Romney - Holding a 14 point advantage with Middle Class

[Rudeboyelvis]

>>>In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track),

are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable),

and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.

These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.<<<

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

[Calzone Lord]

You can get Romney at 7/2 odds in the betting exchange right now for thousands of dollars.

It feels like he's toast.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

>>>In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track),

are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable),

and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.

These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.<<<

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

is that the romney middle class, or the real middle class???

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

is that the romney middle class, or the real middle class???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-middle-class/

On “60 Minutes” last night, Mitt Romney said it again. “I want to keep the current progressivity in the code. There should be no tax reduction for high income people.”

You’ve heard Romney say this — or some variant of it –dozens of times before. What’s changed since then is that Romney has admitted that his tax cuts, if they’re not going to add to the deficit, will have to increase taxes on people he defines as middle income and cut them on people he defines as high income.


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Evan Vucci/AP

Before we get to that admission, a quick refresher. Romney’s tax plan proposes to cut tax rates by 20 percent. That would cost trillions of dollars, and mean a particularly big tax cut for the rich.

But Romney promises his tax cut won’t cost anything, won’t raise taxes on the middle class, won’t cut taxes on the rich, and won’t end the tax breaks for savings and investment.

The Tax Policy Center, the gold standard in nonpartisan tax wonkery, looked at the tax cut and these promises and declared the proposal “not mathematically possible.” Since Romney doesn’t want to touch tax breaks for savings and investment like the capital gains cut — a position he reiterated last night on “60 Minutes” — there just isn’t enough money in the remaining tax breaks for people making over $250,000 to pay for their tax cuts.

For awhile, the Romney campaign had no answer to this. They just said they didn’t believe the Tax Policy Center — called it biased, even though it’s run by one of George W. Bush’s top economists.

Then, slowly, right-leaning economists and outlets began releasing their own studies showing that, if you made some really, really questionable assumptions, you could kinda sorta make Romney’s math look like it might add up. And so you might have heard Romney say this to David Gregory on “Meet the Press”:


The good news is that five different economic studies, including one at Harvard and Princeton and AEI and a couple at The Wall Street Journal all show that if we bring down our top rates and actually go across the board, bring down rates for everyone in America, but also limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, while you can keep the progressivity in the code, you could remain revenue neutral and you create an enormous incentive for growth in the economy.

The Harvard study was done by economist Martin Feldstein, and he makes a very important decision in his paper. He writes, “I think it is very reasonable to say that people in that high-income group” — by which means people making over $100,000 — “are not the ‘middle class.’”

And so, under really, really unrealistic assumptions, he shows that the math can kind of work, but that Romney’s policies would mean a really big tax increase for people making between $100,000 and $250,000 in order to pay for a big tax cut on people making more than $250,000. But that’s okay, because people making over $100,000 are not in the middle class.

And Romney has been all over the place trumpeting this study, saying this study shows his math works out. But then ABC’s George Stephanopoulos caught him out:


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?


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

For the record, I’m actually with Feldstein on this one: I think it’s reasonable to say households making more than $100,000 are not middle income. But Romney disagrees with me, and with Feldstein.

So the study Romney is promoting — the one he says is the study you should be looking at — actually shows even under the most favorable assumptions possible, he’s going to have to raise taxes on the people he defines as the middle class. In saying that that study is credible, he has admitted he can’t make his tax promises add up. And yet he constantly, repeatedly says the opposite.

Romney has clearly calculated that there aren’t many people who read these analyses. If he just keeps saying his tax plan can cut taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on the middle class while not cutting taxes on the rich while not costing a dime, eventually, his version of this will come to be seen as the truth. And perhaps he’s right. But the numbers show what they show.

[Riot]

There is little to no polling that shows Romney strong with anything that translates into winning the swing states he has to, thus into electoral college votes and a win.

Today's polling summaries:

New Swing State Polls In CO, FL, IA, MI, NC, Nev, and WI Show Excellent Results for President

September 24, 2012

Latest Swing State Polls
Here are the today's swing state polls, updated as needed throughout the day:

Colorado: Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Public Policy Polling)

Florida: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (American Research Group)

Iowa: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Michigan: Obama 54%, Romney 42% (Rasmussen)

North Carolina: Obama 49%, Romney 45% (Civitas)

Nevada: Obama 51%, Romney 44% (American Research Group)

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, Romney 41% (We Ask America)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...-for-President

[Danzig]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he thinks it is "fair" that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income of $20 million last year than someone who made $50,000 annually.

"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he thinks it is "fair" that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income of $20 million last year than someone who made $50,000 annually.

"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.

Mitt Romney is proving to be a not very smart guy in general, and including governmental financial policies.

