"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." - Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
I haven't read Dr. Adrian Rogers. I found this quote on another site I often read. Nonetheless, it is a concise presentation of the basic flaw in the liberal progressive agenda which believes beyond any realistic assessment of facts that somehow the wealthiest 5% of Americans is morally responsible to take care of the rest of us. This logic reflects a profound misunderstanding of the difference between free market capitalism and hereditary aristocracy.
In a hereditary aristocracy, a noble class holds control of the resources a society produces by virtue of their superior birth. This superior birth carries with it the assumption that the aristocracy is superior in intellect, in wisdom, and in virtue, therefore, they and they alone have the ability to fairly manage the resources a society produces. This system brings with it an inherent corruption. Because of their birthright, the aristocratic class has no moral obligation to take care of the peasantry. One of the defining philolosphies behind the enlightenment was the assumption of "noblesse oblige" by the ruling class. When the French aristocracy began assuming they had some kind of responsibility for the peasants while the much larger, and much richer, merchant class denied any such responsibility existed, the stage was set for the merchantile class to provoke the peasantry into a state of rebellion. As a result the merchants were able to remove the aristocracy and eliminate their tax burden while leaving the peasants in their poverty.
This is the same logic the current administration is attempting to apply to modern America. By convincing our more impoverished citizens that the government is responsible for taking care of them but is unable to because they have not taxed the wealthy elite heavily enough, they are shifting blame for their managerial incompetence and parasitic acquisition of wealth onto the shoulders of people who have actually made the sacrifices and taken the risks necessary to produce true wealth. The hope of the administration is that they will be able to expand the most parasitic and destructive wealth-holders by eliminating the wealth producers. If you can force the self-made millionaires into poverty or out of the nation, then you open the way for the creation of a permanent parasitic bureaucracy that can draw upon the labor and meager resources of an entrenched and permant peasantry to sustain itself while justifying this relationship on the basis of "providing for the needs of the common people".
If the liberal progressive agenda, including healthcare, is allowed to succeed, it will create in the United States a permanent two-class society: bureaucrats and peasants. Every single one of us will either be a government employee or an impoverished taxpayer. This dystopian vision is considered utopian by those in government service (teachers, law enforcement, SEIU, etc.) because it puts them both in control of the resources and in full control of the body politic.
If Pres. Obama and his "Special Advisors" are allowed to succeed, what little remains of our personal freedoms will have to die because a two-class society cannot survive in a climate of dissent. The only possible real-world consequence of continual "bailing out" of failed companies, imposition of impossible environmental regulations, and a government takeover of healthcare is the creation of a two-class society. So either this is their plan or they are totally incompetent. Either way, those of us who are not government employees, both rich and poor, are the ones who wind up losing everything in order to perpetuate and expand a parasitic government bureaucracy.