4 ms·

> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it

> "By your argument, California could easily afford to pay for it if only Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Montana, and Kentucky were not "mooching" off of it." Not if the funds are paying for people living in these states legally.. Surely you see the distinction between funding people legally living in the US and those living here illegally. What I know is that if California elected responsible politicians that used tax money for Californians and not for people living in the state and country illegally they wouldn't need the federal money. Get rid of your politicians and elect responsible ones and stop whining.

davidf18 10y ago
Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.
- johnduhart 10y ago
  I'm confused, where did the he/she state that?
- Kluny 10y ago
  I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects. Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.
    - Kluny 10y ago
      Well is material, since OP specifically said this: > please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally Which I addressed. I also stated that the fact they're here illegally is another matter. This was the line in which I did that, in case you have trouble reading: > Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally So your argument is that as long as each individual immigrant contributes to society, you're fine with aiding and abetting their breaking of the law? If somebody were a serial bank robber that donated most of their taking to charity, would that be acceptable also, since they're arguably performing a net service to society? > Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage In case you have problems reading, the business model of their employer has no relation towards their legal/illegal status. I don't know why you'd highlight that particular quote of yours.
- eon1 10y ago
  > Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - davidf18 10y ago
    People should have the courage to state their opinion instead of simply down voting. I did not state something that was incorrect at least as far as I know and if I did, I would like to know what is incorrect about it. Perhaps there should be a rule that when downvoting, people state the reason. I suspect that some readers believe that people living here illegally deserve taxpayer funds. If so, they should have the courage of their convictions.
gumby 10y ago
Man, you really are upset with the idea of people living in California "illegally". Have you ever speeded and gotten away with it? Does that mean you also live in California "illegally" as that would make you also a scofflaw?
- davidf18 10y ago
  I am upset about the whining. Suck it up California. You elected politicians who use your tax funds on people who are in the country illegally and then you whine because you aren't getting federal funds. Since money is fungible it simply means that you want federal funds to pay for people who live in the country illegally. If you really want funding for the rail which I agree should exist, simply elect politicians that are fiscally responsible. It really is that simple. If you're unwilling to do that, stop whining and suck it up.
  - arjie 10y ago
    Haha. The moocher states can keep mooching and whining. Noblesse oblige. We will clothe you, keep you fed, and give you jobs. And you will complain and try to bite the hand that feeds. But our kindness is indiscriminatory. Our hearts are big. And we're ever so strong. California will take care of even the lamest of the lambs.
  - 8note 10y ago
    If you want to be fiscally responsible, that train clearly should not exist since it will be used by illegal aliens. Instead, they should spend the money on giving their law enforcement tanks to keep at each existing station and then if an illegal alien gets on board, they can quickly destroy the tracks and/or train. That way, no money will be spent on aliens, period. Plus, the police get the armaments they need to defend against this immigrant threat.
projectramo 10y ago
I didn't downvote you. I didn't make the argument that California should or should not fund anyone over anyone else. That is up to the (good) people of California. You seemed to indicate the California could have chosen to spend its money in a different manner. You started off by pointing out "Money [is] fungible". I was just pointing out the logical conclusion of that argument.
entee 10y ago
A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA (or the US in general) do not pay for the services they use. While in certain cases that might be true, in others they are net contributors. See social security taxes [1]. I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument without providing much data or grappling with the practical implications of your argument. Even if we were to take all the money we spend as Californians on undocumented immigrants, would that actually come close to the funds we should be receiving for Caltrain electrification? I'm not sure. And what damage to our communities would be done by removing that money from the system? Immigrants, undocumented and fully documented, grow the larger economy and are meaningful parts of our community, and I'm pretty sure we'd be worse off without them. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...
- davidf18 10y ago
  The amount of money spent for K-12 education people who live in California illegally as well as university education and healthcare far, far exceeds the < $800 million federal grant for the train. > "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..." I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement. The solution to the train and other fiscal problems is simply electing fiscally responsible politicians. The newspaper article mentioned the problem of federal funding and I mentioned a levitate and proper solution. If Californians don't elect politicians who are fiscally responsible and who feel that it is OK to spend taxpayer money on people living here illegally, they only have themselves to blame. I don't see any argument that says that the Federal gov. (again because money is fungible) should be funding people who are living in the country illegally.
  - entee 10y ago
    Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. How about sales taxes? Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about the larger benefits of the electrification project? By withholding money this way (and I'm pretty sure nobody responsible for the withholding has been making the same arguments you are, but happy to be shown otherwise), are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?
TACIXAT 10y ago
Do you realize that many Californians associate more strongly with the undocumented immigrants than they do with people from the south? That is California. That is the state they want to have. It won't be run the way you want it to. I grew up there. I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status.
- davidf18 10y ago
  > "I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status." You mean, no matter whether they are living in the country legally or not. Well, OK. But I see that there are a lot of veterans that have served their country throughout America and I believe they deserve our support over neighbors who are living in the country illegally. Let's agree to disagree on that one.

davidf18 10y ago

Instead of down voting, please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally instead of funding a train for people who are here legally.

