If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   We went from a neck-to-neck to a mouth-to-ass presidential race   (usatoday.com) divider line 194
    More: Followup, Mitt Romney, President Obama, presidential race, democratic convention, presidential debates, John McCain  
•       •       •

4785 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2012 at 10:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 12:36:12 PM
to further clarify my above post :

Middle class = 200K to (250K and less)
 
2012-09-14 12:37:02 PM
Link
nice chart to be used to discus reality.

The TOP 20% are ~100K and above. Top 5% are ~170K and above.
So when discussing the middle, it becomes important to state whether you are talking about income or "class".
Most families making 200k a year do not consider themselves rich or upper class, even is they are in the top 5% of the nation.
 
2012-09-14 12:43:24 PM

DirkValentine: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: theorellior: I don't know how you can say that $250,000 a year is "middle income". I would have a hard time figuring out what to do with anything above $100K in my present way of living. Secondly, if $250,000 a year is middle income, why are people freaking out about teachers making $80,000? That's low, low middle income, surely they deserve more? Finally, the median income is somewhere around $45,000 per year. I find it hard to assert, with a straight face, that "middle income" is more than five times the median.

I think this may have been one of the rare cases when Romney's brain caught up to him before he finished the sentence.

"Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000..." wait, I can't say that! "...and less."

I thought he was agreeing with BO's $200/250k line of private jet demarcation :)

You know, you used to be someone that was interesting and, I thought, mostly reasonable in these threads. Now you are hardly anything more than a Repbublican shill.

Middle class = 200K to 250K and less

Allow me to write that in a simple logical statement :

200K
Easy enough?


I made a joke about private jets in the President's tax speech and that makes me a shill?

Yeah, if you parse the sentence logically, that is what he was said. Middle class is ((income greater than or equal to 200k && income less than or equal to 250k) && (income is less than 250k))

Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.
 
2012-09-14 12:46:46 PM

skullkrusher: $250k a year for a family of 2 income earners might sound like a lot of money to you but in terms of what that $250k buys, it could be the equivalent of $100k in your area of the country.


Other than real estate and various taxes, what is more expensive in New York or San Francisco than it is in Wichita? And those items can easily be reduced greatly by moving just a few miles outside of the city. That's how the 'burbs came to be so popular in the first place. Bigger houses for less cost and lower taxes, conveniently located to centers of high paying employment. Working in NY or SF may well bring in the big bucks, but at the income levels we are talking about, living in the city is a choice of lifestyle, just as is buying a yacht. It is not really a cost of living, as it is so easily reduced.
 
2012-09-14 12:49:59 PM

skullkrusher: Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.


How else, other than logically, should one parse the words of a Presidential candidate?
 
2012-09-14 12:59:15 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.

How else, other than logically, should one parse the words of a Presidential candidate?


unless you believe that Romney was literally saying that middle income is defined as more than $200k, less than $250k and less than $250k. Is this what you believe?
 
2012-09-14 01:02:29 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.

How else, other than logically, should one parse the words of a Presidential candidate?


Well, first you make the pie higher.
 
2012-09-14 01:04:10 PM

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.

How else, other than logically, should one parse the words of a Presidential candidate?

unless you believe that Romney was literally saying that middle income is defined as more than $200k, less than $250k and less than $250k. Is this what you believe?



Were I to parse it logically it say that maximum middle class income is less than or equal to some number X, where X is between $200k and $250k. He doesn't appear to be defining a lower bound, just statin an upper bound between $200k and $250k
 
2012-09-14 01:11:17 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: $250k a year for a family of 2 income earners might sound like a lot of money to you but in terms of what that $250k buys, it could be the equivalent of $100k in your area of the country.

Other than real estate and various taxes, what is more expensive in New York or San Francisco than it is in Wichita? And those items can easily be reduced greatly by moving just a few miles outside of the city. That's how the 'burbs came to be so popular in the first place. Bigger houses for less cost and lower taxes, conveniently located to centers of high paying employment. Working in NY or SF may well bring in the big bucks, but at the income levels we are talking about, living in the city is a choice of lifestyle, just as is buying a yacht. It is not really a cost of living, as it is so easily reduced.


dunno, what's a case of beer cost you? Costs me $40.
Dinner at a regular Italian place - nothing fancy, jeans and a polo shirt sort of place - and a bottle of ordinary wine? Easily $100
I just ordered a sandwich and 2 Diet Dr Pepper for lunch (needed the extra soda to meet the min for delivery). $13.

