Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Isn't 200-250K what two Lawyers, or two doctors make collectively? I know a fair number of people like that, and they aren't really 'middle' anything

Uh... depends. Most Doctors / Pharmacists / Lawyer I know probably makes more than that...

Most make substantially less than that, to the best of my knowledge.

Remember, the figure is that the median household income in the US is ~$50,000. Total for the household.

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
Isn't This is one example of how a poor communicator Romney is... I *think* his plan would like to not raise taxes on small business owners too(they're in that 200k).

Most small business owners don't make that much.

So we have blue collar and white collar...we by chance creating a red collar worker force?

Manny... I think the qoutes are doing wierd things in your post.

What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?

I was referencing that comment about two MDs or two Lawyers...

I know a staff inpatient Pharmacist... just a regular chick entering orders... not on any supervisor/management track.

She works 7 days on and get's 7 days off...

She shares rent with another Pharmacist who works on your off week...

Guess what she does on her off week? She goes to Bermuda and lives with her boyfriend... (been doing that for at least 10yrs). So, somehow the $$$ she earns came up... she wouldn't give me a figure, but is over 6 figures.

The other chicks tease her 'cuz she's maintaining a year round tan!

Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.

That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.

Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).

Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).

The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.

At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.

And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Manny... I think the qoutes are doing wierd things in your post.

What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?

I was referencing that comment about two MDs or two Lawyers...

I know a staff inpatient Pharmacist... just a regular chick entering orders... not on any supervisor/management track.

She works 7 days on and get's 7 days off...

She shares rent with another Pharmacist who works on your off week...

Guess what she does on her off week? She goes to Bermuda and lives with her boyfriend... (been doing that for at least 10yrs). So, somehow the $$$ she earns came up... she wouldn't give me a figure, but is over 6 figures.

The other chicks tease her 'cuz she's maintaining a year round tan!

Is this in a private practice hospital?

Wife and me combine make over 200K and we're not lawyers or doc's. I'm middle class eh Guess my perspective is off.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.

That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.

Okay... I'm nodding my head here... agreeing with you. WOAH!

Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).

Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).

The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.

No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".

At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.

And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.

Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...

If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...

Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).

Only thing that should be good out of this is the debate between Ryan and Biden. Precurser to 2016 election probaly

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Shuma... I was just calling you out when you said Romney doesn't think those middle income people exisits... that's a shallow statement dude.

That's not quite what I meant, but the distinction isn't clear. I don't think he thinks of those people when forming opinions concerning the wealth or welfare of the American state. I'm sure he's aware that they exist. I grew up poor in Maine, a fairly impoverished state. I grew up in a trailer park, several siblings, single parent. I still have a hard time seeing something like a forty thousand dollar salary and not considering it to be an immense amount of money. I have worked hard the last few years of my life to expand my horizons, I've had to to get out of the boonies. I don't believe Romney has ever worked very hard to include people in his worldview, he's never had to, he started in wealth and has continued upwards. He never will have to. His speeches, the way he interacts with people, the kind of life he lives and the kinds of gaffes he makes imply to me that he has the same problem, but in the opposite direction. I don't think considering 250k to be a somewhat regular amount for a household is all that unrealistic for someone who grew up without want or need. I think Romney the candidate wants to be inclusive and make plans that help everyone, but Romney the candidate isn't Romney the person, and he's been having a bad week for speaking off the cuff.

Look... Romney does have a perception problem... I get that (he's too rich... he's middle income comment).

Obama had (and still does) a perception problem too (you didn't build that... spread the wealth).

The problem there is that "you didn't build that" was a conservative campaign to recharacterize something that realistically no one would disagree with, that being that you didn't build the road that you put your business on. The spread the wealth thing is also a label for liberals, not Obama. Romneys image problem comes from Romney himself. Romneys image problem is closer to Bidens, consistent and stupid gaffes.

At the end of the day, Romney has my vote... even though he doesn't have a chance.

And that's the saddest thing of all, that nothing he does, says or plans to do can keep conservatives from voting for him to get rid of Obama.

Is this in a private practice hospital?

