@boxerdc Said
NPR had an article with a republican financial analyst who said that while it's possible for Mitt to actually take in more money without taxing the middle class, it is highly unlikely that he will be able to do so.
The hit to the wealthy would be too much for them to stand, so the hit will most probably be to the wealthy in the form of removal of tax breaks, and the middle class in the loss of the mortgage deduction..
He expects that it will also hit the poor with a dramatic reduction of services.
The analyst did not see any way that Romney could do what he states without hitting the middle class and the poor, and still make the numbers add up.
Sadly, Mitt will not elaborate, which is wise for a candidate, because nobody would vote for a guy who tells them right out that he's gonna take more of their money.
And, for those of you who rent, don't think that you'll be immune from the hit that homeowners take.. because your rents will increase to make up the losses to your landlords.
All of this, regardless of which person is elected, is still in the realm of hypothesis and opinion. Much the same was said during the Carter/Reagan campaigns and the country is still here.
There's an article published today in the Washington Post claiming President Obama has skipped more than 50% of his daily security briefings and spent 600 hours on the golf course versus 412 hours for economic meetings. I want someone who would reverse these stats, if they are true and accurate. I want a president and vice-president who would be willing to forego vacations, at least for himself/herself.