As far as real estate is concerned, buying a small middle class house in the burbs (3 BR on an 80 x 100 lot) is gonna cost you $500k

Long Island is the biggest NY suburb and a good chunk of eastern Suffolk can't really be considered a suburb of NY (for reference, commuting from the Hamptons to Penn Station is 3 hours each way by train). Median income on LI is $80k. Long Island has its exceedingly wealthy areas but for the most part it is decidedly blue collar (think Amy Fisher rather than Jay Gatsby). It's not a case of just living somewhere in line with the rest of the country while working in the city because the parts of Long Island that even approach real estate prices around the country are at the fringes of commutability. Yeah, you can get a decent sized house for $400k in Patchogue but it is going to take you an hour and a half each way and the affordable parts of Patchogue are barely middle class.

Just to clarify, this is just about how it is important to consider where people earn what. Ignoring the where is 1/2 the picture
 
2012-09-14 01:12:12 PM

fracto: Were I to parse it logically it say that maximum middle class income is less than or equal to some number X, where X is between $200k and $250k. He doesn't appear to be defining a lower bound, just statin an upper bound between $200k and $250k


this is the only way to logically read these spoken words.
these words were SPOKEN, not written. romney fumbled to pick an exact number, picked one, moved forward. this is not an unusual speech pattern for humans.
 
2012-09-14 01:13:10 PM

fracto: skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.

How else, other than logically, should one parse the words of a Presidential candidate?

unless you believe that Romney was literally saying that middle income is defined as more than $200k, less than $250k and less than $250k. Is this what you believe?


Were I to parse it logically it say that maximum middle class income is less than or equal to some number X, where X is between $200k and $250k. He doesn't appear to be defining a lower bound, just statin an upper bound between $200k and $250k


well, that's parsing it logically. Using your ability to reason - by which I mean not employing strict logic to his precise words. Yes, that's what it sounds like to the average person I imagine. Upper bound is 200-250 (or he could have awkwardly phrased the single/married distinction) without a lower bound specified.
 
2012-09-14 01:13:55 PM

namatad: fracto: Were I to parse it logically it say that maximum middle class income is less than or equal to some number X, where X is between $200k and $250k. He doesn't appear to be defining a lower bound, just statin an upper bound between $200k and $250k

this is the only way to logically read these spoken words.
these words were SPOKEN, not written. romney fumbled to pick an exact number, picked one, moved forward. this is not an unusual speech pattern for humans.


if he did mean what people are trying to say, his programmer needs to be fired. There's not need to check that the income is less than $250k the second time :)
 
2012-09-14 01:14:27 PM
Romney has nothing to offer the other 99% of the country
 
2012-09-14 01:17:43 PM

Cuthbert Allgood: More_Like_A_Stain: Cuthbert Allgood: Meh, not the clusterfnck of an answer I was hoping for. I'm reading it as 200k to 250k and below is what he's claiming as the middle without setting a lower limit. Give him a few more hours today and I'm confident he'll give us something idiotic to zing him for.

//please post that asshole smirking again

///Drew, cant the mobile app get a photo posting button or something. Jesus

The lower limit was set when Snuffalouffagus asked if people at $100k were middle class and Romney said no. So the range is effectively somewhere (undefined) above $100k to $250K, according to Mittens.

Maybe but that's not how I'm reading it. Mittens was saying 100k is not the upper limit.

/it doesn't matter to me, really. Romney is a dufus no doubt. I'm just not reading this as a big gaffe. It seems kinda like the "you didn't build that" quote to me.


This is about right. However, when he answers that $100K is NOT MIDDLE CLASS, that shows pretty clearly how moronically out of touch he is with how the little people live. When you get over 6 figures, you're clearly in the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS. After the 250K level, you're leaning toward wealthy, but likely still a work-a-day mgmt, academic, exec or very successful small business owner. Of course it'll skew differently in NYC or SF or wherever, but the point is the taxes on these folks shouldn't be raised. I'm OK with Obama's raising them on the upper levels, and 250K seems reasonable enough. Of course, I think another margin at 1 mil would be appropriate as well. Tax rates from the 60's or 70's. You know, the good old days when there were a couple reasonable, moderate Republicans wandering around. Also, tax loopholes like writeoffs for $77,000 dancing horses should probably be filled in as well! All in all, Romney clearly has no clue at all what regular, normal, everyday, working people deal with.
 
