• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Financing the Green New Deal

Born Free said:
I have no problem agreeing with you, once you prove it. Telling me your opinion and all the other opinions out there is not proof. Period
Click to expand...
I already proved it. The United States produces 14.33 million b/d of petroleum and consumes 19.96 million b/d of petroleum. 14.33 million is less than 19.96 million. Therefore, the United States produces less petroleum than it consumes. Again, this really isn't hard. You are simply ill-informed.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
So just to be clear, you didn't understand the tax cut you were debating about?

The tax law was designed to punish residents of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California. It was also designed to buy off poor goomers (Trump's base) with a higher standard deduction.

So you guys don't want to punish the really, really rich, because getting rich is the American Dream, and you don't want to be overtaxed when you get there someday. But screw the upper middle class, the segment you actually have a shot of joining.
Click to expand...

No, it was designed to make progressive tax policy actually hurt people getting subsidies so they will either vote with their feet or feel some pain from high taxes instead of pawning it off on the fed.

Nice stereotyping and name calling, really highlights where your biases lie.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let's face it, if you've got over 10K in SALT deductions, then you're not doing too badly. Not many burger flippers in that group. Funny though how these highly taxed Democratic states think the federal government should subsidize their desire to have high taxes. Joe and Jane Smith should be pissed at their high taxed states, not Republicans. If these high taxed blue states think that high taxes are the solution to social problems then go it alone and don't pass the buck onto the federal government. Own up to the fact that you think high taxes are what solve public problems.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not doing too badly, but I'm not rich by any means, either. I am suburban middle class, and I'm going to hit that mark.

High taxes do solve a lot of public problems. That's why more people choose to live in high tax areas than choose to live in (ahem) Kentucky, Tennessee, and other backwoods crapholes. That extra tax money means that our kids don't have to learn intelligent design alongside evolution. That extra tax money means our colleges teach students how to think, instead of dunk and tackle.

Moderate Right said:
By the way, AOC is a stupid ass bitch for chasing 25,000 high paying jobs away from her constituents. I really don't understand liberals. I really don't. You'd think liberals would want 25,000 jobs that pay way more than a living wage. But, their crusade means more to them than that. They would rather force Walmart and McDonald's to pay $15 per hour rather than have those 25,000 jobs at Amazon that pay around 115K per year.
Click to expand...

1. Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits

2. NYC would have been subsidizing Amazon to the tune of $48,000 per job, plus another grant of $325 million, plus other incentives.

25,000 jobs looks good on the surface, but this was a bad deal. Amazon doesn't need any subsidies; they will build their HQ2 somewhere else, hopefully without costing taxpayers anything.

*Note: one of the things that makes an area attractive to high-salary employers is the proximity to colleges and the average education level of the local labor pool. High taxes for the win.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, it was designed to make progressive tax policy actually hurt people getting subsidies so they will either vote with their feet or feel some pain from high taxes instead of pawning it off on the fed.
Click to expand...

Those tax policies promoted home ownership, which most people think is a pretty good policy. They didn't promote "high-tax states," and calling SALT deductions a subsidy for the rich completely misses the point of the deductions in the first place. Also, wanting the middle class homeowner to "feel pain" while touting huge tax breaks for the very rich shows more than a bit of misplaced class envy, which is why my characterization of Trump's base as poor goomers is spot on. I do have a strong bias against stupidity.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Those tax policies promoted home ownership, which most people think is a pretty good policy. They didn't promote "high-tax states," and calling SALT deductions a subsidy for the rich completely misses the point of the deductions in the first place. Also, wanting the middle class homeowner to "feel pain" while touting huge tax breaks for the very rich shows more than a bit of misplaced class envy, which is why my characterization of Trump's base as poor goomers is spot on. I do have a strong bias against stupidity.
Click to expand...

Those tax policies allowed out of control state and county spending to be subsidized by the Federal government. They were not enabled to promote ownership, they were enabled to promote spending.
 
Nap said:
If everything in the GND was implemented, how much do you believe it would cost?
Click to expand...

Without seeing something official from Cortez' people

This is probably one of the better estimates I've seen.

