Refugees are good!

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Isn't Trump going to splurge big on infrastructure for exactly that reason.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

In the previous years government HAS spend all the money on Germans, and we still have had a bigger economic growth this year. And, the German government ended up with another 19 billion unused euro. Again, much more money than before... Usually there was either no money left or even just debt. This has, economically speaking, been a great year for Germany, the refugees are a big cause for that, and it would be ignorant to denie that. And remember the refugees don't get any special treatment, Germans in the same situation would get similar if not better treatment.

 

EDIT: Heck, even unemployment is lower than previously.

 

EDIT II: So if you look at the past years' data, it seems that the statement "the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them" is simply empirically wrong.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Volourn]

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

[Ben No.3]

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.

[majestic]

 

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

Ah, the joy of religious belief. Sometimes I wish I had more faith.   

[Ben No.3]

 

 

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.

Newsflash... there is such a thing as a LEGAL immigration. You are advocating for inventing a wheel here.

What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

"It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability."

 

pmp10 crushed this evil satanic nonsense with ease. What a weak weak weak argument for illegal immigration.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.

Newsflash... there is such a thing as a LEGAL immigration. You are advocating for inventing a wheel here.

What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.

Oh really? Would you allow few million Russians into your country with full citizenship privileges?

Yes. Why not? Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Sharp One, you're polish? Your country houses a parliament in which the by far two most powerful parties are the conservatives (PO) and the national conservatives (PiS). now tell me, which party do you support?

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

Isn't Trump going to splurge big on infrastructure for exactly that reason.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

In the previous years government HAS spend all the money on Germans, and we still have had a bigger economic growth this year. And, the German government ended up with another 19 billion unused euro. Again, much more money than before... Usually there was either no money left or even just debt. This has, economically speaking, been a great year for Germany, the refugees are a big cause for that, and it would be ignorant to denie that. And remember the refugees don't get any special treatment, Germans in the same situation would get similar if not better treatment.

 

EDIT: Heck, even unemployment is lower than previously.

 

EDIT II: So if you look at the past years' data, it seems that the statement "the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them" is simply empirically wrong.

The last sentence I can applaud and wish other countries (aka USA) would adopt. Unfortunately that is why immigration is a sore spot with many citizens because here immigrants DO get special treatment. That's one thing I wish the USA would take from Germany is that if we are gonna want all these immigrants, we need to get rid of the special privileges they get that citizens don't. Unfortunately here they get better treatment and more than the actual citizens, hence why immigration is usually viewed as a bad thing here when talking to us who are citizens here.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

Isn't Trump going to splurge big on infrastructure for exactly that reason.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

In the previous years government HAS spend all the money on Germans, and we still have had a bigger economic growth this year. And, the German government ended up with another 19 billion unused euro. Again, much more money than before... Usually there was either no money left or even just debt. This has, economically speaking, been a great year for Germany, the refugees are a big cause for that, and it would be ignorant to denie that. And remember the refugees don't get any special treatment, Germans in the same situation would get similar if not better treatment.

 

EDIT: Heck, even unemployment is lower than previously.

 

EDIT II: So if you look at the past years' data, it seems that the statement "the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them" is simply empirically wrong.

The last sentence I can applaud and wish other countries (aka USA) would adopt. Unfortunately that is why immigration is a sore spot with many citizens because here immigrants DO get special treatment. That's one thing I wish the USA would take from Germany is that if we are gonna want all these immigrants, we need to get rid of the special privileges they get that citizens don't. Unfortunately here they get better treatment and more than the actual citizens, hence why immigration is usually viewed as a bad thing here when talking to us who are citizens here.

What are those "special privileges? Welfare? Can't US citizens get that as well? Because if not, that's simply laughable

[Ben No.3]

Oh, and another question: Germany needs to grant political refugees (so anyone who is endangered of political persecution in his own country) asylum, and that's a constitutional law. Does anything in the US resemble that?

[Gfted1]

 

 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

See, everyone's welcome. Just pay your dues is all that's asked.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.

Oh really? Would you allow few million Russians into your country with full citizenship privileges?

Yes. Why not?

I don't know, maybe because they could elect Putin or Putins pawn as the chancellor and make Germany into Soviet state. The same can happen with China, Korea African countries or Saudi Arabia. Practically any country or group could take over any country. Do you think about it or are you not aware that there are other inhabitants of Earth than Western civilization?

 

Sharp One, you're polish? Your country houses a parliament in which the by far two most powerful parties are the conservatives (PO) and the national conservatives (PiS). now tell me, which party do you support?

