yet the "rich" who are just people themselves, are corrupt, wasteful and don't create anything? I mean government officials have control of more money than any group of "rich" people. I just want to gain a perspective on why one group is great and the other so terrible?
it's less about party and more about the role of government, especially at the federal level. We also have to remember that like any party, one monolithic set of viewpoints does not represent the entire party.
Lets call the subset of people you are talking about authoritarian progressives. Thier view is that government should be used to reallocate wealth from those who generate to others for the benefit of soceity as a whole. This can be via direct payment, lesser taxes on people at the lower end of the spectrum, increases in the size of government employment, or funding of various charitable type works.
There is also your standard marxist class argument, although diluted down. To them, those who have wealth are not deserving of it. Thier possession of it is from some obvious exploitation of others. Government therefore has to step in and "right the wrongs". To a person of this political view high taxation on the wealthiest people in a given nation is only fair.
What this creates is a situation where government is funded on the backs of a small subset of the population to benefit another segment. This funding is also directed not by those paying for it, but by the government itself. The authoritarian progressive does not have to convince those with the money to part with it, they just have to convince the voting population to force those with the money to part with it.