"This is America. We don't disparage wealth," Obama said. "But what gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure ... " He might as well be saying: "We like wealth. We just don't like the people who produce it. In our opinion, the people who produce wealth are greedy and selfish. We don't like that. Don't misunderstand. We want the wealth. Without that wealth, we could not create trillions and trillions of dollars in social spending programs to redistribute the national income. Without wealth, you cannot have wealth to spread, and spreading the wealth is the purpose of government."

If people don't have a moral right to the wealth they create, and if that wealth belongs to the government, to do with as it sees fit -- then what's the purpose of creating the wealth? If profit is bad, and the profit motive is to be eliminated, then what is to motivate people to take risks, work incredibly hard, and create wealth? Our politicians are counting on the middle class to not ask this question. The middle class will keep saying, "The rich guys will pay more in taxes, not me. In fact, I'm going to get even more benefits and services from the government." Leave aside the incredible naivete in assuming that the government can deliver any "benefits" or "services" worth having. The real question that nobody is asking is this: What happens when the government starts taking so much wealth that the wealthy have no more incentive to produce?