and Obama kept those tax cuts in place, supposedly to benefit the middle class, even though most of the benefits goto the upper classes.
But there has never been a clear definition of middle class, and politicians have ALWAYS been defining it UP.
Romney has gotten a bunch of flack for saying that middle class was households making $250,000 or less.
But that is exactly what Obama has been saying.
In 2008, Obama proposed keeping the Bush tax cuts for all income below $250,000 for a couple. His reasoning, such as it was, was that he did not want to raise taxes on the middle class. Yet, look how Citizens for Tax Justice analyzes that Obama plan
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf
Obama's original proposal gives 13.3% of its benefits to the top 1% about the same percentage that it gives to the bottom 40% (13.9%). It gives more benefits to the richest 5% than it does to the bottom 60%, and it gives a whopping 54.2% of its benefits to the richest 20%.
Those people are at the top, not in the middle.
Then there is the accursed payroll tax cut. Another tax cut sold as a "middle class tax cut". What a load of excrement. If Bush had tried to sell this, the liberal world would have been all over it for being tilted to the rich. But when Obama does it, it is all good. Almost nobody complained - except me http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160
= new reply since forum marked as read