So, here's an idea of what some of that could cost. The 10-year cost of Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for all" plan was pegged at $32 trillion in 2016 by the liberal Urban institute. A job guarantee at a $15 per hour minimum wage would cost about $409-$543 billion a year, according to an estimate from the Brookings Institution-affiliated Hamilton Project. Meaning, the 10-year cost could exceed $5 trillion. Sanders has estimated the cost of his free college program at $47 billion a year (or another half-trillion dollars over a decade). The Center for American Progress estimated its more targeted "Homes for All" program would "require a minimum of $20 billion in funding annually over the next five years," but that estimate is only for construction costs and does not consider the cost of land acquisition. The California High Speed Rail project, which was first approved over a decade ago and is already above cost and behind schedule, is currently projected to cost $77 billion just to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Green New Deal calls for the construction of high-speed rail across the country, "at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary."
Click to expand...

Reality check: Cost of 'Green New Deal' would dwarf moon landing, highway system, and New Deal itself
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
No, I'm not doing too badly, but I'm not rich by any means, either. I am suburban middle class, and I'm going to hit that mark.

High taxes do solve a lot of public problems. That's why more people choose to live in high tax areas than choose to live in (ahem) Kentucky, Tennessee, and other backwoods crapholes. That extra tax money means that our kids don't have to learn intelligent design alongside evolution. That extra tax money means our colleges teach students how to think, instead of dunk and tackle.



1. Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits

2. NYC would have been subsidizing Amazon to the tune of $48,000 per job, plus another grant of $325 million, plus other incentives.

25,000 jobs looks good on the surface, but this was a bad deal. Amazon doesn't need any subsidies; they will build their HQ2 somewhere else, hopefully without costing taxpayers anything.

*Note: one of the things that makes an area attractive to high-salary employers is the proximity to colleges and the average education level of the local labor pool. High taxes for the win.
Click to expand...

If high taxes solve a lot of public problems (I don't actually deny that) then states should own up to their high tax rates instead of expecting the federal government to subsidize those high tax rates. Let California and New York and the others explain to their constituents why those high taxes are needed and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, those states say that they are going to tax you a bunch but, not to worry, the federal government will reimburse you for our high taxes so you won't be paying high taxes after all. And then here you are, saying that the high taxes are needed for public problems but then you don't want to pay them yourself.

Funny how when the right brings up the fact that around 50% of Americans pay zero in federal income taxes the left are right there to rebut it, saying that the poor actually do pay all kinds of taxes. But then you don't give Amazon credit for the very same thing. Amazon pays millions and millions of dollars in taxes of many different kinds. I really haven't researched this claim of zero but you know darn well they actually do pay millions and millions of taxes. FICA, just to name one of the many.


It is so utterly ridiculous that socialists would rather chase business away that would generate 25,000 jobs averaging around 115K per year and use their time trying to force Walmart and McDonalds to pay their part time workers $15 per hour. That's just crazy. The economic impact of those 25,000 jobs in the area would be tremendous. And, New York wouldn't lose one dime, they would actually make millions on the deal. To simplify it, let's say that New York currently makes zero in income from Amazon (for the sake of argument). If they give millions in tax incentives to Amazon to come, just the fact that they are there would generate millions of dollars in income to the City and to the state that they did not have before, in several different ways. Let's assume that the 115k job is subsidized 48K, leaving a net of 67K per year, per worker. It would be completely bananas to fight for a living wage while chasing these kinds of jobs away, which are much, much, higher paying than living wage. By the way, most of both the state and city government thought it was a good deal. There was just enough oppositions which was in the minority that Amazon said, "Screw you".
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
If high taxes solve a lot of public problems (I don't actually deny that) then states should own up to their high tax rates instead of expecting the federal government to subsidize those high tax rates. Let California and New York and the others explain to their constituents why those high taxes are needed and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, those states say that they are going to tax you a bunch but, not to worry, the federal government will reimburse you for our high taxes so you won't be paying high taxes after all. And then here you are, saying that the high taxes are needed for public problems but then you don't want to pay them yourself.

Funny how when the right brings up the fact that around 50% of Americans pay zero in federal income taxes the left are right there to rebut it, saying that the poor actually do pay all kinds of taxes. But then you don't give Amazon credit for the very same thing. Amazon pays millions and millions of dollars in taxes of many different kinds. I really haven't researched this claim of zero but you know darn well they actually do pay millions and millions of taxes. FICA, just to name one of the many.


