Civis Romanus sum
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Civis Romanus sum
-
-
Yes, look at this verdant oasis.
What's your point? That picture could have been taken in Syria or Iraq or Iran or Israel, for that matter. I looked it up and Turkey has no desert.
You suggested they were "living quite comfortably," so I feel the actual living conditions is quite relevant, otherwise, why did you mention it?
I didn't mean to suggest they were living high off the hog, especially by western standards. But are they living significantly worse than Palestinians in refugee camps? They'e safe, they're sheltered, they're being fed, is what I meant.
It's closer to 4 million and those are of course only those registered by the UN. As for the rest: cite?
What rest? Do you need a cite that Palestinians are still considered refugees seventy years on?
And if the poverty they are fleeing is a result of the threat of death and persecution? It's not so black and white.
All I'm pointing out is that when they're fleeing north into Europe they're fleeing poverty, and are economic migrants. There is a substantial difference between fleeing poverty and fleeing death and torture.
-
Remember what Gen. Powell told GW...if u break it u have to fix it...... and now look at what has happen to the people of the Middle-East and how many have been killed.
I agree, but only up to a point. The Americans spent years in Iraq trying to 'fix' it. They poured money and blood into the place trying to set up a representative democracy. They were frustrated time and again by defiant local tribalism and unrelenting religious bigotry. If you want to look to external parties most responsible for that failure that would probably be the Iranians and Saudis, who funded opposing religious sides and helped fan the flames of internal discord.
-
People are fleeing their counties because it is no longer safe to live there.
It's not safe to live in Turkey??
-
Refugees can be given permanent or temporary residency depending on the circumstances, but in the vast majority of cases they are given permanent status.
That's not true except in western countries.
-
Pardon me, but I thought we were talking about the 1.9 million or so displaced Syrians Turkey is trying to accommodate, most of whom are currently housed in refugee camps near the border.
Turkey has no desert. That they're being sheltered near the border is besides the point.
You're clearly ignorant of the facts here. The total number of refugees in Europe is around 3.1 million. As I said above, Turkey alone has nearly 2 million, which is nearly three times as many as Europe on a per capita basis. Lebanon has about 1.1 million. Jordan, Iraq and Egypt combined host about a million more registered refugees (that number is most certainly higher). So that's five countries, most of which aren't all that shit hot places to live either, hosting more refugees or migrants as all of Europe.
The UN estimates a total of about 3.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian war in total. So a lot of the 'registered refugees' in those countries are actually Palestinians who fled the original war of 1948 with Israel, and their children and grandchildren. They are still considered officially refugees since none of the host countries will grant them citizenship.
Yes I imagine once one has removed oneself from immediate danger, actually getting on with life and providing for one's family is the next logical step. What's your point?
My point is they're economic migrants. They're not people fleeing death and persecution but poverty.
-
Safer than being barrel bombed by Assad's forces or decapitated by ISIL, sure. But are permanent refugee camps in the Turkish desert a humane, long-term solution to this issue?
Seventy five million people manage to live quite comfortably in Turkey, so not sure where you get this 'living in the desert' business. Turkey seems more stable and better run than any of the countries around it save Israel. I see no reason why Syrians can't live there, at least until the war is over. We must remember, also, that these people are not fleeing to places like Egypt, where they'll not only be safe but where they speak the same language and have the same religion. So mere safety is clearly not their primary goal.
You've laid out the argument against, fine. Now what would you do, assuming you actually think we have a humanitarian obligation here (which is admittedly a leap of faith on my part).
Whatever money we want to spend on bringing people here would be far better put to use, helping ten times more people, in resettling refugees in countries near where they lived before, such as Turkey and Egypt. Not only could you help far more people but they'd be better positioned to return home once the fighting is done.
-
It makes more sense for these refugees to choose between the countries who have participated in creating and maintaining instability there. Canada should take more Syrian and Libyan refugees.
Canada had nothing to do with the instability there. That can be laid at the doorstep of the local combatants.
-
By your reasoning then Harper and the Conservatives cant take credit when Canada's economy is booming because oil prices are at $100 a barrel and China's economy is booming but they do anyway.
It's all a political game. All a government can realistically do is provide a stable background for industries to flourish. If it keeps taxes reasonably low, and the red tape reasonably scarce, then it's doing an okay job. If it's not actively getting in the way of job creation by business, then it can claim some small amount of credit.
