Wait–Resettling Middle Eastern Refugees Costs Over $64,000 Per Person

[Nic Samojluk]

“The cost to resettle them in the United States is 12 times the cost of resettling them in a neighboring Middle Eastern country. Instead of resettling them here, the report explains that 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years or 61 refugees could be helped for a year. …

Because refugees are eligible for all welfare programs they have very high rates of participation in government assistance programs. …”

More: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/12/01/waitresettling-middle-eastern-refugees-costs-over-64000-per-person-n2087699?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

[Bravus]

I very much doubt those stats: experience shows that refugees typically get onto their feet and off welfare as soon as they are legally able to work.

But even if it were true, that would mean it would make sense to send some resources to settle them in a peaceful Middle Eastern country.

Do you support sending those resources? Or are you one of the 'cut foreign aid' mob?

Is what you're really saying "let these families fend for themselves with no help"?

Say it ain't so...

[joeb]

On 2/1/2016 at 3:53 AM, David Geelan said:

I very much doubt those stats: experience shows that refugees typically get onto their feet and off welfare as soon as they are legally able to work.

But even if it were true, that would mean it would make sense to send some resources to settle them in a peaceful Middle Eastern country.

Do you support sending those resources? Or are you one of the 'cut foreign aid' mob?

Is what you're really saying "let these families fend for themselves with no help"?

Say it ain't so...

How about the fact that the US is just flat out broke?  The published debt level of the US was at 64% of the GDP at the beginning of 2008.  At the end of 2015 the debt was 104% of our GDP.  That's right it has risen by 2/3 in just 8 years under Obama's socialistic policies.  We are well on our way to becoming the next Greece, Italy, Spain, Austria, etc....  Austria is now going to take money from depositor's accounts to bail out a bank.  Think about what that means.  You put your money in the bank to save it and the government just takes it.  You're punished for being responsible financially and saving all your life. 

The published debt the US has is only a small part of it's overall debt.  In 2008 our unfunded liabilities (what Congress has pledged the US to pay but not budgeted for) was around $90 trillion.  Now, it is around $150 trillion.  What do you think is going to happen to the entire world when the US defaults on it's debts?  You're going to see starvation world wide as all the economies in the world collapse.  Australia will go bankrupt right along with the US.  And you think we ought to just keep on spending money we do not have....  You're a fool to think that way.  The consequences of the US going bankrupt are so severe that no one should ever be for the US spending more.  We now borrow $4 out of every $10 we spend.  How long do you think that can last?  It's financial insanity, and Obama thinks we need to increase our spending levels, and obviously, you think so too. 

The piggy bank is empty and has been for a long time.  The US cannot continue to live beyond its means without eventually bankrupting the entire world.  If you want that to happen just keep on claiming the US ought to keep on being the world's piggy bank and be responsible for everyone in the world.

[Bravus]

A few less non-functional F35s and aircraft carriers might help a little... as might raising enough tax revenue to cover what you spend. Deficits are a choice. Oh yeah, and there was that Global Financial Crisis as well.

[phkrause]

And not only that, how about what it costs the US to house the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay detention camp?????

[joeb]

Well, Bravus, the US has spent $8+ billion on refugees since 2006.  How much has Australia spent?  The info I found is $258 million.  In 2006 the US spent $633 million.  It went up from there to $1.5 billion a year in 2014 and 2015.   Better get your own house in order, don't you think? 

What I actually see as your answer is, stop spending a very little money here, and spend it there instead.  That's not a solution to stop the US from going bankrupt and destroying the world's economy when it does.  There has to be enough cuts in spending to actually allow us to start paying the debt down, and that requires us to cut something like a trillion dollars spending every year.  As 2/3 of government spending is socialistic policies that's the best place to start, financially speaking, because those costs are going to rise exponentially in the near future.  By the time Obama leaves office he is going to have contributed more to our published debt than all previous presidents  combined.  Sounds like a financial success doesn't it?   But, what can you expect from socialism?  Debt is all it creates.

[Bravus]

Australia is utterly disgusting and unconscionable on refugees. I'm absolutely not pointing the finger at others from any position of strength. We've spent billions on refugees, but it's been on tormenting them in offshore concentration camps on Manus and Naura.

You could cut, or you could raise taxes, or both. Keeping taxes constant, or continuing to drop them, is how you get these deficits. I know it's unthinkable to you, but if you are serious about avoiding bankruptcy, increasing income is as important as decreasing outgo.

" By the time Obama leaves office he is going to have contributed more to our published debt than all previous presidents  combined." Obama has *decreased* the deficit by 2/3 in his time in office. Let's at least try to stick with the facts.

