There is a lot of talk about the statement the president made to supporters last night regarding the chances of success for his kids:

“Our kids are going to be fine,” Obama told supporters at a campaign event last night. “And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don’t worry about you . . . they’re on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful. But that’s not our vision of America. I don’t want an America where my kids are living behind walls and gates, and can’t feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot.”

It is good to be the president.

There’s more to the statement than what The Examiner is quoting, so let’s get the bulk of his statement for context:

At some point our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents came to this country seeking opportunity. And they had to work hard; they had to hold themselves personally responsible, they had to take risks. But they also knew that there was a country here where if you did try hard, then somebody might give you a little bit of help; that we were in it together, there were ladders of opportunity that existed.

And that’s what we have to rebuild for the 21st century. And that requires us to make some decisions about, are we going to have the best schools in this country, are we going to have the best infrastructure, are we going to do what it takes, so these guys end up being part of an America where everybody can still make it if they try; regardless of whether they came from Russia, or they came from Poland, or they came from Mexico, or they came from Kenya, that they’re going to have a chance to succeed, and live out the same kind of dreams that the Rosen family has been able to live out.

Our kids are going to be fine. And I always tell Malia and Sasha, look, you guys, I don’t worry about you — I mean, I worry the way parents worry — but they’re on a path that is going to be successful, even if the country as a whole is not successful. But that’s not our vision of America. I don’t want an America where my kids are living behind walls and gates, and can’t feel a part of a country that is giving everybody a shot.

And that’s what we’re fighting for. That’s what 2012 is going to be all about. And I’m going to need your help to do it. (Applause.)

There’s more to that statement than, “My kids are forever part of the 1%,” as The Lonely Conservative posits.

He’s saying that those who are successful, those who can afford to live in a gated community, cannot feel like they are part of an America where everyone has a chance at rising above where they are now. Those people, the rich, are disconnected from the rest of America. They play no role in giving those below them “a shot.”

How utterly absurd. It is a statement born in Marxist philosophy.

Essentially, Obama is saying, “The rich, or bourgeoisie, have no regard for those below their station, except to wonder how much they can exploit them.”

The fact is, those who live behind the gates and fences most often provide the opportunity for upward mobility.

If a person is not allowed to take whatever skill set they have, whether it be writing code for the next big dot com success story, or hitting a 95 mile per hour fastball 425 feet, and leverage it for as much monetary gain as they can, there is no chance of moving from the lower classes to the upper.

And who will provide that opportunity?

The rich.

The rich will pay the wages of the worker to exercise his skills. The better he does, the more he earns.

And if it isn’t that scenario, it’s one where a talented individual or team strikes out on their own and provides a product or service that others desire. That desire allows them to enter freely into an agreement where both parties benefit. The buyer gets the product or service they want, the seller gets the price they desire.

The more sold, the more made. Eventually, the successful entrepreneur can afford to send his kids to Sidwell Academy.

That’s called capitalism. And Obama seems to have little faith in it, or he is outright against it.

His mindset shows a conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Since the rich have no regard for the poor, except to make money from them, then it is the role of government to ensure those without have the opportunity to succeed. And the only way to do that is for the government to provide for their every need, whether it’s free health care or food stamps.

It’s a lot to extrapolate from a simple statement about the man’s kids, I know. But tell me where I’m wrong.

Reality is different than the picture Obama paints, where the rich play no role in the rise of the poor from paycheck to paycheck living to taking weekend trip to Martha’s Vineyard.

The rich provide most of the jobs and the opportunities people use to pull themselves out if their low paying jobs.

Government’s role isn’t to ensure everyone has the same success, but the same opportunity. As I’ve heard it said before, government makes sure everyone starts the race with the same set of rules, but doesn’t guarantee that everyone wins.

I don’t want a government who picks winners, but one that enforces the rules equally. The only way that is possible is for government to have as small a footprint in the economy as possible. The more it is involved, the greater the opportunities for politicians to be bought and sold by unscrupulous businessmen. John Stossel wrote about this just yesterday, and shows how government does more to shut off the pathways to prosperity than open them.

When it closes the pathways, what does that leave? Stossel answers:

If government destroys all the paths out of poverty, the welfare state will look like the only way to help the poor.

Maybe, in addition to helping entrenched interests, that’s the bureaucrats’ goal.

Maybe that’s Obama’s goal as well.