 billion to Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands Corp., on untaxed profits from its Asian casinos, as well as a tax exemption forfuture overseas profits. Adelson’s casinos already enjoy a special foreign tax exemp- tion from the Chinese administrative region of Macau, and Gov. Romney would make those foreign profits exempt from U.S. taxes as well.

• Eliminate the estate tax, potentially providing a staggering $8.9 billion windfall to Adelson’s heirs.


2 Billion Tax Savings

When I see articles like the one this thread is about coupled with the numerous other articles and videos I have recently seen.
Some about his tax plan and others about his misspoken words.
Corporations are people he once said, middle income like us inferring that he is middle income and it makes me think the guy is just too far removed from what I call the American people.


That is my opinion and it is why I think articles like the one this thread is about do matter.
I said my piece and so I hope everyone has a great night. Thxs.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add and spellcheck



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SamLuv

Originally posted by Sf18443
It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


So.. at what point are you no longer Middle class, and instead lower class then? when most americans bring home less than 50k a year... I would say, 50k is the median income.. That is the middle.. Even 100k is middle income to me, and probably most families.


You need to understand the difference between Median and Mean I think. Since there are far more Poor than Rich people, median income will always be biased towards the bottom of the middle class spectrum.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I guess I always assumed middle income was anywhere from 50K-100K. We live comfortably on 60K for a family of 6 in Colorado. We don't have fancy stuff, but we do ok, our cars are paid off and we have no real debt to speak of other than our mortgage. And even though we are in what I thought was middle income, we do better than most around us.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaMaa
I guess I always assumed middle income was anywhere from 50K-100K. We live comfortably on 60K for a family of 6 in Colorado. We don't have fancy stuff, but we do ok, our cars are paid off and we have no real debt to speak of other than our mortgage. And even though we are in what I thought was middle income, we do better than most around us.


So 4 children. The estimate in America is $11k per child per year. With 4 children you spend $44k/yr. That leaves 16k for housing/saving/cars/other expenses. I personally spend about $5000/yr on gas and food (only buying cheapest food possible). Now add on housing, which is 10-15k/yr. You are now broke, hope you dont have tuition reimbursement. Oh, you also can look forward to at least $40k more sending your kids to college. $60k with 4 kids is barely making it. I make $30k single with no kids and I can barely get by.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by Q33323
 


Yau can barely make it on 100K a year anyway?!?! Are you joking!?!? Maybe when people realise that they don't need to waste money on so much stupid stuff to survive then they do better,, Anyone who can't make ends meet earning $100,000 must either have some insane bills, lawsuit, or addiction draining their money away because that is far more than enough to survive comfortably. TO say otherwise is snobbery imo.

Remember people you don't need sky tv, xbox/ps3,football season tickets, sports cars etc to survive. People really seem to think they these non essentials are now essentials and act like they have a right to be able to afford them.




Do keep in mind, of course, that $100,000 usd is a good chunk less than 100k pounds. Aside from that, though, I absolutely agree with you. I've seen a bit of out-of-touch in this thread, and a lot of good points. I would say that $200,000-$250,000/year is upper-middle class at the lowest. Definitely much higher than the "average." And even $100,000 is pretty well-to-do in a lot of places. If you bring that much in, be grateful. (And yes, proud of yourself, as I'm sure you worked hard to get there... but let's not debate hard work versus provenance....) The reality is that many people in this country -- most people, scrape by on what some of you consider "not enough to live."

I personally live on considerably less than $50,000 yearly. Much less.

I want to reiterate my agreement with the second paragraph quoted above. Our society seems to breed something monstrous -- gluttonous, narcissistic, full of pride, entitlement,snap-judgment, and lack of understanding.

I hope one day our species outgrows this.




Originally posted by SamLuv

Originally posted by Sf18443
It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


So.. at what point are you no longer Middle class, and instead lower class then? when most americans bring home less than 50k a year... I would say, 50k is the median income.. That is the middle.. Even 100k is middle income to me, and probably most families.



Better question -- at what point is the higher end of that cutoff? At what point are you no longer middle class, and you're (lower?) upper-class? Maybe $200,000 or so? $250,000? I certainly don't think $200,000 is an average income in most parts of the country. Which would make romney's statement FALSE. For those of you who need help with grammar, a more proper or "correct" way to state the truth would be "The average income is less than $200,000 - $250,000." Romney's statement seems like a slippery way to make an ugly truth look palatable.

FWIW I think Obama is out of touch as well. IMO this is not an issue about one candidate or the other being out of touch -- this is about how some of the most well-to-do in our country, the very people responsible for its financial policies, have no idea what it's like for the "average" person. No wonder we're eyeball deep....
edit on 16-9-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2012 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   


Originally posted by iwilliam

It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


Better question -- at what point is the higher end of that cutoff? At what point are you no longer middle class, and you're (lower?) upper-class? Maybe $200,000 or so? $250,000? I certainly don't think $200,000 is an average income in most parts of the country. Which would make romney's statement FALSE.


