SchumerShutdown...............

[Bn2f]

Says who, you fucking idiot?

Says me. Now what.

 

[latecomer91364]

You don’t get to curse at Dmallord you pos.

BTW - thanks for that! You can expect more and worse attacks on that fucking stupid loser, and it's all due to you.

 

[dmallord]

Looks like ican just check mated you two.
No matter how many different ways you explain the right of the state there’s no way to come back against the argument that money is fungible.

There is a comeback. Ask @icanhelp1 for any known use by California that he can cite to show they misused federal funds and didn't have to return the money. He can't cite one. The money doesn't come without strings.

Ya knows, to a parasite, everything looks like a fungus. This parasite thinks it's only about HIS money that counts, not even bothering to take into consideration that others contributed. He is as narcissistic as the felon. Like an old guy used to say about horses, 'Ya can lead 'em to water, but ya can't make 'em drink it.'

But back to the fungible issue. He thinks he is off the hook, but that's not true. He smirks over the matter without understanding the controls involved. He is still wrong, and there is no checkmate; he may think he is playing three-D checkers, like people credit the felon having that ability, but this one doesn't have the cards if you know what I'm hinting at.

Saying money is fungible sounds clever, but it oversimplifies how government funding actually works. Federal dollars come with strict rules, audits, and penalties if misused — states can’t just move them around at will. The ‘fungible money’ line blurs economic theory with legal reality and dodges the need for proof.

Look at California’s Medi-Cal expansion: the state chose to cover all low-income residents, including undocumented immigrants, but that part is funded with state dollars, not federal Medicaid funds. Federal money still has to follow federal eligibility rules. So, even in California’s case, there’s no evidence that Washington is paying those bills — just this complainant's misunderstanding dressed up as economic jargon, or the claim that money is all fungible.

In other words, @icanhelp1 can't help being wrong again. Typical fallback mechanism for someone who doesn't grasp the failure of their argument to call 'fungible' everything and sling that on the wall, hoping it sticks. It doesn't. I just showed that. He can't rebut that fact with a single cite of California misusing Federal dollars, no matter how he weasels around on that 3-D checkerboard he carries so proudly under his arm.

 

[Bn2f]

There is a comeback. Ask @icanhelp1 for any known use by California that he can cite to show they misused federal funds and didn't have to return the money. He can't cite one. The money doesn't come without strings.

Ya knows, to a parasite, everything looks like a fungus. This parasite thinks it's only about HIS money that counts, not even bothering to take into consideration that others contributed. He is as narcissistic as the felon. Like an old guy used to say about horses, 'Ya can lead 'em to water, but ya can't make 'em drink it.'

But back to the fungible issue. He thinks he is off the hook, but that's not true. He smirks over the matter without understanding the controls involved. He is still wrong, and there is no checkmate; he may think he is playing three-D checkers, like people credit the felon having that ability, but this one doesn't have the cards if you know what I'm hinting at.

Saying money is fungible sounds clever, but it oversimplifies how government funding actually works. Federal dollars come with strict rules, audits, and penalties if misused — states can’t just move them around at will. The ‘fungible money’ line blurs economic theory with legal reality and dodges the need for proof.

Look at California’s Medi-Cal expansion: the state chose to cover all low-income residents, including undocumented immigrants, but that part is funded with state dollars, not federal Medicaid funds. Federal money still has to follow federal eligibility rules. So, even in California’s case, there’s no evidence that Washington is paying those bills — just this complainant's misunderstanding dressed up as economic jargon, or the claim that money is all fungible.

In other words, @icanhelp1 can't help being wrong again. Typical fallback mechanism for someone who doesn't grasp the failure of their argument to call 'fungible' everything and sling that on the wall, hoping it sticks. It doesn't. I just showed that. He can't rebut that fact with a single cite of California misusing Federal dollars, no matter how he weasels around on that 3-D checkerboard he carries so proudly under his arm.

He learned a new word and used it. He and HisArpy did the same with lawfare and caliphate. It’s a trait of ican and others to just hear a fact and skip right on to their tired narrative. As you highlighted, the idiot actually said ‘state funded’ in one of his rants and still couldn’t put 2 and 2 together. The question we need to be asking them again and again since McConnell invented repeal and replace is replace with what?

 

[Bn2f]

BTW - thanks for that! You can expect more and worse attacks on that fucking stupid loser, and it's all due to you.

You do that. I’ll be here. I love wallowing in the filth that is maga fecal matter.

 

[latecomer91364]

You do that. I’ll be here. I love wallowing in the filth that is maga fecal matter.

And I love shooting down the hypocritical lies of you leftard scum.

 

[Bn2f]

And I love shooting down the hypocritical lies of you leftard scum.

Good luck with that. I tell no lies.
Who won the 2020 election?
Where was Obama born? Holla back.

 

[wallstreetguy]

10K jobs cut. Troops and FBI being paid. Do I love Schumer now?

 

[dmallord]

All I know is that we, as a country, are deeply in debt.

It sure would be nice if John Q. Taxpayer got to decide his own credit limit.

Ain't that the truth.

