The top 1% of the world owns 40% of the wealth.

How many of those people have had to work for 40 years to be that wealthy?

Just because Marx's call for a redistribution of wealth evolved into socialism doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad idea to do so.

Besides, Obama isn't proposing that the top 1% have their assets forcibly seized and given to the public. It's just an extra 3% of their income. They'll still have 61% of those multi-millions to do what they please with it.

You conservatives complain about word-parsing and the biased media, but that way of thinking works both ways. Obama used the best phrase he could to describe his goal of letting the common man compete with the wealthy few who run our country by calling it a redistribution of wealth, and now the right-wing media immediately claims that he is a socialist.

It's a bit hypocritical, and grossly immature.