Governor of California begs Trump admin for federal help.

[danielpalos]

No. Disasters affect everyone.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) states that as of 2014 there were around 3 million illegals living in California. Ironically, legal immigrants only total up to 2,403,070 as of 2012. The total population of California, as of 2012, was placed at 38,041,430 with illegals comprising nearly 8% of the total state population.

The estimated annual cost to California taxpayers as of 2014 adds up to $25.3 billion. That’s more than the total operating budgets for some states. This breaks down to approximately $2,370 for every household headed by a US citizen.
How Much Do Illegals Cost California Taxpayers Each Year?

The presidential declaration is a step toward freeing up federal money to supplement other public funds for cleanup efforts. Brown estimated that the public cleanup in California will cost more than $162 million.
California Gov. Jerry Brown asks President Donald Trump for emergency help

Looks to me that if the governor of california were to just get rid of those filthy pieces of shit that he puts so much more value in than American Citizens, the cost of that cleanup would have been more than covered. But instead, he throws away money on those worthless diseased piles of excrement, and then finds out he is broke when it comes to taking care of real Americans.
Follow Trumps orders and the money is there.
I say **** California, they want to keep their taco eating pets, then let them pay the costs associated with them.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

A market friendly visa would solve our illegal problem on a permanent basis and generate revenue at the same time; Capitalism, what a concept.

I'm sure no Hillarybot troll takes anyone seriously. If you'd been serious, you'd have supported Bernie or Jill Stein.

I am serious about economics, and did not vote for Mr. Trump.

Of course not. You're a known Hillarybot troll who's only here now to disrupt conversations and whine that the Corporate Whore lost. You should have backed Bernie or Jill.

I didn't vote for pander; I really don't think our current president, knows how to implement, "the art of the deal" for the People.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Let's face it. California libs over spent and under maintained.
Now they want the feds to pay for their mistakes.

Unlike low population welfare queen red States; who are merely accustomed to being bailed out.

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

Should we ask the right wing, which US States are poorest, and if they are in the South (still looking for their lost clues and their lost Cause)?

Danny please stop making yourself look like an ass.
You really are that fat slow fat kid on the track team trying to ride the glory of real contributors. A handful of giant company's and a few thousand extremely wealthy people / celebrities make California look really good on paper...meanwhile the majority of the state and its people are in social, financial and economical turmoil. California is turning dirtier and nastier by the minute...most of the south of it has become a third world shithole and an extension of Mexico....UNDENIABLE!

"Oh geez, more of the same from the desperate and confused Liberals.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients - FACT
By the way Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....are they blue or red states? hahaha
Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

 

[Nosmo King]

Tit for tat deal.

Federal aid for ending sanctuary status for illegals

Ridiculous! Emergency funding through FEMA or highway funding should be withheld because of a fit of political pique? What kind of free world do you imagine here?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that accomplishes what......more government dependents?

How did you reach your conclusion? need i remind you; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

How did I reach that conclusion? You said it yourself, government forcing industry to overpay workers that do monkey jobs, or having them sit home collecting unemployment.

Obviously people take the right-wing serious about a lot of things. It's why we now control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and mosts Governorships in the country.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody is taking you seriously.

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

Should we ask the right wing, which US States are poorest, and if they are in the South (still looking for their lost clues and their lost Cause)?

Being poor is subjective. I would rather make $12.00 an hour here in Ohio than make $18.00 in New York city. I guarantee you that you'll have a much better lifestyle here at $12.00 an hour.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

sure you are, if the state was fiscally responsible, they would not have spent all their money on their filthy and worthless POS illegal Pets from south America.
California spends enough money in just one year keeping the vermin comfortable to cover many weather related "disasters" This is nothing but a scam to get the U.S taxpayers to cover the cost of their import a vile disease from the south program.
As long as the state can afford to pay for illegals, they really dont need any federal dollars at all.
get rid of thoses pieces of shit then come and ask for assistance.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

How did you reach your conclusion? need i remind you; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

How did I reach that conclusion? You said it yourself, government forcing industry to overpay workers that do monkey jobs, or having them sit home collecting unemployment.

Obviously people take the right-wing serious about a lot of things. It's why we now control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and mosts Governorships in the country.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody is taking you seriously.

