[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Oddly enough, George Stephanopoulos is mostly to blame for creating this story. Here is the original article written by George himself via Yahoo!: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-romn...-politics.html Note the beginning of the article: Unfortunately by that time all the other 'news' outlets had already run the story in its original version. How inconvenient! Although, George has a reputation for this type of stuff so it's not too surprising.

I don't find it odd that George would do that. And he's the one who says the media has no bias whatsoever. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That's funny George.

[SolKane]

I'm all for piling on Romney, but this quote is clearly out of context. You don't need this to know he's out of touch, just let him talk with a common person on camera for 30 seconds and he's done.

Exactly. We have hundreds of clips of him interacting with people as proof that he's completely aloof. This is quote of his is awkward, like most things he says, but hardly damnable as his not knowing where the middle class is. But let's be honest - does anybody even know where the middle class is in the modern United States? It seems like few people could answer that question satisfactorily, certainly not most politicians. The fact is the question is inane, because there's not really a middle class to begin with.

[Cyan]

It's kind of too bad that people ran with a false headline and missed the part of the interview where Mittens has the chutzpah to say Obama will lie in debates.

[Flo_Evans]

This really summarizes America's continued disagreement over what middle class actually means. Not that I'm disagreeing with you per se! But I think that people have a vision of what "rich people" do and own, when in reality, for a long time on the income scale, making more money just means you get nicer middle-class things -- two cars instead of one, vacations every year instead of every two years, a three-bedroom house instead of a two-bedroom house. But still working 9 to 5, still owning sensible cars and clothes and devices instead of the best stuff, so still middle class. But for people who are still renting, who are driving a ten-year-old car, who are putting off having a kid because they don't have space, those people look pretty darn wealthy.

.

It seems to some "middle class" = not receiving food stamps.

[Delusibeta]

Knowing American politics, the Democrats will pounce on that mis-wording and base a significant portion of their campaign about it in a similar manner to the Republicans. Riiight?

[titiklabingapat]

It hasn't even been more than 48 hours after his Libya flap. At this point, the Obama people probably doesn't want the subject to change way too quickly as they want to milk each gaffe as much as they could.

Or maybe this is Romney's plans all along to distract everyone from his foreign policy flap, which I think is an even bigger deal than this one.

LOLs either way.

[MWS Natural]

[Knox]

"200k to 250k or less" is an odd combination of words to begin with. It makes me think he originally said 200k when he meant 250k, then while trying to correct it he ended up with the terrible sentence that he spoke. If you're giving a range of values it doesn't make sense to say "or less".

So yeah. Romney is out of touch, but I chalk this one up to him misspeaking.

[cousins]

lol, Obama is such a troll

[Salmonax]

Knowing American politics, the Democrats will pounce on that mis-wording and base a significant portion of their campaign about it in a similar manner to the Republicans. Riiight?

I certainly hope not. Leave that "you didn't build that" strategy of willful misinterpretation to the Republicans.

[jmdajr]

Welp, I guess that makes me poor.

edit: I see..."UP TO.."

[vas_a_morir]

At least you're being honest! If 200-250k is the range for middle america, I'm sending my boss a strongly worded letter asking for a 400% raise.

To be honest, I didn't proofread.

[titiklabingapat]

Welp, I guess that makes me poor. edit: I see..."UP TO.."

Nope. He specifically mentioned that $100, 000 is not, in fact, middle class. So it is between 100,001 up to $200,000-$250,000.

[Lactose_Intolerant]

The Romneys can relate to the struggles of the common man, they had to sell some of their stock in college.

[not psycho]

If you read the article, it is clear Romney did not understand the question and that is why his answer made no sense.

GS was citing a study which said that Romney's plan would increase taxes on those making 100K. Romney said he wouldn't increase taxes on middle income people. So naturally GS asked if 100K counted as middle income. Romney didn't understand, and came out with some garbled response.

The more relevant thing is Romney said the top 5% would be paying the same share as now, which when combined with lower taxes on the middle class means the top 5% are getting even lower taxes than the Bush tax cuts. Basically he is denying the existence of math. Lower taxes for everyone, mass spending, and magically it all works out. It's Bush taken to the next level.