PO is liberal socialists and PiS are christian socialists. I don't know where did you take conservatives from. I support neither, the closest one I'm supporting is Kukiz'15, but my main party of choice didn't get to parliament.

About the parties, I'll just quote Wikipedia

"Law and Justice (Polish: Prawo i Sprawiedliwość ), abbreviated to PiS, is a right-wing national-conservative, and Christian democratic political party in Poland."

"Civic Platform (Polish: Platforma Obywatelska, PO) is a liberal-conservative, Christian democratic, and liberal political party in Poland"

 

Also, "liberal socialists"? If you mean liberal as in little state involvement in the economy, that's a contradiction in itself.

And if you mean liberal in a social sense, I ask you to explain to me how a party who's political stance is described as "in opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, soft drug decriminalisation, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places, and partially to wide availability of in vitro fertilisation. The party also wants to criminalise gambling and supports religious education in schools and civil unions. Other socially conservative stances of the party include voting to ban designer drugs and amending the penal code to introduce mandatory chemical castration of paedophiles." Is in any way liberal. And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with socialism. Do you understand what socialism is? Socialism requires expropriation of the means of production, by (marxist) definition.

 

As for Germany becoming soviet , we already had that, and it failed. Besides, the German people don't elect the chancellor, parliament does. And I highly doubt a "Hand all power to Russia" party would even get into parliament. I also highly doubt it is every Russians wish to turn the world Russian. I feel there's a lot of stereotype, unreasoned fear and blaming involved here.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Yeah. Wikipedia is not the best source. There is nothing of right or conservative in either party.

 

On what basis are you claiming that Russian (or any other) party would not get into parliament in a scenario where you have full open borders?

What exactly would prevent such scenario?

No Russian can get into parliament, as you need to be a German citizens for that. If you mean wether a Russian immigrant would get into parliament, so what? Say 8 million maniacs in Germany vote for a party that support the annexation of Germany to Russia, which is an scenario unlikely beyond reason, that's just 10% of the vote, leaving 90% to the other parties. Besides, such a party would go against the constitution and thus wouldn't be allowed to exist. And why assume that all Russian want that Germany becomes a part of russia? If you want to live in Russia, why move in the first place? Economic opportunities? We live in a globalised world... Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Yeah. Wikipedia is not the best source. There is nothing of right or conservative in either party.

 

On what basis are you claiming that Russian (or any other) party would not get into parliament in a scenario where you have full open borders?

What exactly would prevent such scenario?

 

 

Also, "liberal socialists"? If you mean liberal as in little state involvement in the economy, that's a contradiction in itself.

And if you mean liberal in a social sense, I ask you to explain to me how a party who's political stance is described as "in opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, soft drug decriminalisation, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places, and partially to wide availability of in vitro fertilisation. The party also wants to criminalise gambling and supports religious education in schools and civil unions. Other socially conservative stances of the party include voting to ban designer drugs and amending the penal code to introduce mandatory chemical castration of paedophiles." Is in any way liberal. And I don't see how any of this has anything to do with socialism. Do you understand what socialism is? Socialism requires expropriation of the means of production, by (marxist) definition.

I mean liberals in social sense. PO has no of this in their program. This is pure BS what you just posted. For example PiS wanted to ban abortion in Poland last year PO was opposing. Get your facts straight.

Okay, then what is their ideology? The world isn't all too concerned with polish politics, not a pot of sources. So tell me.

[Ben No.3]

Besides.... You're telling me that "there's nothing right or conservative in either party", and then you're telling me that at least one of the parties wanted to ban abortion? I sense a slight contradiction here...

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Yeah. Wikipedia is not the best source. There is nothing of right or conservative in either party.

 

On what basis are you claiming that Russian (or any other) party would not get into parliament in a scenario where you have full open borders?

What exactly would prevent such scenario?

No Russian can get into parliament, as you need to be a German citizens for that.

But you just opened the borders and gave them citizenship! Can't you follow your own fantasy and predict simple consequences of your choices?

 

Okay, then what is their ideology? The world isn't all too concerned with polish politics, not a pot of sources. So tell me.

I just did, pay attention.

 

Besides.... You're telling me that "there's nothing right or conservative in either party", and then you're telling me that at least one of the parties wanted to ban abortion? I sense a slight contradiction here...

One swallow does not a summer make.

 

As I said earlier:

PO - Liberal (social) Socialists (political)

PiS - Christian (social) Socialists (political)

 

I meant that there in nothing right or conservative in political sense.