It is so utterly ridiculous that socialists would rather chase business away that would generate 25,000 jobs averaging around 115K per year and use their time trying to force Walmart and McDonalds to pay their part time workers $15 per hour. That's just crazy. The economic impact of those 25,000 jobs in the area would be tremendous. And, New York wouldn't lose one dime, they would actually make millions on the deal. To simplify it, let's say that New York currently makes zero in income from Amazon (for the sake of argument). If they give millions in tax incentives to Amazon to come, just the fact that they are there would generate millions of dollars in income to the City and to the state that they did not have before, in several different ways. Let's assume that the 115k job is subsidized 48K, leaving a net of 67K per year, per worker. It would be completely bananas to fight for a living wage while chasing these kinds of jobs away, which are much, much, higher paying than living wage. By the way, most of both the state and city government thought it was a good deal. There was just enough oppositions which was in the minority that Amazon said, "Screw you".
Click to expand...
1) NY and CA are not subsidized by the federal government. It's the other way around. CA and NY subsidize the feds

2) Federal income taxes were deducted, not to subsidize those with high tax bills, but in order to not double tax income. Since the taxpayer never received that income, it is unfair to make them pay another tax on it.

3) Amazon pays little to no federal income tax. However, it does pay taxes like sales tax and FICA.

But guess what? Those are deductible!!
 
Lakryte said:
I already proved it. The United States produces 14.33 million b/d of petroleum and consumes 19.96 million b/d of petroleum. 14.33 million is less than 19.96 million. Therefore, the United States produces less petroleum than it consumes. Again, this really isn't hard. You are simply ill-informed.
Click to expand...

Nice Try, but you didn't prove it with that link you provided.
 
This is a bit of a tangent, but being up Amazons taxes were highlighted I think it’s worth posting here and being thought about by more people. How much collectively does managing and filing corporate taxes cost most companies in US? How much is it a barrier to entry for young cash strapped startups? For all that effort and expense of resources included lost potential, the federal corporate income tax is estimated to generate 230 Billion in 2019 that’s 12% of income taxes. 7% of total tax revenues. And sure it’s lot of jobs, but jobs of in demand smart people who could easily be utilized in much more productive tasks in our economy, instead we require them to push numbers around often creatively so we can net the government a fraction of a fraction of what it costs in economic capital.

Now, should we protect against using corporations to avoid paying personal taxes or foreigner competing against citizens as corporate entities? Of course.

I can guarantee and there are plenty of real world examples to back this up, were these resources instead directed to profit, productivity and investment instead of managing a small corporate tax contribution every year, it would nets billions more than the ~230 billion in tax revenue in personal income taxes of the beneficiaries. Alas we live in a country (world) where a sizable plurality seems to think corporations are something other than legal protected vehicle of citizens’ private investment interests. So not an idea likely to take root in this country, but a perfect example of government wasting huge amounts of economic power for silly political reasons and exactly why their never be enough gamble money for something like the ideas in the GND.
 
Conaeolos said:
This is a bit of a tangent, but being up Amazons taxes were highlighted I think it’s worth posting here and being thought about by more people. How much collectively does managing and filing corporate taxes cost most companies in US? How much is it a barrier to entry for young cash strapped startups? For all that effort and expense of resources included lost potential, the federal corporate income tax is estimated to generate 230 Billion in 2019 that’s 12% of income taxes. 7% of total tax revenues. And sure it’s lot of jobs, but jobs of in demand smart people who could easily be utilized in much more productive tasks in our economy, instead we require them to push numbers around often creatively so we can net the government a fraction of a fraction of what it costs in economic capital.

Now, should we protect against using corporations to avoid paying personal taxes or foreigner competing against citizens as corporate entities? Of course.

