At least with McCain they could possibly be called "senior moments' - what is Hillary's & Obama's excuse? (Oh, that's right, they just lied, & lied & lied - & kept re-inventing the lie as the lies got found out).
with someone that has "Senior Moments" while in control of this country.
Nor am I comfortable with a certain senator that blatently lied about enduring sniper fire to garner sympathy, amongst other "misspeaks".
What was the "big lie" Obama made? I missed it.
As if we haven’t heard enough straight up lies…we get more dishonesty from the politician for change. He filled out a survey in his early political career taking very extreme liberal positions on everything from gun control to abortion. When questioned on it he claimed that an aide filled it out for him and that it didn’t accurately describe his views. However, after some investigation it was found that his handwriting is all over the survey. From stoptheaclu.com
In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this. From newsbusters.org / you can also check snopes.com
Obama’s Selma speech offers a very confused chronology of both the Kenya student program and the civil rights movement. Relating the story of how his parents met, Obama said: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama.”
After bloggers pointed out that the Selma bridge protest occurred four years after Obama’s birth, a spokesman explained that the senator was referring to the civil rights movement in general, rather than any one event.
will people learn they all lie. And we eat it up like ignorant dogs year after year. It reminds me of the scripture from Hebrews 5:13,14 that says, "So, when it comes to hard choices between good and evil, we're little babies with our mouths open, ready to be deceived.
it's crystal clear that this site has a huge slant towards Hillary and slams anything Obama, Therefore because of that "slant", this newsbusters.org site lacks credibility.
provide an unbiased site which brings these alleged Obama misspeaks to light, Troy.
We've got the liars, the damned liars, and the politicians. Brian, discrediting Newbusters commentary on Obama's little white lies, half-truths and mis-statements because the site has a positive slant on Hitlery is, well... ridiculous. It's flawed logic. Obama Rama Ding Dong lies, and that's an end to it. Obama will say anything in order to get elected. Hitlery is the same way. Both are equally unscrupulous.
I consider McCain to be just a little better than that. Which isn't saying much, but it's better than nothing.
Mad Jack's Shack
the source come from somewhere credible, mainstream and unbiased.
What I read on newsbusters didn't afford me an unbiased view on Obama's "lies".
Granted, newsbusters is an entertaining read, but to find Obama's "misspeaks" comming from a site slanted towards a particular opponent dosen't quite quench my thirst for knowledge.
I'm drawn to "Vince Foster" and "Whitewater Files mysteriously found outside her door" stuff, which wasn't covered on this site as far as I've dealved into it.
I'm looking for something as significant with Obama that I can sink my teeth into.
There's a "real news" link on it - it's something I've tried to bring up on my national blog since it happened back in March of 2007.
There's even video out there
We don't remember days only moments...
I believe newsbusters references the Washington Post.
does NOT have a slant toward Hillary Clinton?
newsbusters was the source you provided, not the Washington Post.
I believe newsbusters does have a slant...conservative. I did provide newsbusters as the source and they in turn sourced others. You implied you had gone to newsbusters to check it out, Brian.
it seems to be a clearinghouse for Hillary fans, kinda Fark-esque by linking to other sources.
I was hoping for something more credible, and Lisa provided.
Covers this topic and credits bloggers with pointing out the Selma issue.
Which is potentially more damaging, Obama's lies about when his father came to the US? Or McCain's lies about Iraq, Iran, national security, Katrina, & his flipping stance on tax cuts? Easy answer.
What lies people decide to justify wasn't the question, the question was were there real media links. There are.
We'd have to compare a list of lies if you really wanted to accurately go head to head on "who is the liar", there is no easy answer except the reality that those who support Obama will excuse his "lies" and those who support McCain will excuse his "lies".
Does lying make you not eligible to be elected? It's clear it doesn't else quite a few people would not be elected to office. However, to pretend you are not like the rest when the reality is? You are, does raise the topic more than the typical pandering politican would face.
