Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Ryujin]

Nope. Not truth. Not rescued.

"Truthiness" has very little to do with actual, literal truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

 

[El Mahdi]

"Truthiness" has very little to do with actual, literal truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

That's so very True...

 

[MechaPilot]

Some responses to those statements.

First, that amount of increased taxes won't even make a dent in what is needed for social security to be solvent. Secondly, that money doesn't go towards social security and it never will, so it has no bearing on a discussion about paying for social security.



The money withheld from such workers is a pittance and won't even come remotely close to making a difference.



This is entirely irrelevant. The taxes that companies like GE avoid paying doesn't go towards social security and never will.



And? Virtually all illegals are low income "taxpayers" and that includes them at all ages.

You're the one who brought up a general net negative tax revenue effect when you mentioned refunds, not me. The net negative effect that you brought up makes GE, the increased tax revenue from increased sales of food/housing/utilities/etc, and the off-shore sheltering of corporate revenues from taxation relevant for that topic that, again, you interjected into the discussion.

Now, we can have a debate about whether we need to raise the social security and medicare taxes, whether we should remove the income cap from the social security tax, and whether we should alter the schedule by which the age for full retirement benefits is determined, but none of that changes the fact that more taxpayers means tax revenues and payments into the social security and medicare funds increase.

 

[Umbran]

We have to set limits. We already have far too many flowing over the southern border.

That's a separate problem. What we do about Syrian refugees will not impact that.

There's still Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Egypt has taken over 100,000 already. Saudi Arabia has taken 100,000 refugees, and then something like 400,000 more that aren't legally speaking refugees (and so they don't have the same rights and protections as refugees)

Iran is problematic. Iran supports Assad - you know, the guy who used chemical weapons on his own civilians, the ones who are now fleeing from the country? Why would we think they'd be appropriate sterwards, and why would we think Syrians who were protesting Assad's regime would be willing to go to those who support the man they were trying to oust?

And, never mind the fact that this whole thing started with massive drought in Syria - drought that's still going on, and will leave much of the country unsuitable unless it is under expert management, which to date it has not. "Hold them in tents until they can go home," assumes there's a home to return to.

Legitimacy is worth a lot. Don't sell it short. They don't.

Efficiency, is worth a lot too, as is reliability. And coming in as refugees is really, really not efficient or reliable.

But, again, there's no *evidence* this is happening in any numbers. There is *fear* that they will do it. Fear. Remember, that's the specialty of terrorists. We should strongly avoid making decisions based on fear. Base it on evidence, real data.

That's very different from stopping security measures altogether, so it's not really a response to what I said. I will agree with you about the results of the "security measures" enacted since 9/11, though.

Yes, well, the discussion at the moment shares much in common with the discussion and action after 9/11: knee-jerk and facile. The attackers in Paris were not Syrian, not refugees, and didn't use major encryption to conceal their communications. But, the discussion is about Syrians, refugees, and encryption.

Why would they radicalize against the U.S.? We didn't do it to them and they know it.

You're expecting rationality (that matches your personal thought, even) from a religious radical?

Once they are desperate, with no apparent route to something like a quality life, radicals will come to them and make very cogent arguments that the West, including the US, really are at the root of their problems. They will indicate all the things we have done to destabilize the region over the past several decades. And on many of those points, they will be factually correct. And it will become very, very easy for them to hate us.

 

[Maxperson]

You're the one who brought up a general net negative tax revenue effect when you mentioned refunds, not me. The net negative effect that you brought up makes GE, the increased tax revenue from increased sales of food/housing/utilities/etc, and the off-shore sheltering of corporate revenues from taxation relevant for that topic that, again, you interjected into the discussion.

Now, we can have a debate about whether we need to raise the social security and medicare taxes, whether we should remove the income cap from the social security tax, and whether we should alter the schedule by which the age for full retirement benefits is determined, but none of that changes the fact that more taxpayers means tax revenues and payments into the social security and medicare funds increase.

The long and the short of it is that what companies make is irrelevant and what the illegals add is not enough to cover themselves, let alone themselves and everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a separate problem. What we do about Syrian refugees will not impact that.

Egypt has taken over 100,000 already. Saudi Arabia has taken 100,000 refugees, and then something like 400,000 more that aren't legally speaking refugees (and so they don't have the same rights and protections as refugees)

They can take more, especially if we're helping support them with money.

Iran is problematic. Iran supports Assad - you know, the guy who used chemical weapons on his own civilians, the ones who are now fleeing from the country? Why would we think they'd be appropriate sterwards, and why would we think Syrians who were protesting Assad's regime would be willing to go to those who support the man they were trying to oust?

It's not my job or responsibility to judge where they decide to live. And hey, according to Obama, they've decided against trying for any nuclear weapons and we should take them at their word and remove sanctions. If they're worthy of that kind of trust, they're worthy of taking care of some neighbors for a time.

And, never mind the fact that this whole thing started with massive drought in Syria - drought that's still going on, and will leave much of the country unsuitable unless it is under expert management, which to date it has not. "Hold them in tents until they can go home," assumes there's a home to return to.

It's a desert. Besides, they really aren't fleeing the drought. They are fleeing Assad and Isis.

But, again, there's no *evidence* this is happening in any numbers. There is *fear* that they will do it. Fear. Remember, that's the specialty of terrorists. We should strongly avoid making decisions based on fear. Base it on evidence, real data.[/quote

The real data is that we've caught more of them coming in as refugees than are required for an attack that can take down sky scrapers.

Yes, well, the discussion at the moment shares much in common with the discussion and action after 9/11: knee-jerk and facile. The attackers in Paris were not Syrian, not refugees, and didn't use major encryption to conceal their communications. But, the discussion is about Syrians, refugees, and encryption.

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if some attacks aren't refugees. Others are. That we've caught a dozen of them proves that.

You're expecting rationality (that matches your personal thought, even) from a religious radical?

Once they are desperate, with no apparent route to something like a quality life, radicals will come to them and make very cogent arguments that the West, including the US, really are at the root of their problems. They will indicate all the things we have done to destabilize the region over the past several decades. And on many of those points, they will be factually correct. And it will become very, very easy for them to hate us.

You're right. They could totally radicalize against martians, too. Seriously, though, the only solution for what you laid out is to completely depopulate the region. That region will always have problems and the U.S. will be to blame for them. If not these refugees, then others will become radicals. Bringing this group to the U.S. solves nothing.

 

[MechaPilot]

The long and the short of it is that what companies make is irrelevant and what the illegals add is not enough to cover themselves, let alone themselves and everyone else.

Additional taxpayers do not cover themselves when it comes to social security and medicare. The system was designed so that the current generation of retirees is supported by the current generation of workers. The theory was that populations would only continue to expand, and that flawed theory has created a significant under-funding problem. Adding more taxpayers does add to the fund without placing an additional demand for current payment on the fund.

"The long and the short of it" is that if you want an immediate increase in current contributions to the fund with no increase in current distributions from the fund and without increasing the withholding taxes, then you must add more taxpayers (so the system can work the way that it was actually designed to). Other things should probably also be done to correct problems with the system, and those things can be discussed as amicably as possible, but an infusion of cash via a method that was a central conceit of how the system would work when it was created will only assist in fixing the problem.

 

[Maxperson]

Additional taxpayers do not cover themselves when it comes to social security and medicare. The system was designed so that the current generation of retirees is supported by the current generation of workers. The theory was that populations would only continue to expand, and that flawed theory has created a significant under-funding problem. Adding more taxpayers does add to the fund without placing an additional demand for current payment on the fund.

"The long and the short of it" is that if you want an immediate increase in current contributions to the fund with no increase in current distributions from the fund and without increasing the withholding taxes, then you must add more taxpayers (so the system can work the way that it was actually designed to). Other things should probably also be done to correct problems with the system, and those things can be discussed as amicably as possible, but an infusion of cash via a method that was a central conceit of how the system would work when it was created will only assist in fixing the problem.

You seriously expect 11.5 million people to be able to cover a several billion dollar shortfall that is increasing annually? You'll slow it down........at the expense of creating a worse disaster down the road. We need to overhaul the system, not compound the problem.

You're also overlooking that a huge portion of them won't be working. They'll be on welfare and other public programs sucking up cash instead of contributing it.

 

[MechaPilot]

You seriously expect 11.5 million people to be able to cover a several billion dollar shortfall that is increasing annually? You'll slow it down........at the expense of creating a worse disaster down the road. We need to overhaul the system, not compound the problem.

I didn't say that it would entirely fix the problem. In fact, I specifically said that other things should probably be done as well, which you seem to be agreeing with. You also seem to be agreeing with me that a current infusion of cash would only help.

You're also overlooking that a huge portion of them won't be working. They'll be on welfare and other public programs sucking up cash instead of contributing it.

First of all, that's an assumption. Let's look at actual fact.

The fact is that they will need several things that are provided by local businesses (food, housing, utilities, etc). Increased business generally results in hiring more staff to handle the increase, or in capital expansions which requires someone somewhere to do work for money (whether it's construction or the building of equipment for use in a trade or business).

Also pertinent is that legal, non-refugee immigrants are also not working when they come here. Most of the people who have come to the U.S. have done so with the hope but not the actual promise of a job, and were therefore unemployed the moment they hit our shores. Those people found jobs. That's what immigrants do: they go to a foreign land, find a job, and make a new home in the country they immigrated to.

As far as welfare, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we are talking about a tax revenue effect that extends beyond social security and medicare fund payments, in which case several other things that you already dismissed are relevant, or we are not and welfare payments are irrelevant.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for this:

.
Nice Strawman. I wasn't talking about how the 9/11 highjackers got into America. You made the claim that I was being paranoid about a dozen terrorists. My argument was purely about numbers. Less than a dozen terrorists took down the twin towers. That makes numbers that low a serious concern. We don't need for there to be hundreds of terrorists coming into the country via the refugee program in order for it to become a serious and valid concern.

Thinking that stopping refugees from entering the country is an effective anti-terrorism tactic is empirically wrong. By that logic, we should simply seal our borders and let no one enter.

Furthermore, considering that none of the 9/11 bombers were Syrian, keeping Syrians refugees from entering the USA based on what Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and 2 guys from the UAE did sounds like pure islamophobia.

During The Troubles, there were @10,000 bombings. We didn't ban all Irish or Catholics from entry.

In 1946, radical zionists bombed the King David hotel, killing @91 people and injuring another 40+. We didn't bar Jews from entering the USA.

A single Norwegian- Anders Behring Breivik- with an ANFO van bomb and some guns- killed 77 and injured over 300. Norwegians are still allowed to enter this country.

Two white Christians- Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols- detonated an ammonium nitate truck bomb, killing 168 and injuring 680. There was no call to exile Christian caucasians or stop from entering the USA.

As many known jihadis in Syria have come from Western nations like France, England, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands as have originated in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. We don't have any special restrictions on refugees from any of those Western nations.