User avatar
Cannonpointer
Yesterday 11:36 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
36,612 posts
Blackvegetable » Today, 7:43 pm » wrote: I see..

Given that assumption, can you calculate the savings necessary to cover 150 million $5,000 checks?
The assumption that EVERYONE will get a check is based on no argument - so I need make no argument against it in order to offer a counter-assumption, likewise based. 

I assume that only those who paid net federal taxes will get the check. In 2024, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all federal individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent. So I am going to cut your figure in half. And that's being generous, IMO. There will likely be all kinds of exclusions applied to bring the number of recipients even lower. 

Remember, this is a REPUBLICAN giveaway. They treat free federal money like women treat ******. The first rule of free ****, for Republicans, is that you can only have it if you don't need it. But let's stick with 50%. Let's use 80 million, because your 150 million is a bit low. 

80,000,000 x 5= 400,000,000. Times a thousand = 400 Billion. That is 20% of 2 Trillion - the amount that you are supposed to believe DOGE is saving us. 

As concerned as Republicans are about social security, one would think they might put that money into fixing it. But you see, money is like ****** to a Republican. If you need it, you can't have it. 
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
Updated 2 minutes ago
© 2012-2025 Liberal Forum