4 ms·

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

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?
- davidf18 10y ago
  > "Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that? > 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. No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.

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?

davidf18 10y ago
> "Bandying about terms like "living here illegally" and the tone of how you're putting it is very much inflammatory. Well, they are people living here illegally. I don't see that as inflammatory but a statement of fact. How else would you say that? > 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. No, fiscally responsible politicians should not be using taxpayer funds to fund people who are living in the country illegally -- against the law except for law enforcement.