I can guarantee and there are plenty of real world examples to back this up, were these resources instead directed to profit, productivity and investment instead of managing a small corporate tax contribution every year, it would nets billions more than the ~230 billion in tax revenue in personal income taxes of the beneficiaries. Alas we live in a country (world) where a sizable plurality seems to think corporations are something other than legal protected vehicle of citizens’ private investment interests. So not an idea likely to take root in this country, but a perfect example of government wasting huge amounts of economic power for silly political reasons and exactly why their never be enough gamble money for something like the ideas in the GND.
Click to expand...
First. We should recognize the difference between accounting in general vs. filing income taxes. After all, every business needs to track what's happening in their business. They need to know where their money is, where it's going, and where it's coming in. They need to know what's selling and what's not, and what it costs, including labor, materials, and overhead. They also need to track this over time for analysis and forcasting.

The above makes for the overwhelming majority of their accounting costs. Once that is done, filing their taxes is relatively easy and inexpensive.

So basically, your concerns here are insignificant in the overall scheme of things. I have never heard of a business failing due to the cost of filing taxes, but if you have I would be interested in hearing about it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Wonder why with lower wage pressure and trade policy that shut down their light industry.

Yet neither side seemed, or seems, to give a damn.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're speaking of. The fact remains... Blue states subsidize red states.
 
sangha said:
The above makes for the overwhelming majority of their accounting costs. Once that is done, filing their taxes is relatively easy and inexpensive.

So basically, your concerns here are insignificant in the overall scheme of things. I have never heard of a business failing due to the cost of filing taxes, but if you have I would be interested in hearing about it.
Click to expand...
You may well be right and if you are or have directly worked in accounting you'd know better than I; however, from a systems perspective that doesn't hold true in the slightest. The most complex aspect of accounting is tax and legal(risk) considerations. Unless we are arguing we have strait forward tax code and regulations so only larger corporations need to hire experts with most small teams being able to get away with in house effort at minimal effort?

Bookkeeping, financial analysis and reporting of course would remain, but that isn't the economically costly aspect. Think about it in terms of expertise, if it was mostly an analytical issue it would be the domain of specialized mathematicians and general adminstration. Accounting however is a unique discipline from mathematics or organization exactly because its' structured around politics. That expertise, is an economic choice which pulls resources from other potential avenues and comes with no productive benefit unless tax is social policy. Book keeping elevated in importance and complexity due to tax and legal considerations.

So although I agree, no(or very few) businesses have failed directly due to the cost of filing taxes. I disagree no business has failed or been prevented due to the added complexity of our accounting process due to complex taxes and tax regulations. In fact, I would argue this idea of taxing working capital and the individuals, rather than the individuals only is a major contributor to failure rate of young cash strapped business and the self employed. I have no doubt a policy shift toward corporate taxes focused only around preventing foreign entities or personal tax avoidance would promote a lot of economic activity and significant tax revenue growth.
 
Conaeolos said:
You may well be right and if you are or have directly worked in accounting you'd know better than I; however, from a systems perspective that doesn't hold true in the slightest. The most complex aspect of accounting is tax and legal(risk) considerations. Unless we are arguing we have strait forward tax code and regulations so only larger corporations need to hire experts with most small teams being able to get away with in house effort at minimal effort?

Bookkeeping, financial analysis and reporting of course would remain, but that isn't the economically costly aspect. Think about it in terms of expertise, if it was mostly an analytical issue it would be the domain of specialized mathematicians and general adminstration. Accounting however is a unique discipline from mathematics or organization exactly because its' structured around politics. That expertise, is an economic choice which pulls resources from other potential avenues and comes with no productive benefit unless tax is social policy. Book keeping elevated in importance and complexity due to tax and legal considerations.

So although I agree, no(or very few) businesses have failed directly due to the cost of filing taxes. I disagree no business has failed or been prevented due to the added complexity of our accounting process due to complex taxes and tax regulations. In fact, I would argue this idea of taxing working capital and the individuals, rather than the individuals only is a major contributor to failure rate of young cash strapped business and the self employed. I have no doubt a policy shift toward corporate taxes focused only around preventing foreign entities or personal tax avoidance would promote a lot of economic activity and significant tax revenue growth.
Click to expand...
I really don't see how your latest post adds anything to your argument. It sounds like a repetition of your argument -- taxes are complicated so it must cost businesses a lot of money to file their taxes. However, there is a dearth of facts that support the argument.

Most of the accounting-related tasks employees do at work are things a business would do even if they didn't have to file taxes because businesses have to monitor and control expenses and the flow of money in and out of their business.

