Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Keepitsimple

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by poochy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...