Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

4789 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2012 at 10:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-14 08:22:30 AM  
In the race between rhetoric and reality, reality apparently wins.

Sure, it wins by a slim margin, but it still has the advantage.
 
2012-09-14 08:37:43 AM  
What we really need is a third party.



cdn.crushable.com
 
2012-09-14 08:42:24 AM  
Cool, filterpawn no worky with headlines.
 
2012-09-14 09:12:55 AM  

hinten: Cool, filterpawn no worky with headlines.


Wat?
 
2012-09-14 09:14:22 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.google.com
 
2012-09-14 09:21:20 AM  

Vodka Zombie: hinten: Cool, filterpawn no worky with headlines.

Wat?


Ass, ass, ass, -ass, mouth-to-ass.
 
2012-09-14 09:21:55 AM  
Huh, I guess Fark doesn't filter for donkeys.
 
2012-09-14 09:26:49 AM  

hinten: Huh, I guess Fark doesn't filter for donkeys.


There are pages of words in the dictionary with "ass" in them. That filter would get overworked.

"Ubisoft announces new version of donkeydonkeyin's creed for next christmas"
"American ambdonkeyador to Lybia donkeydonkeyed in Benghazi"

etc...
 
2012-09-14 09:51:52 AM  

Flab: hinten: Huh, I guess Fark doesn't filter for donkeys.

There are pages of words in the dictionary with "ass" in them. That filter would get overworked.

"Ubisoft announces new version of donkeydonkeyin's creed for next christmas"
"American ambdonkeyador to Lybia donkeydonkeyed in Benghazi"

etc...


Actually, with the potential for hilarity, I now support a Fark filter for ass.
 
2012-09-14 10:10:52 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-14 10:11:15 AM  
Clearly, this is due to a biased media refusing to report anything negative about Obama.
 
2012-09-14 10:11:23 AM  
So the liberal lamestream msm media is finally reporting what we've known for a while. Imagine that
 
2012-09-14 10:13:39 AM  

Flab: "American ambdonkeyador to Lybia donkeydonkeyed in Benghazi"


Someone got assassed in Benghazi?
 
2012-09-14 10:14:18 AM  
I'll repeat this in every thread till November: Romney smiles at the thought of Americans dying. To him, they are only political tools, and he doesn't give a shiat about their lives.

You'd have to be insane to vote for such a man.
 
2012-09-14 10:15:36 AM  
Ass to ass!
Ass to ass!

/great chant at any event
 
2012-09-14 10:16:49 AM  
A presidential race that has been neck-and-neck for months suddenly isn't.

Only Fox News and other equally partisan right-wing media outlets have been saying that it was remotely close.
 
2012-09-14 10:18:17 AM  
www.sheepsheadbites.com

/hot like an un-airconditioned subway car in August
 
2012-09-14 10:21:11 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: Ass to ass!
Ass to ass!

/great chant at any event


i78.photobucket.com

Approves.
 
2012-09-14 10:22:22 AM  
Mouth to ass?
 
2012-09-14 10:23:42 AM  
Mouth to Ass? Meh, big deal.

Maybe they were talking about going Ass to Mouth?

/never go ass to mouth
//NEVER go ass to mouth
/Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, it's forgivable to go ass to mouth.
 
2012-09-14 10:24:19 AM  
ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com

Don't even care, brah. Been high this whole time.
 
2012-09-14 10:24:21 AM  
This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.
 
2012-09-14 10:26:41 AM  
I'm voting for Obama just to watch the Republicans' heads explode.
 
2012-09-14 10:27:26 AM  
image.lyricspond.com
 
2012-09-14 10:28:10 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.


There is no possible way he did this.
 
2012-09-14 10:29:15 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.


you have the actual quote? I heard that earlier and every news story on it is a copy of the others. Headline says "$250,000 and below" and body says "$200,000 to $250,000" but none provide the actual quote
 
2012-09-14 10:29:50 AM  

misterhowl: I'm voting for Obama just to watch the Republicans' heads explode.


To be fair, a math book can result in the same thing.
 
2012-09-14 10:30:27 AM  
Romney Smiles At News Of American Deaths In Libya


www.addictinginfo.org
 
2012-09-14 10:32:47 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.


Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true
 
2012-09-14 10:32:59 AM  
This is probably because Romney hasn't derped hard enough. Derp harder, Mitt!
 
