Romney Believes “Middle-Income Americans” Make $200,000 to $250,000 a Year

[Dana]

Romney Believes “Middle-Income Americans” Make $200,000 to $250,000 a Year


Fresh off a real godforsaken run at foreign policy chops in the wake of deadly riots in Egypt and Libya, Mitt Romney has focused his attention back on making blundering statements about our very own U.S.A. This morning, during a Good Morning America interview, the ultra-wealthy businessman said that he plans on reducing taxes for "middle-income" Americans. But how does he define middle income?

"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded.


Romney's camp later clarified that its candidate meant to say middle income for households is $200,000 to $250,000, which would align his beliefs with Barack Obama, who has in the past defined middle class as being families who make up to $250,000 annually. Going against both men, of course, is the Census Bureau, which this week pegged the median household income—the real midpoint for U.S. earners—at about $50,000.'


Flub or no, Romney's perceived obeisance to the wealthiest in America is starting to rub some people the wrong way. Reuters recently interviewed a Virginia woman who said that even though she believes Obama to be a Muslim lying about his religion, she refuses to vote for Romney:
Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced — despite all evidence to the contrary — that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.


So in this year's presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance. "Romney's going to help the upper class," said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. "He doesn't know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house."

She'll vote for Obama, she said: "At least he wasn't brought up filthy rich."


When you're a white Republican who's losing the paranoid white Southern Baptist vote, maybe it's time to rethink some things.

http://gawker.com/5943330/romney-believes-middle+income-americans-make-200000-to-250000-a-year


Nice to know not all conspiracy theorist have their head in the clouds...

 

[Tim]

There have been corrections to this story.

Romney stated that people making $200k - $250k and below are middle class. Not between $200k and $250k

 

[Dana]

There have been corrections to this story.

Romney stated that people making $200k - $250k and below are middle class. Not between $200k and $250k

Either way I do not believe it.

 

[Minor Axis]

There have been corrections to this story.

Romney stated that people making $200k - $250k and below are middle class. Not between $200k and $250k

At what level does the "poor" classification begin in GOP thinking I wonder? You know, the level where productive people can disdain you for being a slacker.

 

[robdawg1]

if a teacher only makes 60k a year and that is below a 100k salary, is that slacker for the GOP?

 

[Mercury]

Hmmm ... I would have figured some banker would have ran in and whispered into his ear so he could be like, "oh wait ... what I meant to say is ..."

200K ... damn ... I am in the wrong industry apparently ... I must be considered grotesquely poor!

 

[Dana]

I must not even exist... *checks heart beat* I'm destitute LOL

 

[Accountable]

It's a distraction. If people would focus more on budgeting what we have rather than counting what we make then we wouldn't have all these money problems.



*cue the rare anecdotes*

 

[Minor Axis]

I found this on another forum:

Walker and all of Romney's other apologists refuse to accept that 5% of the population can not make up a middle class. Even if we upped it to 20% of the population, that still doesn't equal a middle class. Middle should signify the bulk of the population. Even if you include lower, middle and upper gradations, the Middle Class should equal at the very least a simply majority of the population.

There's absolutely no way that any interpretation of Romney's statement would lead one to believe that he has any idea of what a middle class is. It's pathetic.

 

[Kyle B]

A quick check of Wikipedia gave the academic view of what constitutes the middle class:

William Thompson & Joseph Hickey, 2005:

Upper Middle Class (15%)
Highly-educated (often with graduate degrees) professionals & managers with household incomes varying from the high 5-figure range to commonly above $100,000.

Lower Middle Class (32%)
Semi-professionals and craftsmen with some work autonomy; household incomes commonly range from $35,000 to $75,000. Typically, some college education.

 

[Accountable]

I found this on another forum:

Seems that they got middle-class mixed up with middle management.

 

[CityGirl]

If it is true that US wages have been stagnant since 1970, then the $200,000-$250,000 range is well within the realm of middle class as the consumer price index adjusted for inflation shows the purchasing power of $250,00 today is equivalent to $42,104 in 1970. I realize many in the middle class would love to have a $200,000-250,000 and that seems rich. The purchasing power of that sum back in 1970 was $1,484,400. I think the top end of middle class earnings is a bit more than what Romney says and I think it is the wealthier middle class that the Republicans exploit in order to shield the truly wealthy via the Taxed Enough Already Meme. They should be asking why they are in the same tax bracket as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. It is funny how the "or less" part of Romney's comment was left out in the reporting.

