Quantcast
  

Tuesday, May 21, 2013         

 Print   Email   Comment | View Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Romney: 'Middle-income' is $200K to $250K and less

By Steve Peoples

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 10:28 a.m. HST, Sep 14, 2012



 BOSTON >> Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

But how does he define "middle-income"? The Republican presidential nominee defined it today as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year and less.

The definition of "middle income" or the "middle class" is politically charged as Romney and President Barack Obama fight to win over working-class voters. Romney would be among the wealthiest presidents, if elected, and Democrats have repeatedly painted him as out of touch with average people. 

Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year. 

Romney's comments came an interview broadcast Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"No one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is (to) keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers," Romney told host George Stephanopoulos.

"Is $100,000 middle income?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less," Romney responded. 

His campaign later clarified that Romney was referencing household income, not individual income.

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income — the midpoint for the nation — is just over $50,000.

Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000, while Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone. 

Romney has not explained how he would keep his plan from growing the nation's deficit.

 






 Print   Email   Comment | View Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
999
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have read and agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. Any violations of these terms may result in account suspension or deactivation. Please keep your comments civil and in good taste. To report a comment, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment
Please login to leave a comment.
bender wrote:
Romeny's defintion of middle income leaves one a little surprised, and it definitely isn't in tune with what the Census Bureau reported. But then Obama's definition isn't much better but he does include people earning less than $200K.
on September 14,2012 | 05:36AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Both of them just donʻt connect to the masses. Hard to believe Obama lived here. Oh yeah, he went to Punahou and the middle class made $200K in those days.
on September 14,2012 | 09:09AM
tiki886 wrote:
The history of the 'alternative minimum tax' was to capture and eliminate loopholes for a small number of people. In 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires.

By 1970, 19,000 taxpayers owed an AMT. The number of taxpayers subject to the AMT increased from about 1.8 million in 2001 to over 41 million by 2013.

This is called tax 'creep' or bracket 'creep'.

The reason Obama seemed to arbitrarily pick $250,000 as the definition of a taxing the "wealthy" is to coincide with paying for ObamaCare in 10 to 20 years. The costs of ObamaCare is 'back loaded' meaning the real costs were pushed back so that when $250,000 becomes the average household income through inflation, the tax will hit more and more people to pay for the exorbitant costs of ObamaCare. Sneaky huh?


on September 14,2012 | 03:41PM
tiki886 wrote:
You see, if Obama picked $300K or more, then it would take longer for inflation to catch up to household income to reach the magic number to pay for ObamaCare. If he picked $200K or less, it would capture too many people too soon to pay for ObamaCare and there would be a tax revolt to repeal ObamaCare as being too expensive. Sneaky huh?

That's why like the rail and HART, ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Too expensive. People need heath care not health insurance. There are better ways to care for people with pre-existing conditions. Insuring the uninsurable is not insurance. It is welfare.


on September 14,2012 | 04:00PM
sjean wrote:
I thought the article was mainly about Romney? You know, the candidate who is just like us....except for the $250million bank account.
on September 14,2012 | 04:43PM
tiki886 wrote:
Read carefully and you will discover the why the $250,000 is being used as the threshold for political reasons. Romney is using Obama's number.
on September 14,2012 | 06:09PM
sjean wrote:
So you admit Romney's taking advice from Obama.
on September 14,2012 | 06:32PM
Anonymous wrote:
Nice try. Romney doesn't take direction from a COMMUNIST.
on September 14,2012 | 07:36PM
hilocal wrote:
tiki886, in other first-world countries insuring the uninsurable is called "single payer" (most countries, including Germany and Japan) or "socialized medicine" (United Kingdom, where physicians are employed by the government). 100% of people are covered at half the per capita cost in the US.
on September 15,2012 | 07:18AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on September 14,2012 | 09:44PM
Kuniarr wrote:
Nope, you are the one out of touch. On National Security, Obama, like Chamberlain prior to WWII appeasing Hitler, appeased Vladimir Putin and rescinded the plan of G.W. Bush to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Acting like Martin Luther King, Jr. when confronted by Vladimir Putin regarding the deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

On the economy, Obama has not learned nor realized the lesson of why Stimulus I and Stmulus II failed such that in his ignorance of what ails the US economy he tried to pass off a Stimulus III as a Jobs Bill. Obama mistakenly thinks that higher taxes on the wealthy is what would help the economy by lowering the National Debt.

