Refugees are good!

[Ben No.3]

If of course you talk about... Say... Laws protecting/supporting minorities, then you can't make that accessible to everyone, obviously not. If everyone gets the same benefits/protections minorities get, nothing changes.

[Hurlshort]

You also get special treatment from the police depending on your race in the US.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/us/chicago-police-federal-investigation/

[Ben No.3]

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[HoonDing]

You also get special treatment from the police depending on your race in the US.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/13/us/chicago-police-federal-investigation/

They are fake news.

[Ben No.3]

 

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Protection.

But it doesn't make sense... You only need a gun for protection if others have a gun. If no one had guns, it would be fine.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Protection.

But it doesn't make sense... You only need a gun for protection if others have a gun. If no one had guns, it would be fine.

Are you familiar with the concept of a criminal?

Where exactly do you live? And are you institutionalized?

Frankfurt a.M., Germany. Never in my life have I seen a non-government employee carrying a weapon, at least until I visited the US. Okay, not entirely true... There are sportsmen with specialised weapons. Look, it works here... We don't have guns, we don't need them. Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[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.

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.

It is very ridiculous. Size of family, total family income, etc is the baseline but depending on ur race, sex, and other things determine if u start at the baseline or if u start above because the govt figures u need extra help because your at a disadvantage because of ur race/sex/etc.

[Hurlshort]

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

 

It is rooted very deeply in the history and culture of the country. The 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This isn't something that is buried in the Constitution, it comes directly after the guarantee of freedom. It is a major ideal that the US was founded on, and it continues to be an important part of the lives of many Americans.  

 

edit: the personal protection argument is weak, btw. The odds of you being involved in a situation where you need a gun for protection do not significantly outweigh the odds of you accidentally getting shot. Of course, this would be easier to recognize if the NRA didn't do everything in its power to stop actual research into gun violence.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Hurlshot

[Ben No.3]

 

Frankfurt a.M., Germany. Never in my life have I seen a non-government employee carrying a weapon, at least until I visited the US. Okay, not entirely true... There are sportsmen with specialised weapons. Look, it works here... We don't have guns, we don't need them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36213484

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Frankfurt_Airport_shooting

 

http://yalibnan.com/2016/06/23/25-wounded-in-a-mass-shooting-in-a-cinema-near-frankfurt-germany/

 

http://www.dw.com/en/several-injured-after-shooting-in-downtown-frankfurt/a-19238890

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

 

https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/five-things-to-know-about-guns-in-germany-us-gun-control-laws

 

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=17094

 

LOL, Germany has one of the highest gun ownership number in the world... it seems you are oblivious about your own country

That's embarassing

But you can't wear them in public, that's the point. Tell me, which country has the most shootings per capita and the most guns per capita? Are you really gonna say that's no corlation?

[ShadySands]

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Fun and profit

 

Realistically I'd say it's a cultural thing

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Yeeeeee.... The Americans get made fun of for three things mainly in Europe: Their guns, their fast food and their racists

 

But seriously, I never got the guns thing. Why do you guys want your guns? What is the attraction of possessing items designed exclusively for killing?

Fun and profit

 

Realistically I'd say it's a cultural thing

And the Americans say that Islam is a violent culture

[Ben No.3]

 

But you can't wear them in public, that's the point. Tell me, which country has the most shootings per capita and the most guns per capita? Are you really gonna say that's no corlation?

Most guns per capita - USA

Most gun death per capita - Honduras

 

Where's the correlation?

Limit it to western first world democracies-.-

[Ben No.3]

My thesis: if you live in a stable, well functioning country, increased gun ownership will lead to more shootings

 

Do you consider Honduras a well functioning, stable country?

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

Of course increased gun ownership would lead to increased shootings. But the real indicator would be if the US has a higher violent crime rate than other developed nations. Which is difficult to gauge fully, since different countries often track these statistics differently.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Hurlshot

[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.

It is very ridiculous. Size of family, total family income, etc is the baseline but depending on ur race, sex, and other things determine if u start at the baseline or if u start above because the govt figures u need extra help because your at a disadvantage because of ur race/sex/etc.

Sounds utterly ridiculous. Shouldn't the focus be on removing the disadvantages rather than making up for them?

[Namutree]

 

 

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. 

 

Wut? That's not a matter of faith. That infrastructure is a good long term investment and that the private sector builds things cheaper and better than the public sector are both very grounded in reality.

 

 

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. 

So you're saying that the refugees are SO helpful to the German economy simply by their very presence they boosted the economy so much the (likely) drastic increase in government spending to take care of them didn't matter? The German government actually ran a surplus? Could I get a citation? Also, if this is true; holy crap Germany is good with money.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Namutree

[Ben No.3]

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-12/konjunktur-deutsche-wirtschaft-ausgaben-fluechtlingskrise-konsum

 

Granted it's German. But Google is your friend. It basically states that the German economy grew by (another) 0.3% due to the refugees. This is because the refugees simply are a lot of people that get new jobs and especially can buy new stuff. Taking care of the refugees also creates many jobs for Germans. The article also says that if refugees continue to come in at the same rate, they would (mathematically) boost the economy by another 0.7% (+ to economic growth).

 

The refugees are like a mini economic stimulus plan.

[Namutree]

http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-12/konjunktur-deutsche-wirtschaft-ausgaben-fluechtlingskrise-konsum

 

Granted it's German. But Google is your friend. It basically states that the German economy grew by (another) 0.3% due to the refugees. This is because the refugees simply are a lot of people that get new jobs and especially can buy new stuff. Taking care of the refugees also creates many jobs for Germans. The article also says that if refugees continue to come in at the same rate, they would (mathematically) boost the economy by another 0.7% (+ to economic growth).

 

The refugees are like a mini economic stimulus plan.

I am willing to grant outright that they boost the economy. The issue is, "Does the boost justify the cost"? I asked for a citation of the German government running a surplus, as that seems to be what you claimed (perhaps I misunderstood you). It is also worth noting that refugees are not needed for increased government spending and consumption (which is claimed to be the source of the economy boost).

[Ben No.3]

http://dradiowissen.de/nachrichten/deutschland-staat-mit-19-milliarden-im-plus

 

Government ended up with a surplus of 19 billion. Say what you want, but the refugees are economically nothing but good.

 

EDIT: according to government, one of the main reasons for this is the fast growing economy. So....

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Namutree]

http://dradiowissen.de/nachrichten/deutschland-staat-mit-19-milliarden-im-plus

 

Holy crap, Germany is good with money. 

[Ben No.3]

And the refugees helped out a great deal here. A sudden boost of hundreds of thousands of new consumers and workers as well as a situation that initiates a program that creates new jobs. Great!

[Meshugger]

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

[Ben No.3]

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Meshugger]

 

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned.

 

 

First you agree with me and then you re-enforce your earlier point which directly contradicts what you agreed upon. You're drunk, go back to bed.

 

Thanks for the laugh though.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Meshugger

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but i find the idea of lowering meaning and purpose of human development as mere asset capital for economic growth as quite repugnant.

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned.

First you agree with me and then you re-enforce your earlier point which directly contradicts what you agreed upon. You're drunk, go back to bed.

 

Thanks for the laugh though.

Look, morality and what is right or wrong is completely arbitrary, and wether taking in refugees is morally right everyone will tell you something different. I think it is right. Other don't. Some say to an extent. And so on.

 

But the economy offers us an objective indication of how the refugees affect us. It's useful in that sense.