2012-09-14 01:20:47 PM

qorkfiend: theorellior: I don't know how you can say that $250,000 a year is "middle income". I would have a hard time figuring out what to do with anything above $100K in my present way of living. Secondly, if $250,000 a year is middle income, why are people freaking out about teachers making $80,000? That's low, low middle income, surely they deserve more? Finally, the median income is somewhere around $45,000 per year. I find it hard to assert, with a straight face, that "middle income" is more than five times the median.

I think this may have been one of the rare cases when Romney's brain caught up to him before he finished the sentence.

"Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000..." wait, I can't say that! "...and less."


Shoot first, aim later.
 
2012-09-14 01:27:00 PM

StewPie: All in all, Romney clearly has no clue at all what regular, normal, everyday, working people deal with.


You mean the poors? They hand-trim the lawn at his Nantucket estate, right? I believe they're given food and shelter, what more can they ask for?
 
2012-09-14 01:36:45 PM
How am I the first? Poor show FARK.

southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com
 
2012-09-14 01:42:24 PM

skullkrusher: DirkValentine: skullkrusher: qorkfiend: theorellior: I don't know how you can say that $250,000 a year is "middle income". I would have a hard time figuring out what to do with anything above $100K in my present way of living. Secondly, if $250,000 a year is middle income, why are people freaking out about teachers making $80,000? That's low, low middle income, surely they deserve more? Finally, the median income is somewhere around $45,000 per year. I find it hard to assert, with a straight face, that "middle income" is more than five times the median.

I think this may have been one of the rare cases when Romney's brain caught up to him before he finished the sentence.

"Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000..." wait, I can't say that! "...and less."

I thought he was agreeing with BO's $200/250k line of private jet demarcation :)

You know, you used to be someone that was interesting and, I thought, mostly reasonable in these threads. Now you are hardly anything more than a Repbublican shill.

Middle class = 200K to 250K and less

Allow me to write that in a simple logical statement :

200K
Easy enough?

I made a joke about private jets in the President's tax speech and that makes me a shill?

Yeah, if you parse the sentence logically, that is what he was said. Middle class is ((income greater than or equal to 200k && income less than or equal to 250k) && (income is less than 250k))

Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't.


Sorry, i was using the wrong quote from yours (there were 2 back to back).

"Tell me, do you think the strict logical parsing of this English sentence gives an accurate reading of what he said? Of course it doesn't."

Yes, I do agree with you here, generally speaking. But for christ-farking-sake, he EXCLUDED 100K, then went to 200K as a baseline. So, fark parsing what he said as a logical statement but it isn't hard to see that he

A) Has no clue what he's talking about
B) Is a snobbish rich bastard that, well, see (A)

fark Romney and fark anyone that defends his lies and ignorance.

FWIW, here is the post that i meant to reply to you (bold is yours)

Defining "middle Income" as anything less than the top 1.5% is farking stupid.

so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."
 
2012-09-14 01:43:45 PM

skullkrusher: unless you believe that Romney was literally saying that middle income is defined as more than $200k, less than $250k and less than $250k. Is this what you believe?


Regardless of the numbers given, and what I believe about them, my question was more to the point about how are we to parse the words of a Presidential candidate if not logically? Are we to simply fill in the blanks ourselves? Or are we to listen to what he said, even though it may show that he has not really put a lot of thought into those words. That's one hell of a campaign slogan; "Elect Romney and fill in your own blanks". You are right in that what he said does not make any sense, and yet to him, it stood as sufficient to answer the question.
 
2012-09-14 01:44:38 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: hinten: Can some explain the difference between m-a and a-m to me without destroying my childish innocence?

Step one: Insert tab c into slot m.
Step two: Remove tab c from slot m, and insert into slot a.
Step three: Remove tab c from slot a, and re-insert into slot m.


I'm gonna need an Ikea type illustration to really get the idea
 
2012-09-14 01:46:29 PM

Cuthbert Allgood: More_Like_A_Stain: hinten: Can some explain the difference between m-a and a-m to me without destroying my childish innocence?

Step one: Insert tab c into slot m.
Step two: Remove tab c from slot m, and insert into slot a.
Step three: Remove tab c from slot a, and re-insert into slot m.

I'm gonna need an Ikea type illustration to really get the idea


The difficulty was "without destroying my childish innocence". Sorry, no illustration.
 
2012-09-14 01:51:37 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: Cuthbert Allgood: More_Like_A_Stain: hinten: Can some explain the difference between m-a and a-m to me without destroying my childish innocence?