What Obama does not realize is that the economic mess the US is in today is coming from the huge Foreign Trade Deficit - not the trillions of National Debt caused by budget deficits, For a Foreign Trade Surplus is what would cure not only US economy but cause a Budget Surplus and a reduction in National Debt. And Mitt Romney is in the right track in bringing the US back to its feet with a tough and innovativeForeign Trade policy . The followers of Obama do not realize that Obama's mentality of continuing to think that a modern New Deal and taxing the wealthy leads to prosperity instead of bringing ruin to the US economy.
on September 14,2012 | 11:23PM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
Bdpapa, you know nothing about Punahou. The President was a "scholarship kid" at Punahou. He was the type of kid that the proceeds of the Punahou Carnival funds. He's the type of kid that had to work in the Cafeteria during lunch serving the the full paying tuition kids. The President also had to suffer the indignity of having to listen to snide comments about being a scholarship kid that some of the rich, spoiled brats made to him. My wife and I were fortunate enough to pay full price to send our kids to Punahou. However we taught them never to look down their noses at anyone especially the scholarship kids, because you never know, one of them might grow up to be President of the United States. How little did we know at the time that a scholarship kid would grow up and be the President of the United States.
on September 14,2012 | 06:35PM
Anonymous wrote:
Why would anyone "look down" on someone who is excelling in scholarship? Unless "scholarship" was a euphemism for "welfare" or affirmative action.

By the way, why wouldn't Obama or Punahou release his transcripts to prove to the world that he deserved his "Scholarship"? I'll tell you why, Obama is an Affirmative Action President, unprepared and undeserving of opportunities never earned!