What lies people decide to justify wasn't the question
Yes it was---it was the question I just asked. We can quibble about whether Obama's father came to the US in 1948 or 1949. But for some to say this is worse than McCain telling us (on several occasions) that Iran is training Al-Qaeda in Iran, and lying about our troop levels in Iraq, and lying about the conditions on the ground in Iraq, etc, etc is ridiculous.
Nor am I suggesting McCain's lies don't matter however the reality is to his supporters they don't, just as Obama's lies don't matter to his supporters.
Almost all polticians lie, Bush lied and was still elected over Kerry so the basis of who is the bigger liar really has no bearing on the final outcome of an election. I realize that's not popular but it's true. We all want to pretend our candidate is the "better one" but the reality is most will lie, pander, exaggerate and tell us what they think we want to hear to be elected. The mission is for each person to pick the person they can vote for without feeling sick. There will be people here who will pick McCain, despite how you feel about him and will excuse/justify his lies. If it would have been Clinton? Same scenario...
My only reason for even entering into this whole debate was because I knew valid media links existed that demonstrated Obama did lie, exaggerate, pander whatever word you prefer about Selma.
Fair enough Lisa, I can't argue with any of that. My original question wasn't actually posed to you, but since you answered it, it piqued my interest.
I heard a great commentary about misspeaking,
Misspeaking about 'Misspeak'
Day to Day, March 27, 2008 · Hillary Clinton and John McCain have used the word "misspeak" to describe why they made inaccurate comments to the public. Madeleine Brand talks to George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at UC Berkeley, about what it means to "misspeak."
All comes down to intent on the part of the person speaking.
GET OVER IT! Obama is the nominee! All that yang is now, after whist. If you don't know what that means ask one of your black friends! :=)
Winning the election in November is another, so quite a few people aren't going to "get over it" for quite some time.
The faults of Obama, the faults of McCain are going to be discussed, rehashed and probably to the beating the dead horse stage before November.
I'm about ethical fortitude, and after reviewing the links Lisa provided, the decision of whom I will vote for is a tad bit more convoluted.
It's starting to encourage me to view whom the vice-presidents are going to be for me to decide.
During the Bush versus Kerry election many felt the choice was which is the lessor of two evils. I couldn't vote for either, and I'm feeling deja vu all over again.
I don't see myself being able to vote for McCain but I also right at this moment would have a very hard time voting for Obama - no matter who either picks as a vice president.
I know quite a few other people struggling with that exact same decision. Neither one of these men are going to do what they promise most of what all of these presidential candidates promise is not possible to do without Congress. Will Obama have an easier time of getting things through if the Democratic majority holds? Maybe, but there is not a large enough majority so whoever wins will have to be able to work with both sides to get things done.
Every time I hear one of them make promises about how they are going to fix the economy - I laugh. It's not possible...Some articles that might be of interest to those really interested in the economic aspect:
An article from 2004 that I found interesting then and is still interesting now:
Every time I hear one of them make promises about how they are going to fix the economy - I laugh. It's not possible...
What makes you think so? It was poor economic policy decisions that got us into the state we're in....so our decisions DO have an impact. Clinton and Obama both seek to reverse the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration. McCain just wants to continue them (tax cuts, continued occupation in the Iraq money pit). If you want to talk economics, let's talk. In what way does McCain DIFFER from Bush in economic policy? Which of Obama's economic policies are "not possible"?
The mistakes the administration has made regarding economic policy have to do with letting the dollar fall and spending like a drunken sailor not tax cuts.
Couldn't be a combination of both, spending and tax cuts?
"But why is the dollar under pressure - and what would be the consequences for the US economy if it continues to fall?
Behind the problems of the dollar lies the huge and growing US trade deficit, and the large Federal budget deficit.
For many years financial markets have worried about the growing size of the US trade deficit - the difference between the amount the US imports from the rest of the world, and the amount it can sell to the rest of the world.
At the same time, tax cuts and the war in Iraq have led to a US budget deficit of several hundred billion dollars despite the booming economy.
