Hank,

I read it. And yes, it is a load of crap. First the numbskull says we would "only" cut the deficit by 16% by eliminating tax cuts to the rich and drastically cutting defense spending. Okay, where the problem with that? Wouldn't that be a great start? Naw, if it only removes 16% of the problem, we should ignore it.

Then he cries that Obama doesn’t want to tax middle class. Do the tea baggers? If so his is a disingenuous argument. A typical straw man argument with absolutely zero merit.

He then tries to tell us a couple earning $250,000a years can’t afford to return to what was the lowest tax rate in modern history before Bush lowered it. He then conveniently forgot that the return to the old historically low tax rate would NOT affect anyone earning "only" $250,000 a year. If they took advantage of all the current exemptions they would need to make well in excess of $350,000 before the tax increase hit them.

Then you try to slip in a factoid that would have us believe an income of $800,000 a year is NOT wealthy. Tell that to the couple working at Fred Meyer for a total of $45,000 a year. Even if you had your facts right - which you do not - yours is a illogical argument. In fact the article said - well you read it. This time slowly so you understand

"The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million."

Very poor effort Hank.

BTW Under Bush the second the total public debt doubled. It will double again if we can't find reasonable politicians that understand we must cut spending, even for sacred cows, and we must get our tax rate back to where it was under Clinton. You seem to think I am holding Obama blameless. I am not. But to call this OIbama's debt as many of the Glen Beck ilk have is simply dishonest.