johnduhart 10y ago
I'm confused, where did the he/she state that?
Kluny 10y ago
I don't think anyone wants to fund them, and we aren't. We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. The California agricultural economy would collapse without them since employers can't afford to pay legal wages. Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem. But as it stands, California is getting a damn fine deal out of their illegal Mexicans.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > We pretty generally agree that they contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. That fact is immaterial. The fact is that they're breaking the law, despite any other effects. Would you be ok with somebody living in your back yard if they watered and weeded the garden? After all, they're contributing more to the property than they are taking out of it.
  - Kluny 10y ago
    Well is material, since OP specifically said this: > please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally Which I addressed. I also stated that the fact they're here illegally is another matter. This was the line in which I did that, in case you have trouble reading: > Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage is a whole other problem.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > please state why you want to fund people who are living in the US illegally So your argument is that as long as each individual immigrant contributes to society, you're fine with aiding and abetting their breaking of the law? If somebody were a serial bank robber that donated most of their taking to charity, would that be acceptable also, since they're arguably performing a net service to society? > Now, the fact that their business model is so unsound that they can't pay legal minimum wage In case you have problems reading, the business model of their employer has no relation towards their legal/illegal status. I don't know why you'd highlight that particular quote of yours.
eon1 10y ago
> Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- davidf18 10y ago
  People should have the courage to state their opinion instead of simply down voting. I did not state something that was incorrect at least as far as I know and if I did, I would like to know what is incorrect about it. Perhaps there should be a rule that when downvoting, people state the reason. I suspect that some readers believe that people living here illegally deserve taxpayer funds. If so, they should have the courage of their convictions.

gumby 10y ago

Man, you really are upset with the idea of people living in California "illegally". Have you ever speeded and gotten away with it? Does that mean you also live in California "illegally" as that would make you also a scofflaw?

davidf18 10y ago
I am upset about the whining. Suck it up California. You elected politicians who use your tax funds on people who are in the country illegally and then you whine because you aren't getting federal funds. Since money is fungible it simply means that you want federal funds to pay for people who live in the country illegally. If you really want funding for the rail which I agree should exist, simply elect politicians that are fiscally responsible. It really is that simple. If you're unwilling to do that, stop whining and suck it up.
- arjie 10y ago
  Haha. The moocher states can keep mooching and whining. Noblesse oblige. We will clothe you, keep you fed, and give you jobs. And you will complain and try to bite the hand that feeds. But our kindness is indiscriminatory. Our hearts are big. And we're ever so strong. California will take care of even the lamest of the lambs.
- 8note 10y ago
  If you want to be fiscally responsible, that train clearly should not exist since it will be used by illegal aliens. Instead, they should spend the money on giving their law enforcement tanks to keep at each existing station and then if an illegal alien gets on board, they can quickly destroy the tracks and/or train. That way, no money will be spent on aliens, period. Plus, the police get the armaments they need to defend against this immigrant threat.

projectramo 10y ago

I didn't downvote you. I didn't make the argument that California should or should not fund anyone over anyone else. That is up to the (good) people of California. You seemed to indicate the California could have chosen to spend its money in a different manner. You started off by pointing out "Money [is] fungible". I was just pointing out the logical conclusion of that argument.

entee 10y ago

A major flaw in your argument is the implication that undocumented individuals in CA (or the US in general) do not pay for the services they use. While in certain cases that might be true, in others they are net contributors. See social security taxes [1]. I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument without providing much data or grappling with the practical implications of your argument. Even if we were to take all the money we spend as Californians on undocumented immigrants, would that actually come close to the funds we should be receiving for Caltrain electrification? I'm not sure. And what damage to our communities would be done by removing that money from the system? Immigrants, undocumented and fully documented, grow the larger economy and are meaningful parts of our community, and I'm pretty sure we'd be worse off without them. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...

davidf18 10y ago
The amount of money spent for K-12 education people who live in California illegally as well as university education and healthcare far, far exceeds the < $800 million federal grant for the train. > "I also think you're making a fairly inflammatory argument..." I don't believe I'm an inflammatory argument. Fiscally responsible politicians would not spend tax money on people who are not legally in the country except on law enforcement. The solution to the train and other fiscal problems is simply electing fiscally responsible politicians. The newspaper article mentioned the problem of federal funding and I mentioned a levitate and proper solution. If Californians don't elect politicians who are fiscally responsible and who feel that it is OK to spend taxpayer money on people living here illegally, they only have themselves to blame. I don't see any argument that says that the Federal gov. (again because money is fungible) should be funding people who are living in the country illegally.
- entee 10y ago
  Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Fiscally responsible politicians should carefully consider the larger questions and tradeoffs including costs of enforcements, larger contributions to the economy, and how much those immigrants actually pay in taxes. How about sales taxes? Or approaching the question from the other direction, how about the larger benefits of the electrification project? By withholding money this way (and I'm pretty sure nobody responsible for the withholding has been making the same arguments you are, but happy to be shown otherwise), are we cutting off our nose to spite our face?

TACIXAT 10y ago

Do you realize that many Californians associate more strongly with the undocumented immigrants than they do with people from the south? That is California. That is the state they want to have. It won't be run the way you want it to. I grew up there. I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status.

davidf18 10y ago
> "I would much rather have my money flow to my neighbor, someone who works hard and is essential to the economy, than someone in Mississippi, no matter their citizenship status." You mean, no matter whether they are living in the country legally or not. Well, OK. But I see that there are a lot of veterans that have served their country throughout America and I believe they deserve our support over neighbors who are living in the country illegally. Let's agree to disagree on that one.