Step one: Insert tab c into slot m.
Step two: Remove tab c from slot m, and insert into slot a.
Step three: Remove tab c from slot a, and re-insert into slot m.

I'm gonna need an Ikea type illustration to really get the idea

The difficulty was "without destroying my childish innocence". Sorry, no illustration.


I guess that rules out an animated gif...
 
2012-09-14 01:55:03 PM

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: $250k a year for a family of 2 income earners might sound like a lot of money to you but in terms of what that $250k buys, it could be the equivalent of $100k in your area of the country.

Other than real estate and various taxes, what is more expensive in New York or San Francisco than it is in Wichita? And those items can easily be reduced greatly by moving just a few miles outside of the city. That's how the 'burbs came to be so popular in the first place. Bigger houses for less cost and lower taxes, conveniently located to centers of high paying employment. Working in NY or SF may well bring in the big bucks, but at the income levels we are talking about, living in the city is a choice of lifestyle, just as is buying a yacht. It is not really a cost of living, as it is so easily reduced.

dunno, what's a case of beer cost you? Costs me $40.
Dinner at a regular Italian place - nothing fancy, jeans and a polo shirt sort of place - and a bottle of ordinary wine? Easily $100
I just ordered a sandwich and 2 Diet Dr Pepper for lunch (needed the extra soda to meet the min for delivery). $13.

As far as real estate is concerned, buying a small middle class house in the burbs (3 BR on an 80 x 100 lot) is gonna cost you $500k

Long Island is the biggest NY suburb and a good chunk of eastern Suffolk can't really be considered a suburb of NY (for reference, commuting from the Hamptons to Penn Station is 3 hours each way by train). Median income on LI is $80k. Long Island has its exceedingly wealthy areas but for the most part it is decidedly blue collar (think Amy Fisher rather than Jay Gatsby). It's not a case of just living somewhere in line with the rest of the country while working in the city because the parts of Long Island that even approach real estate prices around the country are at the fringes of commutability. Yeah, you can get a decent sized house for $400k in Patchogue but it is going to take you an hour and a half each ...


Let's look at actual data rather than the small bubble of anecdotes you choose to live in shall we?

From the US Census cost of living index, 100 being the nationwide average:

Salina, Kansas: 86.9 (closest to Wichita on list)
San Francisco: 164.0
Manhattan: 216.7
Brooklyn: 181.7
Queens: 159.0
Nassau County: 145.7

No., since you have chose to use "lifestyle" as your measure, let;s examine that further, shall we? Why have individuals chose to live in Manhattan rather than the cheaper areas in the New York metro area? Because they prefer the lifestyle of being near the cultural and business areas of Manhattan. Proximity to a great urban area is a lifestyle choice that they have elected to make. That lifestyle choice comes with a cost. Most "middle class" Americans cannot afford to make that lifestyle choice. Some people would have you believe that those who have made that choice are somehow being deprived because twill spend more the benefit of that proximity with all the lifestyle benefits that come with it, AND the features of middle class living. These odd people want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
2012-09-14 01:55:25 PM

ltdanman44: Romney Smiles At News Of American Deaths In Libya


[www.addictinginfo.org image 500x334]


I never noticed before how dumbfounded that guy on the left, in the front row, looks. He's absolutely astounded at what he just heard from Romney. Pretty funny.
 
2012-09-14 02:23:47 PM

madgonad: what_now: madgonad: All of these people still have to work for a living. While the upper middle class are likely to become millionaires over time, they still have jobs or own businesses that they must continue to work at in order to continue their lifestyle.

People who make between $167-$350k need to work to "continue their lifestyle" while people who make between 0-35k need to work to continue to eat.

Now, which one of these categories can spare some fng change for the tax man?

That wasn't my point, but I agree with you. I am in the top 2% and would happily pay more taxes to save this country from fiscal ruin. This nation has given me everything and I understand that it is my responsibility to pay it forward. I can't comprehend how the greed-heads at the GOP lost this basic idea of staying current and making the nation a better place for the next generation.


Heck, I am in the between $50,000 - $100,000 range and I would be totally cool with paying a few more percent taxes also if it went to education, infrastructure, saving social programs, and paying debt; but not if it goes to people that are a lot wealthiers than me in the form of tax cuts.
 
2012-09-14 03:26:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at actual data rather than the small bubble of anecdotes you choose to live in shall we?