Seriously, how do so many people have such poor reading comrehension.

Romney did not say $200k is the AVERAGE middle class income. He was stating $200-$250k is the CUTOFF for middle class, anything above that is lower upper class. His statement is 100% true. I am sad for our future.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Middle class is all perspective. I work full time teaching for a community college and make an entire 12k/year (living the dream with my college degrees). I live in a low cost of living area so 12k here is $16,500 in San Diego for reference according to cgi.money.cnn.com...

I don't get things like cable (or any) tv, internet, a car, public transportation (my town has none), health insurance, air conditioning in the summer, heat in the winter, medication when I'm sick, a microwave, and so on. If I go somewhere like to the grocery store or work I walk (it's a 2 hour walk to and from work each day). My food budget is $100/month with $0 of that coming from food stamps (Ohio recently cut their benefit awards back quite significantly, I went from 200/month from that to 0). Obviously I'm not middle class, but from my perspective someone making 20k or 25k a year with no kids has it pretty good. People claiming they're barely making it on 100k or even 50k a year is rubbish, and they don't realize how good they actually have it.

As for the whole argument over what Romney said, he said the same thing as Obama, he just worded it very poorly. They're both agreeing essentially that the rich start at $250,001/year and above.


Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by SamLuv
Ill make a 10k bet that a family of 4 could live perfectly well on 100k in ANY american city.

How can you expect a snob like Romney to understand REAL money


You could get by just fine for sure, in some areas of Chicago and the suburbs, not all, but not have a whole lot of leftovers...figure a good 30% of that is gone in social security, fed tax, state tax, county tax, village tax, sales tax, excise tax, then another 10% is gone in property tax, so call it $60k. $20k of that is gone in mortgage or rent, so you're at $40k. Let's figure 1 paid-off car, 1 $20k car financed, there's another $5k gone, down to $35k. Another $5k a year for utilities and cell phones, down to $30k. $5k/year for gas, down to $25k. Eat on a tight budget, another $6j/year, at $19k. $600/month for employee share of health insurance premiums, down to $11,200.

With that $11,200, you can put away $5,000 in savings (much less than one should), and have $6200/year for repairing vehicles, replacing appliances, home upkeep, clothing, entertainment, etc.


So you've got a home that's eating 33% of your after tax income, that's the definition of a home you can't afford, 2 cars, a $200+ phone bill, $500 a month for food, and health insurance. Sorry, I don't see how you're barely making it. You could rent a 2 bedroom apartment for 1000 a month and save $8000 right there. If you only had one car and walked or used public transportation (no bike, if you live in a city it will just get stolen) you could cut that gas bill pretty significantly. Use a landline for a home phone and get cheap prepaids that you only use sparingly and you can cut your phone bill to $50/month. Not to mention that you can actually afford to save some money. I just cut 25k from your budget without touching food, health insurance, or savings.

Sorry, I don't see how you're barely making it when you have those types of luxuries.
edit on 16-9-2012 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-9-2012 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ratisch
$25,000 is middle class? Where in this country can you live comfortably on $25,000 a year? Gas cost 4 bucks a gallon. Bread is $2.39 a loaf. Hamburg is $4.79 a pound. How can a family making $25,000 survive let alone be considered to be middle class? In my book $25,000 is poverty. ......



I kinda laugh at man Americans who think they're areas of the country is expensive.

Here in Vancouver, Canada...i just bought a loaf of bread for $4.67.

That same hamburger is over $7.00 a pound

Gas is $5.82 a gallon today

A gallon of milk is $4.98 instead of the $1.99 you pay.

My movie ticket is $13.00 PER PERSON!

Apartment rent for a 1 bedroom is $900 per month or for my 2 bedroom $1100/mnth + $300/month in utilities.

cell phone plans are usually in the $40 to $60 a month range.

Cable is between $35 to $70 a month

a bus ride is $5.00 ONE WAY (3 zone cross city)

Life is cheap where you live in the US compared to many other places in the world.
edit on 2012/9/16 by StargateSG7 because: selling



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by StargateSG7
 


Canada also has a significantly higher minimum wage. It varies by area just like it does in the US but your wage averages to about 10/hour. Ours averages about 7.25/hour. Meaning your wage is 38% higher while your goods are only about 20% higher. On top of that you also have social programs which simply don't exist in the US such as national health care.

From what I've gathered when talking to people I know online that live in Canada, your bills also tend to be lower as well with less than half the monthly charge for the same amount of usage when it comes to electricity.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by SamLuv

Originally posted by Sf18443
It's probably worth posting that Romney said, "middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.” Which is correct.


So.. at what point are you no longer Middle class, and instead lower class then? when most americans bring home less than 50k a year... I would say, 50k is the median income.. That is the middle.. Even 100k is middle income to me, and probably most families.


You need to understand the difference between Median and Mean I think. Since there are far more Poor than Rich people, median income will always be biased towards the bottom of the middle class spectrum.


And raising the median income is what everyone should be pushing for.

