Mitt Romney Thinks You`re Wealthy--Jokes On You

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago

Romney believes "Middle-Income Americans" make $200,000 to $250,000 a year which means you"re f*cking poor.
There are 84 comments:
Male 2,357
@DFWBrysco: Do you think that they belong in the "upper" class (the class that has multi-millionaires and billionaires) then? The difference between a $250k/yr household and Donald Trump is much more vast than the difference between that same household and the average household you suggest.

Perhaps you would care to define what you consider to be the cutoff for "upper" class income? I hate to tell you this, but even many liberals acknowledge that a $250k/yr household income is in the upper range of the middle class.

I find that, if many people consider your opinion strange, then it is most likely strange. If you consider the opinion of many people strange, then your opinion is likely still the strange one.
0
Reply
Male 307
It`s sad that Romney is as out of touch with America and yet feels he is qualified to run it. Worse are the conservatives in the media (and on here) trying to defend this statement.

The median household income (note - that is "household" and not "person") for the US is $49K-$50K. Less than 4% of the households in the US garner a total combined income of $250K.

This just goes to show how far the US has sunk. Instead of voting in an individuals belief in the best man for the job, America is going to go out and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I weep for our future.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
If I made half of that, I`d be ballin`.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]`It`s so because I say it`s so` doesn`t work on most people.[/quote]

No dear, it`s what you said because *you* said so. Here it is again:

[quote]$200,000 these days isn`t sh|t for household income.[/quote]

Perhaps you think poo is wonderful and thus meant "$200,000 these days isn`t wonderful for household income."

But probably not.

Now reply by denying what you said, again. I`ll keep pointing it out this time, so you won`t get away with it this time. May as well try, though, to keep your hand in for some time in the future when I`m not willing to keep doing it (or I`m not reading that thread).
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchouly: $250,000 household income is usually two people working. That calculates out to $60.09/hr. per earner for 40 hours. But most people making that much are salaried and actually work much longer hours for the same pay. That is the upper end of the scale for `middle class` as well.
0
Reply
Male 2,628
@unmercifuldu-
You take me to task for making what you call assumptions about you, yet yo feel free to call me spoiled. Bit of a hypocrite, aren`t you?
Your poor vocabulary merely puts an emphasis on your limited intelligence, as well as your proclivity for whining.
Ya big `ol potty mouthed baby.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
What freaking planet is it where a person is making $130 an hour and is still considered to be "Middle Class"?
0
Reply
Male 4,283
Just for the record. A $250K family income is middle class, upper middle class sure, but it is still middle class.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Now you`re sounding like Obama, `It`s so because I say it`s so` doesn`t work on most people.

I`ve explained what I wrote, if you reject that explanation that`s on you. But your insistence that it meant something else just because you say it did, is just ASSinine.
0
Reply
Male 4,283
So it is out of context when Mitt says something but we have to take President Obama`s word verbatim even when he leaves out an important word like "alone" as in "You didn`t build that" ALONE. I see how the game is played.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Nowhere in that did I say $200,00 was `low income`. You ASSumed that`s what I meant, you ASSumed wrong.[/quote]

You did so. I quoted you doing so.

Here`s the date and time of your post doing so, in this thread, so you can go back and delete your post to remove the evidence:

Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:29:27 PM

Of course, you`re right to ASSume (as you like to put it) that if you lie about what you`ve written often enough, you will succeed in fooling many people because IAB is not set up to make it easier to track back along comments and replies in a thread.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
I agree with him (and Obama); I think that a household income of $250k is upper-middle.

Is it more insane to categorize these people as middle income or rich? Is it realistic to group them with multi-millionaires and billionaires?

I say no; therefore they`re middle income.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
rofl.
0
Reply
Male 261
To be fair, didn`t Obama say the exact same thing? That $250,000 and under is considered middle income? That tells me that they are drawing from the same data.

And arguing over this is utterly ridiculous. There has to be a line somewhere between two groups, in this case rich and middle income. If the number were lower, say $100,000, then everyone would get their panties in a wad and claim that it`s unfair to think that $100,001 a year is "rich."