From the US Census cost of living index, 100 being the nationwide average:

Salina, Kansas: 86.9 (closest to Wichita on list)
San Francisco: 164.0
Manhattan: 216.7
Brooklyn: 181.7
Queens: 159.0
Nassau County: 145.7

No., since you have chose to use "lifestyle" as your measure, let;s examine that further, shall we? Why have individuals chose to live in Manhattan rather than the cheaper areas in the New York metro area? Because they prefer the lifestyle of being near the cultural and business areas of Manhattan. Proximity to a great urban area is a lifestyle choice that they have elected to make. That lifestyle choice comes with a cost. Most "middle class" Americans cannot afford to make that lifestyle choice. Some people would have you believe that those who have made that choice are somehow being deprived because twill spend more the benefit of that proximity with all the lifestyle benefits that come with it, AND the features of middle class living. These odd people want to have their cake and eat it too.


did you notice how the glamorous areas around Manhattan - like Queens, for example. Everyone who is anyone is dying to live in Rego Park is still 60% more expensive than the national average? Nassau County, which gave us such well bred and upper class ladies like Lindsey Lohan and Amy Fisher is 45.7 more expensive? Surely the people living in farking Wantagh are upper class, what with their proximity to a great urban area.

You fail, yet again.
 
2012-09-14 03:30:04 PM

DirkValentine: Yes, I do agree with you here, generally speaking. But for christ-farking-sake, he EXCLUDED 100K, then went to 200K as a baseline. So, fark parsing what he said as a logical statement but it isn't hard to see that he

A) Has no clue what he's talking about
B) Is a snobbish rich bastard that, well, see (A)


you agree that strict logical parsing of his words is inaccurate to derive his meaning but still fark him for saying what the strict logical parsing of his words implies? He's a terrible candidate. He says stupid shiat all the time. His mouth can't get out of his brain's way. Still doesn't change what he meant and what he meant and what a strict parsing of his words gives us aren't the same thing... in both of our opinions, I think

DirkValentine: FWIW, here is the post that i meant to reply to you (bold is yours)

Defining "middle Income" as anything less than the top 1.5% is farking stupid.

so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."


right - the bold was in response to me saying a bunch of websites will have to run a correction. They will have to because they said "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year". Even the strictest of strict parsings does not support that paraphrase.
 
2012-09-14 03:30:06 PM

madgonad: qorkfiend: madgonad: I can't comprehend how the greed-heads at the GOP lost this basic idea of staying current and making the nation a better place for the next generation.

The next generation can't or won't vote, and the last generation votes more than the current generation.

That contributes to it, but part of me think that the Right wants to undo all of the progress made in the 20th century and they think the only way to change those laws and structures is to cause an economic collapse (due to debt). The ownership class has diversified holdings, so they will survive it and have the capital to rebuild afterward. The middle class will lose everything in that collapse. A scorched earth class war that will bring doom on us all.


I am more and more convinced every day that this is what is going on. Look at the attacks on unions, education, the EPA, the FDA, infrastructure spending, all social programs, even PBS, birth control, and so on.

What the ownership class wants is a large, permanent underclass that will work for practically nothing, no benefits, etc., and will sign up for the military at the drop of a hat because it promises food and shelter. That's it. That's what they want. And they are getting it, with the collusion of the clueless idiots who don't understand (or know, thanks to the attacks on education) history and are fired up by things like the President being Near.

All the good that was done by liberals/progressives in this country for ordinary working folks in the last century has been undone or is being undone right now by the people in power who can weather any storm, with the help of their bought-and-paid-for propaganda machines like Fox News and Limbaugh.

You are or will be serfs soon. Get used to it.
 
2012-09-14 03:33:28 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Let's look at actual data rather than the small bubble of anecdotes you choose to live in shall we?

From the US Census cost of living index, 100 being the nationwide average:

Salina, Kansas: 86.9 (closest to Wichita on list)
San Francisco: 164.0
Manhattan: 216.7
Brooklyn: 181.7
Queens: 159.0
Nassau County: 145.7

No., since you have chose to use "lifestyle" as your measure, let;s examine that further, shall we? Why have individuals chose to live in Manhattan rather than the cheaper areas in the New York metro area? Because they prefer the lifestyle of being near the cultural and business areas of Manhattan. Proximity to a great urban area is a lifestyle choice that they have elected to make. That lifestyle choice comes with a cost. Most "middle class" Americans cannot afford to make that lifestyle choice. Some people would have you believe that those who have made that choice are somehow being deprived because twill spend more the benefit of that proximity with all the lifestyle benefits that come with it, AND the features of middle class living. These odd people want to have their cake and eat it too.

did you notice how the glamorous areas around Manhattan - like Queens, for example. Everyone who is anyone is dying to live in Rego Park is still 60% more expensive than the national average? Nassau County, which gave us such well bred and upper class ladies like Lindsey Lohan and Amy Fisher is 45.7 more expensive? Surely the people living in farking Wantagh are upper class, what with their proximity to a great urban area.

