Kill the rich?

The one feature I find most revolting about the dem party is its "Kill the Rich" policy. But I think I understand their logic:

1.) The rich aren't a "protected" group, like blacks, Hispanics, gays, women. And I mean protected in the politically correct sense of being members of a category of victims in one way or another. That is, the rich haven't thrown themselves on the mercy of a federal agency yet, sued in the Supreme Court for special privileges, or issued press statements and video clips about their long history of being unjustly brutalized and abused by other people. It's this victim status that the dems so highly prize and reward. If you label yourself lame, useless, and defenseless -- that is, not really a contributing member of society -- the dems will adopt you and shower you with other peoples' money. And you probably won't be prosecuted even for the most heinous crime because, being a victim, you're really not responsible for yourself. According to dems/liberals. The liberals love the victims; the victims give the liberals a reason for living.

2.) The rich are natural targets for plunder. I mean, you gotta pay for your crap socialist programs somehow, right? Liberals believe the rich can "afford" to support the ever-growing unproductive victim class. Even as we speak, the dems are turning the "unemployed" into yet another victim group.

3.) Liberals apparently are as consumed by envy as they are by their unidentified floating anxiety and pervasive and mindless sense of guilt. Liberals see that the rich own things, and the liberals are determined to have those things for themselves, even if they have to rob the rich to get them. And, given the liberals' detachment from any concept of "earned wealth," and their determined hostility toward the whole concept of private property, liberals believe that they have some "right" to seize other peoples' wealth.

To illustrate all these points, take for example the current debate over extending the Bush Tax Cuts. The cuts were actually made six and eight years ago, or something like that. The cuts reflect the tax rates that we all pay now and have been paying for nearly a decade.

To refuse to extend the tax cuts, what happens is, in effect, a monumental tax increase. I've heard that this tax increase would compel the average American family to pay abut $3,000.00 more in income tax per year.

The feds are not currently collecting this additional amount of revenue. Since the feds don't now have this revenue, it's more than a little cuckoo to claim that failing to extend the tax cuts will result in the "loss" of any money at all. Truth is -- WHAT THE DEMS CLAIM IS A "LOSS IN REVENUE" IS MONEY THAT IS NOT THEIRS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

But socialized medicine and all the other crap the dems have dumped on citizens absolutely requires funding by this phantom money they intend to appropriate from the rich... or someone.

Like, I've taken out a new car loan based on my projected lottery winnings next year.

Is this making any sense to anyone? If so, you must be a looney liberal.

Anthony Weiner, the weiner, is on TV right now, claiming that he and other butthead dems are trying to block extending tax cuts on the rich because they're "fighting for what's right/"

When has it ever been "right" in the USA to kill the rich? Worse is the genuine stupidity behind the liberals' view of the rich. Because the libs have absolutely no concept of "working for a living," their only source of income is theft. They don't understand that if they steal from the rich, the rich are likely to stop producing. In effect, the libs are running full-bore in efforts to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

And so the libs demonstrate once again, that they are blind, deaf, and more than anything else -- terminally stupid. And icing on the cake, this to them is "what we believe in."

Save the Republic.