President Obama may be the messiah, but he still confuses me.
I mean, if the president is going to cut taxes for 96 percent of us, then he's got to believe that tax cuts are good. You don't do something to 96 percent, unless it works.
So, why not just go to 100 percent? [foxvideo 3757875] Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids needing a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 96 percent of the class? No, if you believe there's an antidote, you don't leave anyone out.
But here, we do. The question, then, is why?
Well, it's not about revenue, because there's not enough tax revenue from the top 4 percent to help.
So then, why?
Oh yeah: They're "rich." And if you've been basting in class warfare all your life, you know the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich. Which is negative reinforcement at its worst.
I mean, if you're going to get nailed for achieving, after a while, you're going to say, "Why bother?" And then, "Do you have any meth?"
Inevitably, the so-called rich will stop trying to be rich and move to smaller, cheaper towns - which means a lot of college grads wandering aimlessly at Ace Hardware.
After all, what's poor in one area, can be rich in another. A family can do fine on 75-grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. (Which is great for me, because I have oatmeal.)
But with the rich gone, you have to wonder: Who will we punish next?
My money's on the middle class. Seriously, who do they think they are?
And if you disagree with me, you're worse than Hitler.