There are two kinds of debt: good and not good.

Good debt is borrowing for something vital that one cannot live without. One borrows for that knowing that down the road, payment is due in full. In the sense of government, that should be things that are for the greatest good of the nation: bridges, roads, national electrical infrastructure, waterways, national security, etc.

Not Good Debt is borrowing for causes that are bling, feel good, or that provide marginal results—for instance, bailing out a foreign country that isn't vital to our national interests, building golf courses on war-torn beaches, or subsidizing industries or businesses that cannot stand on their own.

 

[Hel_Books]

Money is fungible. Whether it’s states or federal, what gives either entity the authority to use taxpayer money’s to support migrants…

It's the lazy politician's method, fixating on some imagined "enemy."

Without immigrants, the USA would be poorer, less technologically advanced and it would have a smaller population.

State-funded sources pay for this, of course. States Rights. Or is that no longer a valid option for them under Trump to spend their own money?

It's not Federal dollars that Johnson and Trump claim. You just pointed this out by itemizing the states.

You certainly made my point when I said it was not federally funded. You cited it by listing a number of states. Thanks for that support.

• California covers everyone—it doesn't discriminate and covers citizens in need as well. Admirable concept if they have their own money to use as the California citizens decide to use it that way.
• New York covers certain people over 65, NOT everyone
• Illinois same
• Other states cover some as well

So not EVERYONE gets covered—those in the most need. Selective process, Bubba. And to reiterate, they spend their own state tax monies on those projects, as you cleverly pointed out. It's not FEDERAL FUNDS!

Looks like ican just check mated you two.
No matter how many different ways you explain the right of the state there’s no way to come back against the argument that money is fungible.

Check mated what? If you stop immigration (and throw out the people already in your country, working in meatpacking plants, construction, agriculture, universities, high-tech, finance etc. etc. etc.) your country will be poorer, smaller and stupider. Do you really want that?

 

[Bn2f]

Check mated what? If you stop immigration (and throw out the people already in your country, working in meatpacking plants, construction, agriculture, universities, high-tech, finance etc. etc. etc.) your country will be poorer, smaller and stupider. Do you really want that?

I was kidding.
Ican is a lying little tool traitor.

 

[icanhelp1]

Check mated what? If you stop immigration (and throw out the people already in your country, working in meatpacking plants, construction, agriculture, universities, high-tech, finance etc. etc. etc.) your country will be poorer, smaller and stupider. Do you really want that?

That's quite a disingenuous overview of our immigration process. Immigration laws were not designed to put a disproportionate burden on our own citizens or social programs. Allowing an estimate of between 8 and 12 million migrant in our country is not immigration, it's an invasion orchestrated by an irresponsible political entity (the Biden administration). Immigration should be a planned series of events designed to enhance and assimilate into our culture and add to the economy. Following our immigration laws with the soul purpose of adding to the strength of our nation is welcomed.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Check mated what? If you stop immigration (and throw out the people already in your country, working in meatpacking plants, construction, agriculture, universities, high-tech, finance etc. etc. etc.) your country will be poorer, smaller and stupider. Do you really want that?

That's quite a disingenuous overview of our immigration process. Immigration laws were not designed to put a disproportionate burden on our own citizens or social programs. Allowing an estimate of between 8 and 12 million migrant in our country is not immigration, it's an invasion orchestrated by an irresponsible political entity (the Biden administration). Immigration should be a planned series of events designed to enhance and assimilate into our culture and add to the economy. Following our immigration laws with the soul purpose of adding to the strength of our nation is welcomed.

Actually, there is no "disproportionate burden." These immigrants boost the USA's economy with their labour, pay taxes (who's going to fund Social Security if your population gets older and smaller, which it will without immigration) and add to the strength of your nation.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually, there is no "disproportionate burden." These immigrants boost the USA's economy with their labour, pay taxes (who's going to fund Social Security if your population gets older and smaller, which it will without immigration) and add to the strength of your nation.

• House Homeland Security Committee: A November 2023 interim staff report cited a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimate that the annual cost to care for migrants released into the U.S. could be as high as $451 billion. This report noted the disparity between different think tanks' figures.

 

[MythicMind]

Go fuck yourself. We aren't paying for illegals. Blame the fucking Demorats.

I'm happy to tell you that undocumented residents do not have access to ACA subsidies. You might reconsider which sources you receive your information from. Yours appears to depend on lies to manipulate their listeners into adopting hateful and self-sabotaging positions.

 

[1984X2024]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978593818518716425

 

[1984X2024]

Previously: Gavin Newsom says California faces a $12 billion deficit and wants to freeze undocumented immigrant health program access.

“Freeze,” not “eliminate.”

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

uh oh Dems

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978861253792505875

 

[ll74]

uh oh Dems

https://twitter.com/x/status/1978861253792505875

The thing about shutdowns is that eventually everyone is blamed.

 

[Hel_Books]

• House Homeland Security Committee: A November 2023 interim staff report cited a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimate that the annual cost to care for migrants released into the U.S. could be as high as $451 billion. This report noted the disparity between different think tanks' figures.

Bogus.