Have to admit, I'm torn here.

You're aboard a cruise ship.  Your ticket price--as well as that of all passengers--guarantees a seat on a lifeboat in the event the ship goes down.  They only sell as many tickets as they have lifeboat seats.

Unfortunately, disaster does strike on this trip; the ship will be under water in hours.  Everyone lines up to get into the lifeboats.  But you, being wealthy, have a choice the others don't: with a simple call, you can have your corporate chopper landing on the deck in an hour to take you and your spouse to safety, leaving two seats for crew members (who are not included in the lifeboat count).

You elect to use your seats and forgo the chopper.  Two crew members are therefore left to go down with the ship.  Not your problem.  You paid for two tickets; you and your spouse are entitled to two seats.  Fair is fair, right?

Well, when it comes to Social Security, the question is the same: Should the rich, who paid into SS their entire lives, receive piddly checks they don't need just because they're entitled to them?  Or does denying them the payments (as they have vast assets to fall back on) become another example of class warfare?

http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/01/25/mitch-daniels-responds-to-obamas-class-warfare-with-even-more-class-warfare/#more-415872

Ever been to Las Vegas?  It's a gamble, but many people go with their dreams in tow.  I was there once in 2002, but I only saw Cirque du Soleil, not a blackjack table.
I didn't have money to lose anyhow.  Still don't.

But here's my question: Would Vegas continue to be the draw that it is if, instead of the chance to win a million bucks with one's poker skills, customers were assured that they would all leave town with more or less the same take?  And, of course, in that instance the "take" would be zero or a slight loss.  But suppose, just suppose, they even promised everyone would win between $1 and $3?  For sure.  Or that the biggest winner could only be allowed to win 10% more than the smallest winner?

How long do you suppose it would take for the hotels to be empty and the airport idle? 

So why does the president believe that America would be a more attractive place to do business or have an upwardly mobile career if success were made to enjoy no more advantages than failure (or mediocrity, perhaps)?  That it's a better model when hard work and industry pays about what sloth does?  When you can't keep what you earn?

For goodness sake, when you've earned it through hard work, it's yours.  The rich don't enjoy their own rules; they are subject to the same ones we all are. 

Earned income at the highest level is taxed at 35%, whether it's your eighty thousandth dollar or your hundred millionth. 

Investment income is taxed at 15%, even if it's your first buck.  And remember: the investments you make (unless they are going into IRAs or other pre-tax, deferred-tax,  or tax-free vehicles) are with "after tax" money--they have been taxed once already at the normal rate, say 35%. 

So if that investment returns anything, the money will have been taxed at about 50% by the time you're spending any of your winnings.  I don't think Warren Buffet's secretary pays 50%.  All we hear is that he pays a lower rate than she, which is probably more like 15-25%...unless she makes a huge salary for a secretary.  In any event, if she invested in a mutual fund, she'd pay 15% on her gains, too.  Warren doesn't get a special break; he just doesn't have a job like she does.

Oh, and if you're the lowest 47% of income earners, you pay...nothing.  Nada.

What is the effect of all this?  Well, obviously it encourages more investment--just as Vegas attracts more people with the prospect--not the promise--of better rewards.

Is that good for America, or not?  Mr. President?

I guess there aren't going to be any other news correspondents who will try to corner Newt Gingrich on the subject of his marriage(s).  When the road is littered with the bodies of your colleagues who foolishly came before trying to score one against him, you tend to get more cautious and start tiptoeing more.  John King of CNN was castrated on camera.  That's the long and short of it.

That's not to say it's good to have a cad in the White House.  We've had several.  Some were good as president, and some not.  What kind Newt would be is what the debate is all about.  I tend to think he'd be very effective, given that he has a command of the issues and isn't afraid to lock horns with those who aren't moving fast enough.  He wouldn't take any crap from either his Congress or a world leader.  If there's anything world leaders respect, it's forceful personalities.  That's why we're so much a laughing stock around the world today: Obama prefers to bow rather than challenge, to appease and not confront, to phone it in. He thinks presenting our sworn enemies with an open hand will get them to unclench their fist. 

How's that working out for us?

Four more years of that?  We'll be speaking another language by 2016--the language of whoever is our conqueror.

Oh, and the arrests.  Forgot that.

Yep, the Obama/Pelosi/Communist/Nazi-endorsed OWS movement is coming along just fine. 

Were I to be hired to write the eventual GOP nominee's first political ad for '12, I think it would feature no spoken words...just film of the protest participants around the country along with some stats: the rapes, the killings and suicide(s), the rats, the public health hazards.  This is the new face of the left now. 

Had it not been given a thumbs up by the Democratic leadership and their water carriers (SEIU and other unions), Obama might have been able to distance himself from this diseased national phenom.  But that would go against everything he stands for.

Some of us tried to warn the country three years ago about the dangers of electing an Alinsky disciple.  Talk about chickens coming home to roost.

Are Michael Vick, Michael Moore, or Oprah "greedy"?  They make tens of millions of dollars a year, either by contract or other modes free market capitalism (don't tell Moore), while those who work for them make far less.

Meanwhile, you probably know someone who comes to work late, leaves early, takes longer lunch breaks than anyone else, spends company time doing personal business and making personal calls, and is the type of person who will show not the slightest concern for others as they talk for 30 more minutes after the meal is done and the check paid, while they can clearly see the growing line of people waiting for a table in the restaurant.  They can't be bothered.  They paid for their meal; if they want to hold court as others stand around waiting for them to be done, is that their problem?

Who is "greedy"?  The one making a fortune, or the one who thinks he's entitled to your stuff, too?  Sure, greed can be found among the wealthy as well as anyone else.  But greed is an attitude, not a balance sheet.

Next time you're in line at the grocery store and someone ahead waits until the total is rung up before they even take out their check book and start slowly scratching out a check, fumbling for an ID deep in their purse, and asking the clerk when apples are going on sale next and how come Coke prices are up and why they don't mop up on aisle six, remind yourself that greed comes in many forms.