2012-09-14 10:34:07 AM  
sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-14 10:34:35 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true


Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story
 
2012-09-14 10:35:58 AM  

skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story


Actually this is a link to one of the ambiguous versions. The Boston link changed their headline but still comes up with the original in the googlizing
 
2012-09-14 10:37:48 AM  
 
2012-09-14 10:38:17 AM  

skullkrusher: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

you have the actual quote? I heard that earlier and every news story on it is a copy of the others. Headline says "$250,000 and below" and body says "$200,000 to $250,000" but none provide the actual quote


No, I saw the same article. The exact quote was:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

So it appears my excitement was premature.
 
2012-09-14 10:38:33 AM  
 
2012-09-14 10:38:53 AM  
"Went"? More like "was confused for x when in actuality was always a y."

Anyway, this is apparently now a butts thread, so lets post pics.
 
2012-09-14 10:39:32 AM  

skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story


I'm also on the hunt; it was apparently said in an interview broadcast on Good Morning America. The interview covered several topics.
 
2012-09-14 10:40:11 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

you have the actual quote? I heard that earlier and every news story on it is a copy of the others. Headline says "$250,000 and below" and body says "$200,000 to $250,000" but none provide the actual quote

No, I saw the same article. The exact quote was:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

So it appears my excitement was premature.


ah
 
2012-09-14 10:40:19 AM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

I'm also on the hunt; it was apparently said in an interview broadcast on Good Morning America. The interview covered several topics.


I see several people are far more effective hunters than I.
 
2012-09-14 10:40:21 AM  

skullkrusher: [www.sheepsheadbites.com image 373x400]

/hot like an un-airconditioned subway car in August


I was just talking about this with a friend the other day: I don't get why people don't switch cars when the A/C is out (it's very rare that the A/C has been shut off for the entire train).
 
2012-09-14 10:40:56 AM  
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
 
2012-09-14 10:41:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.


lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction
 
2012-09-14 10:42:06 AM  

Rann Xerox: Approves


Damnit, I was just about to post him. Good thing I checked the thread.
 
2012-09-14 10:42:21 AM  
In before the apologists let him off the hook for "and less."
 
2012-09-14 10:42:25 AM  
At this point Romney's only hope is to do very well at the debate and for Obama to tank -- and while by all accounts Romney is a good debater, it seems likely that tax return issue is going to come up, and it will look like Romney has some secret he's hiding, and people will fixate on that.
 
2012-09-14 10:42:30 AM  

thornhill: skullkrusher: [www.sheepsheadbites.com image 373x400]

/hot like an un-airconditioned subway car in August

I was just talking about this with a friend the other day: I don't get why people don't switch cars when the A/C is out (it's very rare that the A/C has been shut off for the entire train).


depends on the length of my trip. Usually I'm just going from Columbus Circle to W 79th if I am taking the train at all so I'll deal with the heat since it usually comes with a far less intense press of sweaty humanity
 
2012-09-14 10:42:35 AM  

Citrate1007: Only Fox News and other equally partisan right-wing media outlets have been saying that it was remotely close.


I watch CBS News virtually every night. They've been calling it "neck-and-neck" for months.
 
2012-09-14 10:43:52 AM  

Clowns in my Coffee: In before the apologists let him off the hook for "and less."


let him off the hook for what? The fact that he said "and less" means the hook shouldn't have been there in the first place. Granted, he didn't put a lower end of the range on that but that's not really what you're trying to be outraged about, is it?
 
2012-09-14 10:43:56 AM  
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.
 
2012-09-14 10:44:04 AM  

Flab: hinten: Huh, I guess Fark doesn't filter for donkeys.

There are pages of words in the dictionary with "ass" in them. That filter would get overworked.


\b
 
2012-09-14 10:44:25 AM  

ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.


Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?
 
2012-09-14 10:46:32 AM  
Even if we assume that his "and less" doesn't mean 200k
 
2012-09-14 10:46:55 AM  

Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?


Does this person with $0 income have a refrigerator?
 
2012-09-14 10:46:56 AM  
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.
 
2012-09-14 10:47:37 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction


Defining "middle Income" as anything less than the top 1.5% is farking stupid.
 
2012-09-14 10:48:03 AM  
Derp. Accidentally the comment.
Even if we assume that his "and less" doesn't mean 200k
 
2012-09-14 10:48:52 AM  

Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?