So shut up everyone. Save your fight for when it matters. This issue is pointless.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Romney will never be president. Who cares what he thinks? He`s a friggin tax cheat who committed voter fraud. Looking forward to the day he`s jailed.
0
Reply
Male 412
It was a faux pas on Romney`s part, but this - like the President`s statement, "you didn`t build that" - is being taken out of context.

First, as has been pointed out by others, he did say "... and less." Second, he was talking about lowering the tax rate for a group of Americans. He was put on the spot by Stephanopoulos (as he should have been) to define `middle class` as it relates to his tax plan, and he put a cap on the ceiling of the tax cut.

I`m not a Romney supporter - I`ll likely vote again for the President - but our public discussion on the national election shouldn`t be shrouded in out-of-context quotes. Period.
0
Reply
Male 559
[quote]He said "200, 250 thousand dollars or less." Did you not hear the "or less"??? It`s a threshold between middle and upper.
Way to take things out of context AGAIN!
I don`t even like this ass clown, and you`re making me defend him.
Find a real topic to be upset about.[/quote]

Well if that is what he meant, then he is an idiot. Someone needs to tell him what "Middle" means. Am I to think the bottom 98% of Americans make up the middle?
0
Reply
Male 554
Which rock has the douche been living under??????????? NO WONDER THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS SO SCREWED UP!
0
Reply
Male 2,737
I made $9,000 last year. I think I`m beyond poverty level.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: Sorry if you feel left out, Squrlz and I have been debating `Climate Change` and related issues for quite awhile now. Don`t feel bad about it, you walked into the crossfire.

I believe that you can google "100 coal plants closed" and see the evidence of that for yourself, if you wish.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Keegan: I didn`t say $250,000, I said $200,000.

Now to the point, Have you ever heard of the term "Keeping up with the Jones`"? When you make a certain amount of money it is human nature to live near others of the same income level and desire the same things your neighbors have. That has lead many to live at or above their means.

You are correct though, if people were logical and more down-to-earth they`d live beneath their means and disregard their neighbors acquisitions. Doing so they wouldn`t have to struggle to save for retirement or their kids educations.

Suze Orman is a great author on this issue, I highly recommend reading her books and watching her TV show.
0
Reply
Male 7,905
CrakrJak

I gotta be honest man, I have no clue what the two of you were talking about. Nor do I know how you ended up there on a post about Romney being out of touch. I just had that stat in my pocket from a totally different discussion I had, it seemed pertinent, so I tossed it out. It may be somewhat dated but it is the most reputable source I could find. While you might be correct on what you said, I honestly find things like that meaningless when not attached to a reputable source link.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HG: What your 2011 dated link doesn`t discuss is the fact that over 100 coal fired power plants have closed due to not meeting EPA regulations. The percentage you quoted is much higher now.

CO2 was never the main problem anyways, Sulphur and Nitrogen oxides are. So power plants have devised techniques to raise combustion temperatures to lower the formation of oxides.

I`d give you and Squrlz a primer on Wet Scrubbers, but I think you can look them up for yourselves. Suffice to say that over 95% of what is emitted from such a systems stack is just simple steam.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: "Grumpy anti-science man", Really? That`s the best you have? Why not fill out the whole liberal playvard and call me a racist, bigot, warmonger as well?

I wish I could scan my degree and my Dean`s and President`s list awards for you to see, but alas they (along with everything else I owned) burned up in a fire in 2004. We didn`t have `online colleges` back when I graduated. Hell the internet was still dial-up and mostly AOL users. Doesn`t matter though, they were just papers, no one can take my education away. Your taunts just make you seem even more of an ASS.

Btw, There many different types of marketable petroleum coke which is relatively pure carbon that is mostly used in the production of `dry cell` batteries and electrodes used to make steel and aluminum. Some of it is burned in coal power plants, but those must have special scrubbers to do so.
0
Reply
Male 1,511

He said "200, 250 thousand dollars or less." Did you not hear the "or less"??? It`s a threshold between middle and upper.
Way to take things out of context AGAIN!
I don`t even like this ass clown, and you`re making me defend him.
Find a real topic to be upset about.
0
Reply
Male 228
@CrakrJak

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a family that makes 250,000 a year is middle-income due to how much money they have to spend? Why not stop spending that much damn money?

