"I don't like (pick your favorite Republican) suggesting that Obama is a socialist, alien, or Muslim."
Well, let's pick the Republican whose post we're commenting on: Romney. He does not suggest that Obama is socialist, alien, or muslim. Obama does, however, explicitly talk about "the rich" not "paying their fair share". Yes, some Republicans use rhetoric as divisive as Obama's - but not the one actually running for president.
With respect to taxes, I think we need to be careful to distinguish between tax rates and tax revenues. Tax rates are the percentage numbers people throw around. Tax revenues are the amount of money actually paid to the government.
For example, here's a discussion of how, for an average family of four, Massachusetts state taxes have a tax rate only 1/3 of the federal tax rate, but nonetheless extract 3/4 as much revenue:http://psychohist.livejournal.com/67060.html
In a more extreme example Warren Buffett's real tax rate is around 0.06%. The "Buffett rule" would only increase it to 0.12%:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138961587258988.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
That's not twelve percent, that's one eighth of one percentage point. With the Buffett plan. To put it another way, Buffett is 180 times as wealthy as Romney, but only pays 2 times as much in taxes. Tax all of Buffett's real income fairly, his taxes would have to increase by something like 50 000%.
That also touches on +Thomas Terence
's point: the problem with Obama's approach isn't so much that there aren't rich people who aren't paying their fair share - like Buffett - but that Obama actually advocates continuing to protect those rich people, while raising taxes on less rich people who already are paying their fair share.