Comments by wmarincic
Posted on December 2 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is he even a citizen? I heard he is not. That would disqualify him.
Posted on December 1 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I'm saying is that people from Mexico "demand" that we give them a free pass, free medical and free access to our schools, hospitals and social services and yet the country they come from has some of the strictest immigration laws in the world.
Posted on December 1 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Salvador Rivera, you mean illegal aliens. Do you know what Mexico does to illegal aliens? They send them to prison and their families must pay for their food or they starve. Legal immigrants in Mexico can't buy certain property and can never get public welfare funds. Why should people who broke the law to come here get a free ride when we have millions of legal immigrants from around the world including South America waiting in line to come here legally. The only reason people like Obama is even talking about this is because they would be more voting democrats. I read the other day Obama was at a tent where illegal groups were "demanding" reform. Illegals have no right to demand anything from us, our infrastructure is stretched to the limit now with millions of "Americans" out of work.
Posted on November 30 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually I was working. I work around 50 hours per week.
Posted on November 30 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, the only thing the government should pay for is military and roads and bridges. Let the states take care of the states.
Posted on November 30 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.” (Other big ticket items that round out the list for state money from the federal government include farm subsidies, retirement programs and infrastructure projects) It’s simply a function of flowing from the states without large defense operations and retired people to the states with them. If a less populated state has a large military base with a legion of personnel conducting operations should we be surprised that there might be an imbalance of funds? No, because it is a government organization that is not producing goods, but is consuming ammo, gas, food, electricity, salaries etc.. Also, most states don’t tax military paychecks, which would somewhat offset the federal expenditure, so overall there is going to be a net draw of funds. But more to the point, national defense is a common good that benefits the whole country, so it can hardly be classified as mooching.
And then there are other problems with Krugman’s claim. Does he really consider Social Security and Medicare recipients, who paid payroll taxes into the system their whole lives only to get a payout during retirement, a moocher? I don’t think that is what constitutes a moocher in anyone’s definition, except maybe a very special liberal like Krugman. But wait, then there’s another problem; how do you control for a state that is a retirement haven like Florida or Arizona? A good portion of these people worked in other states only to migrate to the retirement haven during their golden years. So this would show up on the books as a contribution in one state and later a draw in another. These are not the welfare queens that are what people have in mind when they are talking about government dependency. But they want to argue that the red-states/Republicans are moochers, so they’ve got to fit the right set of facts to fit their narrative somehow.
Posted on November 30 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted on November 30 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ronzo, you really really need to do some research. What you are saying is the great liberal talking point that has been disproven over and over again. Read the Forbes article on it. Don't you people think for yourselves? Wait, you are liberals so the answer would be no.
Posted on November 30 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have never heard of a single doctor who did not become a doctor to be broke. Of course they are in it for the money. BTW, the doctors that do primary care make less than half of specialized doctors so that proves they are altruistic. There you go trying to tell a private company "doctors" who they must treat and what they may charge for their services. Why don't you just admit you are a communist tonnijean.
Posted on November 30 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm guessing Christmas dinner with the family is out of the question.