You don't have to be exceptionally brilliant to buy up companies, leverage the hell out of them, bleed all the cash out of them making you rich, then leaving them in debt and to pick up the pieces you left behind. That's more of an ethical decision than an "intelligent financial" one. Mitt's job in private equity was never to create jobs, or make companies strong - it was to leverage and make himself and his investors profit.

The government is not a "bleed it dry and milk profit out of it" concern. So why Romney thinks his business experience is a qualification is beyond me.

Unless you are the Republican party, and your goal is, indeed, Paul Ryan's, to take all the money you can via defense contracting, medicare, etc. Now they want to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Anyone who thinks privatizing - which requires a profit to be made for the person that runs the program - is better than non-profit for our own programs is crazy.

Medicare proves that - it delivers better health care, at far less cost, than private insurance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he thinks it is "fair" that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income of $20 million last year than someone who made $50,000 annually.

"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.

Can someone show me where it says that fairness is part of the US tax code? If common sense can not be used than why should fairness?

Things I dont care about in a Presidential election:
Views onAbortion
Views on Gay rights
How much said person makes/worth
How much said person pays in taxes
What church said person attends/says they attend/ etc.
Color of skin

Im sure there are others but these seem to dominate the news and I hardly think they matter to qualify a person to run the country. IMO Obama has been a pretty poor president with virtually nothing to run on yet Romney is such a weak candidate it is embarassing that he cant even put up much of a fight.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can someone show me where it says that fairness is part of the US tax code? If common sense can not be used than why should fairness?

Things I dont care about in a Presidential election:
Views onAbortion
Views on Gay rights
How much said person makes/worth
How much said person pays in taxes
What church said person attends/says they attend/ etc.
Color of skin

Im sure there are others but these seem to dominate the news and I hardly think they matter to qualify a person to run the country. IMO Obama has been a pretty poor president with virtually nothing to run on yet Romney is such a weak candidate it is embarassing that he cant even put up much of a fight.

yeah, 'fairness' comes up a lot, but we all know life isn't fair. however, i think romney is a good illustration of what's wrong with our tax code.

but i do think if someone thinks it's common sense to be able to roll down airplane windows, they probably aren't qualified to be president.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he thinks it is "fair" that he pays a lower tax rate on his investment income of $20 million last year than someone who made $50,000 annually.

"Yeah," Romney said in an interview aired on Sunday on the CBS television show "60 Minutes," when he was asked if he thought his relatively low rate was fair.

Maybe because he's already paid income tax on the money the first time around and every year after?

BTW Tell that 'someone' who made $50K last year to save as much as possible as he will be able to pay a lower rate on investment income than he does on straight income.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Maybe because he's already paid income tax on the money the first time around and every year after?

BTW Tell that 'someone' who made $50K last year to save as much as possible as he will be able to pay a lower rate on investment income than he does on straight income.

If someones sole income is investments then every dollar gained is the first time around.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can someone show me where it says that fairness is part of the US tax code? If common sense can not be used than why should fairness?

Things I dont care about in a Presidential election:
Views onAbortion
Views on Gay rights
How much said person makes/worth
How much said person pays in taxes
What church said person attends/says they attend/ etc.
Color of skin

Im sure there are others but these seem to dominate the news and I hardly think they matter to qualify a person to run the country. IMO Obama has been a pretty poor president with virtually nothing to run on yet Romney is such a weak candidate it is embarassing that he cant even put up much of a fight.

I have to agree with you here, this election is Romney's to lose and if he can't win it, it is a real embarrassment to the Republicans. Obama can't run on his record so he just bashes Romney and Romney is playing that stupid game. It is time for him to wake up, move more towards the center, and challenge Obama to run on his record.

It is pitiful that Obama is running a campaign focused on why his opponent can't do the job and probably even more pitiful that Romney can't take advantage of the fact that Obama has an almost four year track record which proves he can't do the job and Romney isn't using it properly.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

You can get Romney at 7/2 odds in the betting exchange right now for thousands of dollars.

It feels like he's toast.

Pointman would be all over that.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

Pointman would be all over that.

I would love to know what Obama's odds are if you can get 7/2 on Romney. Talk about a vulnerable favorite. . . .

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

If someones sole income is investments then every dollar gained is the first time around.

Unless he picked his investment money off a tree it was taxed as income whether it be him or his father. Cigarette taxes have been raised thru the roof to prevent people from smoking. Wonder what raising taxes on investment income will do?

Of course this is the hidden plan Obama has publically stated before. Re-distribution of wealth and not just in the U.S. but worldwide.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by pointman

I would love to know what Obama's odds are if you can get 7/2 on Romney. Talk about a vulnerable favorite. . . .

Obama is the 'Dollar Bill' of politics!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Of course this is the hidden plan Obama has publically stated before. Re-distribution of wealth and not just in the U.S. but worldwide.