1. Socialism is first and foremost an economic standpoint

2. I meant tell me a few of their concrete ideas

3. I explained why no such party would get into parliament, I don't need to repeat myself

[Ben No.3]

Oh, and

4. Tell me why you assume every Russian immigrant only visits other countries in order to undermine it and make it part of Russia.

[Ben No.3]

You said that you would open borders to anyone and make them citizens and then claimed that those people couldn't change the political landscape because they need to be citizens to do that. That's illogical.

I meant no Russian citizens could be in parliament. I said no Russian as I believe that citizenship defies nationality, I'm sorry, I should've been more clear. Nethertheless, all the other points are still valid.

 

And please please please tell me a few things that the PO supports. They're liberal socialists, so I'll probably support it, right?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

 

It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability. Building a wall and deporting everyone is not going to fix anything, every economist in the world will tell you that. There are smarter ways to enact immigration reform, of course. I just don't think we will see them under Trump.

US economy also used to rely on slavery.

Just saying.

 

 

Sure, and that tends to be the drawback of looking at things simply through an economic lens, it doesn't really account for morality or cultural impacts.

 

Although I doubt the people who want to build a wall and deport millions of illegal immigrants are really looking out for the best interests of the immigrants, either. As Ben said, if that were true then the answer would simply be open borders, meaning illegal immigration would no longer exist because it would be legal to cross into the US and work. That may sound extreme, but so was ending slavery, hence the Civil War. I would think there are probably more moderate solutions to this issue. The issue looks like this:

 

Open Borders <-------------------------------------------------------------------->build a wall and deport 10 million

 

There is room in between there to work. You don't have to take the extreme view.

[Ben No.3]

I'm interested... What is the standpoint of the PO on abortion, same-sex marriage, soft drug decriminalisation, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places, wide availability of in vitro fertilisation, gambling, religious education and the penalisation of child rapists?

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

It's just good to remind ourselves that the economy relies on illegal immigration for stability. Building a wall and deporting everyone is not going to fix anything, every economist in the world will tell you that. There are smarter ways to enact immigration reform, of course. I just don't think we will see them under Trump.

US economy also used to rely on slavery.

Just saying.

Sure, and that tends to be the drawback of looking at things simply through an economic lens, it doesn't really account for morality or cultural impacts.

 

Although I doubt the people who want to build a wall and deport millions of illegal immigrants are really looking out for the best interests of the immigrants, either. As Ben said, if that were true then the answer would simply be open borders, meaning illegal immigration would no longer exist because it would be legal to cross into the US and work. That may sound extreme, but so was ending slavery, hence the Civil War. I would think there are probably more moderate solutions to this issue. The issue looks like this:

 

Open Borders <-------------------------------------------------------------------->build a wall and deport 10 million

 

There is room in between there to work. You don't have to take the extreme view.

The EU has such open borders as you describe them, and I'd say it's a great thing.

[Ben No.3]

 

Oh, and

4. Tell me why you assume every Russian immigrant only visits other countries in order to undermine it and make it part of Russia.

Where did I said such thing? I gave an example one of many I may add. But if you think that open borders and mass immigration cannot change political landscape and that there is no country, nation or groups that want to expand their territory and influence zone then it's up to you to being so naive.

 

And please please please tell me a few things that the PO supports. They're liberal socialists, so I'll probably support it, right?

PO is in Euro parliament in the same fraction as Merkels CDU and their leader is President of the European Council and basically lives between Merkels butt cheeks. So It looks like your kind of a party.

Why do you think I support the CDU? I like Merkel as a politician. I dislike her party, and especially the CSU (Bavarian counterpart) I dislike very much.

[Ben No.3]

 

I'm interested... What is the standpoint of the PO on abortion, same-sex marriage, soft drug decriminalisation, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places, wide availability of in vitro fertilisation, gambling, religious education and the penalisation of child rapists?

abortion - pro

same-sex marriage - pro

soft drug decriminalisation - pro

euthanasia - pro

fetal stem cell research - pro

removal of crosses and other religious symbols in schools and public places - pro

wide availability of in vitro fertilisation - pro

gambling - controlled by the government and in the hands of their friends underground criminals

religious education - against

penalisation of child rapists - against (they covered for pedophile Polański and refused to prosecute him or giving him to USA)

That's surprising... So their the exact opposite of what Wikipedia says?

