You could be making a million and due to circumstances or your living style not
feel good about your situation. Believe it or not there a lot of Republicans
that think 250 a year is rich. I don't claim to be either one. Don't expect a
lot of sympathy from the great majority that don't make close to 250,000 and
work as hard or harder than you. Wait till you retire and watch your investments
disappear while the heads of our financial institutions go away with more money
than you could spend in 10 life times. What our financial intitutions have done
is organized crime at its best and now we all have to pay a price unless you are
in the family of the elite that run our financial institutions.

Let me explain this:
It would help the economy by keeping taxes lower
My husband and I make a little over 250K and work our butt off.... At the end of
the year when you write a check out for $65,000 it really sucks and makes you
wonder why you work so hard. So what happens is we went and got incorporated in
our business and now we make sure everything we do is basically a tax write off
to lower our tax bill.... The more money you make, you loose all your benefits.
I have 3 kids and I lost all my tax deductions on them. So by the time you are
done with loosing all your deductions and paying the tax bill, you are pretty
screwed. You have to make millions to get a tax break or make under 50K. The
Dems think 250K is rich. Yes it is not chump change but it is far from rich. I
also support my mom and dad so they don't live on the system, I get no tax break
for that either...... Somewhat unfair.....

Ryan doesn't a weak dollar help foreign stocks for U.S. based investors? Check
your logic on that one as this is actually a reality as foreign returns get
translated back to more U.S. dollars. Obviously this doesn't mean foreign
companies earn more money, it's just a way of benefiting from exchange rate
fluctuations.

"supply side has been proven"

balderdash. here we go with economic "theories" again. like "a weak dollar helps
international stocks and a strong dollar hurts them" even though large cap US
stocks did better in the 90's than now. but this is academic speak not
practitioner

as madeline has shown, in the 50's durring one of the biggest US booms, tax
rates for the wealthiest were much higher than now.

if you look back at GDP, stock charts, and tax rates, you cant find any
distinguishable difference between them. the false assumption is that if the
govt takes in the money that it vanishes and doesnt get cycled into the economy.
but this is pure theory that just isnt true.

The thing is that during the 1960's the tax rate for the highest earners was
.... 90%.

The link below shows the tax rates from 1900 on ...

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Well we live in a country that's like having the mob in charge. When unethical
lending has cost millions their savings and the mob is given millions for a job
well done. Why would honest working people want to even invest in a system after
seeing what the greedy crooks have done and then were spit in the eye by them
getting huge salaries and severances.

Most people don't want a communist country where you work 8 months out of the
year for the govt. before you start earning any money for yourself. Besides
that, it's theft, punishing success to fund those who have no desire to achieve.
It's a generational cycle of dependency called the welfare state and it's wrong.
It's socialism. That's not America. If we had a flat tax, it would make things
fair. Jerry Brown and Forbes were for it, as is Brownback. You make more, you
pay more. Not a higher percentage, just more taxes. That's punishment enough for
being successful. It's real simple.

More taxes usually equates to less consumption to grow the economy. Less taxes
usually equates to more incentive to invest in business...more jobs, etc.
Supply side has proven to stimulate more than government tax and spend.