The New York Times revealed something interesting about their editorial borad’s thought processes in their long expected Obama endorsement.

Mr. Obama is clear that the nation’s tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush’s tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children’s options narrow, will benefit. (Emphasis mine.)

Isn’t it interesting and revealing that the NYT seems to consider “well-off Americans” and “working Americans” as separate and distinct classes of citizen? This is the typical leftist outlook, where the “well-off” became that way through no effort of their own, while the rest of us working slobs slave to feed their excess, dressed in rags and living off the scraps that drop from their table.

Personally, every well-off person I know has worked damn hard for what they have. Of course, under an Obama administration, we’ll just see how much of what they have worked for he’s willing to allow them to keep, because in Barack’s progressive new world, nothing we earn belongs to us, it’s the rightful property of the state. That’s change you can believe in, and change is all you’ll have left in your pocket after you pay the bill.