Democrats do not want open borders - stop lying

[BotanyBoy]

He thinks... the bread basket... would go through a famine...

Well then, my advice for yhall is to slaughter the $3 billion dollars worth of cattle you export every year and FUCKING EAT THEM. Get over your veganism and stop naming your kids Kale.

Try to grow anything without water lately?

Don’t listen to luk, he is barely literate and a bigger liar than SlobDownSouth.

 

[CandiCame]

13 billion is not even 1/3 of what the DOD dumps into California. Let alone all of the other money such as federal workers in various federal agencies.

Honey-child... the $13 billion is their SURPLUS. That's what they have left over after you take out the federal aid. They paid in about $370 billion, and the federal government spent about $356 billion (in federal aid, government projects, employee payroll, training and benefits for federal employees in California, and assorted other things). If you take 356 from 369, you get 13. $13 billion dollar SURPLUS. The Department of Defense's spendings are included in the $356 billion outlined in the federal budgetary report.

This is BASIC addition and subtraction, people, but let's take it a step farther and do ratios.

If we work out the ratio, that means that the state of California pays in more than it receives- at the dollar mark, how that's normally calculated, it's 98 or 99 cents received for every $1 sent out (or my math is wrong, because articles I'm looking at are saying 78 cents, but by my math it's between 98 and 99 cents). Which, I'll grant you, SOUNDS like a lot- until you realize that the nation average is -$1.22. There are only a handful of states that operated on that kind of surplus last year- and mine wasn't one of them. California basically paid for Kentucky.

 

[Que]

Honey-child... the $13 billion is their SURPLUS. That's what they have left over after you take out the federal aid. They paid in about $370 billion, and the federal government spent about $356 billion (in federal aid, government projects, employee payroll, training and benefits for federal employees in California, and assorted other things). If you take 356 from 369, you get 13. $13 billion dollar SURPLUS. The Department of Defense's spendings are included in the $356 billion outlined in the federal budgetary report.

This is BASIC addition and subtraction, people, but let's take it a step farther and do ratios.

If we work out the ratio, that means that the state of California pays in more than it receives- at the dollar mark, how that's normally calculated, it's 98 or 99 cents received for every $1 sent out (or my math is wrong, because articles I'm looking at are saying 78 cents, but by my math it's between 98 and 99 cents). Which, I'll grant you, SOUNDS like a lot- until you realize that the nation average is -$1.22. There are only a handful of states that operated on that kind of surplus last year- and mine wasn't one of them. California basically paid for Kentucky.

Try to follow along. The 43 BILLION that is just on the federal government's balance sheet as an expenditure that is not California a specific just happens to be spent in California it is not included when you consider what quote-unquote benefits are given to Californians.

 

[CandiCame]

Try to follow along. The 43 BILLION that is just on the federal government's balance sheet as an expenditure that is not California a specific just happens to be spent in California it is not included when you consider what quote-unquote benefits are given to Californians.

Did you already post a citation for that? I'm cool with being wrong, I'd just like to know what you're basing that on.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Candi must be hiding in the iggy bunker, not at all surprising.

 

[Luk]

But they can't avoid their water issues, cut them off from that and they will be having big fucking problems real fast that money won't fix anywhere near fast enough to prevent an epic poverty and possibly even famine shit show because their agricultural base would be fucking wrecked.

Oh look luk is making up lies again because it’s the best he’s got.

Oh look, Botany is a fucking lying moron who cannot remember what his brain-damaged ass said two posts ago.

I know, here comes the "that's not what I said that I said that I didn't say" defense.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I know, here comes the "that's not what I said that I said that I didn't say" defense.

Oh look you already know how you fucked up, must have knowingly made up your lies then.

Now we can't just chalk it up to you being a dumb ass product of pub-lick schools, you're just (D)ishonest.

 

[Luk]

Oh look you already know how you fucked up, must have knowingly made up your lies then.

Now we can't just chalk it up to you being a dumb ass product of pub-lick schools, you're just (D)ishonest.

Are you even aware that you're the only one who believes your crap? I just proved to you that you typed those words. Your words. You typed them. You said "famine". Not really sure why you're baggin on public schools considering you went to them but nothing you say makes much sense.

Sorry, dummy. You just got (D)ik slapped.

LMFAO!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Are you even aware that you're the only one who believes your crap?

Cite?

I just proved to you that you typed those words.

Not the ones you lied and claimed I said.

"I think 45 would let the most economically viable state to go through a famine. "

Your words. You typed them. You said "famine".

Yes.

But I didn't say that "I think 45 would let the most economically viable state to go through a famine." as you dishonestly claimed.

Get some SoCal

Not really sure why you're baggin on public schools considering you went to them but nothing you say makes much sense.

Yep, that's how I know they suck shit.

And that's because you can't read worth a fuck, obviously, not because I'm uneducated.

Sorry, dummy. You just got (D)ik slapped.

LMFAO!

Based on what? Your total failure to back up your lies?

Or your reading deficiencies?

LOL and you would need a dick to dick slap anyone.

