Quote:What's funny about this is what is defined as "rich".

 

If you look at the threshold for household incomes that are in that top 20%, the family income is $91,000.  That's not rich unless we've taken a trip back to the 1980s. 

 

The middle class is getting hammered by taxes despite being the income group that is practically disappearing under our income redistribution loving president.  He talks a good game, but the level of disparity between haves and have nots has grown at a faster rate under his watch than at any other time in history.  I'm sure there's a way he can try to blame it on Bush.  That seems to be the only strategy that matters, and his supporters sure like to harken back to Bush all the time.  God knows they don't want to deal with the present or admit how utterly failed this administration is. 

It's cute watching you do the exact same thing you chastise other people for. It's not Bush it's Obama. Bush isn't the worst because it's Obama.... 

 

Was it shrinking under Bush? I doubt very much so. I don't even know this to be true but I bet for many decades that it's been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing and will keep increasing into the future. It's the nature of the haves to want more and have more access to get more. The strategy the right seems to propose is to cut taxes for the wealthy but not the middle class... How exactly does that help people making at or less than that 91k/year? So what's the actual solution that does not effect those it's supposed to help?

---