Romney\’s definition of middle income

The Republican nominee was defending his policies on stimulating growth in the US, when he said he wouldn\’t raise taxes on \”middle-income people\”.

\”We can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people,\” Mr Romney told ABC\’s George Stephanopoulos, who then asked the Massachusetts Governor if he considered someone earning $100,000 as being \”middle income\”.

\”No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,\” Mr Romney replied.

With the average salary at $39,959, according to the Social Security Administration, the comments are likely to anger an American public grappling with an unemployment rate of 8.1pc.

Cue chortles about out of touch multi-centi-millionaire.

Strangely, Obama\’s, and all the Democratic, proposals for tax changes lead to higher taxes only on \”the rich\”, those earning more than $250,000 a year. And it\’s not entirely beyond the bounds of belief that if you\’re not rich and you\’re not poor then you\’re in the middle.

14 thoughts on “Romney\’s definition of middle income”

  1. Table A-2 here says that median household income is $50k, that $100k is just outside the top 20%, and that incomes above $186k are in the top 5%:
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
    The idea that “middle income” is $200-250k is plain wrong, unless you’re defining “middle” as within the top 5%, which would be queer. The only issue is whether Romney is wrong by idiocy or by mendacity.

  2. “The only issue is whether Romney is wrong by idiocy or by mendacity.”
    Given that Obama used a similar definition the only issue is whether you are moron or a cretin.

  3. It would be reasonable to parse “$200,000 to $250,000 and less” as meaning that the upper bound is somewhere in the range $200k-250k. Which is fair enough, given Obama’s definition of middle class incomes.

    But Romney gave no lower bound. And he said “no” to the suggestion that $100k is in the range. That part does suggest that he hasn’t got a clue.

    That’s ok. Obama is an excellent president, there’s no need for a competent challenge.

  4. Did Barry’s definition give a lower bound? I don’t think it did. As for Barry being an excellent president, the events in Libya suggest not. Did anyone think that a 9/11 anniversary following the death of Bin Laden was going to be trouble free. Well anyone except Barry.

  5. Do we actually have a transcript of this conversation? If the prelude to the question “if he considered someone earning $100,000 as being “middle income”.” refers to the upper bound, then ““No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,” is an answer to the question. There’s no request for a lower bound.
    On the wider point, there’s a tendency to regard US presidentials as the election of some sort of latter day absolute monarch. That’s not how it works. What’s elected is an administration. There’ve been good presidents with poor administrations. Lousy presidents saved by good administrations. It really depends on who comes with The Man.

  6. Barry’s main problem has been the fact that he didn’t brutally barrel everything imaginable through Congress in 08-10, because he failed to foresee being screwed in the House in the 10 elections.

    Obviously he’s been Tea Party Buggered for the last year and a half, but that should have been predictable to anyone who’d studied Mr Clinton’s first term.

    Nonetheless. Dude wound up Iraq, killed Osama, is winding up Afghanistan, did Libya in a remarkably bloodless way (with the only whitefella boots on the ground being French); it’d be fucking churlish to blame him for the fact that State got a bit cocky about embassy security after all of the above.

  7. “State got a bit cocky about embassy security ”
    A dead ambassador is hardly getting a bit cocky. And if the ‘Dude’ killed Osama why is it the ‘State’ who got a bit cocky?
    On the matter of a republican congress, Barry’s problem is that he lacks the skills of say Clinton who was able to work with a republican congress. Barry’s last budget was given a unanimous rejection by congress. I don’t think Bill would ever have seen that happen.

  8. Oh, for Christ’s sake.

    Lengthening to: “The Department of State figured that Libya had been successfully pacified, and therefore didn’t request the kind of ‘shitloads of armed soldiers’ help that is required for US embassies in warzones”. The ‘cocky’ bit is “we won at Libya, we don’t need to treat it like it’s as dangerous as Iraq’.

    And do you seriously not remember the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns? Clue: they are very much what their names suggest. Clinton and Gingrich were not good buddies.

  9. Oh, for Christ’s sake.

    Libya isn’t ‘pacified’ . The diplomats were in a building that wasn’t secure and was inadequately protected. If there was going to be a response to killing Ben Laden, then would they hit the the best protected place or the least protected place? I really don’t understand how Barry and Co. missed this.

  10. did Libya in a remarkably bloodless way (with the only whitefella boots on the ground being French)

    Possibly, just, not. Not even the “only openly admitted”. But, hey, them and their silly moustaches get everywhere.

  11. Obama is an excellent president, there’s no need for a competent challenge.

    Steady on, fella. Last time you went down this route you ran off, blubbering that any views to the contrary were “insane”. You really want to go another round?

  12. TN: That’s not what I said was insane. But I realise that a very short memory is necessary to hold the views you do.

    However, I am content to agree that we disagree about Obama’s excellence.

    Eddy: yes, President Clinton got on ever so well with the Republicans. That’s why they impeached him.

    My understanding is that the State Department is responsible for security at US Consulates. I suppose that makes Hillary Clinton answerable for any errors.

    BiS: Romney was talking about taxes on middle-income taxpayers. Stephanopoulos asked him “Is $100,000 middle income?”. Romney said “No, …”. His campaign later clarified that he was talking about household income.

  13. “My understanding is that the State Department is responsible for security at US Consulates. I suppose that makes Hillary Clinton answerable for any errors.”
    I’m sure you are right about embassy security, however for a 9/11 anniversary following the killing of Bin Laden shouldn’t the president have taken some responsibility to review security?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *