Can someone please explain to me how "they can afford it" somehow magically makes taking things from some people to give to other people fair?

One of the saddest things to happen to America is the divisiness that support of political parties has created amoungst the populace.  Make no mistake, this divisiness is not a mistake, it is not something that those that control political parties disfavor, to the contrary, the divisiness of political party support is something that those in power count on in order to maintain their power base.

Our political discourse has become nothing more than college football mentality.  You route for your favorite team and you hate everything about your in-state rival.  So too our political system has become as it relates to support of whatever political party we most associate ourselves with.

This notion is nothing new, I certainly am not smart enough or clever enough to have thought of it, or observed it as an original theoretical prospective.  It is something that our earliest leaders knew and warned us of.  In fact our very first President, warned of the dangers of factions and parties in his Farewell Address of 1796.

I give you a small quote from President Washington's farewell address: "

"...I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Now my ending comments:  UNtil we as Americans DEMAND the destruction of the political parties that dominate our State and Local governments, the political parties that revel in seeing the voters at each others throats over the stance of the other political party, we shall all never have a real choice in our elections.  More and More the candidates through their political parties do not set out their own goals or own solutions to problems but rather simply espouse the inefficiencies with the other parties ideology.  Ideologies that when placed into practice are so similar as to almost be indistinguishable.

Through parties, those that govern pit Americans against each other, solely to the benefit of those in power.  And even more freightening, those in power may not be the elected officials but rather the individuals that run the political parties in backroom deals.

Can someone please explain to me how "they can afford it" somehow magically makes taking things from some people to give to other people fair?

I'll tell you why...because it's actually lower than what it was for over 50 years!  The tax vacation for the wealthy started about 10 years ago...how's that working for us?  Will allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire alone solve the problem?  No.  Is it a step in the right direction.  Yes.  Sorry, I just don't believe that $500 billion (it's actually a little more than $500 billion by the way) will trickle down.  It didn't over the last 10 years, why will it in the future?

btw, I agree with President Obama, I don't believe the other 98% should have their taxes raised.  btw, I have a feeling a majority of the 98% agree with me.