I love how in arguments rich people are always honorable knights that save damsels, create jobs, spend lots of money, donate to charity yet still are in danger of not having enough money to take care of their family - in spite of the fact that they could take care of 100 families.
They are voting it down under the guise of being "against spending". Which really means "against spending that benefits poor/working/middle class people". They can pass a gigantic tax cut for the super rich on Monday and vote down health benefits for 9/11 responders on Tuesday and not feel bad about it for one second. Poor people deserve no sympathy, regardless of whether or not they are heroes.Originally Posted by Bojack
Sell me a poke.
The Zadroga Bill should have been passed, end of story. The fact that the GOP stonewalled it is a travesty.
As for the DREAM Act, I am inclined to support it. If someone is willing to wear the uniform and possibly give his or her life for this country, citizenship should be a no-brainer. Hell, I would support citizenship for the immediate family as well in such a circumstance.
My only question is to whether or not this preferential treatment extends into other realms. For example, if being a college graduate in and of itself fast-tracks you to citizenship, I have to throw up the bullshit flag. But if, for example, you grad out of nursing school and serve an area that desperately needs nurses, that's a different animal.
I'm not completely familiar with every facet of the bill and would have to read up on it more before I take a firm position, but from what I've heard so far it doesn't sound like a terrible idea.
Sell me a poke.
A small business owner pulling in a couple million dollars a year certainly meets a reasonable person's requirement for "rich," but that doesn't make them extremely wealthy. And you're not going to "take care of 100 families" on a couple million dollars unless we're talking about some place like the Philippines and you just forgot to tell us.
Someone making two million dollars a year? That's 167k per month or roughly 42k per week. How much money does one 'family' require?
That person has no financial worries whatsoever.
Sell me a poke.
1. How much of that money goes back into the business?
2. $42,000 per week divided by 100 families is $420 per week per family. My, aren't you generous! Especially considering...
3. Your figures assume that our hypothetical robber barron pays no income tax whatsoever.
Some families already live on $420 per week.
Sell me a poke.
This is true, but it's also unfortunate. Hell, I don't know how I would take care of myself on $420 per week, let alone a wife and children. We can do better, and more failed government programs aren't the answer.
I live close to it because of how much taxes New York City removes from my paycheck. It sucks dick but it's partially my fault for not fixing my tax shit.
I'm not actually suggesting that this hypothetical millionaire take care of 100 families. I'm just pointing out how silly the hypothetical financial problems you gave him are.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks