Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Apr 19 20:53:54 2021

Utopia Talk / Politics / This is why Ca shouldn't be bailed out
Habebe
Member
Wed Feb 17 17:44:45
Remember when people wanted the Federal government to bail out states and cities?

So now they are doing thwir own $600 stimulus, including pating illegal immigrants.

Which is fine, with their own state coffers. But if they then need to get bailed out, the Fed shouldn't pay Californians an extra check that no one else gets.

MD is doing something similar from the state surplus from last year, thats fine, its their money.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Feb 17 18:11:32
Americans are Americans get over it. They are also net federal tax payers by a huge amount so it's only fitting they get some of the money back.

Unlike the leech states which are all predominantly red states.
obaminated
Member
Wed Feb 17 18:37:27
Cuckhat is desperate for stimulus checks.
hood
Member
Wed Feb 17 20:40:51
I take it habebe also doesn't want any hurricane relief for those stupid enough to live near the gulf, or any assistance to go to texas?
Kaylana
Moderator
Wed Feb 17 21:26:51
It speaks loudly of your character of your position is that other people should suffer because you are suffering.
habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 04:53:27
Dukhat,Americans are Americans is my point.If we are all equal, why is CA more equal?

As for the federal cash ratio, its a false narrative that includes SS and Medicare ( some of the biggest chunks) elderly poor people who have paid intonsuch programs are not leeches. Its like paying for an unsurance policy and not collecting when your house burns down, the only difference is that this was a forced/garnished payment.

Hood, False equivalency, when CA has its wildfires, they get federal dollars, as they should. However if everyone gets $2k , why should CA's get $2600? how is that reasonable?

Kaylana, To the contrary, my gripe here is that if the feds bail.them out we are essentially saying Californians deserve more than every other states residents for the same suffering at the expense of everyone else.

On top of which CA uses illegals to gain political power, the rest ofnthe US should not subsidizebtheir power gain through illegal means.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 18 05:00:28
habebe
Undocumented pay taxes and have social security numbers.

Forest fires are generally on federal lands. The federal government owns 47% of California.

Why are you assuming that the 600 dollars in state relief will give a larger federal transfer?
habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 05:19:28
Jergul, Illegal is illegal.

it seems common sense that greater state expenditure will have to come from somewhere, the more money the state hands out, the greater debt they wpuld incur IF* they were to be bailed out, I'm not sure as ofnthe they will be, nor are they asking ( im unsure) but this was a common sentiment amongst many last year.
habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 05:21:30
Also, hey we may actually jave a 2nd female on the boards, pretty cool. I think Cherub Cow was the only active female poster for a while, and I just foindnout she was a she.
habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 05:32:32
CA state government spending is attrocious to boot.

Lifeguards can make over 300k.

Nurses over 500k.

Sheriffs over 300k.

poop patrol 184k, to clean up human poop in public because of all the homeless.

Perhaps instead of lavish spending for state employees that money could be better spent on helping the homeless get housing, jobs, cars etc.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 18 06:41:10
What is the morality of felons getting a stimmy check.

Felons being felons you know.
Habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 11:52:54
Well Insuppose the difference isntgat felons in jail are here legally, illegal immigrants are not.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 18 12:54:00
Illegals in jail are also there legally.

Why should felons get stimmy checks? Make your case.
Rugian
Member
Thu Feb 18 12:59:06
"Illegals in jail are also there legally."

Fact check: false.

And no, felons in prison should not be receiving stimulus checks.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 18 13:07:59
Ruggy
Fact check: True.

The alternative is that they are being detained illegally.

Make the case that felons on parole deserve checks.
Make the case that felons no longer on parole deserve checks.

For the 2nd point, please elaborate on why they deserve stimmy checks, but not gun ownership or the right to vote.

Also please explain why the checks should not go to their victims instead.
Rugian
Member
Thu Feb 18 13:15:38
Jergul

The state's detention of illegals is legal. The illegals themselves remain illegally in United States territory.

As for ex-felons, their prior history suggests that they have poor judgment and should therefore be denied a voice in the body politic.

That having been said, money spent is money spent, and ex-felons spend as much as anyone. If the body politic decides that stimulus checks are needed to prop up the economy, ex-felons play a useful role there and should not be denied checks.
Habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 13:25:44
What Rugian said, pretty much.

As for voting, its a states choice.I personally think they should still be allowed to vote.

If Iran dropped 5k soldiers who snuck into the US, it would be the dame, their very existence within our borders is illegal, tbey shouldn't get checks either.

I have mixed thoughts on immigration. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that when immigration is limited that recent immigrants economically do better and climb the ladder quicker when immigration is limited.

However I feel for the plight of thos others denied entry, resources are finite. As it is we allow many legal immigrants every year, more than most.

Even the EU in recent years has had problems with ME and African immigrants and all of the fiasco, arguably treated harsher than those who arrive in the US.
jergul
large member
Thu Feb 18 14:05:50
Ruggy
They are not illegally in the US if they are legally detained in the US.

Prior history would suggest they might spend the money on the wrong, or even illegal things.

