Doc110 wrote:
What a bunch of garbage you spew.
All you do is deflect from the Clinton/Obama muslim strategy.
Your the one who is ignorant and have this crappified thought pattern that what ever the regressive liberal is in power you espouse, you have total ignorance of the ramifications of your thoughts and actions on this subject.
Its called: Do-Goodism
Definition of: Do-Goodism, Do-Gooder and Do-Gooda
Do-goodism (ˈdu gʊdˌɪzˌ əm) also do-gooderism (du-ˈgʊd əˌrɪzˌ əm) Noun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-goodism The actions or attitudes of a do-gooder. This kind of thinking is spreading across the country. Its easy to see how good intentions can lead to bad results.
Attitudes or actions of well-intentioned but sometimes ineffectual people, especially in the area of social and political reform.
Definition: do-good·er (du gʊdˌ ər) Noun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-gooder A naive person who's well-intentioned proposals fail to take into account their repercussions. i.e.. We must not enforce policies with simply good intentions, we have to take into account the larger picture.
A person who wants to "do you" good; As in taking your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Do-gooders do very well for themselves, usually by cashing in on government grants and private donations. Examples: Reverend Al Sharpton, Reverend Jessie Jackson and the far left fringe in Congress like Harry Reid, Dick Durban, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Philanthropic persons or organizations and sponsors like George (Shultz) Suros, the Tides foundation and most PBS Television group sponsors like the Annenberg foundation.
A white liberal. Someone who knows what is best for everyone else, and devotes his life to shoving it down our throats. Someone like Hillary Clinton is a do-gooder who wants to make us all pay for medical care for lazy bums who piss their lives away spray painting graffiti on other
people's property. But feels your pain.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooderA naive idealist who supports philanthropic or humanitarian political causes or reforms.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-gooderInformal, usually disparaging a well-intentioned person, especially a naive or impractical one.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-gooderA well-intentioned but naive and sometimes ineffectual social or political reformer. Someone devoted to the promotion of human welfare and to social and political reforms. (See) Bleeding heart liberal. Someone who thinks they are helping society by championing the oppressed minority, victimized homosexual, and LGBT groups when in fact they are ruining society and crippling free speech.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/do-gooder http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooderAn earnest but often naïve person (typically educated and white) who wants reform through philanthropic or egalitarian means. e.g. wealth redistribution, social justice, welfare, third world immigration, adoption of "disadvantaged" children (usually non-white and from abroad), affirmative action and spending other peoples' money for good causes. See also white guilt.
Do-gooders always mean well but may misinterpret opposing preferences to be racist, cold, intolerant or greedy. They genuinely want human development & positive environmental awareness, although the methods are a source of debate. Do-gooders can be either liberal/left or social conservative (as opposed to fiscal responsibility).
For some, issues such as "ethnic diversity" & "multiculturalism" this is a religious calling, but they generally dont have the same burden for promoting it in countries apart from western ones and don't feel that having a lack of ethnic diversity is a crime for any non-european countries (e.g. Japan).
A few inherent contradictions may exist, such as the fact that literal
"multiculturalism" would instead favor separation of ethnic or cultural groups to maintain diversity. Some subconsciously believe that decreasing the "european-descent" portion of the population pie is indicative of western progress.
Do-gooder methods do not always create the positive outcomes intended. The transfer of money from one group of people to another is usual
characteristic.
A pesky pinko/wooly liberal more concerned with uber-censorship and helping everyone who the biased leftist liberal media has tricked them into thinking that they Need their help. This, naturally, means ethnic minorities illegal aliens and people with disabilities.
Pretty much all affirmative action incentives may please minorities, but fail to take into account that welfare is an addictive cycle, and that Minorities are hurt if they are given advantages over others. It creates a more unequal society, one where to our welfare and education system race and ethnicity is stressed more then anything else.
It suggests that minorities would be unable to help themselves, and that is prejudice, i thought we wanted everyone to have equal opportunity and rights, isn't that what reconciliation is about?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooderDo-gooders are naive wishful thinker, who supports political and social thinking causes or reforms! They are ineffective people, who's well intentioned proposals fail to take into account the long term ramifications of a political or social endeavors.
By using the liberal media as a forum to champion these ideas and views points which are encouraged, exhorted and exchanged on a particular belies system by progressives sound-bite and which regurgitated too the ill-informed masses.
