Another Big Lie from Romney: Obama’s plan raises taxes on the middle class - really?

[Bill USA]

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 04:16 PM - Edit history (2)

Amazing! ....Romney's campaign is turning out to be made up entirely of Big Lies. I mean, I'm used to people trying to put their arguments in the best light, and perhaps featuring the more persuasive data and glossing over less favorable information but Romney just throws out one bald faced, naked absolute lie after another. He seems to be spinning an alternate reality - custom made for suckers for Republican con-games.

One of the latest (it's hard to keep up with the order in which they are coming) is that Obama's tax plan raises taxes on Middle Class citizens. see Ezra Kleins article for the details...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/17/romney-says-obamas-plan-raises-taxes-on-the-middle-class-is-he-right/?tid=pm_business_pop

An awful lot of campaign rhetoric distills down to the old schoolyard taunt, “No, you are!” For instance: The ongoing argument about Medicare takes as its base the Democrats’ argument that Republicans, through the various Ryan budgets, have proposed major cuts to Medicare. The Romney campaign’s response has not been to say, “Yes, we need to cut Medicare in order to bring down the deficit, pay for a strong military and keep taxes low.” Rather, they’ve chosen to go with, “No, you’re cutting Medicare!”

The debate on taxes has gone much the same way. The Obama campaign has touted the Tax Policy Center’s analysis showing that the Romney campaign can’t keep its tax promises without either blowing up the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class. Romney’s response? "No, you are!":
[font color="red"]

"Now, interestingly, the same center did an analysis of President Obama’s tax plan and concluded that he’s raising taxes on the middle-class."

[/font]

I consider myself something of a connoisseur of the Tax Policy Center’s reports, and I didn’t remember any showing that result. So I asked the Romney campaign: What analysis were they referring to? They pointed me to Table T12-0045, which analyzes President Obama’s 2013 budget request against current policy. Here’s the relevant section:



<MORE>


when you look at the report from TPC it shows all but the top fifth of earners get a reduction in their taxes.


So there it is, Romney says: [font color="red"]"...the same center did an analysis of President Obama's tax plan and concluded that he's raising taxes on the middle class"[/font]

BUT WHEN YOU CHECK THE REPORT OUT IS SHOWS A REDUCTION OF TAXES FOR MIDDLE INCOME PEOPLE. SO ROMNEY'S STATEMENT IS A GODDAMN OUT AND OUT FUCKING LIE.

[The Magistrate]

1. Easy, Sir: The Top Twenty Percent Are The Middle Class, the Rest Are The Poor

The range between 80 and 90 is the lower middle class, the range between 90 and 95 is the middle class, and the range between 95 and 99 is the upper middle class.

They are all people with substantially less than Romney has, after all. Hell, even Ryan barely emerges from the hoi polloi from Romney's vantage point....

"Romney loves America like a tick loves a dog."

[Bill USA]

3. income upper bounds for each of the quintiles ----

looking at the "cash income" chart (click on chart below to go to a much larger image), note that the second quintile's income level (actually the upper limit of the category) is $33,542.
The third quintile (41% to 60%) income level (i.e. upper bound) for 2011 is $59,486 (note median income U.S., is around $49K). The Income level (upper bound) for the fourth quintile (61%tile to 80%tile) (2011) is $103,465. Thus 80% of the population earns less than $103,465 for 2011.


Most Americans would probably put the Middle Class in the $40,000 to $100,000 range, some would not start as low as $40,000 but since the median income is around $49,000 you have to start below that by some margin. The third and fourth quintiles would be generally accepted to be the 'middle class' - as most Americans would see it {($33,542+1) -- $103,465}. Many however, would not consider anyone below $40,000 as Middle Class. But that still leaves you in the Third and Fourth Quintiles.


In the United States I don't think people generally consider the Middle Class as starting with those making from $103,465 - $163,173 (your 'lower middle class'). The middle of the Middle Class which you put at the income range of $163,174 - $210,998 and 'Upper Middle' at $210,999 to $532,913 most Americans would consider above Middle class (okay some AMericans would include those with incomes above $100K, perhaps up to $150,000 in the Middle Class, but most would stop at around $100,000. Again note that the median income is around $49,000, so one would think the Middle Class should include those making the median income.



