Romney: "Middle Income" Means $200,000 - $250,000

Superfreak said:
That's awesome, he was giving the top range of $200-250k and then he said 'and less'. He was defining the area of where he would raise taxes and where he would not. You are simply being a douche bag as usual in your vain attempts at gotchas. When back in reality, Romney is essentially saying that he agrees with Obama that taxes should not be raised on those making under $250... though he left room to take that down to $200.
Click to expand...

No, he was defining middle income, which is why he said middle income.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sorry but I made no comment as to whether making that amount made you middle class. I said out tax system was most unfair to those who make between $100,000 and $500,000. I never said that a person making $200,000 was middle class.
Click to expand...

Better read back through the thread Mott. If you need help with this, the only post of your which I have ever groaned would be a clue.
 
Rune said:
Better read back through the thread Mott. If you need help with this, the only post of your which I have ever groaned would be a clue.
Click to expand...
You'd better go back and read. I said I didn't have any problem with Romney or Obama callin g $200,000/year middle class.

To me that is upper middle class. I live in a community where $100,000/year makes you trailer trash. I see upper class. $200,000/year is not upper class.

Of course it is relative. To someone making $40,000/year $200,000/year would seem rich.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You'd better go back and read. I said I didn't have any problem with Romney or Obama callin g $200,000/year middle class.

To me that is upper middle class. I live in a community where $100,000/year makes you trailer trash. I see upper class. $200,000/year is not upper class.

Of course it is relative. To someone making $40,000/year $200,000/year would seem rich.
Click to expand...

The President never said that...just Romney. and I showed you tax indicators on the economic status of persons on where that was wrong.
 
Southern Tea said:
The President never said that...just Romney. and I showed you tax indicators on the economic status of persons on where that was wrong.
Click to expand...
That's because you're using an inappropriate statistical model that isn't representative.

What you are trying to call "middle clas"s based on a bell jar measurement doesn't fit the sociological model. What you are defining as "middle class" would more correctly be called "working class" or "lower middle class".

Middle class is social group between upper and working classes. It is not a statistical measure.

As a sociological group the middle class is made up of two subgroups. The highly educated salaried professionals and managers. Which make up about 15 to 20% of the population and the lower middle class which consists mostly of semi-professional, skilled tradesman and craftsman and low level managers. They represent approximately a third of the population.

What you statistical measure fails to account is that household incomes do not always reflect class status or standard of living. Nor does it reflect the number of income earners or household size.

So trying to use the measure you posted as a measure of middle class is bogus. A professional engeineer makeing $200,000/year with a non-working wife and 6 children is with out a doubt a member of the upper middle class by sociological measure and is not part of the upper class.

What you are conflating with the data you posted is that a median household income makes you "middle class" when it would be more accurate to say that makes one "working class".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because you're using an inappropriate statistical model that isn't representative.

What you are trying to call "middle clas"s based on a bell jar measurement doesn't fit the socialogical model. What you are defining as "middle class" would more correctly be called "working class".

Middle class is social group between upper and working classes. It is not a statistical measure.

As a socialogical group the middle class is made up of two subgroups. The highly educated salaried professionals and managers. Which make up about 15 to 20% of the population and the lower middle class which consists mostly of semi-professional, skilled tradesman and craftsman and low level managers. They represent approximately a third of the population.

What you statistical measure fails to account is that household incomes do not always reflect class status or standard of living. Nor does it reflect the number of income earners or household size.

So trying to use the measure you posted as a measure of middle class is bogus. A professional engeineer makeing $200,000/year with a non-working wife and 6 children is with out a doubt a member of the upper middle class by sociological measure and is not part of the upper class.

What you are conflating with the data you posted is that a median household income makes you "middle class" when it would be more accurate to say that makes one "working class".
Click to expand...

Your spin has no facts to it..it's your opinion only, and it's weak at best in the face of facts.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm

. . .

But the data also gave the first glimpse of what happened to middle-class incomes in the first decade of the millennium. While the earnings of middle-income Americans have barely budged since the mid 1970s, the new data showed that from 2000 to 2010, they actually regressed.

For American households in the middle of the pay scale, income fell to $49,445 last year, when adjusted for inflation, a level not seen since 1996.

And over the 10-year period, their income is down 7%.

. . .
Click to expand...

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/slideshows/how-to-gauge-your-middle-class-status/2

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000. Those numbers are from 2008, and have probably fallen 5 to 7 percent since then, on account of the recession. Median income for a single-parent, two-child family is about $25,000.
Click to expand...

Those who write for the economic journals are probably more versed on what is considered Middle Class, huh?
 
Southern Tea said:
Your spin has no facts to it..it's your opinion only, and it's weak at best in the face of facts.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm



http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/slideshows/how-to-gauge-your-middle-class-status/2



Those who write for the economic journals are probably more versed on what is considered Middle Class, huh?
Click to expand...
Again, that's bogus. You're using a bell curve to measure a sociological model. I suggest you read the wiki article I posted the link for.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, that's bogus. You're using a bell curve to measure a sociological model. I suggest you read the wiki article I posted the link for.
Click to expand...

I'm using nothing but what the economists are using and what is acceptable for use in business journals as depicting the middle class in this nation.

