11 Dec 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy don't you send all the refugees to your country if you believe it is so beneficial to have them?
Unfortunately for you, what reality tells us is that it is in general beneficial for an economy to take steps to alleviate income inequality, so instead of it being "expensive" it creates value and makes economic sense to do so.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by quackquackThere is no "my country" and I don't have the authority to send refugees anywhere. But for what it's worth, I think people should be able to live where they want as long as they are not harming anyone else. Unlike certain other people, I don't think the government should be running other people's lives for them.
Why don't you send all the refugees to your country if you believe it is so beneficial to have them?
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the government is going to take money from you to give to people who need it, it's noble but unrealistic to expect that any person from anywhere should be allowed to enter your country and start receiving this money from your pocket. Your pocket will be depleted quite quickly. That may be okay with you, but not with most people.
There is no "my country" and I don't have the authority to send refugees anywhere. But for what it's worth, I think people should be able to live where they want as long as they are not harming anyone else. Unlike certain other people, I don't think the government should be running other people's lives for them.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by sh76The amount of resources a modern industrialized nation controls is vast, and the amount required to provide basic necessities is comparatively tiny. It is simply not true that "my pocket" will be "depleted quite quickly."
If the government is going to take money from you to give to people who need it, it's noble but unrealistic to expect that any person from anywhere should be allowed to enter your country and start receiving this money from your pocket. Your pocket will be depleted quite quickly. That may be okay with you, but not with most people.
Of course, this is assuming that it takes any resources at all to, on average, sustain migrants inside a nation state, which is far from a given, especially on the long term.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by finneganWow, you really need to go on that long to try to escape reality?
'Check' and 'cheque' are different words - they are just homonyms. They are spelled differently for that reason. The American incapacity to grasp such details of language is depressing. Dumbing down can be taken too far. You are turning into a nation of creationists and illiterates, which is mad, since literacy and bible reading once went hand in hand. ...[text shortened]... ng frontier have been enclosed and privatised and that pathway to opportunity will not return.)
Read this very carefully: If you have to borrow money, you can't afford it.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf you believe there is no 'my country' then why not simply put the entire world on Germany's Social Safety Net?
There is no "my country" and I don't have the authority to send refugees anywhere. But for what it's worth, I think people should be able to live where they want as long as they are not harming anyone else. Unlike certain other people, I don't think the government should be running other people's lives for them.
Originally posted by EladarWhy is is you welfare worry warts never look at the other side of the coin? For every $1.00 spent on social welfare programs in America, $1.90 is spent on Corporate welfare, that's almost twice as much. Why do you always choose to sweep this under the rug?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/more-than-90-percent-of-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps/
Are we running such a surplus that we can afford to bring people into the country who are pretty much guaranteed to go on public assistance?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/