Didn't say middle class; he said middle income. $100,000 (more than twice the median national household income) doesn't fall in the middle range of incomes, so the cutoff point between middle income and low income is somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Makes sense, right?
 
2012-09-14 10:48:57 AM  
Derp. farkING HTML OKAY.
Even if we assume that his "and less" doesn't mean 200k < middle class < 250k, 100k is apparently not middle class. Giving him the benefit of the doubt its still 101k < middle class < 250k which is pants on head retarded.
 
2012-09-14 10:49:19 AM  

ModernLuddite: In the race between rhetoric and reality, reality apparently wins.

Sure, it wins by a slim margin, but it still has the advantage.


In a three-week span, the American people found out who was willing to put the big boy pants on and lead the country.

Sadly for the right-wingers, they found out they weren't the ones the American people want to lead.

Still a long way away...but the more Romney opens his mouth, the more Obama looks more Presidential.
 
2012-09-14 10:49:25 AM  

Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?


He was asked if 100k was middle income and he said 'No'. He then said it was from between 200k-250k and less.

So using that data we can determine that Mittens thinks that middle class is more than 100k, but less than 200-250k. I would call that the upper middle class. Professionals, higher management, and sales managers make this kind of money.
 
2012-09-14 10:49:32 AM  

Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?


He also went on to explain that he won't detail what he wants to do because doing so would make it harder for him to cooperate with Democrats in Congress.

Either he's lying about cooperation, and should be called on it by the Left and the Middle, or he's telling the truth and should be eaten alive by his own base.

/That last part sounds dirtier then it is.
 
2012-09-14 10:49:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.


I encourage people to watch the video. The "middle income" bit is nothing compared to how he's treating the embassy's statement in Egypt still.
 
2012-09-14 10:49:50 AM  

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."
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-14 10:50:03 AM  

ltdanman44: Romney Smiles At News Of American Deaths In Libya


[www.addictinginfo.org image 500x334]


That's not a smile, it's more of a smirk.
 
2012-09-14 10:50:07 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.


I was thinking much the same.

The derp is strong with this one.
 
2012-09-14 10:50:18 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true



MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.


Link

/have not read all the thread, sorry if its a repeat 
// 'and less', so $1K a year is middle income?
 
2012-09-14 10:51:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction

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 10:52:05 AM  
Romney's middle class:

$0-------------$200K---------$250K--------$100K-------$500K---->
I-----> Middle Class <---------I--------> Poor <--------I-----> Rich?
 
 
2012-09-14 10:52:32 AM  

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 :)
 
2012-09-14 10:53:04 AM  

Grungehamster: Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?

Didn't say middle class; he said middle income. $100,000 (more than twice the median national household income) doesn't fall in the middle range of incomes, so the cutoff point between middle income and low income is somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Makes sense, right?


Actually just double checked the numbers: $100,000 is about 3x both the mean and median incomes in this country.
 
2012-09-14 10:53:07 AM  
If his plan is to be deficit neutral and he gets rid of the mortgage interest deduction, that would be a gut punch to those making $200-250k/year.
 
2012-09-14 10:53:13 AM  

Jairzinho: Romney's middle class:

$0-------------$200K---------$250K--------$100K-------$500K---->
I-----> Middle Class <---------I--------> Poor <--------I-----> Rich?


hehe
 
2012-09-14 10:53:45 AM  
 
2012-09-14 10:54:09 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


i230.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-14 10:54:39 AM  

Grungehamster: Grungehamster: Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?

Didn't say middle class; he said middle income. $100,000 (more than twice the median national household income) doesn't fall in the middle range of incomes, so the cutoff point between middle income and low income is somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Makes sense, right?

Actually just double checked the numbers: $100,000 is about 3x both the mean and median incomes in this country.


that's median individual income you're using, I think
 
2012-09-14 10:54:40 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction

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."



Tell us Skull, do you think $200,000- $2500,000 falls anywhere near middle income?
 
2012-09-14 10:54:54 AM  

Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?


He didn't put in a lower range. Of all the things you can be outraged over regarding Mittens, this isn't one of them.
 
2012-09-14 10:55:38 AM  
Ok. I got it right now....

