Romey says an average middle class income is $200,000 - $250,000 true or not?

[BigRedChief]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-mitt-romney/

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know Democrats are going to be wanting to get much more detail from you on how you’re going to pay for your tax cuts. We’ve heard that at the Democratic Convention. President Clinton said your math doesn’t work. I know you dispute what President Clinton said and what the Democrats that say that you’re going to have a $2,000 tax hike on middleclass families. I know you dispute that. You cite your own studies. But one of the studies you cite by Martin Feldstein at Harvard shows that to make your math work, it could work, if you eliminate the home mortgage, charity, and state and local tax deductions for everyone earning over $100,000. Is that what you propose?

MITT ROMNEY: No, that’s not what I propose. And, of course, part of my plan is to stimulate economic growth. The biggest source of getting the country to a balanced budget is not by raising taxes or by cutting spending. It’s by encouraging the growth of the economy. So my tax plan is to encourage investment in growth in America, more jobs, that means more people paying taxes. So that’s a big component of what allows us to get to a balanced budget.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But his study, which you’ve cited, says it can only work if you take away those deductions for everyone earning more than $100,000.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, it doesn’t necessarily show the same growth that we’re anticipating. And I haven’t seen his precise study. But I can tell you that we can lower our rates–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you cited the study, though.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm glad to see this was finally figured out. After reading the first 30 posts or so with no one pointing out how ridiculous this thread was, I was starting to think you were all nuts.

This just added to a potential forming narrative.

I'm of the opinion as to why Romney is falling in the polls is at its core the same thing that did George H, john Kerry and others in........... they dont understand my life, my struggles, they are so different from me that they cant work for my interests.

Wanna bet $10,000?

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This just added to a potential forming narrative.

I'm of the opinion as to why Romney is falling in the polls

He is?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

[Mizzou_8541]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

This just added to a potential forming narrative.

I'm of the opinion as to why Romney is falling in the polls is at its core the same thing that did George H, john Kerry and others in........... they dont understand my life, my struggles, they are so different from me that they cant work for my interests.

Wanna bet $10,000?

I could care less if Romney understands my "struggles." last thing I want is some politician thinking he or she can solve my problems with government. I would prefer that our president understand that government doesn't solve problems, individuals working together in a free market does.

[RINGLEADER]

Doesn't Obama think middle class is $200,000 to $250,000 and less? Pretty sure the tax plan he proffered had this same breakpoint for middle-class to "wealthy."

[boogblaster]

bs ..... bs ..... 75% of american isn't making it .....

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by boogblaster

bs ..... bs ..... 75% of american isn't making it .....

75% of Americans aren't making $250,000 and less?

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

75% of Americans aren't making $250,000 and less?

96% of Americans make less than $200K a year. At least I remember that figure from when Obama was talking about $250K on the tax cut issues.
This is the only thing I can find on quick google search, From The Atlantic

[Psyko Tek]

200K seems rich to me
best I have ever done was 75k

I now live paycheck to paycheck
hell I aspire to make 20/hr again

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61

He is?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Rasmussen has no polling street cred. Their polls favor the Republicans too much. Then the elections happen and their polls are shown to be for shit.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

96% of Americans make less than $200K a year. At least I remember that figure from when Obama was talking about $250K on the tax cut issues.
From The Atlantic

Okay. That's what he said. Same as Obama. What's the point?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Rasmussen has no polling street cred. Their polls favor the Republicans too much. Then the elections happen and their polls are shown to be for shit.

Actually...

2004

In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine. Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.

In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.

2008

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome." In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there." A Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Rasmussen has no polling street cred. Their polls favor the Republicans too much. Then the elections happen and their polls are shown to be for shit.

Part of the reason why Rasmussen shows Romney ahead (and others show him behind) is because of the party ID and enthusiasm filters he uses. If you take almost any poll and re-weight for 2004 or 2010 turnout models you get Romney winning by 2-4 points. If you apply 2008 models you get Obama winning by 3-5 points. If you apply 2000 models you get a straight up tie (with Obama leading by about .5% in most).

If you use the current breakdown of the average of polls that are on RCP that show voter ID/preference (setting aside the enthusiasm barometer entirely) you get a Romney win of about 1.5%.

I have a fun formula that's part of the averaging algorithm I've used in the last two elections to get within a tenth of a percent of the final outcome that facts this stuff. I'm trying to put it up online so everyone can use, because it does yield some interesting info.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by ReynardMuldrake

According to the 2004 census, households over $157K are considered in the top 5%. It may be higher than that today, that was the most recent data I could find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States

Yeah.

So 200k is not remotely what one would consider middle class.

[Donger]

Certainly that's the high end of middle class household income, sure. Doesn't Obama agree, BTW?

[Donger]

And where did Romney say that was "average middle class income" or is the thread title inaccurate?