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.
Not surprisingly the GOP stands firmly against tax cuts for people making less then $250,000/yr. 46 of 47 republican Senators voted against S3412 Middle-class tax relief. The 1 republican that didn't vote no, Senator Mark Kirik, didn't actually vote. It passed 51/48 with one abstaining.
Reason for this? The republican's will not pass this bill, which benefits all American's by providing tax relief for the first $250,000.00 of income, because they want further tax cuts for people earning over $250,000.00/yr.
Do you find this right? Should rich people get even more tax breaks then poor people? Already our tax code allows the rich to pay significantly lower tax rates then low and middle income earners by providing many tax shields and incentives that are only accessible by the wealthy. Tax breaks that Mitt Romney exploits to the fullest often moving income over seas to evade taxes here.
If you had an income of $100,000/yr do you think it would be nice if you could shield it from taxes by moving the income over seas? Who would pay for our schools? Who would pay for our roads? Who would pay for our emergency services? Who would pay for our wars?
The GOP blame President Obama for the current rate of unemployment. Saying "his [Obama] economic plan has failed". Yet every time President Obama tries to implement any plan he is confronted with this partisan blockade. Obama has made some hard compromises and brought spending increases to a low not seen since 1953. Obama policies, many implemented by executive order because republican congressmen refuse to vote for any bill that might make make the President look good., stopped an unemployment rate that was rising into the double digits.
President Obama has said all along that the recovery is coming to slow. That it isn't good enough. That we still have a lot to do. He's made hard compromises in hopes the republicans would also make similar compromises but at every opportunity republicans refuse. Even to compromises they agreed to in the past.
They want to privatise education giving more support to rich families sending their children to private schools at the cost of low and middle income families, that can not afford high priced schools, to attend schools that get even less funding per student. Choice is easy for those that can afford it. I sent my son to a private school up until year 8. That was my choice and that choice didn't rip funding away from public schools in the process. How does the GOP expect a low income family that is struggling to put food on the table to be able to come up with more money to send their kids to a school that is properly funded? A school which is probably further away then their local public school. A school which may have many other hidden costs like uniforms and "building fees". How do they expect struggling families to come up with thousands of dollars more a year for each one of their children when the GOP plan to take away safety nets like food stamps. When the GOP plan to roll back the Affordable Health Care Act leaving the low income families with no affordable medical insurance and no guarantee that if they do keep their health insurance that the insurance company won't drop them as soon as someone in the family gets ill?
If you vote for the GOP this coming election be assured that the unemployment rate we saw at the end of the Bush administration will only be the start. The GOP are great at saying democrats hate America but the GOP only like the rich and they'll lie to all the low and middle income Americans to get into power.
The phrase "I'm proud to be an American" will be a joke unless you are in the top 2%.
Obama's administration has the lowest increase of spending since President Eisenhower. That is over 50 years you have to go back.
How does Obama stack up to other presidents?
Regan's 1st term - 8.7%
Regan's 2nd term - 4.9%
Bush Snr - 5.4%
Clinton's 1st term - 3.2%
Clinton's 2nd term - 3.9%
Bush Jr's 1st term - 7.3%
Bush Jr's 2nd term - 8.1%
Obama 1st term - 1.4%
Do you really trust that The GOP will make the cuts needed? Oh they'll make cuts.
They'll make cuts that will cost seniors $6,500 more a year in out of pocket expendatures do to allowing insurers to refuse coverage which increases the strain on Medicare forcing out many seniors from even recieving benefits.
They'll shift medicare onto the states that isn't designed to keep up with actual health care costs.
They'll repeal the Affordable Care Act and let the insurance companies go back to business as usual where they can deny you coverage when ever they want which would effect tens of millions of Americans not to meantion the more than 30,000,000 Americans who would loose their coverage right away.
They'll slash education. Ryan and Romney won't tell you where exactly they'll make the cuts within education but the reduction is there...they just don't want to be pin down to so they can claim make claims like "Pell grants don't have to change". But the truth of the matter is that cuts would have to be made some where.
They'll slash programs for the very poor and disadvantage. Programs like food stamps. Programs that help poor children get the nutrician they need.
They'll also make the rich get richer. 3 Trillion dollars in tax cuts that will benifit only the top 2%. Mitt Romney would end up paying less then 1% in taxes under the Romney-Ryan plan. Ironically 1% might be more then Romney has paid in some years in the last decade. But until he releases his tax returns we'll not know.