 

[Minor Axis]

If it is true that US wages have been stagnant since 1970, then the $200,000-$250,000 range is well within the realm of middle class as the consumer price index adjusted for inflation shows the purchasing power of $250,00 today is equivalent to $42,104 in 1970. I realize many in the middle class would love to have a $200,000-250,000 and that seems rich. The purchasing power of that sum back in 1970 was $1,484,400. I think the top end of middle class earnings is a bit more than what Romney says and I think it is the wealthier middle class that the Republicans exploit in order to shield the truly wealthy via the Taxed Enough Already Meme. They should be asking why they are in the same tax bracket as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. It is funny how the "or less" part of Romney's comment was left out in the reporting.

Very. Wait, no not funny, suspect!

 

[darkcgi]

I always considered people that were middle class to be people who own their house and all their other things like cars etc.., have retirement saved or almost completed
and have enough funding to bail out their kids till the get on their own feet
not rich but living easy
anyone living paycheck to paycheck with less than 15g in the bank and two car notes and monthly house notes or rent are basically barely getting by but doing it well
anyone living paycheck to paycheck with junk cars slummy house bad neighborhood and missing payments every now and then are ruffing it on hard street
people going home to home barely having a job most of the time are poor
some people just live under bridges living day by day

 

[Minor Axis]

I always considered people that were middle class to be people who own their house and all their other things like cars etc.., have retirement saved or almost completed
and have enough funding to bail out their kids till the get on their own feet
not rich but living easy
anyone living paycheck to paycheck with less than 15g in the bank and two car notes and monthly house notes or rent are basically barely getting by but doing it well
anyone living paycheck to paycheck with junk cars slummy house bad neighborhood and missing payments every now and then are ruffing it on hard street
people going home to home barely having a job most of the time are poor
some people just live under bridges living day by day

My impression is that Middle Class people most likely own their house and a car, can afford a couple of kids, and have enough discretionary income to make an impact in the consumer market place. When I was growing up (1960's) , my Dad was employed by the FAA and only made about $12k per year, but that was enough at the time to lead a Middle Class life. Our house cost $15k. Today 12k is below the poverty level. Wages have remained flat since the 1970's, but I can guarantee you that the wages/income of the top 1% have done nothing but skyrocket. Why is that exactly? (retorical). Oh yeah, it's because they deserve it or it's due to imbalances being orchestrated to benefit a certain segment of our society.

 

[Accountable]

;...] or it's due to imbalances being orchestrated to benefit a certain segment of our society.

Agreed. Remember this when you make the dumb claim that deregulation is doing it. It's not deregulation but regulation aimed in the wrong direction. IMO, the answer isn't in punishing the ones that receive the rewards (while continuing the rewards) but in stopping the rewards.
{OMG! but that's deregulation! We can't do that!!}

 

[Minor Axis]

Agreed. Remember this when you make the dumb claim that deregulation is doing it. It's not deregulation but regulation aimed in the wrong direction. IMO, the answer isn't in punishing the ones that receive the rewards (while continuing the rewards) but in stopping the rewards.
{OMG! but that's deregulation! We can't do that!!}

I think I agree with you in spirit, but some regulation is required. After the depression era regulations (Glass Steagall)where finally jettisoned, it only took 9 year before a full blown mini-depression happened. Walstreet is disgusting imo. As someone said, they move money around, to just enrich themselves. What about environmental regulations? We want clean water and air. Corporations policing themselves NEVER works. I think I agree with you.

 

[Accountable]

I think I agree with you in spirit, but some regulation is required.

Agreed, but it needs to be the right (meaning correct) regulation. Stop spewing the leftist lie that the repubs/rightists are against regulation. They're not.

After the depression era regulations (Glass Steagall)where finally jettisoned, it only took 9 year before a full blown mini-depression happened. Walstreet is disgusting imo. As someone said, they move money around, to just enrich themselves. What about environmental regulations? We want clean water and air. Corporations policing themselves NEVER works. I think I agree with you.

I agree that Glass Steagall should not have been lifted, but your knowledge of history is weak. It was in place throughout several recessions. Don't you remember the Carter 70's, or were you too busy expressing free love and cheap drugs?

 

[Minor Axis]

Agreed, but it needs to be the right (meaning correct) regulation. Stop spewing the leftist lie that the repubs/rightists are against regulation. They're not.

I agree that Glass Steagall should not have been lifted, but your knowledge of history is weak. It was in place throughout several recessions. Don't you remember the Carter 70's, or were you too busy expressing free love and cheap drugs?

What-do-you-mean-weak? I remember it all dude. Recessions come and go. Isn't there some surprise, that this was the first depression in approx 80 years, within a decade after this significant bit of regulation was disbanded? I admit there were other factors, like our general financial standards going down the toilet...

 

[Accountable]

Whatever. We agree on the main issue here.