1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettLOL. What a joke. His only "sin" is that he made more money than you think he deserved.
I'm not pulling down a billion dollars a year either. If we took my best year, it would take me 20,000 years to make what Och made in one year. That's sometime from the Middle Paleolithic Age until now. So whatever crumbs Och lets fall on this Robin Hood Foundation may assuage his guilty conscience, but are wholly insufficient to absolve his sins. You may p ...[text shortened]... elf before him in supplication if you wish, but you'll have to excuse me for not joining you.
Originally posted by rwingettHe's not pulling down a billion dollars a year.
I'm not pulling down a billion dollars a year either. If we took my best year, it would take me 20,000 years to make what Och made in one year. That's sometime from the Middle Paleolithic Age until now. So whatever crumbs Och lets fall on this Robin Hood Foundation may assuage his guilty conscience, but they are wholly insufficient to absolve his sins. You ...[text shortened]... elf before him in supplication if you wish, but you'll have to excuse me for not joining you.
Originally posted by rwingettA world where you dictated what everyone was allowed to earn would be a poverty stricken hell. Thankfully it's not up to you, or the state, and it never will be.
If anything is a sin, making a billion dollars in a world where tens of thousands starve surely makes the top ten list.
Originally posted by SleepyguyI'm not dictating anything. But a system where one man can rake in a billion dollars in one year, while 2.7 billion live on $2 per day or less, is morally bankrupt. 6 million children die of hunger every year, which is 17,000 per day, while Mr. Och ran his hedge fund. As the Ghost of Christmas Present said to Scrooge, "It may be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child."
A world where you dictated what everyone was allowed to earn would be a poverty stricken hell. Thankfully it's not up to you, or the state, and it never will be.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat "system" are you referring to?
I'm not dictating anything. But a system where one man can rake in a billion dollars in one year, while 2.7 billion live on $2 per day or less, is morally bankrupt. 6 million children die of hunger every year, which is 17,000 per day, while Mr. Och ran his hedge fund. As the Ghost of Christmas Present said to Scrooge, "It may be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child."
These people pay crazy amounts of taxes. They employee many other people directly and provide many jobs indirectly. They are not defaulting on their mortagages and are not collecting unemployement or other needs based entitlements. Unlike automobile companies they are not taking government handouts. The problem with the US is we do not have more people like this who contribute so much because this country badly needs the money.
Originally posted by rwingettNo. They're both guilty of murder. They're not both "equally" guilty. Is Gary Gilmore as guilty as Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin*?
John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people, while Gary Gilmore killed only two. They are equally guilty of murder.
* I'm trying to avoid Hitler references except where necessary.
Originally posted by PalynkaHow much money would it take to eradicate hunger across the globe? You start redistributing money from those at the top to those at the bottom until this goal has been met. Is the resulting upper limit less than my salary? If so, then I am guilty as well. But I would wager that that is not the case.
I presume you make a lot more than 1 or 2 USD a day. Are you equally guilty?
Originally posted by sh76Godwin's law. It's inevitable.
No. They're both guilty of murder. They're not both "equally" guilty. Is Gary Gilmore as guilty as Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin*?
* I'm trying to avoid Hitler references except where necessary.
Whether you kill one or kill 6 million, you're guilty of murder.