Finally the voice of reason !!

So I guess the upward mobility that is afforded the working class by the GI Bill is just government hocus pocus? Given that Chrysler just posted their first quarterly profit in a decade, and GM is back as the world's largest auto maker, I'm guessing that has to do with water sprites and pixie dust?

How much is enough, what percentage should be taken from each of us? What is wrong with letting people keep more of their money and to do what they wish with it?

if Chrysler was allowed to go into bankruptcy they probably would have emerged and still sold cars.

In 2011 approximately 13 million units were sold, Chrysler sold about 1.4 million, if Chrysler didn’t exist would we see more people walking around?

I wonder how much pixie dust?

The US treasury Department upped it's estimate of taxpayer losses on Obama's GM fiasco to $23.77 billion yesterday.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120130/AUTO01/201300393/Treasury-ups-auto-bailout-loss-estimate?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

In 2010 the GI bill cost $641 million for tuition assistance. What we will lose on GM alone would have funded the GI Bill tuition program for 37 years.

http://www.militarytimesedge.com/education/gi-bill-tuition-assistance/ed_reduced_tuition_assistance_060611/

Put another way. That $24 billion is enough to fund 12,981,977 veterans for one year of college.

That's a lot of pixie dust down the drain. And, mind you, that 24 billion loss is a drop in the bucket compared to the 4 TRILLION dollars (and counting) in debt Obama has added.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

4 Trillion is enough to send 2.2 Billion people (1/3 the earth's population) to college for a year.

Nice article. The great thing about this country is that Opportunities are equal, however what the liberals don't understand is that the Outcomes are not.

"...our President believes that those who are less fortunate are in a situation that is getting worse because those who make more money do not want to pay their fair share in taxes." – The president never said those who make money are to blame for those who are less fortunate. I believe he has asked for shared sacrifice.

"He does not believe in the ability of individuals to succeed on their own." – I know statements like this, however silly, are great way to set up a target to shoot at, but they really just reveal that the beliefs being laid out are actually those of the writer and not the subject.

I had thought that the term "class warfare" had been put to bed years ago. It was always an easy way to spot when there were no real arguments of substance left. The last big argument to hold off a tax increase on the rich was because they are the “job creators”. Since that argument isn't holding much water these days I guess they've moved on to something else.

Lets lay it out so you don't have to set up the straw man. The president and the vast majority of the public believe that the richest of us, who seem to have done quite well the last few years while most have struggled, should go back to paying a larger proportion of the tax burden. You can try to portray it as "class warfare", since it makes it sound like we're being just so darn mean to the rich, but the gap between the rich and everybody else is bigger now than it has even been, while the proportion of taxes paid by the richest is at the lowest level it has ever been. If trying to correct that is “class warfare” then let the war begin.

I should have just posted this and let the rich guy make the argument...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

What are these regulations that are limiting prosperity? Is it the one that says a gas station cannot be built in my neighborhood? Freshness stamps on food? Auto safety standards? The ones that set safety standards for home perms? Or how about the licenses for day care centers?

It's clear that the class war ended years ago -- and the 1% won big time. Now ,they want to start another war to make "the 43% who now pay no taxes pay their share." Who cares that most of them are the working poor below the poverty line?

Bravo! Sue Anne. We live in the age of envy and entitlement. Those who choose to demonize the 1% are devoid of reason and historical perspective.

Historical perspective? How's this for historical perspective...in the 1920's, the "roaring twenties", the growing disparity in wealth contributed to the Great Depression. The Mellon Tax (otherwise known as the trickle-down theory) was put into place by conservative, laissez-faire politicians (pro-businessmen...aka Calvin Coolidge "the high priest of business"). However, the extra money that the wealthy received in tax cuts? Oh, they held onto that money. Instead of investing in jobs/wages (you know, the job creators that they are), they invested in the stock market. The every-day person, with wages not going up, if they wanted to meet the growing standard of living, had to take out loans for everything, even to get into the stock market. Those stocks were being pushed up in price by speculators who could corner the unregulated market (i.e. pooling), and then sell, driving prices downward. Since those every-day people had to take out loans to live a comfortable lifestyle in the first place, not only did they lose their money, but they owed. Hence, selling their homes, cars, etc. Your laissez-faire president at the time (Hoover) decided to...yup, do nothing because the market always corrects itself, right? Uh, not exactly. When you leave the 1% to govern themselves and everyone else (since it's they who have the political power), that's what happens. There's your historical perspective. Spare me the condescending comments about history when others know theirs.

I'm always amazed at how people who are the 40% defend the 1%; I now understand how easy it was to find all those maids and footmen in homes like Downton Abbey.

EDITORIAL COMMENTARY TO THE AUTHOR:
Good job Susan. Don't let the ignorant discourage you, for they only believe in what they are told, and never seem to do any fact checking on their own. On my own blog, and on another nationwide news source that I spend time commenting on, I have noticed that we are always asked for "links" or sources and those requests are NEVER demanded of those who blog left. That being said, I developed a personal policy where "I do not do research for Liberals" because it generally does not compute with them, or they call your sources suspect or begin name calling. As you can see by the comments you are receiving, I am speaking factually, and am seriously considering making a list of the "comments" that I run into that are chock full of opinion, and very little fact for an upcoming book.

TO THE "OPPONENTS:
No one has a problem with taxation to cover "social" or "communal" things like highways and infrastructure, or security and the military, or air traffic controllers. Obama keeps talking about teachers, firefighters and police officers losing their jobs if taxes are not raised, but apparently he does not know that those "jobs" are supported by your local taxes. Either that or he thinks that we're stupid and is being disingenuous.

The article addresses class warfare and your tactics are always attack the author, criticize them or their sources, and bring up pusillanimous little arguments to distract from what is being said. Try refuting the facts instead of deflecting them.

I will be commenting on the article below and will make the claim that almost 50% of Americans do not pay FEDERAL TAXES. That will probably be met with the usual argument of "The poor do pay taxes. They pay Social Security, State taxes, Payroll taxes, FICA taxes, Medicare taxes, Unemployment insurance taxes." Okay, I know that but they do NOT pay FEDERAL INCOME TAXES and that's what funds the government!

MY TAKE appears below.

MY TAKE ON THE ARTICLE:

Here we go. It never ceases to amuse me at the opinions some people have. Not because I disagree with them but because they often show an "acluistic" quality. For those unfamiliar with "acluistic," that's because it is not a word, but for this purpose means "has no clue."

The author is correct about class warfare. It is not a recent political tool either. The regime in Washington is creating an unprecedented class warfare model because they cannot possibly win re-election on their record. They are also bypassing Constitutional restraints, but that's for another post.

What exactly is "Fair" if almost 50% of Americans do not pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAXES? Let's suppose we all pay INCOME tax. I will use simple (and unrealistic) figures for this example. Let's just say that taxes are equal across the board at 20%.

John Richman makes $100,000 annually and pays $20,000 in Federal taxes.
Joe Poorguy makes $10,000 annually and pays $2,000 in taxes.
Both John and Joe receive the same services and entitlements from the "government" yet John pays $18,000 per year more than Joe does, yet we are told that this is not fair. John is NOT paying his "fair share." Our problem as I see it is not that we are not taxed enough, it's that the government is spending too much!

Let's stay simple in the following example.

If our Federal Budget was a household budget, it would look like this...
(For the actual Federal numbers -- Just add eight "zeros" to the figures listed below.)
In other words, the taxes collected are actually $2,170,000,000,000

Annual Family Income............................... $21,700
Money the family spent...............................$38,200
The NEW DEBT on the credit card...............$16,500
Outstanding balance on that card....... .......$142,710
The "Budget Cut" you're excited about..........$385

How does the government spend the money. Mind picture. 3 squares, 1 foot X 1 foot each.
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are fixed expenditures and take up 2 full squares.
Military and "Agency" expenditures take up about half a square.
Discretionary expenditures takes up a whole square which means we must borrow half a square.

NOW - Add ObamaCare to that mix and between Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and ObamaCare, all 3 squares will be fixed expenditures (which by law MUST be paid) and a whole additional square will NEED TO BE BORROWED to pay for Military, Agency and Discretionary expenditures EVREY YEAR!!!

If the 'rich' have every last penny taken from them to pay taxes, it will fund the government for 18 days! And that can only happen once. Next MONTH they will have nothing to tax. Think about it!

Excellent article. Spot on.