Trudeau invites refugees to Canada, taunts Trump

[dialamah]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is absolutely no comparison to immigration 100 years ago. When people arrived 100 years ago they were on their own. They got no government assistance of any kind; no welfare cheques, no public housing no government funded health care, no language lessons, nada. They sank or swam. They learned the language if they wanted to deal with the government or anyone else because no one was going to help them out with foreign language forms.

 

Not true.  They got land and in some cases a cash bonus of $10 for the immigrant and $5 for family members.  In some circumstances, food and clothing was also supplied.   It wasn't easy, but to say early settlers got nothing from Canadian government is just wrong.

Interestingly, British farmers were the least successful.

Www.historymuseum.ca

[dre]

54 minutes ago, Argus said:

According to the only study I've seen, by the Fraser Institute, immigration is costing all levels of government $30 billion a year.

Nope. If we have to build houses for immigrants/refugees who can't support themselves then that's simply an added expense on us. Sure, people have jobs doing it, but they're paid by the government, which means taking money away from other people to do it.

I'm big on spending on necessities. It is necessary to defend the country. And we never spent more than a fraction as much on the war in Afghanistan as we're spending on refugees.

I never made such a claim. And you are again talking immigration not refugees. This topic is about refugees. Refugee policy is driven by a pompous need by progressive, attention-whore politicians to tilt their chins skyward and smile nobly for the cameras as they bask in the adoration of how wonderful and kind and generous they are (with other people's money).

Immigration policy is driven by the cold, backroom calculation of how to appeal to certain ethnic groups for votes.

I don't give a damn what the banks want. I know they like having more customers, just like other business like bringing in foreigners who will work like dogs for very little income. Screw them.

Are you suggesting 2 year olds are filing income taxes? 

That may well be but they're not contributing a damn thing to pay for public services, and we don't need more such people sucking on the government teat and not paying anything back. Bringing in tens of thousands of third world farmers who have little or no hope of ever attaining decent work here is extremely expensive, not to mention culturally dangerous.

Quote

According to the only study I've seen, by the Fraser Institute, immigration is costing all levels of government $30 billion a year.

That study is useless for judging the overall economic impact of immigration. It only looks at direct expenditures.

Quote

Nope. If we have to build houses for immigrants/refugees who can't support themselves then that's simply an added expense on us. Sure, people have jobs doing it, but they're paid by the government, which means taking money away from other people to do it.

Thats not completely true. Most of that is brand new money, added to the money supply (M1), when the developer takes out a loan to build a housing complex or someone takes out a loan to start a business. That activity costs the government nothing, in fact it has a large net gain. The developer will pay taxes and probably capital gains. He will hire people and they will pay taxes. He will purchase materials and services from other companies that pay taxes. During the construction of a new home, about 250 thousand dollars worth of freshly created, band new money enters the economy. Its true that the government may have to subsidize an immigrant who rents one of these properties but that is usually for the short term. At that point, there has been so much taxable economic activity that the government could subsidize them for years and still break even.

Quote

Immigration policy is driven by the cold, backroom calculation of how to appeal to certain ethnic groups for votes.

No its driven by businesses and banks, and keynesian economic theory. Our economic system does not contemplate, and is not designed for an environment of low or zero population growth. And businesses and banks want more customers, more people, more economic activity, more borrowing, more purchasing etc. And they are the ones that really make decisions in this country.

Quote

That may well be but they're not contributing a damn thing to pay for public services, and we don't need more such people sucking on the government teat and not paying anything back. Bringing in tens of thousands of third world farmers who have little or no hope of ever attaining decent work here is extremely expensive, not to mention culturally dangerous.

Many of them have worked and contributed their entire lives, and are living on a pension that they paid into. They have done plenty to pay for public services.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

So that 400 acres of Crown Land I have my eye on should be given to me?

You didn't answer the question so I will. It cost them all nothing. Most of Canada was empty land back then. That's not the case now. And even if it was, farming is not something you can do now with a mule and a plow. You need a million bucks in equipment just to get started.

