-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Holy Shit. it is like people just read the title of the link and rush to make posts.
Byakuya769
Member
For what it's worth, I was attacking the upper bound. The lower bound stuff is nonsense.
I miss your winking pic. It made your snark more playful.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I am sure it will make an appearance in the near future again.
It's not really worth arguing over specific numbers, I think. The real question is, what's different about an "upper-class" person's life compared to a "middle-class" person's compared to a "lower-class" person's? A lot of the arguing over specific incomes just reflects people having wildly different (and often inaccurate) ideas of how much a middle-class life should cost.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The real problem, as I see it, is people are taking an arbitrary number, as defined by the tax brackets and then applying them to themselves.
"Romney says 250k is the upper bound for middle class! F you, I only make 50k and am comfortable!! He is obviously deluded!"
Middle class, as you put it, is as loose a definition as anything I have seen.
Byakuya769
Member
Well shit, if that's the argument, "it's all relative!!!", I don't won't to see any more dumbass "but the poor have xboxes!" arguments. Just because a term is misused does not make efforts to better define it ridiculous. Efforts to maintain meaningless terminology and sentimental instead of objective reality are, however, very ridiculous.
Black Mamba
Member
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I am sure as Speculawyer reads that, he will agree that in that context, there is now way that Romney meant to delineate middle income as having a range of 100-250 or 200-250.
Black Mamba
Member
To me, Romney was saying under 200/250 as the brackets are done is "middle income." We know that's not accurate, but it's the position every politician has.
He said it in a stupid way by answering "no," and "less" instead of saying "It's income under $200-250k." And the Dems should run with it because Romney lies about Welfare and Medicare.
That said, the big issue is the fact that he admits he will raise taxes on the middle class by "base broadening" and also that it will drive up deficits in the short term since it's impossible not to do so. Yet, no one calls him on this.
He said it in a stupid way by answering "no," and "less" instead of saying "It's income under $200-250k." And the Dems should run with it because Romney lies about Welfare and Medicare.
That said, the big issue is the fact that he admits he will raise taxes on the middle class by "base broadening" and also that it will drive up deficits in the short term since it's impossible not to do so. Yet, no one calls him on this.
NullPointer
Member
"It will grow the economy and create jobs. And those new jobs plus the removal of tax loopholes and reduced spending will provide more revenue".
That seems to be their answer, always, and without any details.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
I agree, but it is something that the Dems should be taking a look at at the very least.
True, but it seems like Israel or ME might be getting more in the news and I'd be surprised if the Republicans aren't going with the (at least what I saw as a blurb on CNN) about Obama not meeting with Bibi recently.
That's why I was a bit surprised to see that predication being made. I agree about the the type of article being fairly common, but this is an issue that will be more in the news regardless of desire by a candidate vs the others. I have to look at the data I wonder if it's possible they only defined Jews as religiously active. I only brielfy skimmed the article before i went to bed. Oddly enough I found this via a link on the NSSF news feed.
Going back in history the reason Jews voted Republican for the longest time was Lincoln recinding Grant's Jewish expulsion order. Apparently Lincoln was the man at getting minorities to vote Republican.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I think that Romney hasnt learned the art of the soundbite, but he didnt say anything wrong when you read the whole interview.
"Magic fairy dust."
cartoon_soldier
Member
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/14/romney_does_daytime_tv.html
Their attempts to relate to the American Public More
Their attempts to relate to the American Public More
Black Mamba
Member
LOL
edit: From that interview:
HAHAHA
I thought I couldn't hate you more as a candidate, Willard. You find new ways to prove me wrong.
Actually it was because of this:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
and his clarification of his position on 'middle-class' being household income over $100k
NullPointer
Member
Oh, I was unaware of your disdain for religious fundamentalists. Interesting.
The first article, indeed. The second, not so much. The first article elucidates a few of the substantive criticisms of drone strikes. First, a primary concern regards the ramifications of current policy on future actors. As she notes, international norms for drone warfare are inchoate. And given our distinction as the first state to extensively employ drones, we're defining the parameters for acceptability. I fear we've failed to fully comprehend this aspect. Additionally, the long-term effectiveness of drones is another salient objection. Although, neither side can fully prove their argument because of data limitations.
The second article is not nearly as informational. She does dispel the lowest hanging, I suppose. That drones are more precise is immaterial; it's a bit of a red herring, actually. Rather, as her subsequent article explicates, drones reduce the cost of war. And if they reduce the cost, they produce more strikes than alternative weapons. Thus, the alternative to a drone strike is not an alternative means of war. And that's the problem with this article. She ignores the more substantive criticisms which advocate a paradigmatic shift in counter-terrorism. Although, I suppose there's some value in refuting the more frivolous arguments.
Byakuya769
Member
The "I bring home 400k, but owe loan sharks 300k" argument? It's really interesting how far everyone seems willing to go to make everyone but Warren Buffet potentially middle class. If you're a young person living in NYC with a 160k salary, no you won't be living in a mansion, but you will be making substantially more than the vast majority of the people in the city. This is readily verifiable.
It's a wonder why reasonable tax policy is hard to get in this country. Everyone is middle class and struggling!
His favorite book is Battlefield Earth. Seriously.
I can see how a Mormon would like L. Ron Hubbard. If anyone wanted to pshop Romney's face on Travolta's dredlocked alien body I wouldn't even be mad.
Snooki? Way to pander to the duchebag vote there Mittens.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Look up and read Cyan's post where it shows the snippet from the whole interview. He did not mean that. To believe otherwise is to stretch reading comprehension to its bounds
Eh, maybe Orson Scott Card, but I dunno about Hubbard.
speculawyer
Member
OK . . . Uncle. I had not seen the transcript. It is still not totally clear but the context makes it more likely that it was a flub.
Of course, he now just loosely outlined something that absolutely completely contradicts the Ryan budget that he said he would sign. LOL. He can go from one lie to the next.
Hahaha. The Romneys are great. I love em.
Black Mamba
Member
It's a phenomenon. People always look up and not down when it comes to finances. When you hit $100k, you look at everyone around you making $150k. When you make $150k, it's now $200k who you look at.
I have a cousin who is a well-made doctor (specialist). He earns a lot of money. He spends a lot of money. He always complains that he's poor. He has complained to my parents about this for years while he's raking in $500k a year at minimum (probably more), what my parents may have made in a decade. It takes a lot of strength not to punch family in the mouth.
Gotta love that all this fluff is coming out as the Middle East burns down all their Hardee's.
Etch-a-sketch
Etch-a-sketch
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Sir, Mark Twain uses the word ni***r in that book, a lot of Americans would find that offensive.
I never said Huckleberry Finn, I said Animal Farm.
Don't know if anyone has seen this yet, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ngress-of-troops-deployed-to-libya-and-yemen/
I hope this doesn't escalate.
I hope this doesn't escalate.
anonymous_abc
Member
Ha, nailed it.
You're really not addressing the statements at all, though. I agree that middle-class is a poorly defined term. That's why I was attempting to start a discussion over the proper definition of the term! Your assertion that $160k cannot be middle class does not seem unreasonable, but it requires some defense besides "you're making more than most people." Most people are middle-class or lower! At least half of everybody in the middle class will be making more than most people.
See, I thought the problem with Romney's answer was more that he dodged what the lower bound was on "middle income" because I don't think "or less" implies everything down to $0. This being important since it's not clear how his tax policies would affect those with the lowest income in this country.
I picture him as more of a "1984" kinda guy.
Byakuya769
Member
I think I'm addressing what Gondo and altered said pretty directly. Voluntary expenditures do not matter.
What defense is necessary? Your income at 160k is in the top 20% at least. So it takes much effort to demonstrate they a middle class that encompasses that is a entirely meaningless term??? That's not abundantly obvious?
I never said that.
All I'm saying is that the congress should take into account reasonably predictable burdens (such as student loans and 2+ kids) when it's setting tax policy.
The "loan shark" argument implies that I think those who make extremely irresponsible financial decisions should be coddled by the government and treated as "middle class" no matter their income level, which is simply not what I think.
I simply said that the definition of "middle class" is wildly subjective depending upon geographical location and life circumstances, which is undeniably true. It's one of the problems when the federal government sets tax policy for a country that includes places as different as New York City and Oklahoma City.
Impossible standard. Everything is a voluntary expenditure except bread, water, and cardboard. Is having children a voluntary expenditure or is it an expected part of family life? Two cars? One car? How nice does the car have to be before it's luxury?
So your definition of middle class is that you should make about the median income? That seems pretty arbitrary. Surely any reasonable fiscal policy needs to consider people based on what they can and can't afford to buy, rather than how their income relates to the income of the rest of the country.
Byakuya769
Member
Fair enough, blame it on lazy phone typing.
But a standard based on median income and cost of living will not get you in the neighborhood of 200-250k. And that's what these relativity arguments are in response to, no?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
LOL, I was going to say that, but it was too obvious.
Middle class should probably represent the percentiles from 30% to 75% or so.
I suppose that is reasonable, I still don't understand why he said it the way he did though; seems rife for misinterpretation.
Wow. You're so out of touch.
polyh3dron
Banned
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
possibly,he said it that way because "no" is used as an interjection while explaining things to people. like i said, he hasn't mastered the art of the soundbite.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I presume this is snark, but if it isn't, at 78k last year, I was in the 72nd percentile.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll