Michelle Obama pledges to help working families and military families

Okay, so Whoopie Goldberg is in her mid 50's which would probably put her mother at 70 or so. Your really going to try and tell me that this is the first time she felt "hope?" Maybe the with the young I'd buy that but not senior citizens. To much of a coincidence to me.

This isn't about race. This is about in the last week, all the lay offs and the small business's that are closing because the bigger companies are running scared and not buying their product. I said before that I could care less what color anyone is but I'm scared for the "small people." Check out how many laborers have been laid off in the last week. Go read the NY times or any other major newspaper.

I still don't get it - if you feel you have extra and others in need should have it, why would you not simply donate it to those people or to charities that specialize in helping those people? Do you really believe this can only be done by a government bureaucracy?

I didn't "need" the Bush tax cuts either, but I made them count by donating the difference to people and organizations that I felt would benefit, as my value system defines "benefit."

I find it hard to believe that people like you really care about others if you don't donate what you can when you can.

SKL - Why would you assume I don't donate to others in need? I do donate to private charities of my choosing, but I also feel it is proper to pay my share of taxes to support the government and its programs which help the less less fortunate.

And why do you and others insist that tax breaks to the lower income earners are some kind of handout? They are simply one small way of correcting the incredible inbalance in the transfer of wealth that has occurred over the past 8 years as a result of Bush's favorable tax cuts to the already-wealthy; Tax cuts that were "supposed" to result in opportunities for the less fortunate via "trickle-down" but which back-fired and resulted in the wealthy becoming absolutely filthy-rich instead.

jen,

Your own comments state that you received a tax break you didn't need "at the expense of" others who needed it. If you felt that way, I don't see why you didn't do something to make it right. It would have been easy to do. It just sounds idiotic to fault Bush for giving you something that you didn't need, unless you refused it or passed it right along to its rightful recipient. Kinda like the foreclosed homeowners saying they are aggrieved because the banks believed the lies they told on their loan applications. And if you did pass it right along, then what is the problem? The vast majority of Americans donate money, and donations have increased a lot during Bush's time. Doesn't that mean people in need got assistance? I know it does, because I'm on several nonprofit boards and personally saw the results of taxpayers and corporations having more disposable income to donate.

I know lots of people, including myself, who are a lot better off after Bush's 8 years, even though none of us had any wealth to begin with. I know nobody who is in the opposite situation. And by the way, the wealthiest in this country have always owned most of the wealth - er, that's why they are called "wealthy" - this is not a Bush phenomenon. They were talking about the "poor getting poorer" under Reagan too. You know, back when they came up with the ridiculous idea that able-bodied people on welfare should do something for their money - at least train part-time for a job - and some folks found that so taxing that they actually dropped off welfare. (Hooray!)

You talk about a "transfer" of wealth. What I have seen and experienced is an increase in wealth that has resulted from income, i.e., wages and fees for services. I have seen this at all levels from working-class green-card holders to highly educated professionals. What we all have in common is that we started with little or nothing. Personally, eight years ago I was up to my rear in debt because I had to pay for every penny of my professional education (3 degrees, 2 professional licenses) through student loans, scholarships, or low-wage jobs. My parents could not give me a penny and in fact needed me to send them some help. I had no assets except for one-third ownership of a house with a mortgage (which I bought out of my wages, if that needs to be said). Today, I am in the same position as far as assets, except that I now have an education fund for my kids instead of debt. So I have "wealth." Uncle Sam has already taken hundreds of thousands of dollars off the top of my earnings before the balance could become "wealth." It has been further reduced by hundreds of thousands of dollars that I gave away to causes of my choice. And most recently by some hefty adoption fees. But because I have always lived lean and usually worked multiple jobs late into the night, I have a nest egg that is larger than average. So now you tell me that this is a big problem for our country, a scourge, a scandal, and it must be undone. It was unpatriotic of me to pursue a higher education, to work long hours, to pack my lunches and avoid making unnecessary purchases. Because see, if I'd just done what the average person did, I'd only have a little bit of wealth, if any. Heck, I might even have my hand out demanding money from Uncle Sam instead of the other way around. Obviously I had my priorities screwed up and it's time I saw the error of my ways.

You know, for every hour I spent burning the midnight oil so I could build my "wealth," I generated more and more tax dollars for the community pot. I still do. It's not as if we don't already pay way too much in taxes. Somehow, even under Bush, my existence as a working human justified the government needing $50K+ per year at last count. The more I worked, the bigger the government's chunk of my wages. Now here comes Obama and says that's not nearly enough! Even if he cuts my income tax (and you know he won't), he's going to significantly raise my payroll taxes and other taxes that will flow through to me. So my question is, when is enough enough? Is it ever enough?

I am a single mother and I'm getting up in years. I've acted responsibly all my life so that I could stop worrying at this time in my life. So now I'm being attacked for having "wealth." Last I heard, the democrats want to take my 401K. What will be next?

This is not about whether or not I care about my fellow man. Look at the conditions that Obama's own relatives have been living in - and he's a hell of a lot richer than I'll ever be. He doesn't care whether I care about people in need. He doesn't care which charities or struggling individuals are going to be hurt by my lack of disposable income to give away. He just wants to transfer my wealth into a fund that he will use to push his political and social agenda. Enough will never be enough until he's out of office.

SKL - You've totally missed the point regarding the purpose of the Bush tax cuts - they were supposed to stimulate economic growth, not increase my or your giving. It has been proven over and over again that the trickle down theory does not work in times when there is economic uncertainty and the Bush War (that's what they call it in Europe) has destroyed this country's sense of economic confidence. You said it yourself in a previous post - "Yep, I think it's pretty clear that the people who have money to make financial decisions with have been scared into sitting on their cash. "

Regarding your comments that donations have increased during Bush's time is flat out false. That might be true for your microcosm, but overall giving has decreased. I am not going to do your research for you, but your statement is just FOX news tactics - just b/c you say it is so, doesn't make it true (just like they AREN'T "fair and balanced", regardless of what they advertise). Lucky for you everyone around you is better off since Bush - you must hang out in a very elite crowd - that is NOT the case for most Americans - again, you need to do your research and get out of your little bubble of what's true for you must be true for all.

You seem to base all your arguements on your personal experience - YOUR education, YOUR student loans, YOUR business, YOUR giving, scrimping, savings, etc. Just becuase the system worked for you doesn't mean it worked for everyone, or even most, or some. Other than the wealthy (and yourself apparently), people in this country are less better of than they were 8 years ago. It is a fact, and you would see that if you researched more, and spent less time writing long posts about your limited personal experience.

Jen,

It's not worth the energy to debate SKL. As you said in your last post, SKL bases her entire argument on her own personal experiences. She cannot see beyond herself, and feels that anyone who hasn't succeeded as she has just hasn't tried hard enough. I scratch my head when I read her posts because I just don't know how she could know all about everyone else's lives. Then I realize that she doesn't, and that the reason she tells people who debate her here that it's not her responsibility to research facts to back up her points is because she knows the facts will prove her points wrong.

The thing that saddens me most about SKL and others like her is that they believe that people only work hard to get rich. I believe that while money is substantial motivator, it isn't the only reason people work hard. Speaking for myself, I know I also work hard for the satisfaction I get from producing a job well done, whether or not I am being paid. And, if money was the only reason people worked hard, we wouldn't have any teachers, nurses, cops, fireman, etc. Those jobs do not make you wealthy, but are hard work. On the flip side, pro sports players work half the year doing things most people consider leisure and get paid millions of dollars. So, having wealth doesn't mean you worked hard for it, and not being wealthy doesn't mean you don't work hard.