Trudeau's Committment to Syrian Refugees - 25,000 by Year End

[WestCanMan 722]

They made it loud and clear they didn't want the niqab at citizenship ceremonies too. Was Harper's appeal there not political?

Everything is "political" to some degree despite whether the person saying it really believes it or not. And fwiw, his job is to do what the public wants him to do, so politicking isn't always a bad thing. It's only bad when you're promising things that you know you can't or won't deliver to get votes, or when you ban an opinion from your whole party.

I think what you mean to say is "Do we think Harper truly cares about the niqab issue, and would he do anything about it or is he just blowing sunshine?"

Of course he would. He's in lock step with the stalinesque Israelis. It's his worst quality but I doubt he has a choice. The first thing that every president-elect does is swear his undying support of Israel.

[Canada_First 0]

If we weren't Israeli allies many Jews would leave Canada and take their money with them.

[Argus 2,902]

Of course he would. He's in lock step with the stalinesque Israelis. It's his worst quality but I doubt he has a choice. The first thing that every president-elect does is swear his undying support of Israel.

Stalinesque Israelis? American presidents?

Okay, I guess we know where you're coming from.

[Argus 2,902]

Denmark has announced it will need to spend about 9.5 billion kroner extra next year in order to pay for an expected 33,000 refugees. At a very rough approximation that's about $2 billion Canadian. So I guess I was grossly underestimating what these 25,000 refugees will cost us.

[On Guard for Thee 1]

Denmark has announced it will need to spend about 9.5 billion kroner extra next year in order to pay for an expected 33,000 refugees. At a very rough approximation that's about $2 billion Canadian. So I guess I was grossly underestimating what these 25,000 refugees will cost us.

How is it you equate peoples lives into dollar values? Please tell us your formula.

[Argus 2,902]

How is it you equate peoples lives into dollar values? Please tell us your formula.

Everything every government or society does is a balancing act between what something costs, and the value of that thing to the society paying the bills.

No one is talking about how much these refugees are going to cost, even though that is a considerable amount given we'll have to borrow every cent of it. We could be using that money to help Canadians, to speed up health care, hey, even to help prostitutes get off the street. Instead we'll spend it on foreigners.

[Smallc 24]

No one is talking about how much these refugees are going to cost, even though that is a considerable amount given we'll have to borrow every cent of it.

It was costed out in the Liberal plan, and will basically be a wash when the combat mission ends.

[poochy 3]

They made it loud and clear they didn't want the niqab at citizenship ceremonies too. Was Harper's appeal there not political?

O come now, Canadians, real ones, don't think like that! The 'nice liberal, perfectly progressive' myth strikes again. O and don't disagree, you're a racist otherwise.

Edited October 30, 2015 by poochy

[poochy 3]

It was costed out in the Liberal plan, and will basically be a wash when the combat mission ends.

Right, just like the infrastructure spending was costed and not the least bit misleading.

[On Guard for Thee 1]

O come now, Canadians, real ones, don't think like that! The 'nice liberal, perfectly progressive' myth strikes again. O and don't disagree, you're a racist otherwise.

You lost the election. Get over it.

[Smallc 24]

Right, just like the infrastructure spending was costed and not the least bit misleading.

It wasn't the least bit misleading if you actually read it.

[Argus 2,902]

It was costed out in the Liberal plan, and will basically be a wash when the combat mission ends.

The liberals costed out what it would cost to support 25,000 illiterate refugees for multiple years? I doubt that.

[Smallc 24]

The liberals costed out what it would cost to support 25,000 illiterate refugees for multiple years? I doubt that.

The cost was projected for 4 years. Not sure about after that.

[angrypenguin 20]

The cost was projected for 4 years. Not sure about after that.

The cost was also very poorly costed.

[Smallc 24]

The cost was also very poorly costed.

Citation needed.

[angrypenguin 20]

Citation needed.

Sure.

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf

Page 16. We'll never know how they got to 100 million in year 1, 50 million in year 2, so sure, ok maybe I might give them the benefit of the doubt, but no detail breakdown of numbers.

But year 3 and year 4: 0 cost?

That's a load of bull. These people will not be contributing to society, and will be a net drag on social resources. But yet we see a 50% reduction in year 1 and year 2. Give me a break. Let alone 0 cost for year 3 and 4?

Even the most die hard Liberal supporters must see that this is a joke.

[Smallc 24]

I think that's simply the cost of bringing them here. I believe they'll actually be used against our total refugee numbers - we won't be bringing people from pretty much anywhere else in the mean time. 150M is what is determined to be the net cost of such an operation.

[angrypenguin 20]

I think that's simply the cost of bringing them here. I believe they'll actually be used against our total refugee numbers - we won't be bringing people from pretty much anywhere else in the mean time. 150M is what is determined to be the net cost of such an operation.

That's the point. They never costed the true "cost", it's what makes it poor costing. They'll just absorb their #'s into other #'s, like those who need social assistance, or homeless #'s or etc etc.

You asked me for a cite, I provided it. Argus was saying the same thing, the true cost of allowing 25,000 Syrians to come in has not been costed.

[Smallc 24]

If they're replacing other refugees (which seems to make sense, given the numbers provided) it is costed.

[On Guard for Thee 1]

That's the point. They never costed the true "cost", it's what makes it poor costing. They'll just absorb their #'s into other #'s, like those who need social assistance, or homeless #'s or etc etc.

You asked me for a cite, I provided it. Argus was saying the same thing, the true cost of allowing 25,000 Syrians to come in has not been costed.

I wonder why conservatives can't seem to think of things beyond dollars and cents. Could it be a lack of sense?

[dre 57]

The liberals costed out what it would cost to support 25,000 illiterate refugees for multiple years? I doubt that.

We are in a cycle of monetary easing and financial stimulus anyways. Giving subsidies to the poor is probably the most efficient way to spend stimulus dollars. Every single penny these people are given will be spent into the economy, to swirl around and be spent over and over again by others. Its not like the money evaporates when these people spend it. They will rent homes, buy consumables from businesses, etc.

[Wilber 270]

I wonder why conservatives can't seem to think of things beyond dollars and cents. Could it be a lack of sense?

Thought you said it was costed.

[On Guard for Thee 1]

Thought you said it was costed.

You must have meant this post for someone else.

[dre 57]

That's the point. They never costed the true "cost", it's what makes it poor costing. They'll just absorb their #'s into other #'s, like those who need social assistance, or homeless #'s or etc etc.

You asked me for a cite, I provided it. Argus was saying the same thing, the true cost of allowing 25,000 Syrians to come in has not been costed.

That's fine but if you going to cost it you need to look at the full economic impact, and follow the money. You cant just say "the government is going to need to spend 1 billion dollars supporting these immigrants over the next few years". You need to follow that money... most of it will be spent into the economy at local business, or be used to pay rent. A lot of it will end up back in government coffers and what doesn't will stimulate the economy as long no "savers" get their hands on it.

[angrypenguin 20]

We are in a cycle of monetary easing and financial stimulus anyways. Giving subsidies to the poor is probably the most efficient way to spend stimulus dollars. Every single penny these people are given will be spent into the economy, to swirl around and be spent over and over again by others. Its not like the money evaporates when these people spend it. They will rent homes, buy consumables from businesses, etc.

They will rent homes? HOMES?