But as you say, much of it is beyond their control, especially with regard to the international demand for our products. That doesn't stop governments from taking credit when times are good, nor the opposition for blaming them when times are bad. There is no real honesty taking place in either case.
If a government can actually point to something it did, and show with reasonable certainty this had a good impact on the economy, on jobs, on business, then okay, they can take some credit. The Conservatives did do a few things, such as lowering business taxes and cutting some red tape, to create a business friendly environment. So they can claim some credit, but mostly it's an international thing, especially since 2008.
-
Typical. More excuses. Just like the economic god, himself. He doesn't take responsibility for being one of the worst, if not the worst, Prime Minister Canada has had when you look at the economic record.
I would put Pierre Trudeau in that chair, though my knowledge of the inadequacies of Prime Ministers is kind of shaky going further back. Certainly Trudeau was the worst in my lifetime by any realistic judgement.
-
To me, that's why Harper's apologists don't get to just do the lament about falling oil prices! He was the one who banked on oil at $100 a barrel when he started his strategy of big tarsands and pipeline expansions. If it didn't work out for him, that says lots about his economic leadership abilities we hear so much of from rightwing sources!
The Conservatives, like every government in Canadian history, have done their best to encourage all industries, including all natural resource industries. I'm not aware of any change in that regard between them and the Liberals who preceded them. I'm also unaware of any country on Earth which has not done its best to develop its oil industry.
-
Trudeau has a PLAN to run a series of deficits, a lot of which is for infrastructure spending which tends to stimulate the economy, at which time one could change that plan.
This was exactly, precisely Harper's plan, wasn't it? For which you are now roundly criticizing him.
Moreover, it was a plan which was not only agreed to by both the Liberals and New Democrats, but demanded by them.
-
Neither Mr. Trudeau, in his emotional demand that Canada take in 25,000 Syrian refugees immediately, nor Mr. Mulcair, in his more restrained but similar demand, have mentioned costs. In money terms is likely to be at least $2 billion as well as the ongoing maintenance for some years.
I reach this figure by considering the cost of transporting an individual from Turkey, or Europe, where most of the migrants are, to Canada, processing them, sheltering, feeding, clothing them, teaching them a language, and then in most cases, trying to teach them some sort of job skill.
.
In addition, most will be unlikely to be economically successful in Canada to the extent they will earn large salaries and pay back more to the government than the government must spend on them each year for their health care, their children's education, etc.
I think a second cost will be to discredit our existing immigration system, where people from the same general areas have applied and are patiently waiting as they are assessed. These migrants are jumping the queue and we would be rewarding them for doing so.
Let us not forget that these are not people fleeing danger and war and persecution as Mr. Trudeau would have you believe. The great majority of the Syrians flee to Turkey, and are now, as we see on television, taking great risks to get across to Europe, and then up from Greece, where they don't want to stay, through Macedonia, Serbia, and Hungary, to the richer northern states where they want to live.
By definition, they are economic migrants. They were perfectly safe in Turkey. They are actually risking death to get out of Turkey where they're safe, to Europe, where they hope to live in a wealthier state with more generous benefits. The more people who are accepted, the more who will come.
Which brings us to a third cost. For they bring the instability which caused war with them. Every European state which has taken in a sizable number of Muslims has had ongoing problems with rioting and crime. In France, every Jewish temple, school and institution now requires armed guards for safety. Bringing tens of thousands more Muslims to Canada is not a good idea, particularly Muslims who have not been screened in any way for education, skills and other abilities.
-
They are not part of the Liberal caucus. It was a good first step. I don't see any evidence to the contrary... can you provide some?
They say they are Liberals. They vote in concert with the wishes of the party. There is no earthly reason for Muclair to appoint people to the senate who will not be NDP supporters and will not vote in favour of his legislation.
-
All the more reason to get Harper out of office.
I fail to see how that response gibes with your evident support for Trudeau increasing the deficit.
-
How is it dishonest? They will be NDP-aligned Senators that wouldn't sit in caucus and thus wouldn't be whipped. It's essentially Trudeau's idea for at least some sort of nominal reform of the Senate.