Much of the trade gap relates to US commerce with East Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea, who sell much more to America than they buy.
Cheap exports have fuelled China's enormous trade surplus
Together, the East Asian countries have accumulated foreign currency surpluses of nearly $1 trillion, much of it held in US Treasury bonds denominated in dollars."
Shakers and movers tell us, we are in a global economy, sure looks like it. If it was so easy for the U.S. to have all the countries play by our rules, life would be so easy.
But the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in site, is to protect us and we need to be protected and there is profit in war and the supplying of arms and the contracts awarded.
the federal government raking in more money than ever before, even with the tax cuts. It is the outrageous spending that is the problem.
What part of the spending is the problem, asked to further discussion.
The DOD budget is up every year after year.
Then there is the Social Security.
And the additional departments created in response to 9/11.
This site, http://home.comcast.net/~fedbud/fedbudget/fedbudget.htm, lays out the numbers.
I have often thought, do we really need NASA, but then so many innovations have come from the research, and I want that Jetsons car.
They go hand-in-hand. They lowered the marginal tax rates, and cut corporate taxes without cutting spending. The only thing this can accomplish is to win you the corporate/wealthy vote and INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Tax cuts were the single largest contributor to the Bush administration’s $2.3 trillion deficit between 2001 and 2006." On a side note---domestic spending is LOWER now than it was in 2001, in relation to the size of the economy.
So what's McCain's answer? Make the tax cuts permanent, and continue to spend "like a drunken sailor" in Iraq. Where does he plan on cutting spending?
I know it's tough for some of the libs on here to accept but the tax cuts have been a huge boon to the treasury and the middle class as well. Let me provide a real life example: One of my clients owned a business and the building it was in on the east side of Toledo. He got a good deal on the building . Over I don't know how many years it appreciated in value. About 2 years ago he sold it. Before the sale they consulted me about the capital gains tax that would be owed. These were middle class folks who made less than $80,000 a year. The tax was going to be around $25,000. This was a big amount to them and they wondered if there was anyway to avoid or defer paying the tax. Most Realtors and some financial advisors are aware that you can, if you do what is called a 1031 exchange. My advice was to actually pay the tax. Because the capital gains tax has been lowered and was set to go up in the future when the tax cuts expire. Their CPA suggested the same thing. Everyone has benefited from the lower tax, middle class and rich alike. My clients benefited from the lower rate and the government benefited because my clients paid now instead of later if at all.
I know it's tough for some of the libs on here to accept but the tax cuts have been a huge boon to the treasury and the middle class as well
Well now you've lost all credibility. Lowering the capital gains tax does benefit the treasury SHORT TERM--I'll grant you that, because of the example you provided. But over the long haul tax cuts do exactly what they are designed to do----run up the debt until the only thing left to do is cut the budget to the bone. But wait, we can't cut the MILITARY budget----there's TERRORISM out there. So we must cut Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. It's a transparent game---but it does make a nice 30 second political ad...
How was our government able to manage before income taxes? Sorry, but the answer is as simple as spending more than they take in.
Political ideology does not pay the bills for the working schmo.
This is not a personal slam, Mr. Neff, but with so many people getting paid to advise others, and paid well, you must remember or be aware, there are many of us that simply do not have the resources to do as your client did.
So, we take one story and label it as truth.
I have not seen a tax break, sure I got a stimulus check and promptly stimulated my creditors to get caught up.
How about the working schmo who does have the assets or resources to take advantage of the schemes and plans that advisors tout.
What are they to do, when they want to live and raise a family and not try and buy a business or start one and the cost of every thing goes up and the pay check, if they have one, stays the same. Politico's and pundits dismiss the whole thing as their fault and advisers, advise.
What message is our leadership of all parties sending when they encourage us to spend our way to salvation.
Republicans and Democrats alike have called for the consumers to consume, as the system is based on consumption and not saving.