??
Doesn't matter... you can go to a state university hospital, charity hosptial, OUTPATIENT pharmacy like Walgreens... and the pay is very similar. The reason being is that there's such a huge demand for them...

Heck, I remember in 2010, that if you got your Pharmacy degree and sign a 5 (maybe its 6) year contract with Walgreens, they'll give you a sports car of your choice (I just remember the porche), pay for your school loans during the contract AND pay the market salary rate.

Most of the time, Pharmacist would work at the hospitals, then go staff at an Outpatient Pharmacy outfit (Walgreens, Walmart , CVS, etc) for about 10 hours per week in addition raking in even more.

Seriously, if I wanted to go back to school... I'd get my Pharmacy degree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Only thing that should be good out of this is the debate between Ryan and Biden. Precurser to 2016 election probaly

Heh... that Debate would be awesome.

Hmm... not to get off topic... Both of them have equally distorted perspectives. However, considering men of Romney's ilk have contributed to the predicament that we're currently facing in no small degree, I naturally lean towards Obama. I don't personally feel that a businessman has any particular place in politics, or that a business man would grasp the problems he faces with the right ideas.

But. Considering Obama's presidency, I'm not sure that more of the same thing would be beneficial either. I think he has the Charisma and the brains to be a better president, and his perspective is a bit broader than Romney's, in a lot of ways... but something isn't clicking with his ideas and results.

No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".

I will agree that the labels themselves are mirrors of one another (as is natural considering the parties they represent), but I think that they way they earned those labels is considerably different. Chalk it up to my political leanings if you wish, but Obamas appear more undeserved given that most of them stem from criticisms his party, not him. That said, I don't think a candidate for president can avoid falling into one of these categories, since a lot of the bad from a democratic perspective (he's a warmong, he's super rich) are good from a republican one (he'll defend us, he knows how to handle money).

Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...

If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...

Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).

It's sad because I rarely see realistic or meaningful criticisms of Obama from conservative perspectives. There are certainly things to critique, a lot of them. But what is critiqued is usually insubstantial or are critiques of the world, not Obama or the democrats. Americas ability to discuss politics with itself appears fundamentally broken to me.

 Jihadin wrote:
So we have blue collar and white collar...we by chance creating a red collar worker force?

What would that be? People who work at Target?

Doesn't matter... you can go to a state university hospital, charity hosptial, OUTPATIENT pharmacy like Walgreens... and the pay is very similar. The reason being is that there's such a huge demand for them...

I looked into the industry in '09 when I was shopping around for career statistics and the numbers didn't seem anywhere close to that inflated. I was wondering if it were a largescale practice because the pay scales in those have a much bigger wild streak when it comes to moving out of line with the general paygrade of a given job.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

No... I disgree.. I think his image is similar to Obama... that is "Obama the socialist" vs "Romeny the Rich White Dude".

I will agree that the labels themselves are mirrors of one another (as is natural considering the parties they represent), but I think that they way they earned those labels is considerably different. Chalk it up to my political leanings if you wish, but Obamas appear more undeserved given that most of them stem from criticisms his party, not him. That said, I don't think a candidate for president can avoid falling into one of these categories, since a lot of the bad from a democratic perspective (he's a warmong, he's super rich) are good from a republican one (he'll defend us, he knows how to handle money).

Yeah... I can see that dude.

My main criticisms go back to who he is...and I really don't wanna get into this (wrong topic) since the last time I had to tussle with Mellisia...

And to be honest... I really don't like both parties... I wish we can have more... *shrugs*

Why is that sad? I don't like Obama...

If Bill Clinton was running, I'd vote for him over Obama...

Probably the ONLY way I'd vote for Obama, is if Gingrich was running... that man has prolems... (at least his speeches/conferences would be epic).

It's sad because I rarely see realistic or meaningful criticisms of Obama from conservative perspectives. There are certainly things to critique, a lot of them. But what is critiqued is usually insubstantial or are critiques of the world, not Obama or the democrats. Americas ability to discuss politics with itself appears fundamentally broken to me.

 whembly wrote:

What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?

