Some people seem to think that the minority of us who smoke are the biggest drain on our tax and healthcare dollars. Sorry. I have some figures again kids, and smoking isn't anything beside theses figures.
Congressman Gary Miller from California has a very interesting website. On it he has some figures-
-$7.4 billion of year of our tax dollars go to educaate illegal alien's children.
-Our hospitals along the southwestern border, in 2001, provided illegal aliens with $200 million in health care, and a rumored $100 more in extended care with not a dime repayed.
-Hospitals nationwide provided illegal aliens with $21 billion in uncompensated health care in 2001.
-In California alone health care cost in FY 2001 were over $648 million.
-15% of California's prison inmates are illegal aliens which costs that state $500 million dollars annually.
The Congressman's site is located here.
Another site that has a lot of information on this subject is Vdare.
Along the same lines, how about the fact that welfare costs taxpayers $23 million a day. That's almost a million dollars an hour. Before you argue, that fact came from a liberal website.
So illegal aliens are illegal, and smoking is not. Illegal aliens are costing us taxpayers billions more than legal smokers and no one's upset. Welfare cost tacpayers way more than smoking, and no one's upset. This is my take on America's money drain, I don't think it's us smokers. Your comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
actually the Iraq war and the defense department swallow most of this nation's money. That is where most of our funds are wasted. Everything else is puny in comparisson
Do I think that we should be educating illegal immigrants? Not necessarily, but to even compare spending money on education and social well being is the same as spending money for smokers to kill themselves??? I somehow don't see those two expenses as comparable.
While I respect your right to be really annoying to the non smoking population by polluting our air, smelling up our buildings, and giving me lung cancer, I can't stand for $1 of tax money to be spent on saving you from a sickness that you brought on yourself.
I personally think we should be proud that we spend money to educate people that we don't have to. Things like education and social welfare are not inherently bad ideas, just sometimes abused by people that receive their benefits.
Wouldn't it be nice if we educated the people 'we have to' to an acceptable level before we spend billions on educating others?
Best to agree to disagree because nothing will chage by mind. Smoking is bad any which way you look at it.
Does this apply to the City of Davenport lowering the passing score for minorities taking the city contractors license. Thats not right either, everyone should be looked at equally, color of their skin should never be an issue and no special considerations should be given.
I don't really have a horse in the race regarding the contractor test, but.. 70% is as arbitrary a number as 60% for passing. No one can come up with any reason as to why 70% was chosen. I know there are many guys, white, black and brown, that I hire to do work for me that either haven't passed the test or even bothered to take it. They take a test every time I hire them. If the work isn't any good, they flunk and I don't hire them back. There are some bad ones out there, white guys, who have passed the test who I wouldn't hire to do any work for free. A test should only be one tool in figuring out who should get a license.
Like I said, color should never be an issue nor even mentioned! Why not make it 80% then. But some kind of standard must be met. If you can't pass the test, you need to work in Illinois. I don't want you or your flunkies working on my property if you don't even meet the minimum code requirements.
By the way, 70% is the passing grade and the same standard that city employees are held to when taking the civil service test for employment. Why can't the contractors be held to the same standard?
Why not 85%? 90%? 99%? 100%? Perhaps the standard shouldn't be a test, but some years as an apprentice with a signoff from experienced guys they have worked for. Also, perhaps, a series of hands-on tests to show that they can actually perform the work correctly, safely and up to code. Isn't that the point?
I agree with you that you must have a standard, but not to lower it so that more people can pass. Give credit to those work hard and are smart enough to pass the test. Lowering the test score sounds like the fiasco that we just went through with the slumlords trying to get rid of manditory inspection. It just not right.
I could probably guess a 70% on the test and I guarantee you don't want me working on your house. Again, why a written test? Because that's the way we've always done it? You know why they started having the test in the first place? Because some people who were very good at fixing things couldn't read (i.e, take a test)and were taking away some other people's business. Guess which group was which.
Post a Comment