Jairzinho: Romney's middle income:

$0-------------$200K---------$250K--------$100K-------$500K---->
I-----> Middle Income <---------I--------> below <--------I-----> Higher

 
2012-09-14 10:56:52 AM  

skullkrusher: Clowns in my Coffee: In before the apologists let him off the hook for "and less."

let him off the hook for what? The fact that he said "and less" means the hook shouldn't have been there in the first place. Granted, he didn't put a lower end of the range on that but that's not really what you're trying to be outraged about, is it?


C'mon now. It isn't even close.

Arugula....now that's reason for outrage. Arugula and 57 states.
 
2012-09-14 10:57:36 AM  
FTFA: Romney's sharp criticism of the president in recent days during the unfolding crisis in Libya has opened a new line of partisan attack against the challenger.

So is "partisan attack" a sort of shorthand for "justified moral opprobrium"?
 
2012-09-14 10:58:02 AM  

IHateHipHop: He didn't put in a lower range. Of all the things you can be outraged over regarding Mittens, this isn't one of them.


No. it's not something to be outraged about, but it does show what a clueless jackass he is.

$200k a year is rich. I don't CARE if you live in Manhattan and have 5 kids, you're still rich.

The median household income is just over $45,000. If you make 4 1/2 times the median income, you are rich.

Averages aren't a *FEELING*, they're farking math.
 
2012-09-14 10:58:10 AM  
So he has to define people in the top 2% of income as "middle income" to try to peddle the line that Obama's tax plans will/have raised incomes on "middle income" families according to his definition, with the assumption that it will be repeated without the clarification that he is using a word to mean something no one else would assume it means (unless they assume anything Romney says must be lies or at least deliberately deceptive).
 
2012-09-14 10:59:06 AM  

The Name: FTFA: Romney's sharp criticism of the president in recent days during the unfolding crisis in Libya has opened a new line of partisan attack against the challenger.

So is "partisan attack" a sort of shorthand for "justified moral opprobrium"?


Of course. It's especially partisan because it's being done by members of both parties.
 
2012-09-14 10:59:22 AM  
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the film that seems to have sparked all this, the Innocence of Muslims film? Secretary Clinton today said she thought it was disgusting. How would you describe it?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I haven't seen the film. I don't intend to see it. I you know, I think it's dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say. And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong. And I wish people wouldn't do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it's not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film.

I like how Mitt Romney is going to be debating Obama, who was a Con law professor.
 
2012-09-14 10:59:36 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction

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."


But it's quite reasonable to read it as between $100K and $200-250K. And that's still wrong.
 
2012-09-14 11:00:11 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction

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."


Tell us Skull, do you think $200,000- $2500,000 falls anywhere near middle income?


so you agree that the websites should correct their comments? Because that's what I said that got you all subject changey.

Middle income and middle class are 2 different things. Middle income is a far more mathematically restricted notion. Obviously, in nominal dollars, $200-$250k falls outside of the middle of the income distribution so no, they would not be middle income.
 
2012-09-14 11:02:50 AM  
Mouth to ass? Let me explain something to you, subby.

www.sectalk.com
 
2012-09-14 11:03:23 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Cuthbert Allgood: ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.

Shut up! Seriously??

//please be true

Ambiguous and doesn't include the actual quote but this is the story

Here's the exact quote:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

lots of websites are gonna have to run a correction

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."


Tell us Skull, do you think $200,000- $2500,000 falls anywhere near middle income?

so you agree that the websites should correct their comments? Because that's what I said that got you all subject changey.

Middle income and middle class are 2 different things. Middle income is a far more mathematically restricted notion. Obviously, in nominal dollars, $200-$250k falls outside of the middle of the income distribution so no, they would not be middle income.


But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?
 
2012-09-14 11:03:27 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: But it's quite reasonable to read it as between $100K and $200-250K. And that's still wrong.


that's the logical reading of his exact wording, yes. It isn't middle income no matter how you slice it.
 
2012-09-14 11:04:53 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?


Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.
 
2012-09-14 11:05:27 AM  
And lets talk about what the 'middle class' actually are.

The bottom 20% make between nothing and $18.5k per household.
The top 20% make over $92k per household (I am in here).
That leaves the middle 60% of American households making between $18.5k and $92k per year.

The way I think of the middle class is a little different.
The bottom 40% are our lower class. They make between $0 and $35k.
The middle class goes from 41% up to 95%. That represents household incomes from $35k to $167k.
The category of 'upper middle class' is occupied from 96%-99%. They make from $167k-$350k.

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.

