If wealthy people are evil and selfish, as Obama and the Dems claim (even though they themselves are wealthy), then how can this evil wealth be so desirable to government? Is the money bad in the private hands that earned it but good in the government hands that took it from the earner? How can the government lust after this money by trying to tax the rich at an increasing rate, and still proclaim that the possessor of the wealth is selfish, while at the same time we hear Obama campaign to gather as much as he can of other people's money? In fact the government appears to be prostituting itself with its insatiable lust for more money, and its inability to stop spending.
At the same time that Obama and the Dems bad-mouth the wealthy for having money, they make every effort to take all the money they can from them. I would suggest that people with wealth will spend their money more productively than the government can, and private expenditures will benefit the nation (and thereby generate additional wealth and value) more than the government using the money to support people who will not work to support themselves. In fact, the government is the destroyer of wealth, not a creator of it, and as it takes money from the earners it is reducing the pile of wealth that it is at the same time confiscating, and when the rich are penniless, where will the government go for more cash?
Money in private hands means it was earned in exchange for goods and services rendered in the free market, by willing participants. This is the same as saying the wealth was earned by the possessor of it: he did build that! But money in government hands is money that was obtained under penalty of law and threat of imprisonment, and money obtained in this manner is increasingly suspect and lacking of real value because it was not earned by the government, it was simply taken.