You fail, yet again.


Yes, I did notice that those areas are more expensive. I also noticed that they did not conform to your misrepresentations about the costs. A 60% increase in cost of living for people making four to five times the median income does not thrust them into the ranks of the middle class.

I also noticed that you ignored the rest of my post discussing the difference in terms of your "lifestyle' definition.
 
2012-09-14 03:38:41 PM

skullkrusher: DirkValentine: Yes, I do agree with you here, generally speaking. But for christ-farking-sake, he EXCLUDED 100K, then went to 200K as a baseline. So, fark parsing what he said as a logical statement but it isn't hard to see that he

A) Has no clue what he's talking about
B) Is a snobbish rich bastard that, well, see (A)

you agree that strict logical parsing of his words is inaccurate to derive his meaning but still fark him for saying what the strict logical parsing of his words implies? He's a terrible candidate. He says stupid shiat all the time. His mouth can't get out of his brain's way. Still doesn't change what he meant and what he meant and what a strict parsing of his words gives us aren't the same thing... in both of our opinions, I think

DirkValentine: FWIW, here is the post that i meant to reply to you (bold is yours)

Defining "middle Income" as anything less than the top 1.5% is farking stupid.

so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."

right - the bold was in response to me saying a bunch of websites will have to run a correction. They will have to because they said "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year". Even the strictest of strict parsings does not support that paraphrase.


Ok, so we are basically in agreement. Basically. Candidates make statistical/factual/etc mistakes pretty often b/c there are quite a few ways to interpret many of them compounded with the outrageous lies some media outlets allow in their publications as "news". One thing though, especially in this election and ESPECIALLY b/c good 'ol Mitt is such a glaring example of exactly the type of people that have been farking all us little biatches over, that he isn't allowed to fark up this royally on is the goddamn definition of the middle income. It's not that he doesn't understand what's it like .... it's that he doesn't care. The data is available and he's supposed to be running for POTUS.

Now, as to the other statement - i read what you wrote as "it's stupid to paraphrase what Mitt said as defining the middle income as 200-250". I don't think it's stupid. I do think it's pitiful to try and give him any wiggle room on this statement and that's exactly what i read your remark as doing.

So now can we hug and have a beer? God, i'm sick of Mitt Romney. it was funny at first but it's getting out of control.
 
2012-09-14 03:55:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I did notice that those areas are more expensive. I also noticed that they did not conform to your misrepresentations about the costs. A 60% increase in cost of living for people making four to five times the median income does not thrust them into the ranks of the middle class.


A 60% cut in their effective buying power - reducing them to 1.6x to 2x the median income in real terms does not put them in the middle class, huh? Interesting. Of course, this supposes that the median income itself affords a middle class lifestyle. I'll tell you, in NY? It doesn't. But you'll gloss over that. What do you think the the nominal dollar cap on what constitutes "middle class" is? Please, do yourself a favor and account for the fact that living in posh neighborhood that is Sunnyside, Queens is 60% more expensive than the national average.
 
2012-09-14 03:56:13 PM

DirkValentine: Ok, so we are basically in agreement. Basically. Candidates make statistical/factual/etc mistakes pretty often b/c there are quite a few ways to interpret many of them compounded with the outrageous lies some media outlets allow in their publications as "news". One thing though, especially in this election and ESPECIALLY b/c good 'ol Mitt is such a glaring example of exactly the type of people that have been farking all us little biatches over, that he isn't allowed to fark up this royally on is the goddamn definition of the middle income. It's not that he doesn't understand what's it like .... it's that he doesn't care. The data is available and he's supposed to be running for POTUS.

Now, as to the other statement - i read what you wrote as "it's stupid to paraphrase what Mitt said as defining the middle income as 200-250". I don't think it's stupid. I do think it's pitiful to try and give him any wiggle room on this statement and that's exactly what i read your remark as doing.

So now can we hug and have a beer? God, i'm sick of Mitt Romney. it was funny at first but it's getting out of control.


so does that mean you're a Republican shill too?

I like hugs and beer.
 
2012-09-14 04:19:33 PM

skullkrusher: so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."