With the vast majority of households making less than $100k combined, saying the middle class cut-off is between $200k-$250k is definitely very deceptive of the media/candidates/government.

Most people consider the $200k-$250k household WEALTHY and for good reason. Forget those that make millions per year as that is less than 1 percent.

But then what do you expect of a government that labels small business "hires up to 500 employees"?


WTF planet are these people living on? Not earth, and not america.
edit on 16/9/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

It's easy to check.

I just did a Google search: www.sba.gov

-Seek the truth -

It says 500 employees and $7 million in annual receipts.

Go read it yourself.


Come come. We all know the man is out of touch. The whole party led by billionaire banker, investment and insurance companies is out of touch.
And they have goons inspired to the point of acting unlawfully and desperately at times. They want to secede, take Obama off the ballot, sponsor a civil war, and privatize everything including prisons which they promise to keep packed.

They are slowly but surely placing the country DIRECTLY into corporate hands.
They WILL let big oil ruin, irreparably destroy and exploit the planet.
They will play fast and loose with American's health and let the money behind big pharma, agriculture and chemical companies continue using American's as guinea pigs.
They recall as many drugs as they "push" on an already vulnerable population. Pharmaceuticals are pushed better than street drugs using TV advertising and de-regulation that Republicans fought hard to win in the 70's. There was a reason for those precautions.

Now a glut of pharmaceutical's, sold unethically by saturating the market with television advertising, (won through vigorous Republican efforts) are our county's leading cause of death. If their agenda is to kill off as many Americans as they can - add war mongering and this is one frighteningly successful political party.

These "out of touch" miscreants jump to drill in protected natural habitats, subsidize oil and the wars we wage to secure oil, meanwhile minimum basic health care for Americans is completely unacceptable? That's because there is a lot of money to be made allowing human health to be privatized and evolve into a "for profit" industry. These are avowed, unapologetic Capitalists who see potential for dollars slipping away from them. This group is content to keep costs of preventative health care beyond most American incomes since this provides a niche for yet another money sucking "middle industry" who will accept usurious payments to protect us - the Insurance Industry. Another way to grow American Capitalism - and kill government regulation.

So what, if we lose a few Americans on the lowest rung of the income ladder? Who cares if this system ignores the MOST vulnerable and economically hardest hit? It's a survival of the fittest mentality. You gotta work for it and nobody promised the unfit anything. Near as I can tell, this is the prevailing ideology, yet they claim overwhelmingly to be devout Christians - Go figure.

And there's a ton of campaign money in it for politicians who help them keep minimum wage low, use health care as a bargaining chip, squash those pesky unions, limit liability lawsuits, stifle worker demands and discredit consumer rights movements. And they are doing it with a bunch of misleading lies.

Incidence of voter fraud uncovered from George Bush's own 5 year Justice Department probe?

89/300,000,000

89 votes (out of 300 Million votes cast !!!) were suspected of fraud during an exhausting and costly 5 year investigation. Yet, armed with those paltry numbers, this devious lobby moved toward hampering many legal, poor, minority and even elderly voters, and they're getting away with it. Targeting this group - they show intent to squash the servant class, translation, the middle class. They hope to dissuade immigrant, minority and subsequently the workers vote.

Imagine tampering with voter registration laws immediately ahead of an election???
Now, that's desperate, underhanded and obvious.

They say there is honor among thieves but apparently not a thread remains in this heartless bunch of banksters and crooks. They are their own brand of "Ascot collared" and "smoking jacket" criminal's and they remain completely out of touch.
edit on 16-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by newcovenant
 


What is your expertise/background to question him? Romney has a Master's degree in business and a law degree in Business Law. I think he is more than qualified to speak about what defines a small business.



Thanks for sharing what you think. I'd like to issue the response above to Eurisko2012 to you as well. Save space here and me the trouble to type it all again.

In a nutshell - I think you are defending leader of a party we can "arguably" both directly and indirectly connect to an unacceptable number of American deaths by virtue of their failed and killing policies. A predisposition to war being foremost among them but just for starters we can add; fighting for deregulation and opening a floodgate of pharmaceutical advertising in the 70's, always placing profits over people and denying health care to those with pre-existing conditions - Are you sure you're OK with that?

edit on 16-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Romney thinks that if you make 100k or less a year you are in poverty.

Some people on here agree with him saying people can barely get by with a 100k a year one poster said those of us making around 70k must live in trailers.

The ultra-right say too many people are sucking on the teat of America that must be all of us that do not make over a 100k.

Romney has just insulted most of America.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by newcovenant
 


What is your expertise/background to question him? Romney has a Master's degree in business and a law degree in Business Law. I think he is more than qualified to speak about what defines a small business.


Dear MsAphrodite,

You have a law degree in Business Law, how interesting. Your profile says you are in California, that is where I got my doctorate in law along with a couple of American Jurisprudence awards. California does not give law degrees in a particular major. Tell us which law school you went to so we can see if things have changed, we can all go to their website and see if they give law degrees in an specialties. I admit I graduated in the 80s, show me when it changed please.





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join