And don`t tell me it`s not possible, I make house payments, I own 2 cars outright and I make less than a fifth of 250,000 a year.
0
Reply
Male 7,905
CrakrJak

A 2011 study by the United States Government Accountability Office "found that 56 percent of boilers attached to stall stacks lacked scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide"

Source: http://tinyurl.com/8mqptwn
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CrakrJak: Oh? You have a "college" degree? What was your major? Creationism? Sorry, Grumpy Anti-Science Man, I was talking about a degree from an accredited university, not some online degree offered by "Pastor Blowhard`s Christian Academy for Ignoramuses."

I love the way you sidestep the whole petroleum coke issue and latch onto scrubbers. You make gaffe after gaffe and just forge ahead, regardless. CJ, if you think the majority of smokestacks in this country, let alone the world, are having their CO2 captured by scrubbers, you must`ve bummed some Oxycontin pills off your buddy, Rush.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: [quote]you have never set foot inside of a college classroom nor opened a textbook on organic chemistry.[/quote]

You`ve just ASSumed yourself into being an ASS.

I have a college degree and understand chemistry just fine. Apprently you`ve never heard of `scrubbers` which have been standard equipment on coal power plants as well as other industries, to capture that carbon and keep it from going up and out the top of their smokestacks.

This has been the case since the clean air act was passed and the EPA routinely monitors such facilities for compliance.

Just keep digging that hole you`re in Squrlz, eventually you`ll bury yourself.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
CrakrJak: When we last discussed oil refining, I did a quick estimate of the amount of CO2 produced by a barrel of crude. I clearly stated that I was using assumptions, such as "assuming all the carbon is turned into CO2" and stated that I was "ignoring byproducts."

This casual exercise evidently got under your skin, apparently because you have never set foot inside of a college classroom nor opened a textbook on organic chemistry.

You then went on to confidently declare that "most of the carbon in a barrel of crude oil is refined out of it." Sure it is, good buddy. LOL. You then claimed that petroleum coke (as opposed to coal coke) is used in the manufacture of steel and, therefore, doesn`t contribute to CO2 levels. In fact, most petcoke is combusted and its carbon flies up out of smokestacks in the form of CO2.

Sorry to get up in your grill with reality. But the fact remains: You`re a wanker.
0
Reply
Male 7,905
I don`t see how there have been 3 pages of comments about this. He clearly says $250,000 AND LESS. If that is how he chooses to define "the middle" I see no problem with that. It just means almost all Americans are in the middle.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Squrlz: You shouldn`t be high fiving anyone after your failure of understanding how petroleum is refined and then claiming all of the carbon in crude oil is turned into CO2.

You both should be sitting in the corner with dunce caps on.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Nowhere in that did I say $200,00 was `low income`. You ASSumed that`s what I meant, you ASSumed wrong.

After all the expenses that come with the middle class lifestyle (and I made those expenses very clear) what is left over for a couple with 2-3 kids, leaves them little if anything to retire on. That is what I was calling "isn`t sh|t for household income." after all is said and done. $200,000 household income is not being rich.

I wish it were different, but the middle class has slid into the working class due to inflation. Bear in mind I`m comparing what level of lifestyle people had 40-50 years ago as `middle class`. Houses, Cars, Medical care, Insurance, Education, virtually everything cost less (as a percentage of income) than it does today.

Next time take what I write in context and read the whole thing, instead of ASSuming something else and making an ASS of yourself.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"Old ollie if you posted a quote I don`t see a citation or source so I don`t believe you."