That leave the top 1%. Incomes over $350k. The executives. Trust fund babies. The truly rich. The ownership class. Unless they are idiots, they should never have financial worries.
 
2012-09-14 11:05:49 AM  

what_now: IHateHipHop: He didn't put in a lower range. Of all the things you can be outraged over regarding Mittens, this isn't one of them.

No. it's not something to be outraged about, but it does show what a clueless jackass he is.

$200k a year is rich. I don't CARE if you live in Manhattan and have 5 kids, you're still rich.

The median household income is just over $45,000. If you make 4 1/2 times the median income, you are rich.

Averages aren't a *FEELING*, they're farking math.



25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-14 11:05:53 AM  

skullkrusher: Middle income and middle class are 2 different things.


Okay. I'll admit to ignorance here, as I've never heard this distinction before. At least not in any description of American society. Educate me, please.
 
2012-09-14 11:06:46 AM  

skullkrusher: Grungehamster: Grungehamster: Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?

Didn't say middle class; he said middle income. $100,000 (more than twice the median national household income) doesn't fall in the middle range of incomes, so the cutoff point between middle income and low income is somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000. Makes sense, right?

Actually just double checked the numbers: $100,000 is about 3x both the mean and median incomes in this country.

that's median individual income you're using, I think


That's what I get for using wikipedia to check my memory; I thought it was ~45K median, but checked and found something that said 32K for mean and 27K for median back in 2004 (turns out those were "equivalized" between countries). Turns out median is about 45K, with 50K being about the mean household income.
 
2012-09-14 11:06:56 AM  
Am I the only one laughing hysterically at the proposed "donkey" filter?

/kitty has reached critical mdonkey
 
2012-09-14 11:07:37 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.


That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".
 
2012-09-14 11:08:16 AM  

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?
 
2012-09-14 11:09:44 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: Middle income and middle class are 2 different things.

Okay. I'll admit to ignorance here, as I've never heard this distinction before. At least not in any description of American society. Educate me, please.


as I said, "middle income" is about the income distribution. "middle class" is a much less well defined lifestyle or standard of living. They are used interchangeably but I think that is inaccurate. A family earning $40k and a family earning $80k obviously fall on different parts of the the national income distribution chart but they could have identical standards of living depending on where they live. That's why I find the distinction important.
 
2012-09-14 11:10:27 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".


Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".
 
2012-09-14 11:10:43 AM  

skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: But it's quite reasonable to read it as between $100K and $200-250K. And that's still wrong.

that's the logical reading of his exact wording, yes. It isn't middle income no matter how you slice it.


So you're now saying the hook is 100% justified in being there.
 
2012-09-14 11:11:02 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Jairzinho: ignatius_crumbcake: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.

Huh? Can someone draw a graph and show what that range is? I have no farking idea what he meant. So is $0 dollar income still "middle class"?

Does this person with $0 income have a refrigerator?


"and less" is sort of like "east, west, south, and north somewhat". GOP code for "I am a clueless farkwit."
 
2012-09-14 11:11:25 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".


No it isn't. Middle class has a definition, and it's not "99% of Americans"
 
2012-09-14 11:12:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".


hehe if you say so Phil... how about a family earning $100,000 a year? Could they fall into your "rational" definition of "Middle class"?
 
2012-09-14 11:12:55 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".

No it isn't. Middle class has a definition, and it's not "99% of Americans"


If they claim it's 99% of Americans it allows them to justify their intention of lowering the quality of life for 99% of Americans. As usual, it's a rhetorical snare.
 
2012-09-14 11:13:23 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: skullkrusher: More_Like_A_Stain: But it's quite reasonable to read it as between $100K and $200-250K. And that's still wrong.

that's the logical reading of his exact wording, yes. It isn't middle income no matter how you slice it.

So you're now saying the hook is 100% justified in being there.


no because the "hook" is that he said "middle income" is $200-$250k.
 
2012-09-14 11:13:37 AM  
bookmarking for lisa sparxxx since I didnt know it existed
 
2012-09-14 11:14:01 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".

No it isn't. Middle class has a definition, and it's not "99% of Americans"


Oh, sure, if you want to look at things like "facts" and "reality".

But go on. Go out and ask people if they're middle class. You just try to tell someone who's barely keeping their head above the poverty line that they're not middle class. Conversely, you find an anesthesiologist pulling down a cool $350k/year and tell him that he's way above middle class. Go on. Believe me, I have had these conversations plenty of times.
 