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

Unemployment is also something that the individual pays into by WORKING for a few years prior to being laid off. Or at least the company does.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How did I reach that conclusion? You said it yourself, government forcing industry to overpay workers that do monkey jobs, or having them sit home collecting unemployment.

Obviously people take the right-wing serious about a lot of things. It's why we now control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and mosts Governorships in the country.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody is taking you seriously.

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

Unemployment is also something that the individual pays into by WORKING for a few years prior to being laid off. Or at least the company does.

Correct, but Danny here thinks unemployment should be an option if you don't feel like working anymore. He doesn't understand it's an insurance. It's no different than making an accident claim on your car to your auto insurance company when you never had an accident. You don't get unemployment if you just decide you don't want to work any longer.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

Unemployment is also something that the individual pays into by WORKING for a few years prior to being laid off. Or at least the company does.

Correct, but Danny here thinks unemployment should be an option if you don't feel like working anymore. He doesn't understand it's an insurance. It's no different than making an accident claim on your car to your auto insurance company when you never had an accident. You don't get unemployment if you just decide you don't want to work any longer.

well that sucks, I was going to wait a couple more years then use unemployment to retire on.

 

[Clementine]

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

sure you are, if the state was fiscally responsible, they would not have spent all their money on their filthy and worthless POS illegal Pets from south America.
California spends enough money in just one year keeping the vermin comfortable to cover many weather related "disasters" This is nothing but a scam to get the U.S taxpayers to cover the cost of their import a vile disease from the south program.
As long as the state can afford to pay for illegals, they really dont need any federal dollars at all.
get rid of thoses pieces of shit then come and ask for assistance.

California is a lot like Planned Parenthood. They waste money on things and then claim that the tax payer money they get doesn't go to certain things. While California spends a ridiculous amount to house, feed and provide medical care to millions of illegal aliens, they claim the tax money will go for other things. Fact is that the money they should be spending on dams and other infrastructure is being spent on illegal aliens. Just like PP is spending money on abortions and campaigns and they couldn't do that if not for tax dollars ensuring they not only pay other expenses but still have millions in profit when all is said and done.

It's the way liberals think. Like if I only have $500 and rent is due, I get another $500 to pay the rent so I can waste the $500 I already had on a new television. So, once all the money is in the bank, does it matter which dollars go for rent and which go for luxury? Couldn't pay for both without help.

If California stopped pandering to illegal aliens, they might be able to shore up pension funds and necessary spending for citizens.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's face it. California libs over spent and under maintained.
Now they want the feds to pay for their mistakes.

Unlike low population welfare queen red States; who are merely accustomed to being bailed out.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

Should we ask the right wing, which US States are poorest, and if they are in the South (still looking for their lost clues and their lost Cause)?

Danny please stop making yourself look like an ass.
You really are that fat slow fat kid on the track team trying to ride the glory of real contributors. A handful of giant company's and a few thousand extremely wealthy people / celebrities make California look really good on paper...meanwhile the majority of the state and its people are in social, financial and economical turmoil. California is turning dirtier and nastier by the minute...most of the south of it has become a third world shithole and an extension of Mexico....UNDENIABLE!

"Oh geez, more of the same from the desperate and confused Liberals.
California - 12% of the nations population, 33% of the nations welfare recipients - FACT
By the way Hawaii and New York are fighting CA for that number one spot....are they blue or red states? hahaha
Here you go:
It Looks Like Red States Take Most in Federal 'Welfare' from this Map. But Looks Can Be Deceiving.
California’s Welfare Benefits: Boom or Bust?
"There has been much discussion about immigrants in the United States from everywhere around the world. Yet, why is it that California seems to attract the most immigrants of any state? Indeed, while the state is only 12% of the nation’s population, it is home to 33% of welfare residents. According to a report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on January 26, 2015, there is a correlation between generous welfare benefits and an increase in immigration.

In total, California outspends every other state in public welfare spending – in 2014, it spent $22.4 billion. In contrast, the next closest state, New York, spent $11.9 billion. That being said, does this make California a magnet for immigrants? Not necessarily. It is more of an anchor – a reason why residents stay for long periods of time in the state. However, to deny that there is no magnet would be incorrect. According to George J. Borjas, the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and the author of the aforementioned report, the reason as to why people decide to relocate is due to “income-maximizing behavior.” Immigrants have already accepted that there are certain fixed costs that are inevitable because of migration, so it is natural that they will flock towards the places with the highest benefits. Empirical evidence suggests that it is because of these differences that there are an increasingly disproportionate number of immigrants among states. While there is the possibility of alternative explanations for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Borjas draws using the wealth-maximization hypothesis is one such testable method.