He either said what he's being paraphrased as, or he said something that made no sense. A generous and forgiving interpretation about what he really meant is the bigger stretch here.
 
2012-09-14 04:27:48 PM

Biological Ali: skullkrusher: so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."

He either said what he's being paraphrased as, or he said something that made no sense. A generous and forgiving interpretation about what he really meant is the bigger stretch here.


he most certainly didn't say what is being paraphrased. That's without question. "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less" does not mean "$200,000 to $250,000". The "and less" part sees to that.
 
2012-09-14 04:34:13 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, I did notice that those areas are more expensive. I also noticed that they did not conform to your misrepresentations about the costs. A 60% increase in cost of living for people making four to five times the median income does not thrust them into the ranks of the middle class.

A 60% cut in their effective buying power - reducing them to 1.6x to 2x the median income in real terms does not put them in the middle class, huh? Interesting. Of course, this supposes that the median income itself affords a middle class lifestyle. I'll tell you, in NY? It doesn't. But you'll gloss over that. What do you think the the nominal dollar cap on what constitutes "middle class" is? Please, do yourself a favor and account for the fact that living in posh neighborhood that is Sunnyside, Queens is 60% more expensive than the national average.


So there are no lifestyle benefits that a resident in Queens has over a resident of Wichita? The proximity to the many cultural, dining , entertainment and recreational amenities of the New York area don't add to thier lifestyle? Huh. I guess all those people who pay extra to live in the area must be rather dumb.

Speaking of which lets do some basic math.

Person A lives in a place with a median cost of living and makes the median income.

Person B lives in a place with a mdfian cost of living of 1.6 and makes 5 times the median income.

Person B has 3.12 times the buying power of Person A, normalized for the cost of living.

If the median income is $50,000, the person making $250,000 in Queens has the same buying power as a persom making $156,000 at the national average COL. That still places them in the top 10% of earners in the US. Not middle class.
 
2012-09-14 04:49:08 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So there are no lifestyle benefits that a resident in Queens has over a resident of Wichita? The proximity to the many cultural, dining , entertainment and recreational amenities of the New York area don't add to thier lifestyle? Huh. I guess all those people who pay extra to live in the area must be rather dumb.


oh, I get it. You think that's what standard of living means in this case. Guess what? It doesn't. You don't have a higher standard of living because you live near a movie theatre than if you do not. If you can afford to go to the movies and someone else can afford to go to the movies, then you can say your standard of living is the same.

One place being cooler than another has nothing to do with what you can afford to buy, what sorts of trips you take, school your kids go to, etc aside from making those things more expensive, generally speaking.

Philip Francis Queeg: If the median income is $50,000, the person making $250,000 in Queens has the same buying power as a persom making $156,000 at the national average COL. That still places them in the top 10% of earners in the US. Not middle class.


once again, "middle class" is your standard of living. Middle class is not determined by how much you earn relative to everyone else. That is a factor in your standard of living but not the sole determining factor. Cost of living and your ability to have a middle class lifestyle - that's what makes you "middle class". Not where you fall on the income scale.

If everyone tomorrow became impoverished with 1/3 of the country earning $0, 1/3 earning $5k a year and 1/3 earning $10k a year, those earning $5k a year would likely be starving to death in many places but you would want to call them "middle class".

Not to mention that this 60% premium on the cost of living is across the whole borough. Most of Queens is working class. The "middle class" neighborhoods are considerably more expensive in terms of real estate and rent.

Here's an apt in Sunnyside. 3BR 2bath. Small by many "middle class" standards but large enough to raise a family of 4

So middle class that the elevated subway is right across the street all for the low price of $2500 a month
 
2012-09-14 04:49:44 PM

skullkrusher: You don't have a higher standard of living because you live near a movie theatre than if you do not. If you can afford to go to the movies and someone else can afford to go to the movies, then you can say your standard of living is the same with respect to ability to go to the movies.

 
2012-09-14 06:59:37 PM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: So there are no lifestyle benefits that a resident in Queens has over a resident of Wichita? The proximity to the many cultural, dining , entertainment and recreational amenities of the New York area don't add to thier lifestyle? Huh. I guess all those people who pay extra to live in the area must be rather dumb.

oh, I get it. You think that's what standard of living means in this case. Guess what? It doesn't. You don't have a higher standard of living because you live near a movie theatre than if you do not. If you can afford to go to the movies and someone else can afford to go to the movies, then you can say your standard of living is the same.