[Bravus]

Show me the facts on the deficit. It is utterly untrue that Obama's presidency has seen more increase than all previous presidents combined. 

The truth matters.

[joeb]

On 4/17/2016 at 2:32 AM, David Geelan said:

Show me the facts on the deficit. It is utterly untrue that Obama's presidency has seen more increase than all previous presidents combined. 

The truth matters.

Sorry about not replying sooner.  I was gone for a while and simply forgot about this thread. 

Here is a good reference page on what is happening with US debt.  And, it shows quite well just how much debt Obama is going to accumulate by the time he leaves office.  The debt when Bush left office was a little over 10 trillion dollars.  He doubled it, which was terrible and I hold him accountable for, but he still added only around 5 trillion in debt. 

By the time Obama leaves office the official debt numbers, which are only a small fraction of our real debt, is going to be more than $20 trillion dollars.  That's $10 trillion more than when he took office.  The increases in spending that will result from spending he has now built into government will take our debt to more than $28 trillion by 2020. 

http://www.philstockworld.com/2010/05/18/us-debttogdp-of-159-in-2020-how-us-debt-issuance-is-vastly-greater-than-deficit-spending/?gclid=CNjZtuPHy84CFQqPfgodXSAPOg

As you can see from this page he has taken us from a debt-gdp ratio of 75% to 104% in eight years.  The only time we have ever had a higher debt-gdp ratio was just after WWII when we had financed, almost entirely on our own, the defeat of the Nazis.  And, our gdp back then was far, far, less than it is today.  The vast majority of countries in the world, including Australia, have never paid us back.  Only one nation has: Finland.   

Oh, btw, while the link is to a private party the numbers come from the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the government entity in charge of coming up with these types of numbers. 

[joeb]

On 4/17/2016 at 2:32 AM, David Geelan said:

Show me the facts on the deficit. It is utterly untrue that Obama's presidency has seen more increase than all previous presidents combined. 

The truth matters.

 

On 4/17/2016 at 2:31 AM, David Geelan said:

Australia is utterly disgusting and unconscionable on refugees. I'm absolutely not pointing the finger at others from any position of strength. We've spent billions on refugees, but it's been on tormenting them in offshore concentration camps on Manus and Naura.

You could cut, or you could raise taxes, or both. Keeping taxes constant, or continuing to drop them, is how you get these deficits. I know it's unthinkable to you, but if you are serious about avoiding bankruptcy, increasing income is as important as decreasing outgo.

" By the time Obama leaves office he is going to have contributed more to our published debt than all previous presidents  combined." Obama has *decreased* the deficit by 2/3 in his time in office. Let's at least try to stick with the facts.

This software sucks.  It decides for you what is going to be included in a post. 

I just wrote out a long answer to this second quote and it disappeared on me.  I have to go so I cannot recreate it at this time, but believe me, I have answers for all of this, as you probably already know.

[pierrepaul]

On 2016-04-13 at 9:56 PM, joeb said:

That's right it has risen by 2/3 in just 8 years under Obama's socialistic policies. 

How are these Obama's policies? For most of those years, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.

[Geoarrge]

18 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

How are these Obama's policies? For most of those years, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.

Technically true, although the President still holds veto power and the ability to use food stamp recipients as human shields against any major budget control.

[CoAspen]

Quote

..... ability to use food stamp recipients as human shields against any major budget control.

.....? 

[Geoarrge]

8 hours ago, CoAspen said:

.....? 

Yes, because if Congress can't pass a budget that won't be vetoed, that leads to a government shutdown.  And the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would be affected if a shutdown were to last long enough.  Conveniently, that gives the opponents of fiscal discipline a trump card. Nobody wants to face a starving mob.

[Bravus]

There are ways to fix the budget that *don't* place the burden primarily on those least able to bear it... 

Apparently unthinkable.

A little look at what Jesus said about rich and poor is informative.

Apparently that can all be explained away, though.

[Geoarrge]

8 hours ago, David Geelan said:

There are ways to fix the budget that *don't* place the burden primarily on those least able to bear it... 

Apparently unthinkable.

A little look at what Jesus said about rich and poor is informative.

Apparently that can all be explained away, though.

Just to be clear, that has nothing to do with the scenario I'm describing.  In the US, if Congress and the President can't get a budget passed, the government must shut down.  Many government offices shut down and their employees are furloughed. Certain welfare programs remain in operation, but not SNAP/'food stamps', although shutdowns rarely last long enough to interrupt monthly(?) payments.   The budget could keep that program perfectly intact, but if the President has some other reason for vetoing it, he can still blame Congress and get the rioting mobs on his side.