I call BS on your massive lie. Quote where Obama has stated anywhere a plan to redistribute wealth, either nationally or internationally.

By the way - if Obama is stating something "publicly" where everyone can read it, it's not a "hidden" plan - just sayin' LOL

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I have to agree with you here, this election is Romney's to lose and if he can't win it, it is a real embarrassment to the Republicans. Obama can't run on his record so he just bashes Romney and Romney is playing that stupid game. It is time for him to wake up, move more towards the center, and challenge Obama to run on his record.

It is pitiful that Obama is running a campaign focused on why his opponent can't do the job and probably even more pitiful that Romney can't take advantage of the fact that Obama has an almost four year track record which proves he can't do the job and Romney isn't using it properly.

we're talking about the same election, right? romney has given absolutely no specifics. all he's done since day one is talk about how bad obama is. i read earlier today that what rmoney's said about his tax plan (with no details, just generalities) are mathematically impossible. and obama hasn't got to bash romney, romney's bashing himself.
if he was a worthwhile candidate, romney would be ahead in the polls, all things considered. the fact that obama is opening a gap in the polls tells you just how rotten a nominee romney is.
as each day goes by, mitt finds new ways to show just how unfit he is for the job. he's been doing so pretty much since his trip overseas to show how 'savvy' he was. yeah, that went well. and it's been downhill since.

has obama done a good job? no, i don't think he has. but i haven't seen anything from mitt that would suggest an improvement. and for some on here, peewee herman could run against obama, and they'd vote for peewee.


what has mitt said he will do that makes him a better alternative?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we're talking about the same election, right? romney has given absolutely no specifics. all he's done since day one is talk about how bad obama is. i read earlier today that what rmoney's said about his tax plan (with no details, just generalities) are mathematically impossible. and obama hasn't got to bash romney, romney's bashing himself.
if he was a worthwhile candidate, romney would be ahead in the polls, all things considered. the fact that obama is opening a gap in the polls tells you just how rotten a nominee romney is.
as each day goes by, mitt finds new ways to show just how unfit he is for the job. he's been doing so pretty much since his trip overseas to show how 'savvy' he was. yeah, that went well. and it's been downhill since.

has obama done a good job? no, i don't think he has. but i haven't seen anything from mitt that would suggest an improvement. and for some on here, peewee herman could run against obama, and they'd vote for peewee.


what has mitt said he will do that makes him a better alternative?

You really can't claim that Obama's campaign has not constantly attacked Romney with a straight face. You need to read my post again, my point was that Mitt may be blowing an opportunity.

Not all the polls are going in the direction that you claim and polls are really not great measures of who will win the election, that has been proven historically. Those who think this election is wrapped up may be in for a big surprise.

What I know is that I don't like Obama's policies and they are IMO destroying this country. I am for the guy who wants to get control of the deficit, who wants to cut unneccessary and unaffordable entitlement programs, who won't give in to unions that are destroying this country, who wants less government, who realizes why we need to keep Isreal as a close ally in the Middle East and who wants to actually do something to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb instead of trying to deal with them after they obtain it. What I know is that Romney is much closer to that than Obama.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

You really can't claim that Obama's campaign has not constantly attacked Romney with a straight face. You need to read my post again, my point was that Mitt may be blowing an opportunity.

Not all the polls are going in the direction that you claim and polls are really not great measures of who will win the election, that has been proven historically. Those who think this election is wrapped up may be in for a big surprise.

What I know is that I don't like Obama's policies and they are IMO destroying this country. I am for the guy who wants to get control of the deficit, who wants to cut unneccessary and unaffordable entitlement programs, who won't give in to unions that are destroying this country, who wants less government, who realizes why we need to keep Isreal as a close ally in the Middle East and who wants to actually do something to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb instead of trying to deal with them after they obtain it. What I know is that Romney is much closer to that than Obama.

i ask the following as someone who is truly curious about what is seen by those supporting mitt-and as someone who isn't supporting the president either.
how will romney get control of the deficit? like i said earlier, economists have said his talk on taxes is mathematically impossible.
romney wants to grow defense spending. how will that help the deficit? how does that give less govt.?
what entitlement programs do you feel are unnecessary and unaffordable that the fed can cut? what is romneys solution in this area? i don't know of one.
how does romney's and ryans positions on womens reproductive rights square with 'less government'?
unions aren't destroying the country. banking is doing a good job of it tho. romney wants to remove banking regs. how will that help?
our stance on israel hasn't changed in decades. obama's take on them has been no different than previous administrations.
do you feel that the current economic sanctions that are harming iran are in fact not working? what will romney do that will keep them from going nuclear that will be better than what we're doing now?