10 Dec 15
Originally posted by Eladarthey are people who escaped horror (that you americans caused) with nothing more than what they could carry, you colossal douche. of course they are on food stamps, they are refugees.
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?
they are also doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists. the majority of them will not stay on food stamps for long, they will find jobs. they will start companies. they will give back to your economy.
10 Dec 15
Originally posted by EladarA large fraction of people receiving food stamps are working and should not be considered as being on "public assistance."
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?
10 Dec 15
Originally posted by EladarI imagine you wanted to write "cheque" but were insufficiently literate to climb that intellectual mountain.
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?
Says it all really.
Originally posted by Eladar'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.
I meant check. I suppose you look down on how Americans spell words.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/check-cheque/
Yes, that does say it all.
Are countries running surplus budgets each year? If they are not, then why bring in people you can't afford to feed?
One can "bring in people" because we can afford to feed them and they are net contributors, as shown in countless studies around the world. Migrants are typically younger and more economically active, more likely to be highly motivated and more likely to be prepared to put in the hard work required to succeed. The intelligent question is if the developed countries can afford not to draw in migrants and most informed studies think not.
In any case, migrants are people with their own rights and needs which we do need to respect. The idea that the wealthy can live in a fortress from which they exclude all migrants is just foul and ultimately self defeating anyway. .
Government budget surpluses, despite the current mantra, are not associated with economic success but with economic stagnation. The determination of neoliberal economists and politicians to drive our economies into the mud by sucking all dynamism out of the economy is wildly distressing. If you do not invest you will not prosper. If you look into the way people lived in the 19th century you will see nothing attractive about it. You are an idiot to want to go back to those conditions. (The free land and natural resources America enjoyed through its expanding frontier have been enclosed and privatised and that pathway to opportunity will not return.)
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by finneganIf migrants come and get on welfare, then they are not contributors.
Because you can afford to feed them and they are net contributors, as shown in countless studies around the world. Migrants are typically younger and more economically active, more likely to be highly motivated and more likely to be prepared to put in the hard work required.
Welfare has changed the name of the game when it comes to letting in migrants. The words bring us your poor were written way before welfare. It made sense to let in the poor if they worked or died. Now it does not make sense to bring in the world's poor who dine on workers' taxes.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by EladarWrong. You cannot evaluate their contribution based on their initial status. In addition you are neglecting questions about their human rights, which are not incidental.
If migrants come and get on welfare, then they are not contributors.
Welfare has changed the name of the game when it comes to letting in migrants. The words bring us your poor were written way before welfare. It made sense to let in the poor if they worked or died. Now it does not make sense to bring in the world's poor who dine on workers' taxes.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by Eladarpeople stay on welfare because they have no other choice. they struggle to get out of welfare. you calling them all moochers is just you mindlessly repeating fox news propaganda because you lack the intelligence to come up with a coherent thought.
If migrants come and get on welfare, then they are not contributors.
Welfare has changed the name of the game when it comes to letting in migrants. The words bring us your poor were written way before welfare. It made sense to let in the poor if they worked or died. Now it does not make sense to bring in the world's poor who dine on workers' taxes.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by EladarThe notion that the United States, one of the wealthiest societies in the world, cannot "afford" to provide meager benefits to migrants is ludicrous.
If migrants come and get on welfare, then they are not contributors.
Welfare has changed the name of the game when it comes to letting in migrants. The words bring us your poor were written way before welfare. It made sense to let in the poor if they worked or died. Now it does not make sense to bring in the world's poor who dine on workers' taxes.
Of course, aside from that it is not true that migrants are, in general, a burden on the economy.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziAs we increase the floor, it becomes increasingly expensive to add additional people. It's mindless to deny reality.
people stay on welfare because they have no other choice. they struggle to get out of welfare. you calling them all moochers is just you mindlessly repeating fox news propaganda because you lack the intelligence to come up with a coherent thought.
11 Dec 15
Originally posted by quackquackUnfortunately 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.
As we increase the floor, it becomes increasingly expensive to add additional people. It's mindless to deny reality.