And Trudeau's saying Liberal senators are not Liberals is also dishonest. They will do as they are told and act in concert with the party and for the party's benefit. Of course the votes will e whipped! It would be naive to think otherwise. Why do you suppose he would appoint senators who wouldn't vote for his legislation?
-
Providing Canada's credit rating remains in good shape, I see no reason to expect any sharp rise in the cost of borrowing over the medium term.
Even at historically low interest levels the federal government spends the entire proceeds of the GST on servicing our debt.
You have to be careful when interest rates are low. If interest rates are at 7% and they increase a point, the increase in debt servicing is fairly manageable. If interest rates are at 2% and interest rates go up a point your costs just went up by 50%. If interest rates go up 2%, which they almost certainly will, your service costs just doubled.
And I have heard a number of economists express fears of inflation, given the enormous amount of debt various governments have built up, especially the Americans with their bond buying. What happens when the cost to service our existing debt goes from about $30 billion to $60 billion? That comes directly from money which could be spent on programs, or on cutting taxes, or it comes by borrowing more money, which becomes a vicious spiral.
-
Harper's Tories legislated the current definition of a recession as "two consecutive quarters of negative growth."
My understanding of the term is that it's a standard economic definition. At least, that is what I have been seeing a number of economists discuss. None said it was defined by the federal government. I am fairly sure the definition is the same in the US, for example.
I simply don't see how Harper can be blamed for us being in a technical recession given the causes are external to Canada.
-
The Senators for all intents and purposes will be NDP, but will not represent the party.
You don't think that's more than slightly dishonest?
-
Increasing it from what?
Well that's a question. According to the Conservatives the budget is balanced. The PBO suggested we had a 1.5 billion deficit. So he would be significantly increasing the deficit several years running. That presumes he would actually then produce a balanced budget after three years.
-
Interest rates have a whole lot to do with costs of debt servicing. And Trudeau has not proposed increasing the deficit.
Interest rates are subject to change without notice, and there seems little doubt they are going up in the coming years. The tens of billions borrowed by Trudeau will be owed ten and twenty and likely thirty years from now. You have no idea what the interest rates will be then.
And he most definitely is proposing increasing the deficit.
-
By now everyone is aware that the country is in a recession by the definition that the Tories legislated themselvestwo quarters of negative growth.
This seems a bewildering claim. Harper legislated a recession? Could you explain when that happened?
As far as I'm aware the technical recession is due to a slowdown in China and elsewhere, resulting in a lower demand and lower prices for our commodities. I don't understand how Harper can be blamed for that.
-
The Senate would rubber stamp legislation like it has always done, or there would be a Constitutional crisis created by appointed hacks in Senate of the previous party.
Historically, when a party has been in power long enough for the Senate to be mostly filled with its supporters, the incoming party has had difficulties. I expect this to be even worse given there would be, for the first time, zero supporters of the new party in the senate. I would not expect them to simply 'rubber stamp' legislation. Why should they? They sometimes don't do that now. Even with their own supporters in there the Conservatives have had to deal with senate opposition at times. There is no constitutional crisis. The Senate has a legal role under the constitution, whether the new party likes it or not.
-
Harper did have a lot to do with putting all of his eggs in one volatile basket
This is the theory that Harper created the oil industry, right? And that he focused Canada's entire economy on it?
I read this a lot, but the thing which gets me is that the oil industry took a giant hammering at the beginning of the year, and the rest of natural resources did to, and yet things are still pretty good in Canada.
The technical recession hasn't really spilled over into anything outside the oil industry, unemployment has hardly budged, and the rest of the economy seems to be working well. So would someone explain to me how Harper put all our eggs in one basket, and the basket got dropped, but our eggs still seem to be pretty much intact?
-
Perhaps but:
1. Not as much.
2. He's not running for a fourth term.
3. Two wrongs etc. etc.
Mulcair may be the least worst alternative. We certainly know what the worst is. A fourth term would be absurd for Harper given that he has never commanded a majority of the vote. In Ireland, Britain or Australia, I cannot imagine any current leader having the gall to even say he would try to do that and the Yanks don't let it happen for good reason.
This seems an odd reason to evict Harper. Most of the election victories in the last century have failed to command a plurality of the votes.
.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Not sure why it was necessary to start a new topic on this...