In reality though, it is likely he would (as the study points out) raise taxes on the middle class in order to afford the increased tax cuts for the top 5%.


edit: "His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income."

I don't know anymore, maybe he really is saying household middle income starts at 200K, otherwise that clarification makes no sense. Either way, he doesn't know how to communicate.

[Cubsfan23]

time to bump the thread of people predicting romney to win...

[Tex117]

Poorly worded for sure, but its not THAT far off of Obama's definition.

[Zoe]

edit: "His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income." I don't know anymore, maybe he really is saying household middle income starts at 200K, otherwise that clarification makes no sense. Either way, he doesn't know how to communicate.

WTF, so a 100K household is not middle class?

[UraMallas]

Nope. He specifically mentioned that $100, 000 is not, in fact, middle class. So it is between 100,001 up to $200,000-$250,000.

No he doesn't. We already went around once, shall we start again?

[Cyan]

Guys, there's really no question of what Mittens actually meant. The thread title is wrong.

Here, let's look at the transcript.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know Democrats are going to be wanting to get much more detail from you on how you’re going to pay for your tax cuts. We’ve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesn’t work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that you’re going to have a $2,000 tax hike on middleclass families. I know you dispute that. You cite your own studies. But one of the studies you cite by Martin Feldstein at Harvard shows that to make your math work, it could work, if you eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000. Is that what you propose? MITT ROMNEY: No, that’s not what I propose. And, of course, part of my plan is to stimulate economic growth. The biggest source of getting the country to a balanced budget is not by raising taxes or by cutting spending. It’s by encouraging the growth of the economy. So my tax plan is to encourage investment in growth in America, more jobs, that means more people paying taxes. So that’s a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But his study, which you’ve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000. MITT ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates– GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you cited the study, though. 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.

In context, it's clear that he means $250k and below is middle class.

[Loki]

If you're in a major metropolis like NYC, San Fran etc. then a COMBINED family income of $200-225K (assuming 2 or fewer kids) can be considered UPPER-middle class, but that's about as far as you could realistically stretch it. That income in most American cities is lower-upper class at a minimum.

[planar1280]

Guys, there's really no question of what Mittens actually meant. The thread title is wrong. Here, let's look at the transcript. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/ In context, it's clear that he means $250k and below is middle class.

he said 200K to 250K and less is middle class.

What do you think he considers someone earning 65K?

[not psycho]

In context, it's clear that he means $250k and below is middle class.

No, that isn't clear at all. First of all, that would imply making zero money was middle class, which he obviously wasn't saying. And second, he later clarified he was talking about household income, not individual, which also wouldn't make any sense with your interpretation.

Since neither of his two answers (the one at the time, and the clarification) make sense, we don't know what he meant... if he meant anything.

He may simply have been dodging the question by giving a nonsense answer.

"Hmm, should I say 100K is middle class, but if I do and then raise taxes on them to pay for tax cuts for the top 5% that would look bad... I better use weasel words like and less so I can't get called on it"

[UraMallas]

he said 200K to 250K and less is middle class. What do you think he considers someone earning 65K?

MIDDLE CLASS.

No, that isn't clear at all. First of all, that would imply making zero money was middle class, which he obviously wasn't saying.

*smh* Really? This is a point you're actually trying to make? There is a level of reasonable presumption that one should take when trying to comprehend a statement. I have no love for the man and I won't vote for him but there are good reasons to pile on him and then there are situations like this.

[not psycho]

*smh* Really? This is a point you're actually making? I have no love for the man and I won't vote for him but there are good reasons to pile on him and then there are situations like this.

Try reading my post. I didn't pile on, and I didn't claim he was defining middle class as 200K-250K. I said his answer was so vague we can't tell what he meant, if he meant anything.

If you understood his answer, why don't you explain it.

What is Romney's lower limit for middle income?

Why did he have to clarify he meant household income instead of individual?

[Czigga]

It depends on what your definition of 'is', is.

[UraMallas]

Try reading my post. I didn't pile on, and I didn't claim he was defining middle class as 200K-250K. I said his answer was so vague we can't tell what he meant, if he meant anything. If you understood his answer, why don't you explain it. What is Romney's lower limit for middle income? Why did he have to clarify he meant household income instead of individual?