 

[bellisarius]

Well, this thread's gone off the rails.

 

[Luk]

Cite?

You said it yourself several times - "why does everyone talk shit past me?"

Not the ones you lied and claimed I said.

"I think 45 would let the most economically viable state to go through a famine. "
Yes.

But I didn't say that "I think 45 would let the most economically viable state to go through a famine." as you dishonestly claimed.

You mentioned as a possibility and 45 is currently president. Pretty simple stuff, even for you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You said it yourself several times - "why does everyone talk shit past me?"

That's not a citation and you'll need another citation to back up that lie now.

You mentioned as a possibility and 45 is currently president. Pretty simple stuff, even for you.

Oh here we go unraveling the bullshit.

No I didn't mention it as a possibility.

It was just a hypothetical you went nuclear ascription with.

 

[Luk]

That's not a citation and you'll need another citation to back up that lie now.

Me, Zip, von, and Skiddles all said the same thing just yesterday about your whiny ass being ignored because you're a fucking disaster to converse with.

Oh here we go unraveling the bullshit.

No I didn't mention it as a possibility.

It was just a hypothetical you went nuclear ascription with.

Shall I apologize for answering your own absurdity with my own?

You're better off just keeping to yourself and so is everyone else.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Me, Zip, von, and ySkiddles all said the same thing just yesterday about your whiny ass being ignored because you're a fucking disaster to converse with.

Yea you low information types really hate words having meanings and shit like that.

Gets you all irate...pull the dictionaries and encyclopedias out and you all just go right to name calling "fuck you poopiehead!!!" LMFAO it's the fuckin' best watching you lot melt down and tell me Websters, Britannica and I are all a bunch of fucking idiot fuckheads who don't know shit.

But back to the topic...the citation for you most recent LIES.
https://i.imgur.com/LM9TESi.jpg?fb


Fortunately you guys aren't everyone.

Unfortunately your idea of "everyone" and their opinions of me are not citation nor corroborating evidence of your claims in any way, shape, form or fashion.

Good thing you're not a lawyer you're REALLY bad at the whole arguing bit.

Shall I apologize for answering your own absurdity with my own?

What did I say that was so absurd you had to go make up a bunch of lies and ascription ?

No, you should just stop making up lies and ascribing them to me.

You're better off just keeping to yourself and so is everyone else.

I don't think so

 

[Que]

Did you already post a citation for that? I'm cool with being wrong, I'd just like to know what you're basing that on.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

No, I don't do citations, but since you generally follow through on discussions and are not a dick about it I'll take the time to show you where I got the 43 biillion figure. Keep in mind I'm just grabbing randomly just the money spent by the Department of Defense not all other government spending that ends up in California. I picked the Department of Defense on purpose because there's so much money and it happens to be either a lot of it ends up in California. I didn't know the exact amount or the amount of the ranking as it happens California is second but I knew that there's a lot of specific defense money going into California because that's how they get their legislators on board for things like payoffs to farm States.

As far as how that is not figured into the takers versus giver States, I've never heard anything in thise tired tropes but actual benefits paid out.

In round numbers though look at the numbers that they are claiming that California or any other states ends in versus what they get back. Keep in mind the US government spends 4 trillion dollars a year and all of that ends up in somebody's state. ( unless of course we're giving it out in something like for an A but even still there's usually some sort of contract for some company administering something that benefits someone who lives in some states somewhere.)

No regardless of where all of that for trillion dollars in zup no state California included pays all of that for trillion dollars not all 50 states combined because we borrow so much of it. All of that borrowed money still gets distributed to someone somewhere so no state is paying more than they are receiving in total actual money that leaves the federal government coppers and ends up in somebody's pocket who resides in some states somewhere. The outflow from the government is higher than the inflow. So there's no way that California pays into the federal government more than money that flows from the federal government into California.

 

[Kirkrapine]

You know, some on the right want open borders -- libertarians have even called for a constitutional amendment to that effect.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You know, some on the right want open borders -- libertarians have even called for a constitutional amendment to that effect.

No problem with open borders in a libertarian state. Everyone is responsible for their own shit and everyone is equalized by the almighty dollar.

Shit even a liberal state wouldn't give a fuck though social liberalism would start to bring issue but nothing really major we would be glad to look past right now if that were our only concern.

The problems and conflict with regard to immigration arise out of security concerns and economic concerns and what the governments role in the process should be.

Security is pretty basic/generic and non partisan really.

Welfare/socialistic states make the economic aspects a paramount issue.....that's why all the left wing nations out there are tight ass's about immigration, the harder left the lean, generally the tighter the immigration requirements.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, this thread's gone off the rails.

Rails, what rails? Threads like this NEVER have rails.

Someone posts something. Then Luk or Rory or Robbie or one of the bitch crew throws a bomb in it. Then they start misstating someone's posts and calling everyone a liar. Somewhere in the middle the lame one shows up and posts something completely droll and stupid that no one believes or cares about. Next the flamers arrive and it goes downhill from there because the BS squad are only here to prove how well they can masturbate in the corner to the sound of the voices in their heads.

