Bits and pieces. Via Washington Examiner, Obama obfuscates his intent:
President Obama, who famously called for tax increases on the wealthy to “spread the wealth around,” denied today that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to “redistribute wealth.”
“So these investments — in things like education and research and health care — they haven’t been made as some grand scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another,” the president said today at Florida Atlantic University. “This is not some socialist dream,” Obama added, as he called for tax increases on millionaires today to pay for those investments.
When he advocated the same plan in 2008, though, Obama described this “spread the wealth around” policy. “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts,” he told Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber), who is now running for Congress.
Too bad that wealth doesn’t run very deep. Allahpundit: Just a reminder: “Buffett Rule” that Obama won’t stop talking about is aimed mainly at around 400 taxpayers.
400. But who’s counting when all we’re doing is stripping their money away to help others sit on their duffs. Chris Christie nailed it:
Christie said he hasn’t seen a less optimistic period in the country in his lifetime.
“Government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you,” he said at a theater at the New York Historical Society. “We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.”
“We’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check,” Christie said.
It already has bankrupted us morally. Half of the populace takes from the other and is still allowed to vote for more handouts. I’d call that bankrupt.
Is Romney strong enough to make the necessary contrast with redistributionist Obama? Oremus.