Also, why would taxpaying illegals with social security numbers not help the economy with spending their stimulous checks?

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:21:19
"They are not illegally in the US if they are legally detained in the US."

Lol seb level semantics and retardation.
Rugian
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:25:55
Jergul

Oh my God.

1st, an illegal who has been detained is still an illegal. Thats simply not debatable.

But hypothetically speaking, even if you were right and detained illegals gained a "legal" basis for being in the States by virtue of their detention, of what use would it be to give them stimulus checks? What would they spend it on, cigarettes and payoffs to avoid buttrape in the shower?

"Also, why would taxpaying illegals with social security numbers not help the economy with spending their stimulous checks?"

Well, aside from the fact that a good amount of that money would simply be sent back to Latin America...theyre criminals who are subject to deportation at any time.

Illegals don't deserve to be financially awarded just because ICE hasn't gotten around to rounding them up yet.
hood
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:25:56
"That having been said, money spent is money spent, and illegal immigrants spend as much as anyone. If the body politic decides that stimulus checks are needed to prop up the economy, illegal immigrants play a useful role there and should not be denied checks."
Habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:31:58
Illegal immigrants are rather unique in that they are the only criminals that are actively committing a crime 100% of the time in the US, since their crime is being in the US.
Rugian
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:37:13
It's simple. Ex-felons are not liable to be rounded up and deported from the country at any moment.

Illegals are.

So no Hood, I reject that logic.
hood
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:46:45
You may reject logic all you would like. That's the wonderful thing about logic - it doesn't suddenly disappear just because you don't believe in it.

The logic is pretty damn sound. Illegal immigrants spend a disproportionate amount of their earnings compared to the average. If you want to stimulate things, sending money to those who spend the highest percent of it is going to be the most efficient.

Some nonsense about how they might just suddenly disappear isn't actually logic. I fully understand why it is your only retort.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 18 14:49:50
"Illegal immigrants spend a disproportionate amount of their earnings compared to the average. If you want to stimulate things, sending money to those who spend the highest percent of it is going to be the most efficient."

Stats? A higher proportion of their income is likely to be spent in other countries, vs. the average citizen.
habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 15:58:23
That "logic" seems based on imagination that illegal immigrants spend more money in the local economy than any other group, say legal poor folks.
hood
Member
Thu Feb 18 16:23:35
"A higher proportion of their income is likely to be spent in other countries, vs. the average citizen."

I mean, sure. Any % over 0 will beat the average citizen. That's almost entirely meaningless.
Habebe
Member
Thu Feb 18 17:12:08

Apr 8, 2019,
08:13am EDT
|
25,905 views
Immigrants In The U.S. Sent Over $148 Billion To Their Home Countries In 2017 [Infographic]
Niall McCarthyContributor
Business
Data journalist covering technological, societal and media topics
A significant share of immigrants all over the world send part of their paycheck back to help their families in their home countries. When all of those payments are added together, the amount of money on the move every year is enormous and it competes with international aid as one of the biggest financial inflows to developing countries. According to recently published Pew Research Center data based on figures from the World Bank, it is estimated that the collective sum of remittance payments in 2017 came to $625 billion, a 7% increase from 2016 when the total was estimated at $586 billion.

In the United States alone, it is estimated that more than $148 billion was sent to individuals in other countries in 2017. Back in 2004, a study found that over 60% of the 16.5 million Latin American-born adults living in the country at that time sent money home on a regular basis.

http://www...tries-in-2017-infographic/amp/
obaminated
Member
Thu Feb 18 18:21:09
"They are not illegals if they are legally held."

You are the worst of civilization. Your type caused the fall of rome.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Feb 18 19:15:27
"Is it correct to say that Hannibal was Carthaginian? He was in Roman territory, in a custodial dispute over a supply depot at Cannae. Better to call this a conflict between rival Roman commanders"
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 19 00:07:07
Ruggy
Way to move goal posts. An undocumented alien in legal US detention is by definition legally in the country.

I was not asking you to justify why detained should get stimmy's.

Taxpaying undocumented denizens with social security numbers are a different affair of course.

Habebe
So only undocumented aliens that have been charged and sentenced by courts should not get stimmy's.

I am sure that far more than 60% of felons habitually spend money on illegal things.

You are not making the case for why felons should get stimulous checks.

Obam
"They are not illegally in the US if they are legally detained in the US."

Your dishonesty to the core is the rot in society.

Justify why you should get a stimmy check.
obaminated
Member
Fri Feb 19 00:11:50
i shouldnt but i also wont turn around money, if the government wants to send out money, i wont be the moron refusing to accept it out of some misconstrued sense of honor.

i also wont bend language and laws to argue that illegal immigrants are legal immigrants if they get arrested for being here illegally.

anyone who does that is worthless, like i said, those people are the same type of people who weakened rome while the few remaining honest and honorable romans defended them to the end.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 19 00:46:45
Obam
Its one of the issues with detaining foreigners. Their stay in the US becomes legal by definition.

By Rome, you mean a collection of villages on 9 hills separated by swampland, or do you mean the vast territories those villagers eventually conquered?
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share