Then you aren't even "middle class" according to Mitt Romney. Don't feel sad because 95% of American house holds don't make enough to be labeled as "middle class" according to Romney.
In a flash of honesty and for the first time Romney is putting some numbers to his economic plan. He states that he considers the middle class to be 200k-250k per year. We already know he wants big tax breaks for those that earn 250k+. He want to keep middle income earners tax burden "low" and well he won't talk about poor people except to say "not concerned about the very poor" despite the fact that his economic policy would require most of the safety nets low income earners depend on to go away.
This is the world Mitt Romney lives in. In an America where 83% of house holds earn under $100,000 a year. Where 72% of house holds earn under $75,000 and still over 54% of house holds earn under $50,000 a year, Mitt Romney will look after the 1.37% of Americans that qualify as "middle class" by his definition by keeping their tax burden as low as he can. He's got one interesting thing going for him. There are less households that earn $200,000-$250,000 a year then there are that earn over $250,000.
Wait oh sorry...I've used figures from 2005. The latest census data has that number of Mitt Romney's "middle class" has drop by over 15%.
Again the GOP show they don't understand basic maths. Do you really want a Mitt Romney as President when he thinks that:
97% of American households are defined as "poor"
"not concerned about the very poor"
Plans to increase the tax rate paid by the "poor" by about $1,600/year.
Watch Romney and Obama both describe who they think is "middle class"
My cousin say " If you live in California 250k is middle class and Obama is an idiot. He is a socialist and should move to Europe."
Lets look at the mean household income of California. Seems people can be ignorant of what it is like in their own state.
The GOP has been jumping on the Obama administration's foriegn policy. Claiming them as a failure despite the fact. They make completely baseless claims like
Liz Cheney "he’s abandoned some of our key allies, like Israel, Poland, Czechoslovakia"
First lets look at Israel. This is what Defence Minister Ehud Barak said just over a month ago.
Ehud Barak "But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past"
Kind of shows how much the GOP is prepared to lie and distort the truth. Just because Obama and the Israel government admit there are differences of opinions on some matters doesn't mean that Obama has abandoned them. Quite the opposite. There is honesty there.
As far as abandoning Poland 48% of poles like the policy and only 31 don't with 21 undecided in one pole and another had a 56% approval rating with only 29% against the change. But Slawomir Nowak, a senior advisor to the Polish Prime minister abck in 2009 said this "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield programme...We were never really threatened by a long-range missile attack from Iran," The only ones that loose out here is the defence contractors that where slated to make tons of money for putting in a system that wasn't suited to the task.
The fact is the new plan cost less and is a better fit for the situation and risk. Spending billions of dollars in a paranoid cold war mentality where we are worried about Russia starting a nuclear war is obsurd.
Finally lets get to the final country that Obama has "abandoned", Czechoslovakia. First off Czechoslovakia hasn't been a country for almost 2 decades. So do they mean the Czech Republic? If so that is covered by the same system as Poland.
Note also that this "Missle sheild" isn't to defend these countries. It is to "defend" the USA from Russia firing nuclear weapons at us.
The GOP constantly complains about Democrats spending to much but when you look at the facts it is very much the other way around. The difference is that the Democrats spend more on the common person. The republicans spend more on making the rich richer.
Lets look at the numbers
Reagan 1st term
8.7%
Reagan 2nd term
4.9%
Bush Snr
5.4%
Clinton 1st term
3.2%
Clinton 2nd term
3.9%
Bush Jr 1st term
7.3%
Bush Jr 2nd term
8.1%
Obama
1.4%
Democrats clearly raise spending more then republicans.
How about creating private sector jobs? Democrats average 150,000 jobs a month over the last 50 years. Republicans only 71,000. That means under democratic administrations PRIVATE sector jobs increase twice as fast. Yes unemployment is still above 8%, 8.1 to be exact. But when Bush Jr left office the unemployment rate was rising into double digits.
The raw numbers
Reagan ~168,000 new jobs per month
Bush Snr ~54,000 new jobs per month
Clinton ~270,000 new jobs per month
Bush Jr ~11,000 new jobs per month
it took a year to halt the collapse Bush Jr caused. Since then
Obama ~107,000 new jobs per month
Sure Reagan did better but he didn't have to deal with a shit economy handed to him by the previous president.
Like Clinton said at the DNC. Its simple maths. And the GOPs math doesn't add up.
Just once I'd like to see the GOP attack Obama using truth rather then the lies they come up with.