The most complicated part of filing taxes is computing what your income is, and that is something businesses have to do even if they didn't have to pay taxes.
 
sangha said:
The most complicated part of filing taxes is computing what your income is, and that is something businesses have to do even if they didn't have to pay taxes.
Click to expand...
That statement alone should tell anyone your experience level with conducting business and tax compliance (i.e. its 100% at the personal level). This tax is a minuscule in revenue potential , changes business behavior, and costs most to those with the least.

Businesses don’t have income, they are working capital for individuals always and without exception. Sure in the broadest sense you have assets, liabilities, revenue, profit, cash-flow considerations but none of those are created equal. Their income implications depends on your business model.

For example, if my small company has an opportunity, if they can buy $100,000 in the supplies. Do I a) sell stock b) take a loan or c) defer till the company has that on hand. Those would be relatively equal, with different pros and cons, except suppose loan payments are deductible against the tax bill. In that case, they are not equal. In that case, taking the loan is possibly more prudent than shares since the costs savings in terms of cash flow outweighs interest payments. That doesn’t make it a freebie however I now have increased my total investment by the amount interest. I have increased my risk due compound negative implications debt financing.

So why not just never make debt payments deductible? How? if I do take the finance opinion, sans deductions, operating costs are higher regardless and so my net profits lower...the only way is to punish legitimate debt financing over none.

What if it we did tax revenue? Then basically you tax different based on margin. Lower margin companies would increase pushing prices.

Etc etc etc

Businesses are not the same enough to tax fairly. There is no measure as universal as income. Profit or margin can be manipulated but is the closest approximation. Revenue or cash flow depends on model. When you have unequal taxes , which is certainly the norm here,you create serious costs in resources.
 
Nap said:
My question is if all of this is correct, then why even tax people in the first place? The amount of money needed to fulfill everything in the Green New Dream is so outrageously high that in comparison the amount of taxes taken in would be a pittance. If we are going to just create money out of no where in order to pay for this then there is no reason to even bother taxing anyone.
Click to expand...

JC is one of those MMT'er people. They basically believe that you can print and spend as much money as you want and that there are no issues or causes for doing it.
even those this has proven out to be completely not true.

There are things that we do that give our money value. One of those things is taxation. I continue to ask JC if his theory is true and it doesn't matter how much money we print why not just print 22 trillion
dollars and not worry about the debt. of course the answer is simple and he can't get it.

doing so would pretty much ruin the value of the dollar and the american economy. No one would trust our currency or our ability to handle it fairly and ethically.

The green deal regardless of what he says is hugely expensive and would require massive tax hikes on everyone.

by the time these morons are done
with

Free healthcare
free college
this green deal
minimum salary.

everyone in america will be forking over 100% of what they make just to get off of this free stuff.
it is nothing more than mindless drivel that has 0 basis in rational conversation.
 
Imo, this "green new deal" won't happen. The cost is too high, and the fact that it would be so damn impractical to get rid of all fossil fuels in what 12 years or how long? To me, its another virtue signaling crap.
 
Are you sure you want to get into another economics debate, ludin? Because every time you do, you end up looking foolish.

ludin said:
JC is one of those MMT'er people. They basically believe that you can print and spend as much money as you want and that there are no issues or causes for doing it.
even those this has proven out to be completely not true.
Click to expand...

Is English your first language? If I hadn't heard all of your arguments dozens of times before, I'd have a real hard time understanding your point here.

ludin said:
There are things that we do that give our money value. One of those things is taxation.
Click to expand...

Can you name another?

ludin said:
...I continue to ask JC if his theory is true and it doesn't matter how much money we print why not just print 22 trillion
dollars and not worry about the debt. of course the answer is simple and he can't get it.
Click to expand...

And I keep on answering your (stupid) question. It does matter how much money we print (and spend); you can only create as much demand as your domestic economy can handle, or else you get inflation. I have explained this to you at least a dozen times. Is it too complicated for you to understand?

ludin said:
doing so would pretty much ruin the value of the dollar and the american economy. No one would trust our currency or our ability to handle it fairly and ethically.
Click to expand...

