Absolutely true, yet absolutely false  -- that is, factually true, but implying something which is false.  It's either foolish or dishonest or both -- which it is in Carter's case I do not know.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

In case you don't want to bother with the link:

"The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.

The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.

The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.

But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.

In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.

We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline."

My two cents is that the working poor are from the mean income of the second bracket, $25,678 on down for household or family income.

I would define the middle class is everything between $25,678 and $86,867.

The bottom part of the top 20% could be considered upper middle class, but once you get into even a low six figure income, you're talking pretty comfortable living. I'm sure a lot of these folks don't consider themselves "rich," but they aren't worrying about paying utility bills or fighting to keep the car running so they can get to work either.

One problem is that while the width of the lower bands is pretty narrow, the top band goes from $87,000 to hundreds of billions.  The person making $87,000 has very little in common with the Wal-Mart heirs.  Even counting $150,000 as "rich" is laughable in many coastal metro areas.  that is really upper middle class.  The rich in terms of lifestyle really start with the millionaires.

But even here there is the problem of income and wealth, as you state.  The bottom half overwhelmingly have few to no assets, a major problem in getting up the ladder.  But people who are retired or who have enough wealth not to need to work can have incomes as low as $50-60,000 and still have assets of $1 million or more, even if one excludes the primary residence.  Are they rich?  To me it depends on how they live.

Culturally, one way to calculate it is on the basis of how much one SPENDS in a year exclusive of investments but including primary housing.  In other words, your actual living standard.  I doubt those statistics are kept.  But is the family who spends $250,000 a year with few assets richer than those who spend $60,000 but have over a million in assets?  Not in my book.

One reason for excluding the value of the primary residence is that it generally is a residence and not an investment.  It also takes out the issue of people who bought decades ago but whose houses are now worth far more than they could ever afford.  But then, living in a $750,000 house (in CA that is an average 3 bedroom) does have an imputed value, even if you bought it for $200,000.

Even then, one has to struggle to make ends meet.

I suppose it depends on your preferences for work vs, say, spending time with your family. I don't assume that everyone has my preferences, but there's plenty of evidence that Americans feel pressed for time and might like more time away from the grind.

The French 35 hour work week and mandated holidays are keeping their unemployment rates sky high.

You don't know what you're talking about here. Unemployment in France actually dropped right after the 35-hour week was adopted.

Germany, admittedly absorbed East Germany 14 years ago, but this does not explain today's unemployment rate of 12.0%

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Unemployment in the West is below 8%; in the East it is near 20%.

Comes down to Americans are more productive, have more money, and less freetime. Europeans have more freetime, but are less productive and have less money.

Again you are misinformed on this issue. In fact, many European economies have productivity levels and growth rates that match or exceed those in the U.S:

             Labor
           Productivity            GDP
             Growth,            per Worker
           1987-2005          1995-96

France        1.6%               102
Germany     1.6                 107
Italy           1.5                    90
Sweden      2.5
Norway       2.3
Finland       3.0
Denmark    2.0
UK            1.5                     84
US            1.9                   100
Japan       2.0                     68

Source: OECD, BLS, Conference Board

Europe is doomed.

Its failed welfare states, toxic socialism and fatal demographics ensure this.

Right now, it is apparent to most people in the US who are paying attention.

In a decade, it will be obvious to everyone.