... I do believe (as many do in the Democratic party) that [President Obama] believes in wealth redistribution and although says he doesn't he doesn't believe in putting a penalty on 'those that can afford more' I think he really does not mind it at all. In his (and others minds) its OK to take away from those that have worked hard to make their money (or those fortunate enough to have someone else in there lives that did) as long as it is to help the poor or some other group he wants to help. I personally think that is what charities are for and that we would all pay less if we paid a flat tax. ...
Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth. The difference is in which direction it ought to be redistributed. Republican economic policies favor redistribution from middle class and poor to the rich, and these policies have become much more actively aggressive over the past 30 years. Democratic policies tend to favor redistribution in the opposite direction.
As far as either approach supports the goal of a free, open and democratic society, it seems to me that one that tends to hinder the development of a moneyed aristocracy is the correct approach. So, while it's easy to complain about, "taking money away from those who have worked hard to make it," -- as though the poor and middle class are entirely a bunch of idlers who never put in a hard days work in their lives -- and to pretend that wealth isn't very much due to the accidents of circumstances (for every rich person who became rich because they had a "good idea" (defined in retrospect based on their success) and profited from it, there are at least a thousand people who had equally good ideas, worked hard and didn't succeed) the reality is that unless a society has a mechanism (or mechanisms) in place to hinder the development of hereditary wealth, the power that that wealth gives its possessors will ultimately undermine any democracy.
The question therefore, is not whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong -- it will happen in one direction or the other in any case -- but which direction and degree of redistribution is best for maintaining a healthy democracy.
(And, as far as tax policy goes, a flat tax is utterly regressive and favors a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's hard to imagine a less "fair" tax system, nor one which threatens the foundations of a democracy more, in and of itself. That doesn't mean our current tax system is the best of all possible systems, it just means that while emotionally appealing to some, a flat tax would be ultimately destructive of our society.)