I watch CNN and Gerri Willis comes and says save and do this and do that take my money and do this with it, sure, all fine and dandy when you have extra money, but quite a few us do not and the leadership is growing more and more out of touch with middle, at least the lower middle class people, each day.
Republicans and Democrats both encourage us to spend our way to salvation.
Consume more to boost our economy.
But nary a peep about saving, from either party.
with much of what you said about our political leadership. Nobody is more disappointed than I in the Republicans for failing to deliver smaller government. I will say this though about the working shmo, sometimes you have to get a second job.
Which is this schmo has done and my family is still able to just make ends meet but not put anything away, because both jobs are low paying jobs.
What has either party or any candidate going to do to improve the job situation? Nothing really, the issue is not a flashy one liner with the stroke of a pen or slick speech. I do not think any candidate has the power to stop the changing of the world. The change has been apparent for some time and the reactions to it have made matters worse.
It is a global change in the world.
How pray tell, will we have a smaller government when the demands of today's society and culture have grown way beyond when our country was founded.
Maybe some research into a time machine, so we can go back and stop the world wide migration and return to the thirteen colonies and weary pointy hats and use a horse for the preferred mode of transportation and live a simpler life with the freedoms some seek, which did we really ever have.
The world, the whole world and just our little corner of it, is changing.
And like all the other countries that have been up and then come down, so shall we.
I have read on this site because this statement cracked me up!
These were middle class folks who made less than $80,000 a year.
Must be residents of the shady end of OttawaHills.
$80,000 is rich to you?
but I can assure you that I've wandered off the beaten path and have seen how Toledo's "middle class" lives.
Had you taken the opportunity to wander the same paths, you'd find that $80,000 is a lot to a lot of people in your community.
You don't go off the beaten path much in Toledo, do you.
I do know how the middle class lives. They make up the bulk of my clients. An income of $80,000 may be the start of the upper middle class but it is middle class. I used to be poor white trailer trash now I'm white trash with money. So, yes Brian to answer your question, I do get off the beaten path.
on your personal success story.
$80,000 is rich to you?
You know, Troy, old man, sometimes you get right under my skin and I start praying for patience.
There are plenty of people who don't make $50,000 a year, and in fact the median income is somewhere around $38,000 in a four person family. The tax cuts you're touting do not help these people one single iota. Quite the opposite; because what the rich are not paying the poor must cover. Hence, less money for the poor, keeping them poor, and more for the rich, ensuring their space in society will never be usurped.
As for me, personally, I look at what the government steals from each paycheck and I feel absolutely sick to my stomach. My taxes are going to go up. My cost of living is going to increase. My standard of living is going to decrease. I can forget about ever being able to retire. And the worst thing about all this is that both political parties are running candidates who will do nothing but make my situation worse.
You want liars, pick_slip? Try Hitlery Rodham-Clinton. She's nothing more than a smart thief and a liar, and I honestly think that the Clintons know a lot more about Vince than anyone will ever find out. Obama Rama Ding Dong has more hubris than any four rap stars strung out on coke and their own fame and a great deal less knowledge about government and daily life in the middle class. What's his name from the Stupid Party thinks there are weapons of mass destruction in Iran, so when he's elected we'll all get to see just how far the economy of a first world industrial nation can dig into the ground before collapse.
We are all hosed, and I mean hosed. Completely. The only real question worth asking is: What is the best way for an individual to survive the next eight years?
Invest with Troy Neff and his $80,000 a year middle class mentality!
If it wasn't for the dilligence of my wife of working myself into a better credit score, let alone be sincerely grateful and fortunate to marry into my position, I'd have been so totally f-ed and I make just under $30,000 a year.
I would, but I can't swing the initiation fee.
Because I've been to Vero on several occasions and unless you live in a shanty, your household income is higher than $30k.
BTW, $80,000 a year and less is middle class. The median household income in the US was around $48,000, but when a household has two income earners, the median income is close to $70,000. That's two people, one making $40k a year, another making $30k. Definately middle class.
"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at
.the $30,000 or so was mine alone, not including her's.