But it's not vague. It's right there. When there is discourse taking place some things get left out that you can reasonably assume. For instance, Romney does not believe that making $0 is middle class. You can assume this because it's ludicrous to believe that he doesn't understand there is a bottom to the "middle" class. It is presumed (of course) that there is some bottom to the middle class but it just wasn't explicitly stated.

Also, one person cannot "pile on". You are one of the many that have piled on. Pile on him for something worthwhile.

Ura's EDIT:

The Q&A wasn't talking about minimums, it was talking about maximums.

I edited out this part of my post because it is incorrect. The rest of the post is solid. Feel free to respond to the rest of it.

[not psycho]

But it's not vague. It's right there. When there is discourse taking place some things get left out that you can reasonably assume. For instance, Romney does not believe that making $0 is middle class. You can assume this because it's ludicrous to believe that he doesn't understand that there is a bottom to the "middle" class. The Q&A wasn't talking about minimums, it was talking about maximums. It was presumed that there is some bottom to the middle class but it just wasn't explicitly stated.

The question was not about maximums, it was about 100K.

Romney did not answer the question clearly at the time, and his clarification is even more confusing.

And no, saying that his answer was vague is not piling on, because that is not what most people in the thread were saying. His answer *was* vague. "And less" is classic weasel words. He didn't answer the question.

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Well that certainly puts another perspective on the Romney ads I see on tv that constantly play throughout the day saying he will cut taxes on middle income.

Yeesh.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The question was not about maximums, it was about 100K. Romney did not answer the question clearly at the time, and his clarification is even more confusing. And no, saying that his answer was vague is not piling on, because that is not what most people in the thread were saying. His answer *was* vague. "And less" is classic weasel words. He didn't answer the question.

It's really not that difficult. Read the entire conversation. The context is a discussion of tax deductions. Georgie Steph. is pushing Romney by stating that he'll have to raise taxes on anyone making over 100k. Romney says that's not true and goes on to say that the middle class is defined as ~200k-250k (same as Obama, btw). He doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making ~200k-250k or below.
This is simply a matter of Georgie Porgie trying to push Romney into saying he'll raise taxes on any family making over 100k.

[UraMallas]

Romney did not answer the question clearly at the time, and his clarification is even more confusing. And no, saying that his answer was vague is not piling on, because that is not what most people in the thread were saying. His answer *was* vague. "And less" is classic weasel words. He didn't answer the question.

What he is talking about is in no way vague. A high school graduate should be able to fully comprehend his statement, in context.

[GillianSeed79]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone find it frustrating that both parties, regardless of their definition of the middle class, spend zero time talking about the working poor? It's like if you don't make enough money to be considered middle class you don't exist. I realize Republicans have demonized the poor and view them as a drain on tax dollars, but for the life of me I don't understand why Democrats view the word poor as a dirty word. I could totaly live comfortably making $50K a year. I have a college degree and a steady job, but only manage to scrape by making $25k a year. I don't have food stamps. I don't recieve any housing assistance. My tax bill is is 1/4 my monthly take home pay every year, which is a lot when you live paycheck to pay check. At most my tax refund each year is a whopping $1. Payroll taxes and stuff like social security means I take home even less than I actually earn. It just annoys me somewhat when I hear politicians whining how people making $100K a year are struggling. It may be true, but I'd consider myself blessed if I made so much money.

[not psycho]

It's really not that difficult. Read the entire conversation. The context is a discussion of tax deductions. Georgie Steph. is pushing Romney by stating that he'll have to raise taxes on anyone making over 100k. Romney says that's not true and goes on to say that the middle class is defined as ~200k-250k (same as Obama, btw). He doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone making ~200k-250k or below. This is simply a matter of Georgie Porgie trying to push Romney into saying he'll raise taxes on any family making over 100k.

Almost, but not quite.

The idea is that if you lower the tax rate and eliminate deductions, the lower tax rate will outweigh the loss of deductions once you go above a certain income.

However, at 100K it would not outweigh it, and you could end up paying more taxes.

This is a study, by the way, that Romney has cited in his favor.