on September 14,2012 | 07:42PM
Manoa2 wrote:
The definition of "middle class" is critical, because Romney says he will give tax breaks to the rich without raising taxes on the middle class--Dems said BS-- tax breaks for rich will mean tax increases for the middle class under Romney's plan. Romney asked a group of Republican economists to study his plan and they said Romney could fund tax breaks for the rich by cutting virtually all deductions and thereby increasing taxes for those earning from $100,000 to $200,000 or $250,000-- but they said this $100,000 to $200,000 group whose taxes would be raised are not the middle class! Romney echoed that to support his tax plan, but has since backed away from it.
on September 15,2012 | 04:47PM
loquaciousone wrote:
If that is the bar for middle income for Romney, I want him to be President. I can qualify for poverty status and not pay any taxes.
on September 14,2012 | 07:14AM
loquaciousone wrote:
The longer this campaign goes on the more Romney will shoot himself in the foot and practically hand Obama the Presidency. The Republicans are in deep dduooo dooouu.
on September 14,2012 | 07:15AM
boshio wrote:
I'm certain most people don't believe Romney even cares for the "middle class, or, the "middle income household. Romney already talked himself out of this election. Vote Democract.
on September 14,2012 | 07:17AM
1coconut wrote:
I agree, anyone who votes for Romney is a fool. Putin is right , Romney is a LIAR.
on September 14,2012 | 07:31AM
kainalu wrote:
Romney's yet-to-be-born descendants already have all their medical and retirement needs bought and paid for. Romney's money alone, earns more than everyone posting on or reading this message board this morning.
on September 14,2012 | 08:08AM
Paulh808 wrote:
Interesting to hear libs quote Putin, maybe Obummer is their Putin.
on September 14,2012 | 11:12PM
loquaciousone wrote:
Romney suffers from foot-in-mouth disease. Every time he opens his mouth, he makes somebody mad. On his "goodwill tour" to the middle east he piiissed off everybody.
on September 14,2012 | 08:10AM
postmanx wrote:
Obama wants to extend Bush-era tax cuts for those making less than $250,000. Romney wants to extend the tax cuts for everyone. I agree with Romney, we need to extend tax cuts for everyone and audit the government.
on September 14,2012 | 07:29AM
kainalu wrote:
Sourcing the IRS, that's more than 97% of us then. In 2011, LESS THAN 3% of those that filed earned more than $200K-a-year or $250K jointly. So it begs to question - who are these ignorants opposed to reverting the tax-code for that specific bracket of high-income earners back to what it was before GW gave his rich pals a cut? Please advise, Mitt Romney?
on September 14,2012 | 08:06AM
dalawyer wrote:
Who's worse for the Republicans, Romney or Sarah Palin? Either case their doomed with what comes out of their mouth!
on September 14,2012 | 08:08AM
hawaiikone wrote:
It's fortunate for this country that there's a lot of us that read more than just talking points and forums in determining which candidate is better. Funny you should mention the word "doomed", it applies far more to Obama than Romney.
on September 14,2012 | 08:56AM
dalawyer wrote:
Obama will be re-elected come November! Hands down, Romney is a fool!
on September 14,2012 | 12:47PM
sjean wrote:
That sounds like a talking point, not a fact.
on September 14,2012 | 04:44PM
hawaiikone wrote:
That's why every time a story comes out, pro or con for either candidate, we all should go beyond listening to Fox or MSNBC. Read what was actually said, in the context it was said, and try and understand the philosophy behind the message. And both sides want you to think about their points, usually because they don't want you thinking for yourself.
on September 14,2012 | 08:37PM
IAmSane wrote:
I don't care for neither Obama or Romney, but I can already see that Obama's going to win this one. The Republicans just picked an incredibly bad candidate. Too bad they didn't give Huntsman or Ron Paul a chance--I would have given them my vote.
on September 14,2012 | 05:32PM
808Cindy wrote:
Most of the comments here (so true, I agree) gave me such a good laugh!! hahaha.... Thank you for making my day! I'm voting for Obama, I'm afraid of Romney becoming our next President.
on September 14,2012 | 08:18AM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
I think Obama summed up Romney very well earlier this week when he said that Romney "shoots before he aims". Romney is obviously an intelligent person, but gee whiz. George W. Bush was intelligent too, but look at the mess he got us into by not thinking things thru and "shooting before he aimed". The Repubs would have done better to nominate John McCain again (with a different V.P. candidate, of course).
on September 14,2012 | 05:29PM
TomM wrote:
Probably Mitt Romney's definition of poor is less than $100K. Shows how in touch he is with the public.
on September 14,2012 | 08:35AM
DAGR81 wrote:
Something is wrong with our political system when our choice for Chief Executive is limited to A person more interested in campaigning and playing around instead of doing the job he was elected to do, and A person who probably is capable of doing the job but does not fully understand and relate to the challenges that the majority of the electorate are faced with I am leaning toward Romne because Obama is not interested in doing the job, he is just interested enjoying in the benefits
on September 14,2012 | 08:42AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Something is wrong with our political system that can only produce someone like Romne [sic] to challenge Obama. People like me are not to enamored with Barry's and Michele's attempt to push socialism down our throats but if Romney's the alternative........
on September 14,2012 | 09:05AM
al_kiqaeda wrote:
I think I'd rather put Paul Ryan in the president's chair than Mitt.
on September 14,2012 | 12:58PM
Larry01 wrote:
As long as he doesn't talk about his marathon time....
on September 14,2012 | 04:27PM
sjean wrote:
Do you mean the Paul Ryan who is a self-proclaimed disciple of the ATHEIST Ayn Rand? And a self-proclaimed fan of the anti-war machine rock group Rage Against the Machine?
on September 14,2012 | 04:47PM
tiki886 wrote:
Yes, the same Paul Ryan who is anti - communist.
on September 14,2012 | 06:16PM
gari wrote:
It is about time some one defines ALL of the assumptions and DETAILS OF THIS INCOME TAX AND WHO IS AFFECTED BY THIS 250K .
on September 14,2012 | 09:04AM
tiki886 wrote:
The history of the 'alternative minimum tax' was to capture and eliminate loopholes for a small number of people. In 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires. By 1970, 19,000 taxpayers owed an AMT. The number of taxpayers subject to the AMT increased from about 1.8 million in 2001 to over 41 million by 2013. This is called tax 'creep' or bracket 'creep'. The reason Obama seemed to arbitrarily pick $250,000 as the definition of a taxing the "wealthy" is to coincide with paying for ObamaCare in 10 to 20 years. The costs of ObamaCare is 'back loaded' meaning the real costs were pushed back so that when $250,000 becomes the average household income through inflation, the tax will hit more and more people to pay for the exorbitant costs of ObamaCare. Sneaky huh?
on September 14,2012 | 06:17PM
false wrote:
The $50,000 figure used by the census bureau is a median, so half of the "middle class" earns more and half earns less. I don't know that "middle class" would go as high as $250,000. Clearly that would seem to be upper middle. I also know that living and working in Hawaii, a person can make $150,000 and after paying a mortgage, auto loans, auto insurance, life insurance, HMSA, HECO, Board of Water, Oceanic, food for a family, gasoline, yadda yadda yadda...it feels like $50,000 or less.
on September 14,2012 | 09:04AM
serious wrote:
True, in the big cities of NYC, San Francisco, Boston, etc $250K is minimum wage. Try to buy a home in Hawaii!!! Romney's right.
on September 14,2012 | 09:16AM
kainalu wrote:
Not true - per the IRS. LESS THAN 97% of Americans that filed in 2011 earned more than $200K-a-year ($250K jointly).
on September 14,2012 | 09:36AM
sjean wrote:
If it is too expensive to live in Hawaii because of market conditions are you advocating Socialism as a solution? What is Romney right about?
on September 14,2012 | 04:50PM
IAmSane wrote:
"$250K is minimum wage"

