LOL. I guess that means WE are all low income poor people.

I guess when you are worth $250 million...... I don't know what to say, I'm just flabbergasted at how clueless this statement is.

This of course explains Romney's stated commitment to the middle class.
He has now confirmed publicly that means anyone making 200k our more....nice.

Even though he believes this , it's a way stupid thing to say. More of those brilliant handlers doing a stellar job. They just gave the Obama campaign a huge gift......

Taking a narrow view - reflected on the 2010 census, those claiming middle class status are said to have a mean annual household income of $46, 829. (Middle class mean average yearly income stated as being between $36,000 and $57,657.)

Nope that is the set amount that would be taxed at the lower rate. It is not said to be THE middle class.

The 250 was set as what small business income would be. Not middle class family income.

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

I don't see a small business qualifier in there.

Because I follow both party platform. My understanding is the 250.000 qualifier has been discussed as the tax base to consider small business it has been President Obama's position since 2008.

It was discussed during McCain and presently with Romney campaign. The 250,000 is a income set to take in to consideration of Small business not that it is a middle income base. So if you use 250 you would not hit the small business Mom and Pop businesses. Not that it is fundamentally considered middle class income as a whole.

Because Romney is out of touch that is a nuance that he cannot relate. or His rhetoric is to dumb down the explanation for his base.

To make decisions it has been helpful for me to hear both long and short spoken, and written positions on policies. Through newspapers, internet, debates, Conventions of both parties.

Talk about not bothering to even look at another man's shoes, let alone step into one for a brief moment... typical, though it is.

Gosh, I wish I could remember a time when being poor meant living off dividends larger than any annual salary I've ever made.

And for most, that vote will be voting a man into office who has already stated that his primary interest will be in increasing defense funding (War! Which means job creation! Less unemployment!) and taking great care with the financial interests of the wealthy, it would absolutely would be

*a vote against the vast majority of the average American's own best interest, especially for women*.

That his average American supporters can't absorb this fact is simply another terrible indictment against our already deeply degraded public educational system.

Even Romney advocates increased taxation by closing loopholes and redoing the tax code.

One way or the other the taxes you pay will go up. You have lived off the trough for way to long.

Yep. Obama's promise to the contrary wasn't worth a damn. When he said taxes "wouldn't go up a dime" for couples earning $250,000 per year, conservatives knew it was propaganda. Libs lapped it up like good little puppies.

Nikoleta, no matter who is elected president, loopholes are going away. that does NOT equate to a change in tax rate.

"One way or the other the taxes you pay will go up."

Yep. Obama's promise to the contrary wasn't worth a damn. When he said taxes "wouldn't go up a dime" for couples earning $250,000 per year, conservatives knew it was propaganda. Libs lapped it up like good little puppies.

*

I certainly don't recall Barack Obama saying only INCOME taxes wouldn't go up.

I certainly don't recall Barack Obama mentioning he was only referring to increases and the $250,000 as businesses.

Please--where was this stated?

The health care bill alone will raise taxes on many Americans. Heck, the requirement that everyone has to have health insurance is a tax--the U.S. Supreme Court has deemed it so!

Any politician who thinks he/she can keep the promises they make doesn't deserve to be elected to anything, not even dog catcher.

It's easy for politicians to make promises, but when reality hits, taxes may have to go up. No one can predict the future, so it's naive to think that the promises made by either Mr. Romney or President Obama are engraved in stone. And anyone who throws these promises up to say they weren't kept is just showing how gullible and easily led they are.

He didn't.

"I certainly don't recall Barack Obama mentioning he was only referring to increases and the $250,000 as businesses."

He wasn't.

Please--where was this stated?"

Nowhere. What he DID say is right here, straight from his own lips.

"Who was it - oh, GHWB, who said "read my lips, no new taxes.""

Yep. Remember what it got for him? One term and a butt kicking to the curb.

"One and Done."

Kate

I wondered the same thing. Someone needs remedial math!

I see a few need some remedial classes in manners when one can't respond to another poster without insulting or demeaning them. What's up with that? Is that really necessary? Wouldn't a simple "how did you come to that calculation" have sufficed?

Probably Dr. Cornell West if they were talking about their Poverty Tour 2.0.

..BOSTON (AP) Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

"But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income, the midpoint for the nation, is just over $50,000.

The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged. Both presidential candidates are fighting to win over working-class voters.

President Barack Obama has defined "middle class" as income up to $250,000 a year.

Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone."

No wonder it is said the American middle class is disappearing!!!!

The EXACT phrases Obama used are mere a click away.

Bears repeating, now that you are awake:

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on Sat, Sep 15, 12 at 1:27

The argument is about...what?

..BOSTON (AP) Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

"But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income, the midpoint for the nation, is just over $50,000.

The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged. Both presidential candidates are fighting to win over working-class voters.

President Barack Obama has defined "middle class" as income up to $250,000 a year.

Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone."

greatgolly are you saying your employer adds your benefits i.e. health insurance, sick days to your gross income on your pay stub as reported to the IRS as taxable income?

$3.29?

Dang, under Romney I'll qualify for food stamps.

Mitt Romney 2012
If you liked Obama...

Well, he might begin with people in his own bracket, who have gotten a HUGE break for way too long, now.

With an unemployment rate hovering somewhere around 8%, usage of public programs up quite a bit, a drought and crop failure this year which will add to the negative balance, the economy not quite where it should be yet, and a ton of homeless floating about, I don't think it will serve his purposes to look to the middle and lower income citizens and families to support the nation through taxes... while so many corporations and other extremely high earners are still paying Bush era lowered taxes, not to mention receiving monstrous chunks in subsidies, that should end... what a gigantic untapped revenue source those 2 things alone would make!

"Mr Romney, who co-founded Bain Capital and is estimated to be worth $200m, said a cornerstone of his efforts to get a "balanced budget" in the US is to get more people to pay tax."

Well, he might begin with people in his own bracket

*

Curious.

I would think one would BEGIN with those that don't pay a THIN DIME to pay at least a token amount first, before asking others to contribute more.

But it is quite possible to address this in an overhaul of the tax code, with no deductions, no "loopholes," and EVERYONE--upper, lower, and middle, paying their fair share.

Fair doesn't mean someone else constantly carrying the load for others, no matter how much money they make--and just because they make more.