"Why Not Rob The Rich?"

Class warfare has been the calling card for the Democrats for many a decade. And we see it in full flower over in DUmmieland. Yesterday we heard from DUmmie undergroundpanther, on why she hates the rich. Today we hear from another of the angry DUmmie womyn, DUmmie kpete, on why we ought to rob the rich. It's here in this THREAD, "Why Not Rob The Rich?"

So let us now visit the den of the robber barrens, in Bolshevik Red, while the commentary of your humble guest correspondent, Charles Henrickson--looking forward to the End of an Error one year from today, i.e., January 20, 2013, when President ABO is inaugurated--is in the [brackets]:

Why Not Rob The Rich?

[Well, last time I checked, both "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet" were still part of the Ten Commandments.]

Why Not Rob The Rich?

[I suppose that makes more sense than robbing the poor.]

Why Not Rob The Rich?

[Fifty years ago this would have been "Why Not Bob the Dick?"]

If 75% of the wealth of the richest one-tenth of 1% of American society were immediately expropriated. . . .

[Is this one of those word problems?]

If 75% of the wealth of the richest one-tenth of 1% of American society were immediately expropriated, there would be no need to discuss cuts to spending that affects the well-being of the vast majority.

[But there would be a need to discuss why it is morally right to steal money from a minority, against their will, in order to give it to the majority. How fair is that??]

This is a democracy, why isn’t this a major topic of public debate?

[This is a multiple-choice question. Choose the best answer:

a. Because the government is already stealing disproportionately and unfairly from the rich.

b. Because Obama isn't facing a primary and therefore doesn't have to reveal his true Bolshevik colors, in order to appeal to the Democrat base. Instead, he has to sound like a conservative, like a tax-cutter, in order to get re-elected.

c. Because a 75% tax rate for the wealthy is too low to satisfy the DUmmies.]

Why aren’t the national media full of debates between defenders of the right of the Koch brothers to keep their billions and advocates for seizing the majority of their fortune to meet human needs?

[The Kochs vs. the Kooks.]

[Now let's hear from the other DUmmies . . .]

If you confiscate the ill-gotten gains of thieves, is it robbery?

[If you assume that anyone who has more money than you got it through thievery and therefore you're entitled to take it from them, are you a Democrat voter? Yes.]

Why not? People of that belief stealing from the rich is wrong always are misguided.

[Yesterday's featured hate-the-rich DUmmie, undergroundpanther, chimes in, arguing that God was misguided when he put that "Thou shalt not steal" commandment in there.]

What happens next year? Presumably, there would be no further ill gotten gains. Rather short-sighted. . . .

[Hmmm. . . . problem. . . . OK then, I guess we have to steal from the next in line. But what if now WE'RE the next in line, because we stole last year's wealth from the rich? Do we then steal from ourselves and give it back to the formerly rich who now are poor? Boy, this is getting complicated!]

Once you "take it back" you don't get to take it back again. It's gone. You have it. Now what do you do next year to cover your budget shortfall?

[OK, DUmmie TomClash, for this comment and your previous one, you receive today's Kewpie Doll, for having a Brief Moment of Mental Clarity™. Congratulations! But watch out for kpete and undergroundpanther. They may try to steal it from you!]

You seem to be suggesting that the money will then vanish and economic activity will come to a halt. Expropriating (and redistributing) wealth probably wouldn't do that. It's more likely to have a stimulative effect.

[So if you tell people, "The more money you make, the more we will steal from you"--THAT'S going to have a "stimulative effect" on production??]

I think we should simply tax the uber-wealthy out of existence. Yearly income greater than $1,000,000? Then tax everything over that at 90%.

[Piker! Make it 100%! Think of the revenue! Think of the stimulative effect!]

Unconstitutional? . . . Unworkable?

[Who cares? Irrelevant.]

I am sure if you ask them nicely they will just give it back.

[How about first asking Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Moore, the Kennedys, et al.? Ask THEM to lead the way, voluntarily donating 100% of their billions, so we don't have to rob anybody. Then get back to me, and we'll take it from there. In fact, kpete, from information you have published elsewhere--about your art studio and your very tony address in the San Diego area--it appears that you yourself are pretty well off. KPETE IS A ONE-PERCENTER! SHE'S A RICH! ROB HER!]