However, upon closer examination, on a per-capita basis, California’s seemingly generous benefits pale in data comparison to other states. For example, it spends approximately $179 for every resident, behind $233 in Hawaii and $256 in New York. Furthermore, approximately 8.9% of California residents live in poverty, the highest of any state. Despite this, the number of people immigrating to California increases exponentially each year."

Only because of our high population. California is still a donor State and we have the largest economy in the US.

And, we just recently legalized marijuana for adult use, and expect around a billion a year in revenue.

Why are low population red States, net recipients of tax dollars, if their economies are so wonderful.

 

[danielpalos]

How did you reach your conclusion? need i remind you; nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

How did I reach that conclusion? You said it yourself, government forcing industry to overpay workers that do monkey jobs, or having them sit home collecting unemployment.

Obviously people take the right-wing serious about a lot of things. It's why we now control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and mosts Governorships in the country.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody is taking you seriously.

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

This is why Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Welfare is means tested for income, unemployment compensation is not. And, unemployment compensation is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Simply correcting for that natural rate of capital inefficiency, will solve simple poverty and act as an economic stimulus on a consistent basis.

Only capital has to work under any form of capitalism. Only the national socialist right wing, never gets it. The law is employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.

Only the right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to complain about illegals to the law; when they condone that very same, illegality to the law.

 

[danielpalos]

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

Should we ask the right wing, which US States are poorest, and if they are in the South (still looking for their lost clues and their lost Cause)?

Being poor is subjective. I would rather make $12.00 an hour here in Ohio than make $18.00 in New York city. I guarantee you that you'll have a much better lifestyle here at $12.00 an hour.

Depends on the person and the circumstances. Some people commute to the Bay Area, for those wages.

 

[danielpalos]

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

sure you are, if the state was fiscally responsible, they would not have spent all their money on their filthy and worthless POS illegal Pets from south America.
California spends enough money in just one year keeping the vermin comfortable to cover many weather related "disasters" This is nothing but a scam to get the U.S taxpayers to cover the cost of their import a vile disease from the south program.
As long as the state can afford to pay for illegals, they really dont need any federal dollars at all.
get rid of thoses pieces of shit then come and ask for assistance.

Only national socialists think that way.

Our problems are due to politics, not economics.

 

[danielpalos]

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

Unemployment is also something that the individual pays into by WORKING for a few years prior to being laid off. Or at least the company does.

Correct, but Danny here thinks unemployment should be an option if you don't feel like working anymore. He doesn't understand it's an insurance. It's no different than making an accident claim on your car to your auto insurance company when you never had an accident. You don't get unemployment if you just decide you don't want to work any longer.

Yes; it is because I understand the law. Employment is at the will of either party, not just the employer. For-cause employment must be proved by EDD or they are simply being, illegal to a federal Doctrine and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

Unemployment is also something that the individual pays into by WORKING for a few years prior to being laid off. Or at least the company does.

Correct, but Danny here thinks unemployment should be an option if you don't feel like working anymore. He doesn't understand it's an insurance. It's no different than making an accident claim on your car to your auto insurance company when you never had an accident. You don't get unemployment if you just decide you don't want to work any longer.

well that sucks, I was going to wait a couple more years then use unemployment to retire on.

We won't need social security or social security taxes with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

It's not because he didn't win it. It's because they are broke because of their own idiotic policies, like having sanctuary cities. They thumb their noses at federal laws and stated that they'll continue even if they are denied federal aid because of it. Now they are finding that their liberal policies are unsustainable, which is always the case, and they expect the rest of the country to bail them out. If they want aid, they need to obey laws. Not difficult.

California has been in trouble for a long time. They waste their budget on their crazy ideas and then the tax payers get IOUs instead of actual refunds. They don't have money for pensions. They've chased tax payers out of the state and their financial trouble is their own doing. If we bail them out, they'll just continue to increase spending on illegal aliens and other stupid shit.