This.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What's income? What you earn after taxes? Or total?

This.

Gotcha thanks...

Yah... Romney flubbed this one...

Here's a cool chart:

How in the heck does Northern Alaska go that high?

There just one guy there, but he a billionaire super-villain

Think northern Alaska is oil workers.

Lies, all lies its only this guy

 youbedead wrote:
Lies, all lies its only this guy

Oh! That's golden!

Northern Alaska is home to "The Slopes"... there's a huge transplant of workers there, but they don't live there.

 Jihadin wrote:
Whats Obama plan again?

Obama's budget was submitted to congress in full. It's public record, IIRC.

Link pls

You are an incredibly lazy ass person, you know that?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

There's a government website dedicated to showing the budget, due to Obama's push for transparency in government. This particular page holds the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013. It has the option of downloading each section as a separate part or as a single pdf.

 dogma wrote:

So, basically, we won't change taxes on the top 5%, but we'll lower taxes on people that are in the top 5%.

I'll reiterate with emphasis, the above is the argument Romney is making.

 dogma wrote:

 dogma wrote:

So, basically, we won't change taxes on the top 5%, but we'll lower taxes on people that are in the top 5%.

I'll reiterate with emphasis, the above is the argument Romney is making.

We'll spend Gnosis to negate the paradox!
But, honestly, he hasn't presented a real plan, so a fantasy plan makes as much sense as anything he's said so far. I'm fairly certain he's just mouthing whatever his campaign managers tell him to say. His entire campaign largely consists of just a barrage of sound bites, deflections, and misinformation. I think he's just going for the shotgun effect. Sadly, it seems to be working on a lot of people.

 Jihadin wrote:
So we have blue collar and white collar...we by chance creating a red collar worker force?

According to a random history program I watched a long time ago.The term red neck comes from union workers who wore red scarfs. So there is your red collar worker.

What is wrong with Mr. Romney describing "middle income" as less than or equal to $250,000? if he says he wants to lower taxes on that income bracket who is getting hurt? no one...except the people who are nothing but a drain on society, and can help it, but choose not to.
Besides it not being a statistical number, it is a number that Romney feels comfortable with, and I dont care, I fit within his definition, and I only made 10 grand last year, 13 this year.

Well, he said, "200k-250k, or less". So either he meant 200k-250k, or he said something totally meaningless, as "everything 250k or below" can't be the middle. As it mathematically includes the bottom.

 jordanis wrote:
What is wrong with Mr. Romney describing "middle income" as less than or equal to $250,000? if he says he wants to lower taxes on that income bracket who is getting hurt? no one...except the people who are nothing but a drain on society, and can help it, but choose not to.
Besides it not being a statistical number, it is a number that Romney feels comfortable with, and I dont care, I fit within his definition, and I only made 10 grand last year, 13 this year.

You know me... I'll defend Romney if I think he's being unfairly criticized...

But, what the hell was he thinking? That statement is an attempt of political jujitsu that's really making him look lame...

Maybe he meant "household income range for middle class"? Even then, the number's don't line up quite right:
Good slideshow from USNEWS:
http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/slideshows/how-to-gauge-your-middle-class-status/2

For the 50 percent of families in the middle of the scale, household income ranges from $51,000 to $123,000 for a typical four-person, two-parent family. The median is about $81,000.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, he said, "200k-250k, or less". So either he meant 200k-250k, or he said something totally meaningless, as "everything 250k or below" can't be the middle. As it mathematically includes the bottom.

I somewhat suspect he did not mean he considers 200K to 250K to be middle class. I suspect he meant between whatever bottom you want to declare up to 200K or 250K is middle class. I don't really disagree with him, either, but I live in northern Virginia, where 40K a year's considered poor.

 jordanis wrote:
What is wrong with Mr. Romney describing "middle income" as less than or equal to $250,000?

It isn't "middle income" by any definition?

 Seaward wrote:
I suspect he meant between whatever bottom you want to declare up to 200K or 250K is middle class.

And he would still be obviously wrong to cite those numbers as relevant to those who draw middle income.