Ozi

I'd rather have small over fake.

The opposite of Leora. Some call the shape The Apple. Certainly not a nice crisp Pink Lady or sweet and firm Rome Beauty, more your Granny Smith.

No, my problem has been trying to have a logical discussion with an idiot, so will just cease all discussions not just the topic of refugees.

What, so now you are an expert on Australia?. I have explained this in a previous post, but will repeat it again for your benefit: - Two of our biggest exports are iron ore and coal that nobody wants. In 2013/14 we exported 650m tonnes of iron ore worth $750 billion. But in 2014/15 we increased the export to 750m tonnes of iron ore but instead of the expected $900 billion it was only worth $550 billion and still falling. Now, not only has the price fallen further, but so have the quantities exported. - Coal went the same way. In Jan 2011 it peaked at around $185 per tonne, but in Jan 2015 it was well below $50 per tonne. Couple that with the fear of global warming and the problems with fossil fuels, we are in serious trouble. - The Labor government did exactly the same as the Coalition government they took over from, they looked at the mining boom and decided it would last forever, so borrowed against it, spent future projected income, made commitments years in advance. The trouble is the GFC did impact on Australia; it crippled our exports, bursting the mining boom bubble. Add to that their philosophy of increasing welfare support and weakening our borders with increased asylum seekers, it’s like any other business, if your income is less than your expenditure, you go broke. So you don’t understand basic economics. A company selling its goods at a reduced price when its production costs increase due to inflation, makes less profit. Less profit means less taxes to the government. And the mining companies do pay taxes, despite what some idiots claim. Less profit means less jobs which means less income tax to the government and potentially more unemployed on welfare. Less personal income means less disposable income, which impacts on small business. And so on and so on and so on. In addition to GDP, you need to look at our Balance of Payments (BOP), not just the difference between our imports and exports, you also need to factor in the fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates. But you would have done that when comparing GDP. Right? As of 28 February 2014, the gross Australian Government debt was A$300,628 million; at 15 August 2014 it was A$326,552 million; and at 13 March 2015 it was A$361,085 million. That’s an increase of just over 20% in 12 months. Due to our reliance on mining exports and our increasing requirement to imports due to the collapse of our manufacturing industry, that deficit will continue to grow. In other words, we are going broke, and have been for years. But once again, you fail to grasp the topic. I have blamed the greed of our unions and mismanagement by all governments for our dilemma. I have stated that the migrants have contributed to the problem but are not the sole cause. I have highlighted that the Australian Government’s last budget had already made cuts to education, health and genuine social welfare programs to try and reduce the Current Account Deficit. This additional $900 million for the 12,000 refugees therefore, has to be found in addition to the budget cuts already proposed and as the Government are intent on reducing the deficit, have flagged more cuts. If our deficit has increased by 20% in 12 months and the trend looks to continue, then I support the government in its efforts to reduce the trend. What I don't support is the cuts made to genuine programmes in need of more not less, then spending $900 million on a bunch of refugees. We have people suffering in corridors in our hospitals, that don't even get a proper bed. We have pensioners living below the poverty line. So yes fuck the refugees and leave them where they are, we have enough of our own needy to care for.

Yet again, you still continue to show total ignorance of the topic. The 12,000 refugees that we are taking are additional to our usual immigration quota. They will go through a selection process like any other legal applicant. They will be coming directly to Australia as successful candidates of our immigration program. They will not be processed offshore with the illegal asylum seekers. However, unlike normal migrants, they will be arriving with not much more than the clothes on their backs, hence the direct costs associated with settling them into the country. Serco has nothing to do with them. And comparing the GDP of two countries is meaningless, without critical comparisons that effect the cost of living in those countries. The average monthly wage in Turkey is $1,731 compared to Australia at $2,610. The cost of living per month for a single person in Ankara is less than $700 per month. In Sydney it's over $1,200 per month. And, they will be living in houses, not tents. Any idea what 2,000 homes cost in Australia? As usual, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

