President Suggests he might pull ICE agents from Sanctuary States? (income, taxes)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Have you seen California's unpaid liabilities?

California making fun of the national debt is like one fat kid making fun of another fat kid for not being skinny.

No it's not the same one bit. California has every probability of working through its liabilities based on its resources. So does the nation respectively - with one critical difference: who's in charge. In either case that can change for better or worse. But, at the moment, California has a fiscally responsible governor ... and the nation is being run by a moron who has run his companies into bankruptcy several times in the past and who now championed a new round of bigger than ever liability increases while shortening his tax base. Brilliant.

Meanwhile we see that California's liabilities are, on any relative scale, no where near the worst of the states'. Middle of the pack really. With more potential to pay.

[Finper]

Why are you libs upset that he's talking about pulling ICE??? I thought you'd be happy. If nothing else I'd be a interesting sociology experiment.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by Finper

Why are you libs upset that he's talking about pulling ICE??? I thought you'd be happy. If nothing else I'd be a interesting sociology experiment.

I'm not a lib, I'm a capitalist who doesn't want to pay for a service I'm not getting. I'm also looking for an excuse to stop propping up states that can't generate enough economic activity to pay for their people without the federal government's help (Texas, Florida)

So if the fed is shorting CA, then lets stop paying for the fed. We can use $0.50 on the tax dollars we pay to the fed to fully fund our "unfunded liabilities." I'd rather all my federal taxes went to CA than to paying for Texas welfare queens.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

Why are you libs upset that he's talking about pulling ICE??? I thought you'd be happy. If nothing else I'd be a interesting sociology experiment.

Who's identified as a “lib” so far in this thread?
Who's said they're unhappy?
There's hardly even been any comments about the Chump's comment ...

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Who's identified as a “lib” so far in this thread?
Who's said they're unhappy?
There's hardly even been any comments about the Chump's comment ...

You lived on Haight in the 60s you must be a lib. You are always very unhappy with whatever Trump says or does.

ÎN A Article the op posted all the politicians are pissed and opposing it like De Leon and Feinstein. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

You lived on Haight in the 60s you must be a lib. You are always very unhappy with whatever Trump says or does.

ÎN A Article the op posted all the politicians are pissed and opposing it like De Leon and Feinstein. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You must be wrong to make your assumption. I am not a Democrat. I have never voted a straight Democrat ticket in my long life. Most here do assume I'm a “lib” because they don't discern the essences of my objections to so many conservative complaints and platforms. My positions are based on science and logic. To whatever extent those may cross compatibly with a liberal - or conservative - position is purely coincidental.

But that all explained for you- I certainly find it easier to like more liberals than conservatives. I find conservatives to be more often self absorbed than liberals - though not always by any means. Self absorption is not an appealing quality to me.

Bottom line is: Ideologies are for lazy intellects.

My extreme distaste for everything about the Chumpster in the Blight House has nothing to do with conservatism ... he's not a conservative. I have despised him since as far back as first noticing his mentally disordered self in the early 1980's.

Btw: if John Kasich had been running against HRC - I might well have voted for him ... and I don't like his political platform much at all. But I certainly respect his character above Hillary's. At the other extreme, Chump has no character at all of any value to anyone, any time, any where.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

You lived on Haight in the 60s you must be a lib.

You know I was in the military when I lived on Haight in the later 60's? In between tours of duty in Vietnam ... yes, true story.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

But wac's point is that California pays for more than it receives in total. It's true and has been true for a very long time. More dollars flow out of Californians' pockets into the federal treasury than the total of all federal spending in the state. So if Chump wants a financial / services war with California selectively he'll theoretically damage the nation more than California.

But then he's not the brightest bulb in the sockets.

California gets back more than it lays.
Does California give more than it gets from Washington D.C.? | PolitiFact California

Though not to the levels of many other states.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by wac_432

I'm not a lib, I'm a capitalist who doesn't want to pay for a service I'm not getting. I'm also looking for an excuse to stop propping up states that can't generate enough economic activity to pay for their people without the federal government's help (Texas, Florida)

So if the fed is shorting CA, then lets stop paying for the fed. We can use $0.50 on the tax dollars we pay to the fed to fully fund our "unfunded liabilities." I'd rather all my federal taxes went to CA than to paying for Texas welfare queens.

That’s not how the government works.

I can complain that the money the state takes from me goes towards things I don’t like and not towards things I do like and then decide not to pay my taxes.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

California gets back more than it lays.
Does California give more than it gets from Washington D.C.? | PolitiFact California

Though not to the levels of many other states.

It changes from year to year. But that article you quoted agrees California pays in more than it gets back. Some years the difference is only about 1% ... others it's over 23%. Where did you read the opposite?