Sorry, I forgot some of you liberal f***tards are too damned stupid to use Google. Fine, just click
here.
0
Reply
Male 2,096
We are serfs, peasants and dung eaters. Thanks Mitt (ya bitch)
0
Reply
Male 58
thank god fancylad isn`t a bitch too, or i`d shoot myself from all the drating bullpoo 5cats puts on this site. drat.
0
Reply
Male 486
turdburglar - I wasn`t talking to you. I was ranting at the video.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Barnk - I referring to the thread, not the post.
0
Reply
Male 486
Saying anything "-or less" is not middle; it has to include low, by definition. How can anyone not understand that? At best, Romney`s statement qualifies as a gaffe, since it is unsound. At worst, it is either a reflection of how out-of-touch Romney is with the middle class, or a ham-handed attempt to justify tax cuts for the rich.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Angilion: 100%. ~high five~
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Everyone in government has always referred to the mid-six-digit income as "middle income" ... though the most successful people I know of in real life (doctors, lawyers, real estate investors) ... probably don`t even make that much.

The government also considers the poverty line at a level that`s not even livable in a low cost-of-living area ... so I gotta wonder what the government calls the quarter of a million dollar income gap between "poor" and "middle income". o_O
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Fight! Fight!
Left vs. Right...

All these politicians have the same agenda, just different ways of getting there. Why doesn`t anyone see that right and left are both extreme. 2 party system is without a doubt the biggest problem with America...and maybe someday it`s downfall.

This post is stupid...it`s bait.
Why post something entertaining that will only be viewed once? Flame bait works better.

Grass is green, sky is blue.
Politicians lie, Fancy is a troll.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I didn`t call $200,00 low income, so please quit lying.[/quote]

This is what you wrote. I quoted it before. I`ll quote it again here.

[quote]$200,000 these days isn`t sh|t for household income.[/quote]

So yes, you did call $200,000 a low income. In fact, you called it a very low income, so low that it isn`t even enough to be considered a very bad level of income.

Or does "poo" mean something different in your reality?

When you make false claims about what you`ve written in a public forum and then make false claims about other people as a result, you make yourself look bad. Although you obviously don`t care about that and you know from experience that if you repeat something untrue often enough you will be able to fool some people into believing it, especially on a forum like this one. Most people wouldn`t bother to manually search the thread to confirm what you wrote.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
I defer to Wikipedia:

Household income in the US
0
Reply
Male 2,628
@unmercifuldu-
I was emancipated at 15. By 18, I was living and working abroad- pretty sure my WASP babyboomer classification meant zilch in Asia. I`d saved some money and acquired a skill-set in a field I enjoyed. I and my wife built a successful, lucrative business. While raising a family. It wasn`t easy and it darn sure wasn`t always fun.
When we sold that business, I `retired` back here in the states and my wife and I started a new business- during a recession and at a time that businesses were folding and folks were losing their homes.
I`ve been responsible to my family and those that I`ve employed, for better than 30 years.
Spoiled is having advantages, wasting them, and whining about how unfair it all is.
Hard work, sacrifice and sound judgement is a far cry from spoiled in my book.
You may have a lot of book learning, but you`re a little short in real-world smarts, self-discipline and self-reliance.
0
Reply
Male 316
Just another failed anti-Romney post.
0
Reply
Male 878
CaotKangaroo. Really? That`s not what it says on your Federal tax return. We will be in touch.
0
Reply
Male 3,412
I honestly don`t think one can define "working, middle, rich" classes without defining location.

Where I live, the middle of nowhere PA, middle class can be defined by about $35k to about $65k. But in New York City, that would be considered poverty level, and $250k could be considered middle class.
0
Reply
Male 762
@VirtualParty

Can you make an actual link to that video. That one doesn`t work and I am interested to see what you posted.
0
Reply
Male 787
Actually anyone who is old and has contempt for the younger generation and a sense of entitlement. Also lol @ the most upvoted comment for that video. It`s funny because it`s true type of thing.
0
Reply
Male 787
Old ollie if you posted a quote I don`t see a citation or source so I don`t believe you.
www.youtube.com/watch? (space) v=pR8aFDosQBQ& (space)feature=related

Also crackr jack and ollie should watch this :/
0
Reply
Male 314
I`m totally against Romney, but all he said is that "middle income" is $250,000 or less, which is true.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Themax275: You nailed it. Welcome to IAB--and keep commenting!
0
Reply
Male 928
If you can honestly support this guy your as retarded as it comes just go jump off a cliff and do yourself a favor right now. This guy has no idea what is going on around him and yet so many want to try to talk to me about how great he is. He is great at changing his opinion any time he thinks it will get him ahead.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: I didn`t call $200,00 low income, so please quit lying. I said it wasn`t a lot for middle income after you pay for all the expenses that come with it. $10/hr. these days is being poor, $20/hour, is working class, $40/hr. is middle class. There was a time, when I was a little kid, that $10/hr. was middle class, that was 40 years ago.

