Jump to content

Romney's ridiculous comments on 47% of Americans


fjl2nd

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got?

Actually, when the term "middle class" was coined it was used to reference those people making the equivalent of 200-250k/year. The group directly below that, comprising the majority of Americans, was referred to as the "working class". It was called the "middle" class because it characterised a growing segment of the population whose productivity and means fell between that of the everyday American and the affluent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry BS (somewhat appropriate...lol)

 

You are falling for spin.

 

Mr Romney referred to taxpayers who earn 200 -250k, and less.

 

 

Those on the left, conveniently trimmed that off the quote, and you, along with most in the "press release" media went right along.

 

.

 

Kind of like the "you didn't build that" quote that the Republicans trimmed, so they could have a bumper-sticker slogan to base their convention on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got?

 

This is Obamas very definition of middle class. Less than 250,000 household income. So mitt uses the democrat definition and he is branded out of touch. Interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of like the "you didn't build that" quote that the Republicans trimmed, so they could have a bumper-sticker slogan to base their convention on?

 

 

Nope.

 

 

Not comparable at all .

 

The context of the President's speech was actually even worse an attack on success than the oft-quoted "you didn't build that"

 

Anyone who reads the ENTIRE speech and then tries to qualify that bit as a reference to infrastructure, is a buffoon.

 

 

but, this is a distraction from the point of this thread. I am sorry for that. However, the posters attempt to pass off the left's revision of that speech had to be called on.

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, when the term "middle class" was coined it was used to reference those people making the equivalent of 200-250k/year. The group directly below that, comprising the majority of Americans, was referred to as the "working class". It was called the "middle" class because it characterised a growing segment of the population whose productivity and means fell between that of the everyday American and the affluent.

 

...equivalent to the "merchant class" and "laborers" in older terms ("older" going back all the way to Assyria and Babylonia, at least). The equivalence of "middle class" to "working class" is, as far as I can figure, is a post-war American development. (At the very least, the distinction was perfectly clear in the 1920's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that anyone believes you anyway,

 

but I would point out that the adults on the board know that the election was held November of 2000

 

well then that is the problem., ya'll assume too much. I voted for Bush over Gore.

 

----------------------

ADULTS on this board? Where you dolts call everyone !@#$s, stupid, ignorant etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the posters attempt to pass off the left's revision of that speech had to be called on.

 

.

 

Well, that kind of goes without saying, doesn't it? :P

 

Completely disagree with your take on the "you didn't build that" thing...but as you said, another topic for another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I lived next door to a white couple sucking off of welfare in 1980 and I knew a lot of other white trash in the area of Goodman and Norton Streets. I'm sure not much has changed. the Lazy bastards will suck off the gov't any way they can.

 

A letter to Myth

http://ireport.cnn.c...43112?hpt=hp_t1

Edited by BillsFan-4-Ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you consider upper middle income as middle income?

 

Given the fact that household income of $200,000 or greater puts you in the top 2.67% my answer would be no these folks are not upper middle income they are in the top 2.67%.

 

Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for folks who make above $250,000 is ludicrous considering the "dire" nature of our deficit.

 

Remember that the FICA taxes (Social Security, is capped at $110,100 of income).

 

The Simpson-Bowles commission suggested cutting SS 3% across the board. Why not uncap the FICA tax to the first $250,000 of income so these other "middle-incomers" can contribute their fair-share?

 

And this has what to do with the thread?

 

Taking Donald Trump's stance, your opinion matter's not since you are a Canadian - how are you "entitled" to talk U.S. politics? Also as Mitt Romney explained you don't matter because as a Canadian you are not paying any U.S. taxes like the bottom 47% of Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll find that pretty much everything Biggie Scooby writes has little do with anything in any thread. As best as we can tell, his job is to help BF4E sound relatively intelligent.

 

Sorry, I'm no longer allowed to participate in this thread since I'm a Canadian. Of course, as a Canadian, I wouldn't possibly be able to understand how his asinine retarded statements actually make a whole lot of sense in the grand scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Middle income = $200K WTF? both of them are out of touch.

 

how many of you earn over $100K??

 

Hell Rochester's inclome is way less than that.

Estimated median household income in 2009: $30,553 (it was $27,123 in 2000)

Rochester: $30,553

New York: $54,659

Estimated per capita income in 2009: $18,886

 

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Rochester-New-York.html#ixzz26qxLAiEa

 

 

Alaska has the fourteenth highest per capita income in the United States of America, at $22,660 (2000). Its personal per capita income is $33,568 (2003), the twelfth highest in the country. Its median household income is $51,571

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_locations_by_per_capita_income

 

 

Oh for the unemployed -- Kohl's to hire more than 50,000

 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Kohl's Department Stores seems to have high hopes for the upcoming holiday shopping season.

The retail chain unveiled plans on Tuesday to hire 52,700 seasonal workers this year. That's a 10% jump in seasonal hiring compared to last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...