Time for them to learn about having a budget.

It's one thing when states needed help with the Obamacare law because they didn't all want it. Even then, they were on their own when the federal dollars ran out. Why should California be treated special when they haven't even tried to fix their problem?

Even with all of our problems, California pays more in taxes than it receives.

The economy of California is the largest in the United States. As of 2015, California's gross state product (GSP) is about $2.496 trillion. The state's GSP grew 4.1% in 2015.

And yet they can't manage their finances.

No you're spreading manure. California is in debt no one will argue about that but we pay our bills and always will. We aren't looking for a free ride from anyone.

sure you are, if the state was fiscally responsible, they would not have spent all their money on their filthy and worthless POS illegal Pets from south America.
California spends enough money in just one year keeping the vermin comfortable to cover many weather related "disasters" This is nothing but a scam to get the U.S taxpayers to cover the cost of their import a vile disease from the south program.
As long as the state can afford to pay for illegals, they really dont need any federal dollars at all.
get rid of thoses pieces of shit then come and ask for assistance.

California is a lot like Planned Parenthood. They waste money on things and then claim that the tax payer money they get doesn't go to certain things. While California spends a ridiculous amount to house, feed and provide medical care to millions of illegal aliens, they claim the tax money will go for other things. Fact is that the money they should be spending on dams and other infrastructure is being spent on illegal aliens. Just like PP is spending money on abortions and campaigns and they couldn't do that if not for tax dollars ensuring they not only pay other expenses but still have millions in profit when all is said and done.

It's the way liberals think. Like if I only have $500 and rent is due, I get another $500 to pay the rent so I can waste the $500 I already had on a new television. So, once all the money is in the bank, does it matter which dollars go for rent and which go for luxury? Couldn't pay for both without help.

If California stopped pandering to illegal aliens, they might be able to shore up pension funds and necessary spending for citizens.

We legalized a seed bearing plant for adult use; unlike those "immoral" red States.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

So you would have praised Obama if he had denied all federal aid to the states he didn't win.

Fascinating.

California constantly tells US they can survive on their own. Their economy is larger than that of France. Let'em.

Then just give California back the federal taxes they pay every year.

Only California?

When did you become an advocate for lower Federal spending and States rights?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Liberals are the true heros of America. We will defeat conservatism and deliver America from the fascist tyranny of Donald Trump and his knuckle-dragging band of right-wing thugs.

Here he comes to save the day!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How did I reach that conclusion? You said it yourself, government forcing industry to overpay workers that do monkey jobs, or having them sit home collecting unemployment.

Obviously people take the right-wing serious about a lot of things. It's why we now control the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and mosts Governorships in the country.

Maybe you should ask yourself why nobody is taking you seriously.

Like I said, nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour. It is a capital reason for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wages. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Nope, all that does is create more lowlifes that want to live off of other people's labor. It encourages them not to try and better themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have to do better than right wing propaganda and rhetoric. All you have, is an unsubstantiated opinion, nothing more. You need to substantiate it with a valid, economic argument. Now you know, why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law.

Unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour is more cost effective than means tested welfare and does not encourage Individuals to have children for (individual) unemployment compensation; but, helps potential labor market participants be a "ready reserve" labor pool.

Utter bull. What's the difference between welfare and unemployment if neither are looking for a job?

Living off the taxpayer is living off the taxpayer no matter what program you are using. If a person truly wants to work, it doesn't matter if they want to work while being on welfare or want to work while living on unemployment.

Unemployment is an insurance in the event you lose your job through no fault of your own.

This is why Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Welfare is means tested for income, unemployment compensation is not. And, unemployment compensation is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment.

Simply correcting for that natural rate of capital inefficiency, will solve simple poverty and act as an economic stimulus on a consistent basis.

Only capital has to work under any form of capitalism. Only the national socialist right wing, never gets it. The law is employment at the will of either party, not just the employer.

Only the right wing, is cognitively dissonant enough to complain about illegals to the law; when they condone that very same, illegality to the law.

You don't even make any sense when you write. Yes, there is a natural rate of unemployment in our society. They include people that are not working for a variety of reasons. But only those who lost work through no fault of their own are covered by unemployment INSURANCE. if you don't know what insurance means, look it up.