Are you serious?
on September 14,2012 | 05:35PM
kainalu wrote:
That should be "LESS THAN 3%" - I had it backwards and this message board doesn't provide for correction.
on September 14,2012 | 09:38AM
sjean wrote:
I think the $50,000 you are referring to is the amount these individuals have left at the end of the year, after paying for all the aforementioned necessities.
on September 14,2012 | 04:48PM
marc_collins wrote:
Title of story: "Romney says 'middle-income' $250k and below" Sentence in story: "Barack Obama has defined "middle class" as income up to $250,000 a year" "The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year." : does not match title.
on September 14,2012 | 09:14AM
rayhawaii wrote:
I thought I was middle income but now down to the bottom of the pole. So since I am lower bottom of the pole income, do my kids get reduced school lunch now? Can I apply for food stamps and also receive free food being passed out weekly down my street?
on September 14,2012 | 09:43AM
kailuanokaoi wrote:
I was just thinking the same thing?
on September 14,2012 | 01:38PM
IAmSane wrote:
LOL YOU'RE POOR
on September 14,2012 | 05:38PM
AhiPoke wrote:
Interesting reading the comments above. Obviously, it's highly dependent on whether you were already for or against Romney. Personally, I'm not a pro-Romney zealot but I am an anti-Obama voter and I don't see any problem with establishing the "middle-class" as having incomes up to $250k, especially for those of us who live in Hawaii. Families living in Hawaii with incomes up to $250k are not living in mansions and traveling first-class. I suppose, if you're living in rural Mississippi and make $250k you're living high off the hog, but not here.
on September 14,2012 | 09:47AM
sjean wrote:
So you admit you are not voting for Romney?
on September 14,2012 | 04:51PM
DeeCee wrote:
then we must all be low income....
on September 14,2012 | 09:50AM
dalawyer wrote:
$50K annual income and you live in KPT, now that's considered upper class!
on September 14,2012 | 12:49PM
nodaddynotthebelt wrote:
It just shows how out of touch Romney is with America. He is so wealthy from all his tax shields that he actually thinks that most households make between $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That makes most households below middle income. It makes a whole lot of sense because his tax cut plans, according to tax experts, do not make sense. He claims that he will lower the income taxes on the middle class and the rich. All this time his plan, in his mind, is to reduce taxes on the rich and reduce services to the poor and the "real" middle class who make an average $50,000. He has not outlined how he would balance the budget on his tax plan because I don't think that he has a "real" plan because his plan is based on his erroneous idea that the middle class earns $200,000 to $250,000 a year. The implications for us here in Hawaii is that we will be shorted big time. Why? Because he believes the middle income folks here make that much and at the same time does not take into account the cost of living here.
on September 14,2012 | 09:55AM
AhiPoke wrote:
"President Barack Obama has defined "middle class" as income up to $250,000 a year." That, if you read the above, is the second to last paragraph. nodaddynotthebelt, I guess you either didn't read the article and/or you're one of those pro-Obama zealots that will take any opportunity to blast Romney. If you are trying to be fair, then what do you have to say about Obama's definition of "middle class"? LOL
on September 14,2012 | 10:09AM
frings wrote:
The headline does not reflect what Romney said. He said middle income is 200K to 250K, according to your own reporting in the second paragraph of the story. Sloppy headline that needs to be corrected to reflect what the liar really said.
on September 14,2012 | 10:15AM
AhiPoke wrote:
Actually the initial AP news release, which they have since clarified, is wrong. His actual statement is that the "middle class" is "$200k-$250k and less". The "and less" was conveniently left out by the AP to create a negative reaction to Romney.
on September 14,2012 | 10:30AM
serious wrote:
The AP would have put the "and less" but, you see, Romney is white!!
on September 14,2012 | 01:15PM
Ripoff wrote:
$200K - 250K middle class? WTF Romney....
on September 14,2012 | 10:40AM
hanoz808 wrote:
i guess im poor then
on September 14,2012 | 10:41AM
dontbelieveinmyths wrote:
Do all you folks railing against Romey's statement realize that some one person operation, small businesses also file under personal income? A lot of them easily gross over a couple hundred thousand. It doesn't mean they are earning that much. However, they would be considered rich and pay more taxes. This hurts businesses, not helps.
on September 14,2012 | 10:43AM
kalekoli wrote:
Wrong. You pay taxes on net profit, not on gross sales. And less than 3 percent of S-corp businesses earn $250K oe more.
on September 14,2012 | 02:16PM
sjean wrote:
Don't trouble people with facts....opinions are much more effective.
on September 14,2012 | 04:52PM
DAGR81 wrote:
what the heck are you talking about?
on September 14,2012 | 05:34PM
tiki886 wrote:
Jean is in the tank for the commie Obama. And if you defend a commie, you confuse your facts because commies are not about creating wealth they are about confiscating wealth.
on September 14,2012 | 06:22PM
sjean wrote:
I thought Obama was a Socialist. Then he got elected, and proved he is a Capitalist. I, on the other hand, am an Anarchist, and an Agnostic. Proudly. I despise Communism almost as much as I despise liars. I feel both Romney and Obama are liars. Now you have the facts on me. The emperor has clothes.
on September 14,2012 | 06:39PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
Yeah, Obama's a commie and you're a wacko!
on September 14,2012 | 07:29PM
sjean wrote:
Am I a wacko because I don't believe in a government? Or because I can't believe in a god? At least I am honest about my truths.
on September 14,2012 | 08:20PM
tiki886 wrote:
If you read his books, "Dreams from my Commie Father", you'd know that Barack Sr. was a true commie and his mother was a commie. Frank Marshall Davis, another commie was his mentor throughout his formative years. Rev Wright was another mentor who steeped Obama in Black Liberation Theology for over 20 years which is Marxist or just another name for commie. Obama has surrounded himself with dozens of commies in his administration called Czars and Czarettes.