I`m no troll, it`s just the simple fact of the matter. I`ve never personally even been `middle class` rich, My parents were for awhile but slid into working class because of inflation, as most families have lately.

The `middle class` lifestyle has become a lot more expensive because of inflation. A million dollars in the bank at current interest rates will get you $20,000 to $30,000 a year income for retirement, which is living at poverty level.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Same definition as Obama. Seriously. No issue. That is all.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]just because he`s used $200K as his cut off for tax hikes doesn`t mean he considers $250K and below to be middle-income Americans.[/quote]
You aren`t real big on this readin` thing are you?

I just posted a quote from a document entitled "THE PRESIDENT`S PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS" in which Obama describes "middle class" as a family earning up to $250,000 -- EXACTLY the same criterion used by Romney. But some how Romney is out of touch because is used the EXACT SAME definition of "middle class" as Obama did.

How can you be that intellectually dishonest and still be able look at yourself in the mirror to pop your zits?
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]However you interpret it. it was deliciously stupid. Mitt should stay away from how easy it is to get rich.[/quote]
No, it wasn`t stupid at all. It only *appears* as a mistake if you "interpret" it dishonestly, i.e., totally misrepresent it. And it was a lot easier to get rich in this country before this socialist SCOAMF took over.
0
Reply
Male 5,896
yawn that`s not middle income well the 250 isn`t at least. It`s still top 4%~ top 4% to middle is all middle income? Cool.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
`The idea, though that even $100K is "middle income" is just wrong`

Agreed.
0
Reply
Male 16
Median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S. has been hovering around 50K a year, for the last few years. That number represents over half the country. Dual income Households are a little higher at almost 70k a year.

Less than 18% make over 100k a year, and when you hit the 200k plus mark you`re in the top 3% of household incomes. Depending on the area you live, those numbers can seem drastically higher or lower.

It`s not right to say that anyone is taking his statement out of context when he was asked if 100k a year was middle class and he replied with "No, middle income is 200-250k and less." He answered the question vaguely, as any politician should, but he answered it nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
@FoolsPrussia: no, Obama doesn`t. Look, I`m not sticking up for Obama here, but, just because he`s used $200K as his cut off for tax hikes doesn`t mean he considers $250K and below to be middle-income Americans. And, as for Romney, like I said before, I agree that he said "and below." I`ve got not problem with his wording there. The idea, though that even $100K is "middle income" is just wrong. It`s not. As I say, if you make, literally, tens of hundreds of millions a year, then, sure, $250K/year is nothing, but, to those of us other than CaptKangaroo, $250K/year is pretty freakin` spectacular.
0
Reply
Male 1,311
Rob, that`s bullsh@t. To say less, is still to say that 200,000-250,000 is still middle class, and no middle class American makes that.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
To be fair, Obama defines middle class the same way. Which is stupid.
0
Reply
Male 2,514
Actually, he said that middle income is $200-$250K OR LESS... But you have the right to be an idiot at completely dismiss that words that he actually said, and substitute them for the words you would have liked to hear him say. That makes perfect sense.

0
Reply
Male 762
@CaptKangaroo

Maybe you spoiled ass baby boomers should realize the same opportunities that were available to you as you entered one of the strongest economies in US history aren`t available to those who are trying to enter the work force in the worst economy since the great drating depression.
0
Reply
Male 2,628
@unmercyfuldu-
I have no college degree, my wife has a business degree- Which in her country cost considerably less than a U.S. degree- so no staggering education debt.
We`ve owned our own businesses all our married lives; I do ops and she does finance/administration, and We`ve not cleared less than 400K since the late `70s.
Sorry that you`ve all these degrees that seem to be of no value- mebbe you should change your career path instead of whining.
0
Reply
Male 787
I wish you retards would stop making excuses for him. The whole question posed in it`s entirety and his response is in this video. "Middle income is 200k - 250k and less." If that is the middle where he is standing you need to see he`s out of touch. "And less"? He didn`t mention low income or anything more specific to parlay more information about what exactly he meant by that so stop making excuses for him.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
However you interpret it. it was deliciously stupid. Mitt should stay away from how easy it is to get rich.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]$200,000 these days isn`t sh|t for household income.[/quote]

YEC, evolution denier and now so extremely wealthy that you think that a household income higher than 96% of households is an extremely *low* income.