[Argus]

28 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not true.  They got land and in some cases a cash bonus of $10 for the immigrant and $5 for family members.  In some circumstances, food and clothing was also supplied.   It wasn't easy, but to say early settlers got nothing from Canadian government is just wrong.

Interestingly, British farmers were the least successful.

Www.historymuseum.ca

Most of the immigrants who came here weren't farmers and got nothing. There was no welfare, no health care and no job or skills training. Why is it you people on the far left can't even admit the most obvious, simple truths?

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Why is it you people on the far right can't even admit the most obvious, simple truths?

Fixed it for you.

[Argus]

26 minutes ago, dre said:

That study is useless for judging the overall economic impact of immigration. It only looks at direct expenditures.

It's pretty good for judging the cost to taxpayers. That's a lot more real a number than anything else.

 

26 minutes ago, dre said:

Thats not completely true. Most of that is brand new money, added to the money supply (M1) when the developer takes out a loan to build a housing complex or someone takes out a loan to start a business.

It's only new if they're selling it to someone who can pay for it without taxpayer assistance. I also dispute your contention that taking out a loan is 'new' money. It's money the banks got from other people. It's not new. New money comes from exports and foreign investment in Canada. This is simply money being recirculated.

26 minutes ago, dre said:

No its driven by businesses and banks, and keynesian economic theory.

Yeah okay! I guess it's just coincidence we tend to get increases in immigration in election years!

When the Mulroney cabinet was considering tripling immigration in 1985 the Economic Council of Canada said there was no evidence this would help the economy, that it might even hurt it. The decisive factor for the Tory cabinet in approving the increase was the belief newcomers would wind up voting for them. Immigration decisions are NEVER made with the interest of Canada in mind. NEVER. It's never even a consideration. When Trudeau increased the number of seniors coming in that was to win ethnic votes, not to help Canada. When he promised more family class and less economic class immigrants that wasn't the help Canada. It was to win ethnic votes. When he announced citizenship would be immediately granted to anyone who married a Canada, rather than having to wait, that was for ethnic votes, not something in Canada's interest. And when he bragged about all the Syrian refugees the Liberals would take in that was for crass political gain, and nothing more.

 

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Fixed it for you.

Except that like most everything else you post there's no truth to it. I'm a centrist. Your politics, on the other hand are clearly way out there on the fringes of the Left.

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Except that like most everything else you post there's no truth to it. I'm a centrist. Your politics, on the other hand are clearly way out there on the fringes of the Left.

I gave you a link supporting my claim; you provide nothing but opinion and when presented with proof you claim you said something else and attacked everyone on the "far left".  Who is lacking "truth" here?   

I rarely post stuff that I can't back up with credible sources.  You, on the other hand, rarely post any source - credible or otherwise - for any of your opinions.   Claiming I lie fails to make your argument more credible, much as you might wish it did.

Edited March 15, 2017 by dialamah

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I gave you a link supporting my claim;

A link to a general history web site? You couldn't even bother to link to the actual story, assuming there is one. And your claim was that some of them got $5-$10 bonuses to come here. I dismissed it as irrelevant. Whatever small bonuses some of them got was nothing compared to what immigrants get now in welfare, health care, housing, clothing, etc FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

Most of your objections on immigration issues or anything involving Islam and Muslims consist of irrelevant efforts at distraction and obfuscation.

Quote

I rarely post stuff that I can't back up with credible sources.  You, on the other hand, rarely post any source - credible or otherwise - for any of your opinions.   Claiming I lie fails to make your argument more credible, much as you might wish it did.

Phhht. I have posted reams of cites from government and third party studies on the ill effects of immigration and refugees. If you care to examine my OP on topic of immigration of religious fanatics you'll find five mainstream cites in the OP alone.  Everyone here knows that I do lots of cites. The only thing you ever post is emotionally overwrought nonsense meant to distract from the truth.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Argus

[dre]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

I also dispute your contention that taking out a loan is 'new' money. It's money the banks got from other people.