If we included hers, it would explain the owning of all the toys we have.
No, this couldn't have been done on my own at all, and know how grateful and privilaged I am to live this life I've become accustomed to.
But the point was Toledo's income, where Troy made the assumption that the average Toledoan make $80,000 a year as "middle class".
Oregon is not Toledo.
Not even remotely close.
1. You know, Troy, old man, sometimes you get right under my skin and I start praying for patience.
- Glad I can contribute to your spirtual growth, you'll be the better man for it,
2. The tax cuts you're touting do not help these people one single iota.
- Actually about 1 million people around the median inome range you cited fell off the tax rolls thanks to Bush's 2nd tax cut. Most folks with children in this income range and lower also get the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is welfare without having to stand in the welfare line.
3. what the rich are not paying the poor must cover
- Be nice if that were true. The POOR do not pay federal income taxes. The people making up the slack are the affluent, those with high incomes but who do not have the net worth of the wealthy, ie Brian's wife.
4. the worst thing about all this is that both political parties are running candidates who will do nothing but make my situation worse
- Hey, something we both agree on. We can only count on ourselves and each other, the government can't be counted on.
having this conversation, when I mentioned about a black friend, it was to tell those who do not know what "after whist" is someone black could tell them.
You are going to have and hear skin color a lot in the coming months, because some people can't let it go.
There are plenty of other things to discuss that have nothing to do with race. However, some people seem to think that's the main issue. It's not.
And I also know that this election is now going to be based on age and race.
It's dejecting to see the direction our country has gone in. I would have hoped someone would have had the nerve to think about things over here instead of themselves and their personal agendas.
Thanks Lisa for the links, I appreciate it.
purnhrt seems to be the one on this forum who can't let it go about skin color. Obama's skin color has never been an issue with me, or most people (I don't think) - no more than it's been an issue with Hillary being a woman (lots of countries have long had women leaders, successfully- why not America?). My "issue" with Hillary, Obama & McCain, is that of character. They've all lied - lied on purpose to win points, woven stories to win hearts. But why lie? There wasn't ever a need to lie, but they did. And that they'd lie about the things they did, suggests to me that they'd lie about more serious things. A person is only as good as their word. I dont give a damn if a candidate did drugs as a college student, or is of a particular race or sex, or if they made some questionable choises as young adults (most young adults do) . What I do give a damn about, is their character, and anybody who fabricates lies like this to win points shows a serious lack of character.
About Obama's lies (and, or ignorance) -
The Blade's Jack Kelly had an interesting editorial on Obama. Makes me doubt the man even more.
Article published Saturday, May 31, 2008
Give Obama the potato test
HE GENERATES even more gaffes than Dan Quayle. "We have not exhausted our nonmilitary options in confronting the Iranian threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them," Sen. Barack Obama says on his Web site. "If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization."
It was Albert Einstein who first defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
"Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as 'a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans,'•" wrote Amir Taheri in the Wall Street Journal this week.
In 2006, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice offered Iran a package of incentives including "improving Iran's access to the international economy, markets, and capital, through practical support for full integration into international structures, including the WTO."
Mr. Obama can escape Einstein's charge by pleading ignorance. He didn't know about U.S. overtures to Iran, or Mr. Ahmadinejad's rejection of them. But shouldn't a candidate for president know these things?
Last week, I twitted Mr. Obama for saying he'd campaigned in 57 states, for not knowing that his home state of Illinois borders on Kentucky, and for claiming the Cuban Missile Crisis (October, 1962) was defused by President Kennedy's summit meeting with Nikita Khruschchev (June, 1961). Earlier, Mr. Obama said 10,000 people were killed when a tornado struck Greensburg, Kansas last year (the death toll was 12), and assumed Afghans speak Arabic (they don't).
After Mr. Obama took opposite sides on successive days last week on whether Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez should be engaged or isolated, ABC's Jake Tapper described him as "a one-man gaffe machine." And that was before his Memorial Day twofer.