Doing what, exactly? Following your strawman example and printing up insane amounts of money? Yeah, it would, but nobody has EVER suggested doing so.

ludin said:
The green deal regardless of what he says is hugely expensive and would require massive tax hikes on everyone.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. You have no friggin' idea of how these programs would be rolled out, or how they would be financed.

ludin said:
by the time these morons are done
with

Free healthcare
free college
this green deal
minimum salary.

everyone in america will be forking over 100% of what they make just to get off of this free stuff.
it is nothing more than mindless drivel that has 0 basis in rational conversation.
Click to expand...

If we are lucky enough that the GND overcomes the idiots that oppose it, everyone in America will have healthcare, everyone will have the option of going to college, everyone will have a job at a living wage, and, hopefully, we will have slowed down global warming enough to save the planet. And it won't require all that much taxation, either. We already pay far more than other countries for our (relatively poor) healthcare, we already pay far more than other countries (and carry crazy amounts of debt) to attend college, our lower end doesn't make as much as the lower end in most other countries, and we have bigger environmental problems than most other countries. Only a moron would want to preserve that status quo. Other countries manage to do all of this stuff, but somehow, you think we are incapable of doing the same things.

You have already demonstrated that you don't understand how our monetary system works, so I can only assume that your arguments against the GND are purely ideological. Which makes your arguments completely useless.
 
enderpotato00 said:
Imo, this "green new deal" won't happen. The cost is too high, and the fact that it would be so damn impractical to get rid of all fossil fuels in what 12 years or how long? To me, its another virtue signaling crap.
Click to expand...

How were electric cars doing 12 years ago? Without much incentive from the government, electric cars are part of the landscape now; imagine where we could have been if Dubya started a similar initiative 12 years ago.

Also, what you think is a "cost" to the government is income for the beneficiaries of the increased deficit spending. That's why deficit spending is used to boost an economy in recession.
 
Kushinator said:
I have no idea what you're speaking of. The fact remains... Blue states subsidize red states.
Click to expand...

Trade policy that shut down small business manufacturing and processing and an illegal immigration policy that pushed wages downward. Meanwhile, high property tax policy subsidized by the Feds.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Which makes your arguments completely useless.
Click to expand...

yes we know your arguments are completely useless which is why you can't deal with facts but theories that have been trounced 1000 times over again.
unlike you I do know how banking and our money system works.

Which is why we don't print a 22 trillion dollar coin and pay off the debt.

it is why this so called green deal would kill jobs not create job.
No america won't have healthcare. you might have healthcare coverage but look like getting a doctor when you need one.

College isn't meant for some people, and college doesn't guarantee anything.
Only the people that are at the top of the top will have a living wage everyone else will be stuck with
whatever minimum income the government decides to give them.

that is if the people making the money doesn't decide to move elsewhere to avoid the massive taxes that it will take
to fund all of this free stuff.

actually US healthcare is number 1 in the world on a fair evaluated basis.
Our lower end do as well as the top 10% in other countries i have posted this chart before.

Our lower end have cell phones cars, a house with plumbing putting them in the top richest 15% in the world.

Only a moron would agree to a deal that will have no affect on anything, cost us trillions of dollars and yet another massive
government programs we can't afford.

Yes you have demonstrated you don't understand our money system it is obvious.
things like fractional and reserve banking are simple terms you still don't understand.
 
sangha said:
1) NY and CA are not subsidized by the federal government. It's the other way around. CA and NY subsidize the feds
Click to expand...

Governor Newsome will not return billions of dollars of federal money invested in the New Green Deal high speed rail system which turned out to be as unaffordably expensive as conservatives told the morons in the first place. But they will not allow federal money to be spent on increasing border security and will not stop demanding the federal government pick up the tab for housing, feeding, medicating and schooling jobless illegals and their quivers full of hungry uneducated children by the hundreds of thousands.
 
marke said:
Governor Newsome will not return billions of dollars of federal money invested in the New Green Deal high speed rail system which turned out to be as unaffordably expensive as conservatives told the morons in the first place. But they will not allow federal money to be spent on increasing border security and will not stop demanding the federal government pick up the tab for housing, feeding, medicating and schooling jobless illegals and their quivers full of hungry uneducated children by the hundreds of thousands.
Click to expand...

hOW about that economy they have in CA? Pretty impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom