Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?

The United States is not a welfare state, and there is no way that you can argue that it is particularly generous with its social benefits. Countries such as Sweden exact much steeper taxes on the highest earners, and even there, the higher earners still end up with more money than the lower earners do. You have this strange conception that the social benefits in the United States are extremely easy to receive, or that the guidelines are loose; although every system will be gamed by some people, all-in-all the United States welfare system provides help to those who need it. The high earners will still have more income and more monetary flexibility than the lower earners. And earning $200 000 per year is indeed rich. Less than 5% of families earn that amount each year, and an even smaller percentage of individuals.

Also, the Obama administration is not at all "radical". In fact, it would be considered quite conservative based on international conceptions. If it were radical, health care would be single-payer by now and most banks would have been nationalized. These things didn't happen; indeed, the administration took a center-right approach on the economy and health care.