Speaking in New Mexico, Mr. Obama seemed not to understand Memorial Day honors those who died in war, and claimed his uncle was one of the soldiers who liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp. Since Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, and Mr. Obama's mom was an only child, this is unlikely.
When this misstatement was spotted by bloggers, the Obama campaign said the senator had in mind his great uncle, Charles W. Payne, who, the campaign said, had served in the 89th Infantry Division, which liberated Ohrdruf, a slave labor camp that was a satellite of Buchenwald. This explanation has satisfied most journalists. But Charles W. Payne is not listed on the roster of the 89th Infantry Division, perhaps because the Kansas State Historical Society says Charles W. Payne entered the Navy on Nov. 10, 1942.
Mr. Obama has told the Auschwitz story before. But in an Oct. 2, 2002 speech, the protagonist was his grandfather:
"My grandfather signed up for the war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army," Mr. Obama said then. "He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka."
(Stanley Dunham entered the Army on June 18, 1942. Treblinka, which, like Auschwitz, is in Poland, was liberated by the Red Army.)
It isn't a good idea to take what Mr. Obama says at face value. As facts emerged, he issued eight different descriptions of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The "uncle at Auschwitz" story might be again revised.
Dan Quayle was just 41 and looked younger when George H. W. Bush plucked him from relative obscurity to be his running mate. Journalists portrayed Mr. Quayle as inexperienced and not too bright, an image cemented on June 15, 1992, when, while officiating at a spelling bee in Trenton, New Jersey, he corrected a 12-year-old's spelling of "potato," telling the boy there was an "e" on the end.
Mr. Quayle was wrong, but not terribly. "Potatoe" was an accepted spelling through the 19th century, and the error was on a cue card provided by school authorities. But journalists needed no further proof that Mr. Quayle was a dunce.
Journalists have been more kind to Mr. Obama, though his gaffes exceed those of Mr. Quayle, and he has less experience. Mr. Quayle had served four years in the House and eight in the Senate before becoming vice president.
Still, the question arises: Can Barack Obama spell "potato?"
In fairness to Obama , this was a mispeak. His grandfather helped liberate Buchenwald. A different concentration camp.
The best one was where he flip-flopped in a matter of 11 seconds. I believe that's a world record.
While it may not be a bone of contention for the mainstream, there are those in America and elsewhere that will and do protest a person of color or a race other than Caucasian as president.
The NSM and others come to mind.
They will make an issue out of his race.
$80,000 a year is considered middle class? I imagine it depends on ones' perspective, and the standard of living one is accustomed to. To most, that amount would not be considered middle class - to many, that would be considered wealthy (it may be double or more what they earn in a year, and hell yes, that would feel wealthy). If somebody is accustomed to wide screen tvs & new cars in the driveway & all bills paid on time & nice clothes in the closet - but they can't afford a trip to Europe (or even Florida), then perhaps they'd consider that amount to be middle class. But for somebody who's barely squeaking by on less than $30,000 a year & is facing disconnection of utilities & the mortgage payment will be paid late this month & your kid's birthday is coming up & all they want to do is take a friend to Cedar Point for a day to celebrate & you don't have enough groceries & gas to get by till next payday much less afford a birthday trip to Cedar Point for your kid - then they feel very middle class & 80 grand sounds wealthy to them. I can't speak for the masses, but I bet that last example hits more people than not. Neff sounds very out of touch with what life is like for most people, living in his bubble world - he probably has extra bucks to invest or save each month too.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with an old friend about 20 years ago. I was going through a very rough patch in my life, and she implied to know what that was like. This is a woman who has lived her life in designer clothes (as did her kids), lunches to cheer her 10 yr old daughter up at Fifi's, diamond bracelets for valentines day, etc.. I suggested that she's lived in an ivory tower & has never really had to deal with a hard time in her life. She got a little upset, and declared that she "did too" have hard times in her life. I asked her to name one. She recalled the early years of her marriage when her & her husband's apartment didn't have air conditioning (but her kids still wore high end clothes - higher end than Dillards. And went on trips to Chicago regularly.) This is a woman I"ve known since 1st grade & we're very close, even now. I learned then that it all depends on one's perspective.
Mr. Neff - I think your comment (do we think 80 grand is rich?) is insulting & arrogant & shows how very out of touch you are with what is 'normal' in this country. I don't claim to know statistics, and much also depends on how many kids a family has to support. I always assumed that middle class meant an income of between $25,000 & $65,000 (at most, with 4 kids). I assumed that beneath that 25 grand, was poverty level (and I"d read it was about 18 grand). I suggest Mr. Neff take a drive through inner city Toledo, and the surrounding suburbs (not the pricey, trendy ones). There was a huge outcry recently because the city pools may not be opened this summer due to lack of funds. The people this affects, most likely don't have a/c or private pools. They represent the poor to m iddle class I think. Many middle class people who do have private pools are barely squeaking by. Those who don't feel a serious 'squeaking by' each month, are probably richer than they think they are.
$25K as middle class? That sounds way too low. I'd say that the bottom range of middle class would be at least $30K, probably closer to $35K.
According to some recent Census Bureau numbers (2006), the middle 1/3rd of American household income ranged from $30K to $62.5K. That seems like close to a reasonable approximation for "middle class."
I'd agree with the rest of you that the $80K figure is probably pushing it to still be considered in the "middle"...at least for this region. But I'd still say that $25K is too low to be considered "middle class" for a total family income too.
P.S. One 2005 study that I saw when trying to look up a definition of middle class listed an income range of $35K to $75K as "lower middle class." I got a bit of a chuckle out of that. I know that the study was nationwide, which also includes areas with very high cost of living. But still...when the 2006 national *median* income was $48K, I don't see how $75K could be called "lower middle." lol
sensor - Obama did not 'mis-speak' , he re-told the same story in different versions. As the facts got found out, he revised his story, repeatedly - changing the name of the relative, the point in history, etc. to make it 'fit' or look good to the masses. And his final story still did not stick - it still has holes. I hate that term 'mis-spoke" - it's just new- age for LIE. And all three candidates have done it repeatedly, about very stupid things. My point is, why lie at all? Why make up an old family history story at all? Anybody running for president has to know somebody will be digging for facts - so they'd better check their facts before shooting their mouths off. I was going to vote for Obama - until this long string of lies he's been caught in came out. Hillary & McCain are no better, but I figured Obama was the lesser of the evils - until he lied about stupid things (and appears to not know his geography very well). I will not vote at all, before I will vote for somebody who blatently lies, and then re-invents his lies.
sarah, you're right - $25,000 does seem too low for middle class - especially if it's for a family of four. I don't know how they come up with these statistics - I imagine in some parts of the country, $80,000 may seem middle class, but not here in Toledo, Ohio. I was told by a woman who lives in L.A., who lives in a house about the same as mine, and she said in L.A., my house would sell for no less than $600,000 or more. Here in Toledo, Ohio, I"d be lucky if it was appraised at $150,000 (probably worth far less). I remember about 18 years ago, in a class I took at U.T., the prof claimed that middle class was between $50,000 - $100,000. I remember feeling very, very poor that day - but I'm sure he had to have been wrong.
for you voting, I guess you have never voted. :=)
In an interview he gave to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes in 2006 for Hayes’s biography, “Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President,” McCain said: “I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States.”
Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he’d consider Cheney for an administration post.
Asked whether he’d be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: “I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.” source
So much for McCain's foreign policy "expertise". Apparently, he thinks that Iraq and Pakistan share a border.
This is the mantra, leave business alone and let them run the business and get government out of the way, or on the flip side get government involved and then the tax payers pick up the tab.
All our eggs are in one basket.
The problems have been coming at us like a speeding bus, and now after the first oil embargo's and shortages and price spikes, we expect a snap answer to a complex problem.
People like Pink Slip