That sharp increase while in 2009 is a result of a number of things like
5.8 percent cost of living increase before Obama got into raised social security payments and another 39 billion for medicare.
Obama did push through the stimulus bill to stop the rising unemployment rate and Bush's 2009 budget only covered defence spending for the full year. Other government agencies where only funded through to March meaning Obama's administration had to hustle to get funding for them.
This is ridiculous. In today's age there are still people that think wives should be subservient to the husband in a house hold. Here Pat Robertson keep saying things like "He can't let her get away with this stuff", "I don't think we condone wife beating these days, but somethings got to be done to make her."
This is what the husband has wrote in
"My wife has become a real problem. She has no respect for me as the head of the house. She insults me and she even went as far as stretching her hand to beat me. I've lost my self confidence. Her words hurt so much and she refuses to talk through our problems. Please tell me what I can do. - Michael"
Now I don't condone abuse from either side. The woman in question apparently is psychologically abusive to her husband. But isn't her husband psychologically abusive to her if he demands respect as "the head of the house."? Respect is earned not claimed and just because a bunch of stories, written and modified over a few hundred years and which are at least 2,000 years old, says shit like.
Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord."
Corinthians 7:4 "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
Note that here it isn't strict submission but a partnership but both ways this is bad to think your partner can demand sex when ever they want regardless of your feelings.
One Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Does not mean we should keep this 2,000+ year old "morality"
In an age where the GOP don't want women to have equal pay where all but 1 republican senators blocked the the bill from going forward and the one outlier didn't vote. In an age where the GOP thinks that an employer should be able to deny a woman reproductive health care. You can see how the GOP not only wants wives to be submissive to their husbands but they want women to be subservient to men.
The woman talking to Pat Robertson suggested counselling for the couple but he did little more then nod in agreement before going back to ranting how the woman must be mentally ill and suggesting that the husband move to Saudi Arabia.
There are plenty of good religious people but it is idiots like Pat Robertson and those that follow him blindly that make religious people look like cave men. If you are religious get out from under a big tent if you are under it and voice your opinion. Show that most religious people are not bigots and backwards. Show that a husband and wife are an equal partnership not this crazy ass relationship that many vocal religious nut jobs want.
Now numbers can often be manipulated but this is from a pole performed by Public Policy Polling. The pole is linked below for you to view.
When asked the question : Who is responsible for Osama Bin Laden's death? With the choices being : Barack Obama, Mitt Romney or Not sure. 15% of people that identified themselves as "Very Conservative" picked Mitt Romney. A full 51% of that same demographic said "Not Sure" and 53% of people that self identify as "Somewhat Conservative" also said "Not Sure". This means that well over half of people poled that identify as conservative don't know or won't admit to knowing that Barack Obama is more responsible for Bin Laden's death then Mitt Romney.
Now this isn't a question of "Should more credit be given to SEAL team 6?" "What about the intelligence community?" etc. Barack Obama has repeatedly given credit to everyone involved. This is simply people in Ohio being asked, of the 2 candidates, who is responsible for Bin Laden's Death. I mean this isn't even a tough question like "Who is more responsible for Obama-Care?" where you can say "Well it is modelled after Romney's health care plan!" or anything like this.
Now across the board you'll get people in every ideology that will be just plain stupid and answer wrong. You'll get people that are nervous and afraid to be wrong and say 'Not Sure'. But when you look at the numbers based on Ideology it swamps that. I think it is more that the conservatives there don't want to admit Obama was responsible and that is why the numbers are the way they are.
Either way a majority of the conservatives poled in Ohio are either plain stupid or wilfully denying the truth.
So Paul Ryan has said this multiple time on the podium and just the other day at the Republican National Convention.
"Especially in Janesville where we were about to lose a major factory. A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that G.M. plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, 'I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.'. That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day"
Powerful stuff aye. Obama tells a factory if the government is there for them that they should be there for another 100 year but that factory closes that same year. WOW, did Obama let them down? Well Ryan would like you to believe that Obama didn't help that factory when they bailed out so many others. This is true, Obama's administration didn't help that factory. BUT it is hard to help a factory that shut down 6 months before you even took office. Before you even get elected. Before you are even nominated as your parties candidate.
Short and sweat here. Ryan knows that Obama's administration doesn't have anything to do with the closing. That Obama's administration could not do anything about it. But Ryan does not care about the lies he shits out his mouth because he knows most people won't look into the facts.
Are you sitting here now justifying Ryan's lies or are you sick of being lied to?