 

Well if you dispute that you don't even have a basic understanding of how our money system and banking system works. It has not worked the way you described for about three hundred years.

97% of our money supply was created by commercial banks when they make loans. Only 3% was created by the government. When you borrow 1000 dollars from a bank, only a small fraction of it actually come from deposits. The rest of it is simply written into your account, backed by nothing but your promise to pay. About 900 dollars of that (given a reserve ratio of 10%) is brand new, freshly created money, otherwise known as "checkbook money".

It was quite simply loaned into existence. 97% of our money was made this way, and each and every one of those Canadian "dollars" besides the tiny amount made by the government at the mint, or the also small amount created by the central banks was simply written into existance by banks through form, and each and every one of those dollars has a corresponding debt to a commercial bank. 

Any banker or economist will tell you the same thi

 

Quote

 

Money creation by commercial banks[edit]

Main article: Fractional reserve banking

In contemporary monetary systems, most money in circulation exists not as cash or coins created by the central bank, but as bank deposits. Commercial bank lending expands the amount of bank deposits.^[6]Through fractional reserve banking, the modern banking system expands the money supply of a country beyond the amount initially created by the central bank, creating most of the broad money in the system.^[7]

There are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system: currency originally issued by the central bank, and bank deposits at commercial banks:^[8][9]

1. Central bank money (all money created by the central bank regardless of its form, e.g., banknotes, coins, electronic money)
2. Commercial bank money (money created in the banking system through borrowing and lending) – sometimes referred to as checkbook money^[10]

When a commercial bank loan is extended, new commercial bank money is created if the loan proceeds are issued in the form of an increase in a customer's demand deposit account (that is, an increase in the bank's demand deposit liability owed to the customer). As a loan is paid back through reductions in the demand deposit liabilities the bank owes to a customer, that commercial bank money disappears from existence. Because loans are continually being issued in a normally functioning economy, the amount of broad money in the economy remains relatively stable. Because of this money creation process by the commercial banks, the money supply of a country is usually a multiple larger than the money issued by the central bank; that multiple was traditionally determined by the reserve requirements and now essentially by other financial ratios (primarily the capital adequacy ratio that limits the overall credit creation of a bank) set by the relevant banking regulators in the jurisdiction.

 

 

 

An immigrant coming to this country will cause somewhere between 250 - 500 thousand dollars to be added to our money supply. Unless they are homeless and find every stitch of clothing and scrap of food in a dumpster or something. The tax payers benefit from this because there is now additional money in the economy that they have a chance to earn.

[taxme]

16 hours ago, dre said:

There is no massive immigration. We allow roughly the same amount of immigrants per capita as we did 100 years ago. The rest of your post is just a mindless rant. You have no idea whether immigration benefits our economy or not, because you don't take into account all of the factors involved. Those 40 thousand people are going to need food, and shelter, and clothing. Building 40 thousand new residential units is going to create a shitload of employment for Canadians. The added demand for housing increases the wealth and equity of all Canadians that own a home.

I don't know what the total net effect would be if you were to do a real macro-economic analysis of immigration, but at least I can admit that. You have a strong opinion, but absolutely nothing to back it up.

A rant, eh? Well, those forty thousand wonderful new refugees on top of the 2-3 hundred thousand that immigrate to Canada every year on top of the temporary foreign workers will be a burden on the Canadian taxpayer, and the infrastructure of Canada. I will bet that not all of them have jobs to go too, especially when their are 2 million unemployed Canadians looking for work. What about them, eh? The majority will no doubt have to end up on welfare assistance until maybe they can find a job, if they ever find a job at all, a job that maybe an unemployed Canadian could use seeing that we only have two million Canadians unemployed already.  

So, why not build houses instead for those Canadians unemployed? Why build homes for refugees who have not paid one single nickle in taxes into the Canadian economy. Why do you not give this idea any thought? This I would like to hear from you. And for those workers building those homes, who is paying their wages? Trudeau is not, I can assure you of that. Can you guess who? One guess only. 