2012-09-14 11:14:39 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 11:15:19 AM  
And now we're treated to the reason why nominating Romney - a liberal Republican running on a platform of trying to convince the Tea Party he's one of them is doomed to failure. I can't simply take an "anybody but Obama" position because there are a lot of people worse than Obama, and with Mitt compromising on abandoning his principles does not leave me confident that his governance will be what it should be. Neither Mitt Romney appeals to me. Give me a William F. Buckley, Jr. candidate, not a secret prize comic-book bag that inevitably contain only old "Swear Jar Man" comic books and "Superman and the Mystery of the Shrouded Posterboard" missing most of its cover and half its pages.
 
2012-09-14 11:15:54 AM  
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
 
2012-09-14 11:16:38 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 11:17:56 AM  

skullkrusher: A family earning $40k and a family earning $80k obviously fall on different parts of the the national income distribution chart but they could have identical standards of living depending on where they live.


But more to the point, where do people earning between $100K and $200-250K fall on your "class" scale. These are the people directly referenced by Mittens.
 
2012-09-14 11:17:57 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Go out and ask people if they're middle class.


again- people may FEEL like they're in the middle class, but actual numbers don't respond to feelings.

25.media.tumblr.com

thanks, fracto
 
2012-09-14 11:18:03 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".

hehe if you say so Phil... how about a family earning $100,000 a year? Could they fall into your "rational" definition of "Middle class"?


Even that is stretching the definition of middle class nearly beyond recognition.

The top 25% of household income starts at about $80,000.
 
2012-09-14 11:18:20 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".

No it isn't. Middle class has a definition, and it's not "99% of Americans"

Oh, sure, if you want to look at things like "facts" and "reality".

But go on. Go out and ask people if they're middle class. You just try to tell someone who's barely keeping their head above the poverty line that they're not middle class. Conversely, you find an anesthesiologist pulling down a cool $350k/year and tell him that he's way above middle class. Go on. Believe me, I have had these conversations plenty of times.


You could reasonably say that 99% of Americans, if asked, would claim to be middle class.
 
2012-09-14 11:18:50 AM  

PonceAlyosha: A Dark Evil Omen: cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: Except that the conventional American definition of "middle class" is roughly "everyone who isn't actually homeless but also isn't as rich as Bill Gates".

No it isn't. Middle class has a definition, and it's not "99% of Americans"

Oh, sure, if you want to look at things like "facts" and "reality".

But go on. Go out and ask people if they're middle class. You just try to tell someone who's barely keeping their head above the poverty line that they're not middle class. Conversely, you find an anesthesiologist pulling down a cool $350k/year and tell him that he's way above middle class. Go on. Believe me, I have had these conversations plenty of times.

You could reasonably say that 99% of Americans, if asked, would claim to be middle class.


If asked Romney would claim to be middle class.
 
2012-09-14 11:19:44 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: Ass to ass!
Ass to ass!
/great chant at any event


abcnews.go.com
ASS TO ASS! 
 
2012-09-14 11:19:47 AM  

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.


Obviously you're not a greedy bastard.

Good on you, brother
 
2012-09-14 11:20:19 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 11:23:40 AM  
www.edrants.com

You never go ass-to-mouth
 
2012-09-14 11:23:54 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 11:24:08 AM  

phritz: Cuthbert Allgood: Ass to ass!
Ass to ass!
/great chant at any event

[abcnews.go.com image 413x310]
ASS TO ASS!


Rick's like, "Not on stage, bra. I haven't even had a wine cooler yet."
 
2012-09-14 11:34:06 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: Obviously you're not a greedy bastard.

Good on you, brother


That wasn't how I was raised. I was raised to be frugal and put my money into important things. While I might cut cable TV and heat the house to 63 degrees in the winter - I still drop $2k/year on NFL tickets for my dad and I and I didn't hesitate for a second when I spent $7k on family vacation. I drive a ten year old Sentra, but I already have $80k saved in 529s and other accounts for my kids' education. It is all about priorities in life. Things don't matter to me, but experiences do. And I certainly understand that my philosophy is nor more right or wrong than anyone else's. I do think that the nation needs to come to a conclusion of what needs to be done in this country and how to pay for it. THAT, we can all agree on.
 
2012-09-14 11:34:10 AM  
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administ ration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

POLL: ROMNEY 48% OBAMA 45%...
 
