- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
# RomneyShamblesFollow
His answer is meaningless and contradictory.
Kavekk wrote:
His answer is meaningless and contradictory.
The best part is that you don't even need to ask "which answer?" when reading this!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
eske wrote:
trickybeck wrote:
I don't think that's what Romney was saying. Romney's answer about the cut-off obviously doesn't quite match what the question was, but I'm sure he thinks $100k (household I assume?) is middle class.
I don't quite follow. He very literally said that 100k isn't middle class.
I mean, does he actually believe that? Probably not. But it's just one of those gaffes that I couldn't see a person of more modest means making, for whatever reason.
He "very literally said it," and then in the next sentence he said that middle class was $250k or less, thus giving a more precise answer. I think you're making a big deal out of 2 seconds of misspeaking.
My mother's definition of middle class was this: Being able to go out to a store and spend a hundred dollars on new clothes, and not having to worry about how you were going to eat next week because of it.
I think it's a fairly practical definition.
I think it's a fairly practical definition.
trickybeck wrote:
He "very literally said it," and then in the next sentence he said that middle class was $250k or less, thus giving a more precise answer. I think you're making a big deal out of 2 seconds of misspeaking.
Seems like a nonsensical way of making that point. I mean, the two statements (100k isn't middle class, and middle class is 250k and less) are contradictory, so the second can't be "a more precise answer".
I gather that you're saying that the intention was to say something like "No, 100k isn't middle class, because middle class is actually everything up to 250k, including 100k"? It's possible, but that just strikes me as an odd error of speech.
Either way, it's a gaffe, which is the entire reason that I linked it. And I do think that there's a reason that Romney's prone to such gaffes.
That, right there, was the sum of my point, which I've now beleaguered. Hardly "making a big deal out of it".
catwho wrote:
Being able to go out to a store and spend a hundred dollars on new clothes, and not having to worry about how you were going to eat next week because of it.
Daily?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
If I made a 200k a year I could live like a king AND pay off my house, in a year. I could retire in 5-6 years instead of 35..
I expect he understands that 100k is middle class and was just trying to correct the question to the range he considers middle class to top out at but I don't think he actually understands that 200-250k isn't what common people live on and he certainly has absolutely no clue what living on common people's income entails.
I expect he understands that 100k is middle class and was just trying to correct the question to the range he considers middle class to top out at but I don't think he actually understands that 200-250k isn't what common people live on and he certainly has absolutely no clue what living on common people's income entails.
To be fair, 250K is upper middle class in New York City.
Everywhere else, though... For example, in Palin's "Real America" 250K will put you in the top 1% of your city, and possibly your state.
Everywhere else, though... For example, in Palin's "Real America" 250K will put you in the top 1% of your city, and possibly your state.
60-250k (typically ~100k) for a family is roughly the bound on middle class. less than that, is typically considered lower class.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
60-250k (typically ~100k) for a family is roughly the bound on middle class. less than that, is typically considered lower class.
w00t, I'm BLC!!! (Borderline Lower Class)
Gonna get T-shirts made!
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Timelordwho wrote:
60-250k (typically ~100k) for a family is roughly the bound on middle class. less than that, is typically considered lower class.
Hell, by that standard we're lower class. I think where you live plays a huge role in it, because of the wild variances in cost of living. Our brand new 3 bedroom starter house came with a price tag of $110K. Our mortgage on it is lower than our rent was in a two bedroom apartment. We own our two gently used cars outright, go on big vacations twice a year, and only blink if the price tag of something is over two hundred dollars. And yet, we make just under 60K a year between the two of us... (that will change once I finish graduate school and go back to work full time at a much higher pay grade.)
Also, my husband is the lowest paid professor in the entire state of Georgia. Cheap bastards.
What's he a professor of, unprotected sex?
Kavekk wrote:
What's he a professor of, unprotected sex?
Don't make fun of the distinguished Dr. Animalhouse. He may be an adjunct, but he's good at what he does.
Just as Planned.
Kavekk wrote:
What's he a professor of, unprotected sex?
Education. Georgia thinks so little of its teachers, and those who teach the teachers...
trickybeck wrote:
To be fair, Democratic legislation has targetted that $250k number as well. Obama targetted it as the cut-off for something in 2008 (can't remember what), and it's the targetted cut-off for where they want the Bush tax cuts extended/expired. Not this means that the Democrats think $250k is middle class, but they apparently feel it includes too many voters to alienate.
Obama's statement pretty clearly defined that as household income. Romney may have intended the same. Perhaps his processor was dusty or something.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Relevant to the 250k discussion.
Also, showing once more than Republicans live in a magical fairy land.
Also, showing once more than Republicans live in a magical fairy land.
Wasn't George Bush Sr the one who coined the phrase "voodoo economics" ?
If any taxes should be cut it should be Corporate Taxes. Lower taxes attract more work, more jobs, and more jobs mean more revenue from personal Income taxes and applicable sales taxes. Canada's tax rate for example is 11-15%, with provincal averages of 4-12%. So basically if your company makes more than 50K in a year you pay more percentage in tax than say Walmart Canada (in the US).
The only crappy thing is, that there is no real protection to the government doing this, at least from an investment standpoint, the CEO's can always just increase their bonuses by the differential, instead of hiring a few hundred people each year.
The only crappy thing is, that there is no real protection to the government doing this, at least from an investment standpoint, the CEO's can always just increase their bonuses by the differential, instead of hiring a few hundred people each year.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
I might support cutting taxes for companies that don't outsource work.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I may be wrong but I recall reading an article about how Canada has been lowering corporate taxes for the past couple of years yet their economy is not recovering at a higher rate than the US economy.
To be fair, their economy didn't take the same level of hit that ours did in the U. S. - at least in part because of their stricter banking regulations.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I may be wrong but I recall reading an article about how Canada has been lowering corporate taxes for the past couple of years yet their economy is not recovering at a higher rate than the US economy.
For 2-3 years following the economic crisis, Canada's economy was growing well, it was leading the G8 economies for a while. The US is now the fastest growing economy in the G8. Which is good because my country was burning out carrying the load of NAFTA. In the end without the US economy in full charge Canada can not maintain full charge. Mostly because our dollar rises quickly and the US becomes cheaper to deal with.
Ideally the Canuck dollar would sit around 80-90 cents but that will take another 5-10 years of Obamanomics to hit, then again if they went back to Reaganomics like the GOP wants, then both our countries will likely both stagnate. Meaning the NA economy will be unable to compete.
So please vote for Obama, us Canucks need your economy moving forward, not stuck in neutral, or worse reverse.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
That's it, I'm voting Obama, for the good of Canada's economy!
rdmcandie wrote:
So please vote for Obama, us Canucks need your economy moving forward, not stuck in neutral, or worse reverse.
Recent Visitors: 263
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (263)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- # RomneyShambles
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC