ok, are YOU middle class ? .. as defined here

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2798619.story

It all seems very confused and fanciful. He doesn't know where the extra revenue will come from to compensate for lowering taxes.

What is the difference between raising taxes and reducing deductions? Same outcome, different headlines.

its pretty typical

throw the little dog a bone so he wont notice the big dog got a roast

dont suppose anyone gives a shit if Willard raises their taxes ..

good to know ...

95% of the people here who post against Obama are NOT $200K per year earners - not even close. They are merely examples of the Pavlov Dog syndrome in that they listen to so many wingnut "news" sources that they will stupidly and blindly vote against their own best interests.

When FAUX or Limbaugh or Beck ring those bells, these morons salivate just like Pavlov's dogs.

COF and Whirly are such a good examples, they actually help spread the wingnut bullshit to keep the salivation levels high.

LMAO

the potential tax increases from either side are not what matters. Reducing spending and tax changes that stimulate private sector economic activity are what matters. Obama's tax increase proposal will not solve the deficit problem nor will it increase economic activity and he has no interest in cutting spending. Romney's reduction in the top tax rate could encourage investment but that is not a guarantee. What matters if he is willing to cut spending. I think so but will wait for proof before I get excited.

That leaves a crappy but easy choice. One that will not solve the problem and the other that might solve the problem. I will take a might over will not.

the potential tax increases from either side are not what matters. Reducing spending and tax changes that stimulate private sector economic activity are what matters. Obama's tax increase proposal will not solve the deficit problem nor will it increase economic activity and he has no interest in cutting spending. Romney's reduction in the top tax rate could encourage investment but that is not a guarantee. What matters if he is willing to cut spending. I think so but will wait for proof before I get excited.

That leaves a crappy but easy choice. One that will not solve the problem and the other that might solve the problem. I will take a might over will not. Originally Posted by Laz

+1 It's a given, both are going to raise taxes. Odumbo has demonstrated he will not stop the spending; maybe, Romney will.

95% of the people ... who vote against Obama are NOT $200K per year earners - not even close. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

There. I fixed it for you. And the numbers keep growing!

I have no mortage, in fact, I short form my taxes. No deductions, period. So I could care less one way or the other.

Since the higher rates are for those that make over $250,000, I would only be paying that rate on about $150,000. I am in that middle ground where it is "6 is one, half dozen the other".

Stevie the reason anyone under the 200k mark is against taxing the rich more is because they don't believe in redistribution of wealth.

Make it or not on your own merit. How's yours?

Stevie the reason anyone under the 200k mark is against taxing the rich more is because they don't believe in redistribution of wealth.

Make it or not on your own merit. How's yours? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

There you go again- in fact the majority of Americans believe in taxing the rich: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-a...160833705.html

Do you pay your taxes on your escort services?????

Of course more Americans are in favor of taxing the rich. It's like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper.

That's why we (in theory) have a Republic, not a democracy.