If you define Middle class as somewhere from about $40,000 up to $100,000 (which I would say that' how most Americans see it) then Obama's tax plan does not increase taxes on the Middle Class. Maybe from Romney's perspective anybody who doesn't make at least in the 6 figures CAN'T BE in the Middle Class ("I say, how do they manage on such a pittance! that's what we pay the guy who trains our dancing horse!&quot

[The Magistrate]

5. So Long as You remember To Look At It from the Top Down, Sir, His View makes Perfect Sense

Not endorsing it, mind, merely setting out how it is said with a straight face.

My personal view, however, is that most people who consider themselves middle class are at best prosperous working class people. 'Middle class' is really a sort of euphemism for bourgeoisie, applying to people who make their living by trading in knowledge ( such as physicians and doctors and lawyers ), and persons who make their living by trade on their own capital, though not on too great ( or too small ) a scale. Persons who receive a wage for labor, whether at a factory line or at an office desk are never properly classed as bourgeoisie. We have never had a particularly large middle class in this country; what we did have, at least roughly between 1950 and 1990, was a solidly prosperous working class. This was never properly named, because work is in truth held in contempt in our country, so few wanted to label themselves workers once they had some taste of prosperity. And this prosperous working class has largely destroyed itself, by so many of its members casting ballots based on bigotries rather than based on their own economic interests, and so seeing to the place being run by politicians who cater only to malefactors of great wealth.

As the man said, near the start of that run, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat."

"Romney loves America like a tick loves a dog."

[Bill USA]

6. Romney's statement does not make sense in any way you look at it. If you want to communicate

with your audience you should use words in the same way they do, not use a familiar term in the way you prefer to define it (without stating this as a proviso). I am aware of the 'classical' definition of middle class and that it doesn't include 'working people' someone who is not a professioal person or a business owner ( although some would include small businessmen ONLY if their income is high 'enough').

Even with that said, if he is using another definition for "middle class" than what is it's typical usage in the United States - a country which a few decades ago was widely considered as having grown the largest middle class of any nation in the World (of course, that was before Reagan and the Neocons got busy with Chicago school economics). To people in the U.S., middle class would have to have a range of incomes which would include the national median income which, as stated above, is around $49,000 (post the Trickle Down Deregulation disaster).


http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/defining-the-middle-class/

An Oct. 2007 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard School of Public Health and National Public Radio asked 1,527 adults what income level makes a family of four middle class. About 60 percent said a family earning $50,000 or $60,000 fit that description. But 42 percent answered an income of $40,000 and 48 percent said $80,000 were both middle class.

~~
~~

Republican candidate Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has proposed eliminating "taxes on dividends, capital gains, and interest on middle class families." He defines "middle class" as anyone with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000 – and acknowledges that such a proposal would affect "over 95 percent of American families."

Romney by including those making up to $200,000 a year is quite a bit off from where almost all Americans think of as middle class.

Checking the Cash Income table mentioned in the OP (here) you will note that those making $103,465 are situated above 80% of Americans in terms of income. Romney says his "Middle Class" goes up to $200,000 including those from 80th percentile up to the almost the 95th percentile. Most of the public would not include those above $100,000 a yr Middle Class, and few would consider those making more than $163,173 - the 90th percentile (that is an income above 90% of Americans as "Middle Class". When he takes it to include those making $200,000 he is just shy of the 95th percentile. In America if 'middle' means anything at all it would not include those in the top quintile (up to just shy of the 95th percentile.

In the U.S. the classical definition of middle class you sited above is just not recognized. Romney either was deliberately double-talking his listeners OR he is, once again, way out of touch with the how most Americans think - and live.

[RedStateLiberal]

2. That's pretty much the R&R slogan now.

Romney/Ryan 2012
"No, you are!"



Nice debunking Bill USA.

[Herlong]

4. People hate feeling confused by too much information.

In order to maintain their sense of well being they will choose any default premise available. This is why republicans refute obviously available information with a complete and disparate sets of "facts". People hate feeling inadequate and stupid. Consumerism feeds into that feeling of inadequacy.