It would appear to me as though you are not concerned about some born here Canadian now are you? The rest of the world is more important to you, eh? It's amazing how you say that when Canada builds houses for them, eventually if they will then move in, they will need a good job to keep those homes up and running. What if they can't find a job, what then? Are you going to help them to pay their bills? Not. 

This is what I like about all these pro-immigrant immigration people, they never can see down the road want may happen. All they want to do is look good, and say, see how wonderful and caring Canadians are. Caring alright? Caring for the rest of the world that is. Some peoples kids? Unbelievable.  

If you do not know the total effect of whether more immigration is good for Canada then why appear to encourage it? Find out first before you attack others who try and show a bit of common sense and logic, and not emotionalism and foolishness talk. 

Try website Immigration Watch or the Fraser Institute and get some factual information from them. If people keep listening to the Trudeaus, Canada will never go anywhere. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

Try website Immigration Watch or the Fraser Institute and get some factual information from them.

Immigration watch is a racist group. Their idea of freedom of speech is distributing flyers with pictures of a group of white people and a group of brown people and the caption "from this to that, is that what you want?".

Fraser institute is never factual, they twist facts to serve an agenda.

 

Do you have any credible sources?

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dre said:

Well if you dispute that you don't even have a basic understanding of how our money system and banking system works. It has not worked the way you described for about three hundred years.

97% of our money supply was created by commercial banks when they make loans.

Okay, you know what, we've been through this before. Banks don't create money out of nothing. Yes, I know some economists use the phrase, but they don't mean it literally. You have an extremely superficial view of what they're talking about. Banks loan money but that creates an offsetting liability.  And the subject is inherently boring and not the subject of this topic.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Immigration watch is a racist group. Their idea of freedom of speech is distributing flyers with pictures of a group of white people and a group of brown people and the caption "from this to that, is that what you want?".

Fraser institute is never factual, they twist facts to serve an agenda.

 

Do you have any credible sources?

This is how the Left engages in argument. First, it dismisses out of hand any organization which they perceive to be right of center, then they ask you for other evidence - as if left of centre organizations are likely to be producing such things. And in the unlikely event a left of centre organization produces such evidence, such as, say, the CBC and Toronto Start producing polls showing the great majority of Canadians want values testing for immigrants, they simply dismiss it anyway.

The Frasier Institute produces some extremely well thought out, and documented reports on a variety of issues, a very few of which point out the costs of immigration, and the Left dismisses them as horrible, evil people not to be trusted...

As for Immigration Watch. I'll admit they put out a couple of dumb flyers, but for the most part all you'll find on their site are stories and studies from media, all clearly cited and linked.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Argus

[Peter F]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Okay, you know what, we've been through this before. Banks don't create money out of nothing. Yes, I know some economists use the phrase, but they don't mean it literally. You have an extremely superficial view of what they're talking about. Banks loan money but that creates an offsetting liability.  And the subject is inherently boring and not the subject of this topic.

OffsettingLiability? How is that balancing off money created out of thin air?  Their is no cash associated with a liability. Thats why its a liability.  The bank creates the money out of thin air then creates  liability on the books in the form of the thin air they lent out. Debtor owes them real non-thin air cash because the bank lent them thin air cash. The Liability does absolutely nothing to counter the invented debt.

[dre]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Okay, you know what, we've been through this before. Banks don't create money out of nothing. Yes, I know some economists use the phrase, but they don't mean it literally. You have an extremely superficial view of what they're talking about. Banks loan money but that creates an offsetting liability.  And the subject is inherently boring and not the subject of this topic.

Yes the offsetting liability is the borrowers promise to pay the loan bank. I already explained that. Never the less new money is created every time a loan is made. This is how our money supply expands. And its entirely relevant because its one of the factors you need to look at when looking at the overall macro economic impact of immigration. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of economic activity happens every time an immigrant moves here. All of it is taxed.

Just looking at direct expenditures by government VS what immigrants pay back in taxes is an utter waste of time. There's a whole host of other factors and you haven't bothered to look at any of them.