- Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:43 am
#42477
What should make you crazy is a news story that says paying back $124,000 over five years is "almost half" of $460,000.
Either the reporter doesn't know what "half" means or some other fine or penalty was left out of the story.
How do you know what is true without doing more homework on your own? (Which makes reading the story was a waste of your time.)
As to paying back all the money, which he can't do and wouldn't have to do in prison, five years in prison would cost the town something like $250,000, so not only would they lose the $460k, but they would lose an additional chunk for prison costs that is "almost half" of what was stolen, a total of around $710,000.
As a small town, would you rather lose $326k or $710k? Maybe it isn't such a bad deal.
Why should his penalty be any worse than all the big investment banks and mortgage brokers who swindled the country out of billions and no one went to prison. This guy is small potatoes.
Get mad at the big banks where the real thievery happened (happens.)