Finally, listen to an expert on Communism, "The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

With so many commie influences, can you honestly say Obama is a fan of Capitalism? He knows more about Islam than is does about Capitalism in America.


on September 14,2012 | 08:36PM
IAmSane wrote:
I think you believe in myths.
on September 14,2012 | 05:41PM
Kaleo744 wrote:
Geez!!! can I put in for poverty level then since my income is @ $120.000 a yr? damn cant wait to file my taxes that means my tax bracket has dropped considerably...guess Im gonna vote republican then.....that way Im not considered "MIDDLE CLASS"... freakin A then I dont have to pay these outrageous taxes that Im paying now!!!! Ive been voting democrat...not anymore IM VOTING REPUBLICAN
on September 14,2012 | 11:03AM
Kaleo744 wrote:
Yea that means Im considered POVERTY LEVEL .My yearly income is a mere $120,000 Im poor I dont have to pay any more taxes..Im voting Republican
on September 14,2012 | 11:05AM
Kaleo744 wrote:
I dont care whose definition is right or wrong...We know who we are by the amount of taxes we are paying...and thats a lot...
on September 14,2012 | 11:07AM
Rickyboy wrote:
Shoot first aim later.
on September 14,2012 | 11:16AM
tiki886 wrote:
How can Obama shoot first when he has disarmed the Marines who are supposed to protect the diplomats in the embassy?
on September 14,2012 | 06:23PM
false wrote:
false3. The only one who appreciates Mittens is Benny Netenyahu..
on September 14,2012 | 11:36AM
tiki886 wrote:
Yes, because Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. He promoted and encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood who threw our ally, Mubarak, under the bus. Even Jimmy Carter had to correct Obama that Egypt is our ally and not an enemy. Obama couldn't figure out the difference.
on September 14,2012 | 06:28PM
awahana wrote:
Here we go again. George W. Romney.
Dubya said it best:
"You work three jobs? ... Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