As usual, every time you put pen to paper, or in this case, touch the keyboard, you highlight your total ignorance. Australia is not going to take the first 12,000 refugees that turn up for our selection process, and yes, as flimsy as it might be as hardly any will have documents, there is a background check carried out. To get 12,000 you will need to process closer to 50,000. "That costs money". Once you’ve selected your 12,000 you have to fly them to Australia. "That costs money". Fortunately, as they are refugees and have very few possessions, there’s probably no excess baggage charge. Once they arrive in Australia, with no funds and few possessions, they will all be provided with a whole new fitout of clothing and shoes, as well as basic commodities like toiletries and personal hygiene products. "That costs money". Based on the first group to arrive, let’s average them out as mum, dad and four kids, six to a family. That’s 2,000 houses we will have to provide. "That costs money". Using the basic family group, that accounts for approximately 8,000 children. Even at our abysmal rate of 40 kids per classroom, we need to find another 200 teachers. "That costs money". As many are in a poor state of health, most, if not all, will need immediate access to medical facilities and then on going as normal, an additional burden on our overstretched hospitals. "That costs money". As very few will find employment in the current climate, in addition to lack of language and employability skills, all will be receiving social welfare payments, from unemployment benefits, child allowance and a myriad of other services for most if not all the initial 18 to 24 month period. "That costs money". My question was where people thought the money comes from. Not one person answered that. But guess what, you were the only one stupid enough to query the amount, which, if you understand even basic concepts about the process, is not excessive or unrealistic. Well done, yet again.

I'd have thought both of you would have been around long enough not to ask such a dumb question.

So that's your solution, take in Syrian refugees. So how many, 1,200? Maybe 12,000 like Australia? How about all 2.5 million? America is a rich country, you can afford it. Why stop at Syria, why not take in all the Afghans while you're at it, that's only another 2.5 million give or take. Then there's the Somalis, but that's just over 1 million. So that's just 6 million to start things off. How many are you going to take on? Maybe just a basic family to start off, mum and dad with 6 or 7 kids. That shouldn't be too difficult for a good Christian boy like you. Then once you've got them settled, they can bring all their extended family members and in-laws. So let's just ignore the complex issues, like how their countries are so fucked in the first place, how they bring their fucked culture and religion with them, how they establish ghettos and enclaves wherever they have settled, how they slowly but systematically change the culture of their host country. Let's just look at a simple question, the same question your like minded posters fail to answer, choose to ignore, where does the money come from? Australia's 12,000 will cost an unbudgeted $900 million and the government has made no secret that it will cut overly stretched services like health, education and welfare even further than they have.

Easy to say when someone else is doing the dying for you.

You really do live in a timewarp. Try using those bullshit comments for the families of soldiers that were killed up until 2015, or the thousands of vets that can't get support. And be prepared for the deaths in "another great year". Or the families killed in terrorist attacks in places like France. Or the millions of refugees that you are apparently so concerned about. We are not talking about predictions, we are talking about the world as it is now.

So you can obviously answer a simple question and tell me where the $900 million will come from that the Australian taxpayers have to find to support 12,000 additional refugees, considering it wasn't part of the budget which was already in the red?

Interesting statement, because if you allow your government to keep doing what it's doing you will become one of the poor and desperate, so you will be able to blame yourself for all your problems. Pity you couldn't understand the poor financial management I blamed for most of the issues.

There are more than 4,000 species of cockroaches and apparently they live everywhere including the Arctic and Antarctic. The world's largest roach lives in South America, which claims say can grow to six inches long with a one-foot wingspan. Don't know about that, but I've seen some big buggers in the cellars of the old brewery in Perth. Apparently thrive on the hops, so probable pissed to boot.

I'm just following the same line of logic. Apparently, refugees and asylum seekers are a commodity everybody must want because of "the net gain a nation receives from immigrants". Greece as the distribution centre must be making a fortune from the EU. One of the concepts people need to grasp is there is a massive difference between a controlled, selective immigration policy and a mass surge of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. If it's such a net gain for countries like the UK, why, like everybody else, do they spend millions protecting their borders. Australia has a controlled, selective immigration policy, which means you don't bring in more people with mining industry skills when there is already an abundance of already qualified miners unemployed. It is still failing to achieve its target, but it is better than no policy, like "lets just take an extra 12,000 refugees". Looking at Australia, that has financial issues, a falling GDP, overcrowded hospitals, overcrowded schools, failing infrastructure, pensioners living below the poverty line, where do you think the extra $900 million comes from, because they can't just go to the Mint in Canberra and print some more cash. It means less money for the already fucked hospitals and schools, less money to prop up the decaying infrastructure, less money for genuine social welfare programmes like our pensioners and war vets. I will save confusing people by not calling our political parties Labor and Coalition, better to refer to them as their American counterparts, Democrats and Republicans. The reality is they are both so left of centre, its a competition to see who can fuck the country the quickest.