2012-09-14 11:36:42 AM  

More_Like_A_Stain: skullkrusher: A family earning $40k and a family earning $80k obviously fall on different parts of the the national income distribution chart but they could have identical standards of living depending on where they live.

But more to the point, where do people earning between $100K and $200-250K fall on your "class" scale. These are the people directly referenced by Mittens.


it all depends on where they live. As I said, "class" in this context is about standard of living, not your AGI.
 
2012-09-14 11:37:48 AM  
Yoinked FTA:

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don't reduce- or excuse me, don't raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don't reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That's principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

/yoink

Draw your own conclusions, folks, but Mitt's idea of the middle class is not where most people see it.

To use just one metric: median household income varies rom state to state, but in 2005-2007 it ranged from mid-$30k at the low end (e.g. Deep South) to mid-$60k at the high end (e.g. Northeast). I'd argue that the median is where you can start calling people middle-class. In a similar way, upper-middle class is going to begin at about 3X the median, which is well into the 90th percentile and heading for the 95th.

But if you're Mitt, $250k probably looks like middle class because you can only afford to rent a vacation home. (Ewww.)
 
2012-09-14 11:38:59 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".

hehe if you say so Phil... how about a family earning $100,000 a year? Could they fall into your "rational" definition of "Middle class"?

Even that is stretching the definition of middle class nearly beyond recognition.

The top 25% of household income starts at about $80,000.


The President refers to keeping Bush tax cuts for people below 200/250 as "extending the middle class tax cuts".
It is not stretching the definition.

2 kids, house, 2 cars, family trip once a year, saving for college and retirement. Maybe if you're at the higher end you have a small boat or house on the lake. That's what I call middle class.
 
2012-09-14 11:39:58 AM  

shirtsbyeric: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis t ration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

POLL: ROMNEY 48% OBAMA 45%...


Doesn't matter. The electoral college will ensure an Obama win in the same way it allowed Bush to beat Gore. The Romney supporters are too concentrated. He will win states like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina by 20+ points, but Obama will win California and New York by 10.
 
2012-09-14 11:41:20 AM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".

hehe if you say so Phil... how about a family earning $100,000 a year? Could they fall into your "rational" definition of "Middle class"?

Even that is stretching the definition of middle class nearly beyond recognition.

The top 25% of household income starts at about $80,000.

The President refers to keeping Bush tax cuts for people below 200/250 as "extending the middle class tax cuts".
It is not stretching the definition.

2 kids, house, 2 cars, family trip once a year, saving for college and retirement. Maybe if you're at the higher end you have a small boat or house on the lake. That's what I call middle class.


So most Americans are living in poverty in your opinion?
 
2012-09-14 11:42:35 AM  

shirtsbyeric: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis t ration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

POLL: ROMNEY 48% OBAMA 45%...


link goes no where.
 
2012-09-14 11:45:27 AM  

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


He's referring to the upper limit of 'middle class". There is a lot of disagreement on the upper limit of what you can call 'middle class', but the two most commonly used numbers are $200k and $250k.
 
2012-09-14 11:45:52 AM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 11:48:18 AM  
I think what is being lost here in all the herping and derping is mouth to ass isn't even a huge deal. And ass to mouth isn't either as long as enemas are performed beforehand.
 
2012-09-14 11:48:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: But they are middle class? People in the top 2% of earners are middle class in your opinion?

Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.

That's farking stupid. Incredibly farking stupid.

People making in the top 1.5% of income do not fall into any rational definition of "Middle class".

hehe if you say so Phil... how about a family earning $100,000 a year? Could they fall into your "rational" definition of "Middle class"?

Even that is stretching the definition of middle class nearly beyond recognition.

The top 25% of household income starts at about $80,000.

The President refers to keeping Bush tax cuts for people below 200/250 as "extending the middle class tax cuts".
It is not stretching the definition.

2 kids, house, 2 cars, family trip once a year, saving for college and retirement. Maybe if you're at the higher end you have a small boat or house on the lake. That's what I call middle class.

So most Americans are living in poverty in your opinion?


"Not middle class" == "poverty"? That's surprisingly disingenuous, even for you, Father of Lies.
 
2012-09-14 11:49:27 AM  
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?
 
2012-09-14 11:53:38 AM  

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 think the right didn't set out to dismantle everything, they just ended up having to. It's the inevitable result of a "starve the beast" philosophy of government.
 