One place being cooler than another has nothing to do with what you can afford to buy, what sorts of trips you take, school your kids go to, etc aside from making those things more expensive, generally speaking.

Philip Francis Queeg: If the median income is $50,000, the person making $250,000 in Queens has the same buying power as a persom making $156,000 at the national average COL. That still places them in the top 10% of earners in the US. Not middle class.

once again, "middle class" is your standard of living. Middle class is not determined by how much you earn relative to everyone else. That is a factor in your standard of living but not the sole determining factor. Cost of living and your ability to have a middle class lifestyle - that's what makes you "middle class". Not where you fall on the income scale.

If everyone tomorrow became impoverished with 1/3 of the country earning $0, 1/3 earning $5k a year and 1/3 earning $10k a year, those earning $5k a year would likely be starving to death in many places but you would want to call them "middle class".

Not to mention that this 60% premium on the cost of living is across the whole borough. Most of Queens is working class. The "middle class" neighborhoods are considerably more expensive in terms of real estate and rent.

Here's a ...


So standard of living has nothing to do with culture in your opinion, and only includes pesonal material posessions?. What a shock. Equally shocking is your attempt to degfine the termms of argument in such a way as to close the gaping holes in your position. So completly unlike you.

Tel us Skull, is the apartment you cherrypicked in lieu of actual data likely to be rented by a "middle class" person making $250,000 a year?
 
2012-09-14 09:18:07 PM

SevenizGud: Since the abject failure of this now 40-year war on success, it is no wonder that now, since our country is almost completely filled with complete scum, few people can identify with being, you know, successful.

But keep rewarding the fail, America! I am sure that in 20 more years, when unemployment is 50%, and the median income is $9,000 per year, the democrats can wallow in knowing they have full control of the government of the People's Republic of Americastan.

Why would the 80% of the population that parasitizes the, you know, actually productive people, vote for someone who believe that you should actually, you know, work, to get paid?


8/10
 
2012-09-14 10:55:20 PM

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: skullkrusher: so is paraphrasing what he said as "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year."

He either said what he's being paraphrased as, or he said something that made no sense. A generous and forgiving interpretation about what he really meant is the bigger stretch here.

he most certainly didn't say what is being paraphrased. That's without question. "No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less" does not mean "$200,000 to $250,000". The "and less" part sees to that.


How is that any different from what the paraphrasings say? They're just pointing out that he's defining this ridiculously high income range as "middle income". Not only does the "and less" not change that, it's redundant in terms of the point he was trying to make too.
 
2012-09-15 08:36:08 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So standard of living has nothing to do with culture in your opinion, and only includes pesonal material posessions?. What a shock. Equally shocking is your attempt to degfine the termms of argument in such a way as to close the gaping holes in your position. So completly unlike you.


yeah, that's what it means in this context. It's not my fault reality makes you look like an idiot

Philip Francis Queeg: Tel us Skull, is the apartment you cherrypicked in lieu of actual data likely to be rented by a "middle class" person making $250,000 a year?


hehe "cherrypicked" by googling apartments for rent in sunnyside and selecting 3 BR as a criteria and then choosing the one that was not in foreclosure. That's some nice "Cherrypicking". Moron.

that's a pretty ghetto apt going for a good bit of money. Shocked that you now pretend to not get it
 
2012-09-17 12:00:40 AM

Grungehamster: Whatever libs; the non-partisan Citizens United poll just showed Romney having 8% more support in Missouri than in any other poll done of the state before this, and that is after Obama got his convention bump.

Come November 7th you libs are gonna be SO pissed, lol.

/Poe's Law off


Maybe so. It's not impossible for Romney to win, but given some of the things he has said I think it would be a very bad thing.
 
2012-09-17 12:03:56 AM

featurecreep: WTF does "$200,000 to $250,000 and less" mean?

Less than $250,000 but more than $200,000? That would seem to be the case since he said "No" when asked if $100,000 was middle-income.

This is after he denies having read the studies he cites to support his tax plan. Real presidential material right there.


It means less than $250,000. But apparently not as low as $100,000, which suggests that Romney thinks that $100,000 and less is low-income.

It would be interesting to hear what Romney thinks everyday items like a loaf of bread cost. I wouldn't be surprised if he has never been inside a supermarket in his life.
 
2012-09-17 12:28:14 AM

blahpers: Am I the only one laughing hysterically at the proposed "donkey" filter?

/kitty has reached critical mdonkey


Threadjack much? We're being serious in here talking about the middle cldonkey.
 
Displayed 44 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report