Anonymous wrote:Well when a decent house costs over 1.5 million then of course 100k is poor. save me the drivel about how a post ww2 1200 sqrft rambler is good enough for a family of 4, it isn't. Move to any other area in the country and you can buy the equivalent size / located 1 million dollar house in DC on a 100k income.

Sorry, but the price of real estate in one small area doesn't make a $100k income "poor". There is a middle ground, which is the often-debated "middle class" that we are referring to. They don't buy $1.5 million dollar homes, but that doesn't mean most people would consider them poor. Perhaps to someone like Romney, they seem like it, but that's been a big issue with his campaign. Perhaps a family of four with an income of $100k can't afford a nice house in a good DC neighborhood, but that's why expensive cities have suburbs.

It's ironic that the only people who make $200-$250K and think they're "middle class" live in areas that Obama will win easily.

What a good looking man. My goodness!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, lots of people on this site making $100K think they're poor. Check out the thread on the Private School forum by the poster asking for financial aid because her family makes $120K with a paid-off mortgage and $350K in inherited stocks. She calls her family "working class."

Yes, that's what I meant by going the "full DCUM". It is only here and a few other select places in America that you are going to find anyone who believes that $100k is poor. In the discussion about the Chicago school teachers, they were considered terribly greedy for making $75k in Chicago -- another expensive city.

As for the point that Obama thinks $250k is rich, I disagree slightly with that interpretation. Obama wants a higher tax rate beginning at $250,000. But, since that is a marginal rate and only a 3% increase, you have to make considerably more than $250,000 before you pay a significant increase. I would interpret Obama as saying anyone who would find themselves with a significant tax increase after a marginal increase starting at $250,000 is rich.

Well when a decent house costs over 1.5 million then of course 100k is poor. save me the drivel about how a post ww2 1200 sqrft rambler is good enough for a family of 4, it isn't. Move to any other area in the country and you can buy the equivalent size / located 1 million dollar house in DC on a 100k income.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, lots of people on this site making $100K think they're poor. Check out the thread on the Private School forum by the poster asking for financial aid because her family makes $120K with a paid-off mortgage and $350K in inherited stocks. She calls her family "working class."

Yes, that's what I meant by going the "full DCUM". It is only here and a few other select places in America that you are going to find anyone who believes that $100k is poor. In the discussion about the Chicago school teachers, they were considered terribly greedy for making $75k in Chicago -- another expensive city.

As for the point that Obama thinks $250k is rich, I disagree slightly with that interpretation. Obama wants a higher tax rate beginning at $250,000. But, since that is a marginal rate and only a 3% increase, you have to make considerably more than $250,000 before you pay a significant increase. I would interpret Obama as saying anyone who would find themselves with a significant tax increase after a marginal increase starting at $250,000 is rich.

Anonymous wrote:Nationally the average for the middle class/rich threshold is $387,000, in our area it is $527,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/joining-washingtons-one-percenters-takes-more-than-the-us-average/2012/04/21/gIQAJ6YvXT_story.html

The middle class is the "MIDDLE CLASS", not the "everyone but the very, very riches people" class.

Anonymous wrote:Obama uses the same number (250K or less), and let's be clear: They mean total household income.

No he didn't. He defined $250K as a safe cutoff for raising taxes. Then in the 2008 election we had that Joe the Plumber nonsense. Obama has been forced over and over again to bump up the cutoff for taxes until it hit $1 million. Then once he got there, you started saying he was on a class warfare campaign.

Anonymous wrote:Nationally the average for the middle class/rich threshold is $387,000, in our area it is $527,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/joining-washingtons-one-percenters-takes-more-than-the-us-average/2012/04/21/gIQAJ6YvXT_story.html

Do you not know how to read? To be in the top ONE PERCENT you need to make $387k. ONE PERCENT. Not middle class, you idiot.

Nationally the average for the middle class/rich threshold is $387,000, in our area it is $527,000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/joining-washingtons-one-percenters-takes-more-than-the-us-average/2012/04/21/gIQAJ6YvXT_story.html

Obama uses the same number (250K or less), and let's be clear: They mean total household income.

Jeff, lots of people on this site making $100K think they're poor. Check out the thread on the Private School forum by the poster asking for financial aid because her family makes $120K with a paid-off mortgage and $350K in inherited stocks. She calls her family "working class."

Jsteele, Romney definitely "apologizes" for the movie there so where is romney from earlier this week to release a statement denouncing himself?

as for your second part, i think one can also flip it and say that to obama those making 250K are "rich" and in some instances that is not the case. while they are far from poor, they are definitely not "well off". i can see this turning into a debate for days on radio, tv, etc cause its a class warfare debate which both sides like to play.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-george-stephanopoulos-and-mitt-romney/

First off, Romney apologized for American's values:

"Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it’s not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."

and

"I think the whole film is a terrible idea. I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment– the good judgment– not to be– not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing."

This is essentially the same thing the US Embassy in Egypt said when Romney accused Obama of apologizing for our values.

Next, Romney went "full DCUM" and declared that middle income is $200,000 to $250,000:

"GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."

I bet all of you making a measly $100k didn't realize you were poor, did you?