GS was trying to get Romney to explicitly say 100K counts as middle class, so he could use that study against him. Romney refused to answer clearly.

What he is talking about is in no way vague. A high school graduate should be able to fully comprehend his statement, in context.

I didn't graduate from no high school, but I know weasel words when I read them.

[kaching]

This is simply a matter of Georgie Porgie trying to push Romney into saying he'll raise taxes on any family making over 100k.

Which is Romney's fault for citing the study in defense of his tax policy without reading the specifics, in the first place. And as a result of disagreeing with the studies findings once he's aware of the specifics, it reopens the question of just what the math is on his tax policy to make it actually work. Where's the lower bound here, really?

[Cyan]

Slightly off-topic, but does anyone find it frustrating that both parties, regardless of their definition of the middle class, spend zero time talking about the working poor? It's like if you don't make enough money to be considered middle class you don't exist. I realize Republicans have demonized the poor and view them as a drain on tax dollars, but for the life of me I don't understand why Democrats view the word poor as a dirty word.

Because most people don't consider themselves poor. Everyone thinks they're middle class.

[AlteredBeast]

Reading Comprehension: Not just for Democrats anymore.

Honestly thought better out of NeoGAF democrats, but I suppose this isn't an official PoliGAF thread.

[Cyan]

Reading Comprehension: Not just for Democrats anymore. Honestly thought better out of NeoGAF democrats, but I suppose this isn't an official PoliGAF thread.

Unexpected benefit of moving to Community?

[Wiggler]

Suddenly, I feel extremely poor.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Which is Romney's fault for citing the study in defense of his tax policy without reading the specifics, in the first place. And as a result of disagreeing with the studies findings once he's aware of the specifics, it reopens the question of just what the math is on his tax policy to make it actually work. Where's the lower bound here, really?

I don't know enough about that study to say anything. But, if what George said is true, then you're right. He should have read it carefully before citing it.

Because most people don't consider themselves poor. Everyone thinks they're middle class.

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm high class.

[alphaNoid]

Didn't he say 200-250k and lower?

[AlteredBeast]

Unexpected benefit of moving to Community?

In hindsight, it was definitely the right move.

[Fenderputty]

Guys, there's really no question of what Mittens actually meant. The thread title is wrong. Here, let's look at the transcript. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/ In context, it's clear that he means $250k and below is middle class.

So then the question then becomes, how do you plan on doing that while also cutting taxes to the wealthy all while increaseing military spending?

[Tom_Cody]

Why hasn't the thread title been changed?

[LosDaddie]

In hindsight, it was definitely the right move.

eh, it could've been a sticky at the top of the page. There would've been more posters in the thread that way, other than the 10-15 regulars

[Cyan]

So then the question then becomes, how do you plan on doing that while also cutting taxes to the wealthy all while increaseing military spending?

Exactly. Clinton nailed it: the numbers simply don't add up. We should call him out on that instead of harping on a minor flub.

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm high class.

;)

[AlteredBeast]

eh, it could've been a sticky at the top of the page. There would've been more posters in the thread that way, other than the 10-15 regulars

Reading through this thread, that isn't such a bad thing.

[Fenderputty]

Exactly. Clinton nailed it: the numbers simply don't add up. We should call him out on that instead of harping on a minor flub.

I hope it comes up quite a bit during the debates.

[Like the hat?]

bunch of poor people will still vote for him against their own interests.

I have seen 3 vote for Romney bumper stickers so far. two on rusted out old beat up pickup trucks, and one on a BMW.

[LosDaddie]

Reading through this thread, that isn't such a bad thing.

True, but there's also the chance of more conservatives posting in PoliGAF, rather than the near liberal echo chamber it is now.

[Slavik81]

"200k to 250k or less" is an odd combination of words to begin with. It makes me think he originally said 200k when he meant 250k, then while trying to correct it he ended up with the terrible sentence that he spoke. If you're giving a range of values it doesn't make sense to say "or less". So yeah. Romney is out of touch, but I chalk this one up to him misspeaking.

I think what he was trying to say is more like, "the upper limit to middle class household income is kind of fuzzy, but is around 200k to 250k".