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't Trump going to splurge big on infrastructure for exactly that reason.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

In the previous years government HAS spend all the money on Germans, and we still have had a bigger economic growth this year. And, the German government ended up with another 19 billion unused euro. Again, much more money than before... Usually there was either no money left or even just debt. This has, economically speaking, been a great year for Germany, the refugees are a big cause for that, and it would be ignorant to denie that. And remember the refugees don't get any special treatment, Germans in the same situation would get similar if not better treatment.

 

EDIT: Heck, even unemployment is lower than previously.

 

EDIT II: So if you look at the past years' data, it seems that the statement "the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them" is simply empirically wrong.

The last sentence I can applaud and wish other countries (aka USA) would adopt. Unfortunately that is why immigration is a sore spot with many citizens because here immigrants DO get special treatment. That's one thing I wish the USA would take from Germany is that if we are gonna want all these immigrants, we need to get rid of the special privileges they get that citizens don't. Unfortunately here they get better treatment and more than the actual citizens, hence why immigration is usually viewed as a bad thing here when talking to us who are citizens here.

What are those "special privileges? Welfare? Can't US citizens get that as well? Because if not, that's simply laughable

Weather or not u know, and I'm not gonna assume, but here in America when we talk about special previleges, we are talking about how easy/difficult and how much of the special privileges each citizen can access.

Over here the "special previleges" start out with a baseline on how to access and how much of it u can get for EVERYONE. Everyone has access to them IF they meet the baseline and such. THEN (this is where the meat is when talking to an American) depending on ur race/sex and if ur a citizen or not, if u get to bypass restrictions/requirements and get the baseline help elevated others.

Meaning by special previleges, if ur a certain race/sex/non citizen u would get more help (cash/benefits/etc) than someone of a different race/sex/etc. so in reality there's no equality for everyone, everyone can yes have access to such previleges, but everyone will get more or less all depending on race/sex/citizenship. The baseline is higher/lower for everyone, everyone doesn't share the same base line and that's what is what the special privileges mean here in USA.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't Trump going to splurge big on infrastructure for exactly that reason.

Government spending on infrastructure is actually a good long-term economic investment though (not that private infrastructure wouldn't be better, but that's a different topic). Massive spending on consumption has little-to-no long term benefits, and all government spending has long term consequences.

 

I'm not gonna say that refugees are the devil, but the "economy grew because the government is splurging to take care of them" argument is poor proof to the contrary. This is especially true if you bring up that the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them. All the growth and none of the turmoil.

In the previous years government HAS spend all the money on Germans, and we still have had a bigger economic growth this year. And, the German government ended up with another 19 billion unused euro. Again, much more money than before... Usually there was either no money left or even just debt. This has, economically speaking, been a great year for Germany, the refugees are a big cause for that, and it would be ignorant to denie that. And remember the refugees don't get any special treatment, Germans in the same situation would get similar if not better treatment.

 

EDIT: Heck, even unemployment is lower than previously.

 

EDIT II: So if you look at the past years' data, it seems that the statement "the government COULD have spent all that money exclusively on Germans; which would have been much better for them" is simply empirically wrong.

The last sentence I can applaud and wish other countries (aka USA) would adopt. Unfortunately that is why immigration is a sore spot with many citizens because here immigrants DO get special treatment. That's one thing I wish the USA would take from Germany is that if we are gonna want all these immigrants, we need to get rid of the special privileges they get that citizens don't. Unfortunately here they get better treatment and more than the actual citizens, hence why immigration is usually viewed as a bad thing here when talking to us who are citizens here.

What are those "special privileges? Welfare? Can't US citizens get that as well? Because if not, that's simply laughable

Weather or not u know, and I'm not gonna assume, but here in America when we talk about special previleges, we are talking about how easy/difficult and how much of the special privileges each citizen can access.

Over here the "special previleges" start out with a baseline on how to access and how much of it u can get for EVERYONE. Everyone has access to them IF they meet the baseline and such. THEN (this is where the meat is when talking to an American) depending on ur race/sex and if ur a citizen or not, if u get to bypass restrictions/requirements and get the baseline help elevated others.

Meaning by special previleges, if ur a certain race/sex/non citizen u would get more help (cash/benefits/etc) than someone of a different race/sex/etc. so in reality there's no equality for everyone, everyone can yes have access to such previleges, but everyone will get more or less all depending on race/sex/citizenship. The baseline is higher/lower for everyone, everyone doesn't share the same base line and that's what is what the special privileges mean here in USA.

Wait wait wait.... What? The amount of money you can get as welfare pretends on your race/gender/etc? That is highly ridiculous, the only determinants should be stuff like size of family (and total family income), living area and so on.