2012-09-14 11:58:44 AM  

Cymbal: I think what is being lost here in all the herping and derping is mouth to ass isn't even a huge deal. And ass to mouth isn't either as long as enemas are performed beforehand.


Exactly. Can you please explain this to my wife and her sister.
 
2012-09-14 12:03:28 PM  

skullkrusher: Families earning up to $250,000 a year can certainly fall within the "middle class", yes.



"Professional Class" is the better description. Neither bracket owns private jets, but the opportunities and pressures on each group are substantially different.
 
2012-09-14 12:03:50 PM  

Cymbal: I think what is being lost here in all the herping and derping is mouth to ass isn't even a huge deal. And ass to mouth isn't either as long as enemas are performed beforehand.


who the hell is performing enemas before sex... oh, nevermind
 
2012-09-14 12:10:22 PM  
Rasmussen lies almost as much as Romney.
 
2012-09-14 12:12:24 PM  
Can some explain the difference between m-a and a-m to me without destroying my childish innocence?
 
2012-09-14 12:21:49 PM  

skullkrusher: it all depends on where they live. As I said, "class" in this context is about standard of living, not your AGI.


I'll agree that location has an effect on ones standard of living. But really, when you're in the $200-$250K category, how many locations in the country are there that you would be on an equal footing with someone living in a less costly area on $100K or less? Two? Three? And if your job is located in one of those uber-expensive locations, how far do you have to commute to almost entirely negate that effect? 20 miles? 50? When you look at all that, it may not be entirely about AGI, but AGI is the biggest factor in determining "class".
 
2012-09-14 12:24:44 PM  

Gonz: Citrate1007: Only Fox News and other equally partisan right-wing media outlets have been saying that it was remotely close.

I watch CBS News virtually every night. They've been calling it "neck-and-neck" for months.


Gonz: Citrate1007: Only Fox News and other equally partisan right-wing media outlets have been saying that it was remotely close.

I watch CBS News virtually every night. They've been calling it "neck-and-neck" for months.



NPR has also been calling it neck-and-neck or some other such nonsense.

I remember when Kerry ran against Dubya, and I really hoped that he would win. In my heart of hearts, though, I knew it would be an uphill battle and wasn't going to go the way I hoped. During all of this, the right wing retards were herpin' and derpin' away and the election was surprisingly close (final EVs: 286-251).

This time? Forget it. The only way Obama could lose this election is if a video would surface of him dressed in James O'Keefe's pimp outfit, laughing manically and counting dollar bills while Michelle was blowing Romney.
 
2012-09-14 12:25:54 PM  

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.
 
2012-09-14 12:27:58 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: This morning Romney defined 'middle income' as people making between $200k and $250k. Way to go, Mittens.


interesting problem
middle income vs middle class - they are not necessarily the same thing

Oh never mind, I just dont care enough.
 
2012-09-14 12:28:38 PM  

hinten: Vodka Zombie: hinten: Cool, filterpawn no worky with headlines.

Wat?

Ass, ass, ass, -ass, mouth-to-ass.


For the reading impaired
www.hotpicsofchicks.com
 
2012-09-14 12:33:40 PM  

nyseattitude: hinten: Vodka Zombie: hinten: Cool, filterpawn no worky with headlines.

Wat?

Ass, ass, ass, -ass, mouth-to-ass.

For the reading impaired
[www.hotpicsofchicks.com image 236x267]


Newsletter? I need to practice my reading skills.
 
2012-09-14 12:33:53 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: I'll agree that location has an effect on ones standard of living. But really, when you're in the $200-$250K category, how many locations in the country are there that you would be on an equal footing with someone living in a less costly area on $100K or less?


the majority of people who earn in that range are in higher cost of living areas. Sure there are people who earn $250k a year in Wichita but there are far more of them in SF, NY, Boston, LA, etc both in terms of absolute number of people as well as per capita. That's just the nature of how it works. There is nowhere in the country where that amount can be considered hand-to-mouth (or mouth to ass) but when compared to the country in general, the standard of living is not that much greater than $100k (if at all) in other places.

That's the issue with using these nominal numbers. $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. By the same token, $250k a year in your area of the country sounds like a shiat ton of money when it is upper middle class with regards to SOL in another region.
 
2012-09-14 12:35:21 PM  

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?
 
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 194 of 194 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report