You`re obviously not well connected to reality.

Or maybe you`re employed by IAB to troll here - more trollery means more page views which means more advertising income for IAB.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Look, let`s assume that you guys are right and everyone`s taking out of context. Okay, fine. Do YOU think $250K is middle income. Sure, less is, you know, like $50K. But, should $250K EVER be discussed as middle income? I guess if you`ve inherited millions, sure. But not to the rest of us. At all.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"...$200,000 to $250,000 AND LESS..."

What part of "AND LESS" don`t you stupid liberal f***tards understand? Actually, I think you DO understand it, but as usual, you`re lying your asses off.

Here`s a quote from THE PRESIDENT`S PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS.

"That`s why the President called on Congress to break through the gridlock and pass a one year extension of the tax cuts for every family making under $250,000 a year - 98 percent of all Americans."

You liberals are nothing but lying sacks of dog $#!+
0
Reply
Male 762
My wife and I have 3 college degrees between the two of us. We both work full time and have a household income of less than 45k. Sorry if I can`t sympathize with these families struggling on 250k and the millionaires who are no longer considered "rich", Crakr.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
My interpretation is that he was trying to broaden his political appeal and portray himself as being the right candidate for almost everyone by pretending that everyone in the USA with an income of less than $250,000 a year (i.e. nearly everyone in the USA) is a single group, a group he`s the right candidate for.

He`s trying to position himself as the right candidate for "middle income" and simultaneously trying to stretch the definition of "middle income" as far as he can. That would explain leaving the bottom end open, so people who are on a low income can interpret themselves as being in the middle income group.

Just the usual political posturing and deceit that`s par for the course in any democracy.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
unmercyfuldu: These days `Poor` is under $30,000 a year, single income or under $60,000 household income.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
$200,000 these days isn`t sh|t for household income. It costs over a million dollars to raise a child from birth to college these days. People are being forced to pay $2,000 a month house payments (that they are underwater on), 2 - $500 a month car payments, College loans, Soaring electric and gas bills, Insurance payments, etc etc etc.. It all adds up. And if anything is left over people have to save for their retirement.

There was a time when being a `Millionaire` was being rich, but not these days. Inflation has severely diminished that term.

If it wasn`t bad enough now, all this `Quantitative Easing` is an inflation bomb just waiting to go off.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
200-250k is wealthy, not middle income, so he`s wrong there. "And less" is still wrong because he`s saying there`s no poor. People with <20k are still middle income based on this really dumb statement.
0
Reply
Male 762
$0-$250,000 is middle class. Poor is....
0
Reply
Male 83
He was saying the upper end was $200,000 to $250,000. Anything less, as well. Poorly worded? Yes. Poorly conceived? No. For once, we should look at the content instead of the exact words. I`m not a Romney supported, but I at least don`t go off on tangents about inconsequentials.
0
Reply
Male 14,773
From the linked article: “Is $100,000 middle income?” Stephanopoulos asked.

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

His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.
0
Reply
Male 3,314
Way to stop the quote mid sentence there. "No, `middle-income` is 200, 250 thousand dollars AND LESS." While I may not like him, I like it even less when either side takes something someone says out of context and spins it for their own use.
0
Reply
Male 2,543
guess you missed the `and less there` part huh?
0
Reply
Male 5,314
i might as well be unemployed according to him
0
Reply
Male 19,840
Link: Mitt Romney Thinks You`re Wealthy--Jokes On You [Rate Link] - Romney believes `Middle-Income Americans` make $200,000 to $250,000 a year which means you`re f*cking poor.
0
Reply