Socialism in the White House. It's only taken 60 years or so.

Obama urges economic fairness in State of the Union
US President Barack Obama has attacked income inequality as he set the tone for his re-election bid in his third State of the Union speech.
Income inequality is a term used in the socialist politics of envy. It doesn't mean higher incomes for lower earners, it means taking money from the wealthy by force, in the form of taxes, and redistributing it to those who didn't earn it. Obama seems to want to be elected on the 'rich bashing' agenda that suits so many people who have made nothing from themselves and whose only consolation is to blame people who have done well.
The speech saw a renewed call for higher taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans strongly oppose.

He was defiant too, about the different visions on offer in the election. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well - while a growing number of Americans barely get by - or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake, he said, are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.
This reminds me of the time Tony Blair refered to New Labour as the 'Political wing of the British people'. If that's the case then who needs any other party. If Obama is for 'American values', rather than Democratic or Republican, who needs to vote for any other President.

But what are American values? Did they not used to be about freedom and Capitalism? Is Obama now saying that they are about taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth until everyone is level on the lowest common denominator? That sounds more like old Eastern Bloc values than traditional American ones
Mr Obama also made a renewed call for his Buffett Rule - a principle that millionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than typical workers.
The idea is named after billionare investor Warren Buffett, who famously complained that his secretary pays a higher rate of tax than he does.
Complained did he? Did he complain while he was writing a large cheque to the IRS?
Pledging no tax increases for those earning under $250,000 (£160,000), Mr Obama said: "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes."
"Now, you can call this class warfare all you want," he added. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."
When you word it like that...

But you are talking percentages and missing the point. A billionaire paying only 7% of his income in taxes will pay more tax in one year than I will pay in my entire life. Surely there must come a time when you have paid enough tax. Comparing the tax percentage rate of a billionaire to a secretary is just muddling words.
Republicans have repeatedly rejected Mr Obama's call for higher taxes on the wealthy and accuse him of resorting to class warfare to get elected again.
President Obama said there would be "no bailouts, no handouts, no cop-outs"
What does that mean exactly?
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, delivering the Republican Party's response to Mr Obama's speech, called it "pro-poverty".
He said: "No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favour with some Americans by castigating others."
Hey we know how that works, we've lived with it since the dawn of Tony Blair. It isn't nice and you need to do all you can to put an end to it.
Earlier, one of those contenders, Mitt Romney, was forced by political pressure to release his tax returns.
The forms revealed the private equity tycoon earned nearly $22m in 2010 and paid an effective tax rate of about 14%, a lower rate than most other Americans pay.
What's 14% of 22million? It's £3,080,000. Three million quid a year in taxes is certainly not lower than most Americans pay. And they want more? To do what with? Start more foreign wars probably. Iran anyone?
Opinion polls show his approval numbers languishing beneath 50%, with most Americans disapproving of how he has handled the economy.
Good. Get Ron Paul elected.


Red flagger said...