Search:

Helz, we don't live in a world where we can only think about the US and everything will be fine. Keeping the world peaceful is hard work, and taking the moral high ground is important to our position as world leader. Half the reason the first world likes us so much and chose to side with us during the Cold War is because we gave them aid to rebuild their economies after WWII. It was chump change to them, but they thank us for it now. If the Soviet Union had been the only superpower giving out aid, you might be looking a communist Europe today.

It's the same philosophy with refugees. It makes up pocket change in the federal budget, but it makes us look like the good guys. We need coalition partners to fight Daesh. Joining the US in military operations isn't popular in many countries' parliaments, and if their anti-war folks can point to us not willing to be team players, it's that much harder to get them behind us.

Price matters. If it were 20% of the federal budget, you bet I'd be having major objections to our refugee policy. But it's less than half of a percent. It's a great deal.

Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.

Helz, we don't live in a world where we can only think about the US and everything will be fine. Keeping the world peaceful is hard work, and taking the moral high ground is important to our position as world leader. Half the reason the first world likes us so much and chose to side with us during the Cold War is because we gave them aid to rebuild their economies after WWII. It was chump change to them, but they thank us for it now. If the Soviet Union had been the only superpower giving out aid, you might be looking a communist Europe today.

It's the same philosophy with refugees. It makes up pocket change in the federal budget, but it makes us look like the good guys. We need coalition partners to fight Daesh. Joining the US in military operations isn't popular in many countries' parliaments, and if their anti-war folks can point to us not willing to be team players, it's that much harder to get them behind us.

Price matters. If it were 20% of the federal budget, you bet I'd be having major objections to our refugee policy. But it's less than half of a percent. It's a great deal.

Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.

[QUOTE=Helz;671897]You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.[/QUOTE]

Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.

Originally Posted by Helz

You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.

Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.

[QUOTE=Helz;671739]There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation [U]obligating[/U] its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.

Originally Posted by Helz

There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation obligating its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.

I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.

[QUOTE=Helz;670620]Was a bad joke. My bad?

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.[/QUOTE]
I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the [url=https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/resources_comp01.asp]VA itself[/url], a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)

Originally Posted by Helz

Was a bad joke. My bad?

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.

I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the VA itself, a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)

But it's worrying, [MENTION=10617]Helz[/MENTION], that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.

But it's worrying, @Helz , that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.

[MENTION=10617]Helz[/MENTION], your argument about California being a 1-party state is simply factually off. Yes, most state-wide winners are Democrats, but there are often serious Republican candidates, and the state hasn't been this Democratic for long. You say Republicans didn't run a senator, but that's because California has a top-two primary, and Democrats got the top two. (although Republican candidates picked up [I]31%[/I] of the vote, it was split among smaller candidates) As pointed out

This of course sidesteps the issue at hand: why should people have their vote count for less because they live near people who vote like they do?

Further, the electoral college does nothing to prevent heavily red/blue states from controlling discourse; if 1% of Floridians and Pennsylvanians changed their votes from Trump to Clinton, then Clinton would have won the electoral college, even though the nation didn't change that much. And California isn't the only state that's strongly red or blue; just because a blue state didn't win doesn't mean strong red states did nothing.

@Helz , your argument about California being a 1-party state is simply factually off. Yes, most state-wide winners are Democrats, but there are often serious Republican candidates, and the state hasn't been this Democratic for long. You say Republicans didn't run a senator, but that's because California has a top-two primary, and Democrats got the top two. (although Republican candidates picked up 31% of the vote, it was split among smaller candidates) As pointed out

This of course sidesteps the issue at hand: why should people have their vote count for less because they live near people who vote like they do?

Further, the electoral college does nothing to prevent heavily red/blue states from controlling discourse; if 1% of Floridians and Pennsylvanians changed their votes from Trump to Clinton, then Clinton would have won the electoral college, even though the nation didn't change that much. And California isn't the only state that's strongly red or blue; just because a blue state didn't win doesn't mean strong red states did nothing.

Turkey is in NATO. Egypt is an officially designated Major non-NATO ally. Banning travel from such a close ally is a major no-no. The US also enjoys a close alliance with the government of Saudi Arabia, and we've have good military relations with the U.A.E since our interests aligned in the Gulf War.

The better explanation is "Trump didn't ban countries with which the US has good relations." The fact that yellow countries are contributing to the War on Terror is another point, and the reason Trump has business dealings with these countries is because the US is on good terms with them.

EDIT: Look at other blank spots missing from the map: Jordan, Israel. This really is just a map of how nations in the Middle East feel about the US. (exception of Iraq, whose failure of a government is quite friendly, but the country has a major Daesh presence.)

Turkey is in NATO. Egypt is an officially designated Major non-NATO ally. Banning travel from such a close ally is a major no-no. The US also enjoys a close alliance with the government of Saudi Arabia, and we've have good military relations with the U.A.E since our interests aligned in the Gulf War.

The better explanation is "Trump didn't ban countries with which the US has good relations." The fact that yellow countries are contributing to the War on Terror is another point, and the reason Trump has business dealings with these countries is because the US is on good terms with them.

EDIT: Look at other blank spots missing from the map: Jordan, Israel. This really is just a map of how nations in the Middle East feel about the US. (exception of Iraq, whose failure of a government is quite friendly, but the country has a major Daesh presence.)