He even knew that Americans are doomed to repeat their mistakes...
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
on September 14,2012 | 12:03PM
Pearlcityguy wrote:
I don't understand why you want to pay more tax? According to 2012 tax tables, someone in Hawaii making $250,000 will pay about $102,586 in taxes (Federal Income Tax $60,057, Hawaii State Income Tax $22,500, Oahu sales tax $11,780, SSN tax $4,624, Medicare Tax $3,625). Over 40% of the income in tax ... IT'S TOO MUCH!!! Maybe the answer to my question is YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY MORE TAX, YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY MORE TAX.
on September 14,2012 | 01:08PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
For the privilege of living in America, the greatest country in the world, I'm happy to pay my fair share of taxes. When Willard (a.k.a. Mitt) Romney, who makes 100 times what I do pays a much lower percentage of his income in taxes than I do, that's not fair. I
on September 14,2012 | 07:33PM
tiki886 wrote:
Paying taxes is not a privilege. It is a punishment for success.
on September 14,2012 | 08:40PM
Paulh808 wrote:
Do it Kekoa, you can give 100% if you want. I would Reuther keep more of my hard earned cash and not give it to politicians.
on September 14,2012 | 11:20PM
Anonymous wrote:
Yikes, I'm poor.
on September 14,2012 | 01:28PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
The last sentence can be answered by my 3rd grade nephew: STOP SPENDING AS MUCH. Good gawd, liberals are so damn dense sometimes.
on September 14,2012 | 03:19PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
The last sentence can be answered by my 3rd grade nephew: STOP SPENDING AS MUCH. Good gawd, liberals are so d**n dense sometimes.
on September 14,2012 | 03:20PM
KekoaBradshaw wrote:
Except when the money's being spent to benefit YOU! Yeah, eliminate the FDA, food safety inspections and all that waste of money!
on September 14,2012 | 07:34PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
People think Romney's out of touch by saying this, yet, according to the article, "Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year.". So by definition, Obama is also out of touch. Yet people are such sheeple, that they'll continue to think Obama is the answer to all their problems. Sheeple....
on September 14,2012 | 03:22PM
Allenk wrote:
Can anyone say "out of touch?"
on September 14,2012 | 04:25PM
IAmSane wrote:
Whenever I hear someone utter the word "sheeple," I always have to restrain myself from wanting to punch them in the face.
on September 14,2012 | 05:47PM
tiki886 wrote:
SHEEPLE!!!!
on September 14,2012 | 06:34PM
Kuniarr wrote:
It is not Budget Deficit that our presidential candidates needs to focus on but on Foreign Trade Defict. The only way the US can come out of the economic mess we are in and lead this nation to prosperity is turn around our Foreign TradeDeficit into SURPLUS Obama is simply focused on his Socialistic values (1) increasing taxes on the wealthy (2) failed policy of Stimulus I and Stimulus II such that his so-called Jobs Bill is nothing more than Stimulus III.

On the other hand, one of the platforms of Romney is his Trade Policies. Check out http://www.mittromney.com/issues/trade
on September 14,2012 | 05:54PM
EducatedLocalBoy wrote:
Anonymous rich soiled kids are often sadistic and arrogant. They take pleasure in bullying weaker kids. They are kids like Mitt Romney who took pleasure in rounding up a bunch of sadistic spoiled brats and held down a gay kid and cut his hair to get pleasure in terrifying him. These are the same arrogant kids that the Papakolea kids invented kill H@ole day for.
on September 15,2012 | 01:35AM
koolau wrote:
Write what you want, but look back 3 years and ask what has or has not been accomplished. Look at the Tim Geitners, Rahm Emmanuel, Reverand Wright, investments in failed companies like Solyndra, power plays and cover ups on Fast & Furious, and the trending away from our Constition towards Socialism. Yes, GM was saved by Obama but did so by skirting legitimate bankrupcy laws that would have resulted in private investments rather than government owned which was a form of rewarding the UAW, while stockholders got screwed. Maybe Romney isn't the best the GOP could have nominated, but he's certainly a more forthright individual with a successful business resume than the smooth talking Obama, who's taking us down the yellow brick road to Socialism via his Chicago style politics. People should base their decisions objectively on these candidates' records rather than emotions, but then that may be asking too much.
on September 15,2012 | 06:11AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Columns
Blogs