Posted on 01/20/2012 9:03:58 AM PST by Charles Henrickson
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!]
I’m gonna git me a kitty to purr against my unloved skin.
PING!
Because some of them have guns? What do I win?
Yeah, since robbing isn’t illegal at all, right? Silly DUmmies!
overtax the rich, they will just bolt, and your poor just lost their best customers. the very definition of pyrrhic.
See if we've got one in stock, would ya?
You have to be a registered DUmmie in order to win a Kewpie Doll. Besides, DUmmie TomClash has already claimed today's.
Why Not Rob The Rich?
Why Not Rob The Rich?
If 75% of the wealth of the richest one-tenth of 1% of American society were immediately expropriated. . . .
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.
Was this written by Foghorn Leghorn?
Ah repeat, was this written by Foghorn Leghorn?
I did the repetition because I had more than one comeback for that comment.
I know this is a FUnny thread, but I can never let statements like this go unchalleged:
“If 75% of the wealth of the richest one-tenth of 1% of American society were immediately expropriated”
The total wealth of the nation is approximately $49 trillion.
The top 1% own 35% of it, or $17 trillion.
I don’t know how the top 1 tenth of the top 1% really flushes out, but lets continue with the 35% - or $6 trillion.
And the DU genius only wants to take 75% of that (how gracious), so his confiscation scheme would net the government $4.5 trillion...or less than the debt run up in the Obama presidency alone.
We think its obvious - but its a powerful argument to people who have never really thought about it: NOT ENOUGH WEALTH EXISTS TO CONFISCATE!
A liberal in the office thought Rupert Murdoch could solve all our problems, if the government picked his pockets. I worked it out that each man, woman, and child in our nation would get $28. Thats it. He was stunned, and I think I may have knocked some sense into him.
Another example - Michael Moore wants to confiscate the wealth of America’s 400 billionaires...called them ‘little Mubaraks’ to imply they had stolen it anyway. Their total wealth - $1.5 trillion...that won’t even pay Obama’s credit card for one year.
These people genuinely believe there is money lying around, to pay for everything, and some ‘meanies’ just won’t give it to them....but a small fraction will listen to common sense, if you show them some simple math.
mr leghorn 100x smarter than this. he harvested the hens’ eggs but never ate them. trying to eat the hens was henery hawk’s job.
Tax the rich,
Feed the poor.
Till there are no rich no more
It's about envy more than greed. They'd rather everyone be poor rather than let anyone be rich. If we follow the advice of the song, the poor would starve once the rich were no more, but hey, at least we'd all be equal in our misery.
Male Peasant (Michael Palin): What you got for us today then.
Moore: Well I've managed to find you four very nice silver spoons Mr Jenkins.
Male Peasant: (snatching them rudely.) Who do you think you are giving us poor this rubbish?
Female Peasant (Terry Jones): Bloody silver. Won't have it in the house. (throws it away) And those candlesticks you got us last week were only sixteen carat.
Male Peasant: Yes, why don't you go out and steal something nice like some Venetian silver.
Female Peasant: Or a Velasquez for the outside loo.
Moore: Oh all right. (turns purposefully)
(Usual montage of Dennis Moore riding plus song.)
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor. And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch.
(Dennis Moore reins to sudden halt and looks over to camera.)
Moore: What did you sing?
Singers: (speaking) We sang... he steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
Moore: Wait a tic... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.
Yes, I too thought of Dennis Moore as I did this DUFU.
Well that’s a fine how-do-you-do, ah say , that’s a fine how-do-you-do.
A brandy new Smith & Wesson 686 and ten thousand rounds of ammunition!
Foghorn did repeat himself a lot, tho. Ah repeat...
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore,
He’s not in this bit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.