It's the GB. It's how it works here.

 

[CandiCame]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/military-and-veterans-affairs/military-s-impact-on-state-economies.aspx

No, I don't do citations, but since you generally follow through on discussions and are not a dick about it I'll take the time to show you where I got the 43 biillion figure. Keep in mind I'm just grabbing randomly just the money spent by the Department of Defense not all other government spending that ends up in California. I picked the Department of Defense on purpose because there's so much money and it happens to be either a lot of it ends up in California. I didn't know the exact amount or the amount of the ranking as it happens California is second but I knew that there's a lot of specific defense money going into California because that's how they get their legislators on board for things like payoffs to farm States.

As far as how that is not figured into the takers versus giver States, I've never heard anything in thise tired tropes but actual benefits paid out.

In round numbers though look at the numbers that they are claiming that California or any other states ends in versus what they get back. Keep in mind the US government spends 4 trillion dollars a year and all of that ends up in somebody's state. ( unless of course we're giving it out in something like for an A but even still there's usually some sort of contract for some company administering something that benefits someone who lives in some states somewhere.)

No regardless of where all of that for trillion dollars in zup no state California included pays all of that for trillion dollars not all 50 states combined because we borrow so much of it. All of that borrowed money still gets distributed to someone somewhere so no state is paying more than they are receiving in total actual money that leaves the federal government coppers and ends up in somebody's pocket who resides in some states somewhere. The outflow from the government is higher than the inflow. So there's no way that California pays into the federal government more than money that flows from the federal government into California.

The thing is, though, when you look at this chart and you look at federal budgetary expenditures when broken down by state- these same figures are included. Which says to me that this IS included in the figure I used to figure my ratio yesterday. I'm on mobile sitting in my car and not at the house where I could pull that up (I needed a cigarette- been a stressful day IRL) but there's not really anything here to indicate that the math I did last night or whenever is wrong. I'm still seeing 98 or 99.

But here's the thing- even if my math IS wrong (I just did Cali and Ky) this would still put Cali WAY ahead of KY- again IF these are new numbers I'd have to input. And you know I love you guys, but I'm not going to sit down and math out all 50 states to see where Cali ranks. I just don't have time. I have kind of a lot of shit to do when I get home tonight.

Plus... these numbers make me squicky for a big reason- the bulk of what you're calling federal aid for this comes from SoCal, and is in the form of federal retirement funds.

So that's... that's an IFFY area among math folks- as to whether or not it should be counted as aid (unearned income) or generated (earned income)- because it's a "sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't" thing. You remember in the tax thread where I gave the example of the retired widow who's husband's military retirement would be counted only if she met other requirements? I have, without exaggeration, cried over this question- and NO ONE at the state or federal level knows how to answer it because there are conflicting laws- and I might very well have fucked a real person up over it.

Knowing your limitations is important- and I don't mean this to sound insulting, but I don't know how to say in a way that wouldn't be perceived as insulting.

I've been trained in this field, and I don't know whether or not to count that figure. People who have spent their entire lives working in economics can't say with any degree of certainty whether or not to count that figure- which is why you see conflicting reports. People cry over it. People FIGHT over it. Emotions get high and there is no real answer.

So I just... don't know that you have that answer. Because it's such a hotly debated thing, because it's an individual payout and not going to something like a socialist program to benefit the entire community, and because it's impossible to track without knowing each individual's payout to see where it falls on the chart- most people don't count it. When you DO see economists who count it, they come under fire for doing so, because it's so controversial and the only way that they could have all the information they need is by getting informed consent from all those people- which is... difficult to believe that they've done, so they always put the word "estimate" around their figures- which is a sign that they didn't do their due diligence (in this particular case, not always).

That's the figure that would knock Cali down into a deficit. So if you're right, it would be hotly debated and probably not accepted in the long run, and Cali would still be doing economically better than Ky, and probably many other states as well (no one is giving extra money from this chart, which, also is from 2014 and not 2017, and therefore couldn't be used in my calculations anyway). If it can't be counted, they'd be running a lesser surplus, but still a surplus.

All of this hinges on whether or not I already included this in what I already did- which I'd have to check but I feel like I remember some of these figures from the other night. But I don't have a mind like a steel trap. I'm fallible.

I'm also late.

 

[nowisthetime]

That is because many repugs are just so mean-spirited and just plain ignorant. According to their idiotic logic, refusing to dehumanizs poor and hard-working immigrants means that one is "a whore for open borders".

They are so stupid.

No, Que, writing an entire thesis doesn't make you look brilliant. Any fool can see through your baloney

 

[RobDownSouth]

Try to follow along. The 43 BILLION that is just on the federal government's balance sheet as an expenditure that is not California a specific just happens to be spent in California it is not included when you consider what quote-unquote benefits are given to Californians.

Oh look. #AspieBrain wordsmithin' at its finest.

"Money expenditures are not California-specific just becoz they was spent in California."



#PretzelLogic
#HeTriesSooooHard