Will Puerto Ricans turn Florida blue ? ...

[dogtag]

Heard someone mention this possibility (maybe Rush ?)
Seeing as how they think Trump didn't do enough
to immediately rebuild their homeland, provide them
with food, water and new houses and TV sets, it may
well be true. Presumably, they'll be able to vote in
Florida and they have entered there in their thousands.

[bruce]

No one could see the outcome of the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico. The people coming to Florida and elsewhere are Americans, plain and simple. Our nation does not restrict the movement of citizens. People in PR have every right to leave PR and move wherever they want to move. It is no different than when people in the dust bowl pulled up stakes and left for anywhere there were jobs ... opportunities. Will these people "turn Florida blue?" Possibly. For the foreseeable future, there are enough old retired people in Florida to continue to vote for whoever promises them low taxes, etc., etc., etc. One thing is for certain, the nation will as a whole have to absorb the human and financial costs of the hurricane that hit PR the same as it did with what happened a few years ago when storms hit up in the northeast flooding coastal cities and when fires have turned much of the west into a cinder. Our nation is not a feudal construct where people are tied to the land with no freedom of movement, etc. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

I don't know about turning Florida blue but it sure is turning America red in debt with all the expense. They need to become a self supporting nation. I wish the U.S. would cut them loose after all is restored. As far as having a military base there we have one at Gitmo and don't claim Cuba as a territory and give the whole island welfare. I know comparing the 2 is apples and oranges but does it have to be in this regard?

[clintonhater]

I don't know about turning Florida blue but it sure is turning America red in debt with all the expense. They need to become a self supporting nation...

Because they KNOW that's impossible, they will remain a welfare case in perpetuity; America's own piece of the Turd World.

[Major Tom]

Considering the major population they are waiting for someone else to rebuild their country while they sit on their butts doing nothing to help themselves.

[bruce]

I don't know about turning Florida blue but it sure is turning America red in debt with all the expense. They need to become a self supporting nation. I wish the U.S. would cut them loose after all is restored. As far as having a military base there we have one at Gitmo and don't claim Cuba as a territory and give the whole island welfare. I know comparing the 2 is apples and oranges but does it have to be in this regard?

Wars are interesting things. Once upon a time, there was a war. The US took Cuba, Guam, the Philippines and Puerto Rico from Spain. It was at the time a good deal for the US. Islands are nice. Unsinkable. Make great naval bases. Nowaday ... not so important. PR is a territory. Some want to be independent. The majority want to remain US ... but maybe move from territory to state. Problem ... taxes, etc., a real issue for those with money. Not much of an issue for average people. Of course PR will only become a state when it benefits the demokrats. Understandable. It would almost guaranteed give them two senators and several congressmen. Self-supporting? Does it matter? How many states in the US are not self-supporting? How many produce a net positive revenue flow as opposed to being dependent upon federal tax money? Few if any states are revenue positive. Apart from federal money, hardly any state in the US would be able to continue business as usual merely on the revenue of state tax payers. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

I wasn't thinking of PR as a state though and don't want to ever think that way. As their own territory they could become a better resort tourist trap if they would put forth the effort. It's no ones fault but theirs that they have overpopulated their resources so I don't see them growing and exporting pineapples or anything but as an island they have natural resources that most states don't have. Upper scale condo rentals, resort hotels, restaurants and all that goes with them generates a lot of jobs. They could become a place where people wanted to go to instead of a place folks would avoid. They need to become more than just a baby manufacturing plant and a burden for the U.S. If nothing changes nothing changes.

[clintonhater]

Self-supporting? Does it matter? How many states in the US are not self-supporting? How many produce a net positive revenue flow as opposed to being dependent upon federal tax money? Few if any states are revenue positive. Apart from federal money, hardly any state in the US would be able to continue business as usual merely on the revenue of state tax payers. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

But where does that federal tax money come from? Doesn't most of it come from federal income tax? So these states are, indirectly, self-supporting. They also support the gigantic fed bureaucracy that collects money from the states, then hands in back in "grants"; why should the federal gov't be involved--as it almost always is--in financing state & local road & other public works projects?

[togor]

But where does that federal tax money come from? Doesn't most of it come from federal income tax? So these states are, indirectly, self-supporting. They also support the gigantic fed bureaucracy that collects money from the states, then hands in back in "grants"; why should the federal gov't be involved--as it almost always is--in financing state & local road & other public works projects?

Because the interstate system began as a set of defense roads, and the DOD doesn't want its convoys going from concrete to gravel roads at some state line.

This isn't obvious? Even hard-core libertarians get the roads thing.

[clintonhater]

This isn't obvious?

Not when it applies to 2-lane country roads--on those I travel the military convoys seem to be few & far between.

But it isn't just country roads--it's ALL kinds of public works projects; for ex., one bottomless slush fund is the fed "highway beautification" program, which has been used in this state to pay at least part of the cost of hundreds of highway rest-stops & scenic pull-offs; not that I wouldn't prefer the money spent this way than poured down the drain called Puerto Rico.

[togor]

Not when it applies to 2-lane country roads--on those I travel the military convoys seem to be few & far between.

But it isn't just country roads--it's ALL kinds of public works projects; for ex., one bottomless slush fund is the fed "highway beautification" program, which has been used in this state to pay at least part of the cost of hundreds of highway rest-stops & scenic pull-offs; not that I wouldn't prefer the money spent this way than poured down the drain called Puerto Rico.

Point taken. The logic it seems is to use the federal government to even out the worst pockets of disparity between the states. If not for Federal infrastructure money, some spots, especially in the interior, would not even have electricity. Cable TV doesn't go past my house because there's no profit in it. I could get a dish but the idea of paying good money to watch commercials has always struck me as wrong. So I have a rooftop antenna and get what I can. For the little we watch TV, it is enough.

[bruce]

But where does that federal tax money come from? Doesn't most of it come from federal income tax? So these states are, indirectly, self-supporting. They also support the gigantic fed bureaucracy that collects money from the states, then hands in back in "grants"; why should the federal gov't be involved--as it almost always is--in financing state & local road & other public works projects?

Some states produce a positive tax revenue stream. In a word, they are producers. Some states produce a negative tax revenue stream. In a word, they are dependents. Federal revenue comes from ... taxes. It's not hard to understand. As far as individual dependents ... do not think there is any difference between a "welfare queen" in the ghetto and a defense contractor or any one else who is dependent on federal tax money for whatever reason. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[clintonhater]

As far as individual dependents ... do not think there is any difference between a "welfare queen" in the ghetto and a defense contractor or any one else who is dependent on federal tax money for whatever reason.

Well, the defense contractor is producing something of value, even if it's usually grossly overpriced; not that I'm defending corporate welfare! But the only products of welfare queens are future welfare queens; and in this state, if they're not producing them fast enough, they're entitled to fertility treatments under Medicaide!

[bruce]

Re: Something of value. Anything produced by a govt. contractor for the dod is of no value beyond scrap. It is no different than a building built for the fed. govt. It is not anything that can be sold overseas to bring in actual cash. It is a transfer payment ... from the hands of the tax payer through the fed. govt. to the hands of the contractor, etc. That is all. It doesn't matter. There is no difference between a contractor and a welfare queen. They both depend on the tax payer for their money. If the contractor produces and sell overseas to a foreign buyer bringing in foreign exchange, then he gets some respect. As to welfare queens, heard about them. Never met one. Sincerely. bruce.