Donald Trump stops terrorism by banning immigrants from a random selection of Muslim countries

[MattZed]

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)

[Helz]

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)

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.

[MattZed]

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.