Romney just has no clue...face it.
 
I think this thread is revealing of who the liberals really are and what they really think. The meme for the past several years has been centered around the class warfare rhetoric of; those who have too much, against those who don't have enough. In this debate, liberals defined those who "had more than they deserve" as being incomes above $250k, and later, Obama would sometimes edge that down to $200k, depending on the crowd. We could be reasonably sure, however, that people making under $200k at least, were 'deserving' of what they earned, and not "millionaires and billionaires" you sought to punish with higher taxation. But much to the surprise of many, we now see that you don't really think $200k is a good point to start considering someone "rich" and it has been articulated in this thread, that might be as low as $100k, or maybe even $80k. Why don't you just be honest and admit, anyone who is making a decent living and not residing in their mom's basement or a tent in some makeshift protest city, is probably "rich" by your definitions? I mean, a $60,000 annual income, that's pretty sweet, isn't it? I'm sure people who make $30k a year would LOVE to be making $60k, but they just haven't won life's lottery yet, they are among the unfortunate. And when you get right down to it, someone who makes $30k a year, well... they have SO much more than someone who's making $14k! Life just ins't fair, that some have more than they need while others suffer!

Not only has this new 'revelation' proven that class warfare is ridiculous, but it also proves you're all a bunch of liars who don't mean or believe a damn thing you say. What you seek, is to brainwash people into accepting your premise, that people who make more than you personally, are making more than they deserve, more than their fair share, and we must punish them for success. Where DOES "the rich" start, and "middle class" end? It was supposed to be as Romney said, between $200-$250k, but now the curtain has been pulled back, and we find, that's not really what you believe at all, the "rich" can actually be people who are making much less. I say BRAVO to the class warriors, this is exactly what THINKING people need to hear and see!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because you're using an inappropriate statistical model that isn't representative.

What you are trying to call "middle clas"s based on a bell jar measurement doesn't fit the sociological model. What you are defining as "middle class" would more correctly be called "working class" or "lower middle class".

Middle class is social group between upper and working classes. It is not a statistical measure.

As a sociological group the middle class is made up of two subgroups. The highly educated salaried professionals and managers. Which make up about 15 to 20% of the population and the lower middle class which consists mostly of semi-professional, skilled tradesman and craftsman and low level managers. They represent approximately a third of the population.

What you statistical measure fails to account is that household incomes do not always reflect class status or standard of living. Nor does it reflect the number of income earners or household size.

So trying to use the measure you posted as a measure of middle class is bogus. A professional engeineer makeing $200,000/year with a non-working wife and 6 children is with out a doubt a member of the upper middle class by sociological measure and is not part of the upper class.

What you are conflating with the data you posted is that a median household income makes you "middle class" when it would be more accurate to say that makes one "working class".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
Click to expand...

What you are trying to call the middle class is people who make more than 96% of the rest of the population.

Be a good liberal, admit you mis-spoke and lets get back to reality here.
 
Dixie said:
I think this thread is revealing of who the liberals really are and what they really think. The meme for the past several years has been centered around the class warfare rhetoric of; those who have too much, against those who don't have enough. In this debate, liberals defined those who "had more than they deserve" as being incomes above $250k, and later, Obama would sometimes edge that down to $200k, depending on the crowd. We could be reasonably sure, however, that people making under $200k at least, were 'deserving' of what they earned, and not "millionaires and billionaires" you sought to punish with higher taxation. But much to the surprise of many, we now see that you don't really think $200k is a good point to start considering someone "rich" and it has been articulated in this thread, that might be as low as $100k, or maybe even $80k. Why don't you just be honest and admit, anyone who is making a decent living and not residing in their mom's basement or a tent in some makeshift protest city, is probably "rich" by your definitions? I mean, a $60,000 annual income, that's pretty sweet, isn't it? I'm sure people who make $30k a year would LOVE to be making $60k, but they just haven't won life's lottery yet, they are among the unfortunate. And when you get right down to it, someone who makes $30k a year, well... they have SO much more than someone who's making $14k! Life just ins't fair, that some have more than they need while others suffer!

Not only has this new 'revelation' proven that class warfare is ridiculous, but it also proves you're all a bunch of liars who don't mean or believe a damn thing you say. What you seek, is to brainwash people into accepting your premise, that people who make more than you personally, are making more than they deserve, more than their fair share, and we must punish them for success. Where DOES "the rich" start, and "middle class" end? It was supposed to be as Romney said, between $200-$250k, but now the curtain has been pulled back, and we find, that's not really what you believe at all, the "rich" can actually be people who are making much less. I say BRAVO to the class warriors, this is exactly what THINKING people need to hear and see!
Click to expand...

Dixie, I am keeping you on ignore until you change your disgusting avatar. I know you don't give a shit what I think, just letting you know.
FYI, I also had to keep Howie on ignore for a similar picture.
 
Rune said:
Dixie, I am keeping you on ignore until you change your disgusting avatar. I know you don't give a shit what I think, just letting you know.
FYI, I also had to keep Howie on ignore for a similar picture.
Click to expand...

Sorry you find human life disgusting. Why don't you just turn off avatars in your settings, or is that too complicated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top