Often times the issues and facts are exacerbated and taken out of context, with wild assertions and statistics to back up their claims, with keeping constant pressure on existing social issues, political laws and citizens, forcing them to take action with out debunking those assertions, facts or statistics and becoming reactionaries to the status-quo-ante in the de jure vs De-facto society that we live in.
When talking and confronting these do-gooders on the issues and
facts, it is like dealing with an AAHD child on Ritalin, it is difficult to
speak with do-gooders, due to the inability to focus their brain on one
issue at a time, because they, the do-gooders are all over the place
transforming their universe into their warped thoughts, of a perfect
utopian society.
Consistently they become highly charged, emotionally and they walk away from fact minded people in the of great debate of ideas. Do-Gooders rarely change their mindset or mantra and quite often get into name calling.
Common phrase words used:
Your a racist, you Republicans or Tea-party racist and child speech: Im right and your wrong, deranged type of thinking.
The debate usually ends because logic, common sense and compromise are not part of their moral philosophy.
Do-gooders seek out like minded lawmakers to rewrite and pass new complex legislative laws, when common sense and existing laws just need to be enforced.
The new laws are more complicated and restrictive and infringe on your Constitutional civil rights. Do-gooders perceive that the Constitution is an old dead document, which is taught in colleges and schools but not put into practice in the current real world Republic.
Examples of do-gooders legislative law bans:
The soda big-gulp ban, butter ban, cupcake ban in schools, water bottle
ban, plastic bottle ban, smoking ban in your home, gun violence restrictive laws ban, and the creme-a-la-creme of do-gooders laws is, ObamaCare.
The congress passed a financial pork-barreled (tax) legislative riddled loop-hole bill without even reading the law, which the majority of Americans did not support.
Just throw out rational common sense thinking out the door use your emotions to solve complex issues.
Definition: Do-Gooda (ˈdu gʊdˌ ah) Noun
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dodged Someone who puts there nose in other people personal and financial
business like immigration, affirmative action, welfare, ObamaCare and
21 New taxes. The Democratic 2009 -2010 Congress, Hillary and
Obama .are such good Do-Goodas.
Definition: Do-Gooda-Shat (ˈdu gʊdˌ ahˌ shaˈt) Noun
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do%20good%20shat A expression of the language of do - AKA do language
Do everything and anything that can not only be good, but also can be
good shat. Can be used in any variation, form, style, prose, accent.
Do good shat is always do good shat, but it's at its best when said with
a Caribbean Jamaican beach accent, which immediately satisfies the
human race." Krakage: its do goods shat. (Caribbean beach voice)
Definition: Shat, (ˈshaˈt) Noun
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do%20good%20shat Old english past tense of shit. And lo, he was shat upon, and he did
weep for his misfortune.
2. Past tense of "to shit." I shat myself.
The past tense of "shit"; to have taken a shit.
Upon smelling a really nasty fart: "Ewe...who shat themselves?"
I, We all digress . . . this Do-Gooder conversation. . .
br br What a bunch of garbage you spew. br br ... (
show quote)
11/4/2015 Taxpayer Bill To resettle 35,000 Mideast Refugees: $2.3 BILLION 'Heavy welfare cost' cited in new study
http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/taxpayer-bill-to-resettle-35000-mideast-refugees-2-3-billion/ The Syrian civil war has caused 4 million refugees, with 400,000 targeted by the United Nations for resettlement outside the region.
It costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $65,000 to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee over the first five years, which is 12 times what it would cost to care for that same refugee in a neighboring country in the region, according to a new study.
The Center for Immigration Studies cites heavy welfare use as the main reason why refugees are so costly to resettle. This flies in the face of oft-quoted comments by U.S. mayors who claim refugees add to their tax base and promote economic growth, making for a more culturally diverse and economically resilient city.
The CIS study indicates they are more of a drain on the economy than a boost.
The $64,370 cost to U.S. taxpayers over five years is a conservative estimate presented in a new study released by CIS chief researcher and statistician.
If the U.S. takes in 35,000 refugees next year from countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, which is a reasonable estimate for fiscal 2016, it would cost the U.S. taxpayer $2.3 billion just in the first five years.
This does not include the cost of refugees from non-Middle Eastern nations, which will be another 50,000 refugees costing at least another $2.5 billion.
The cost of resettlement includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees, said the lead author of the study, Steven Camarota, the CIS director of research.
Very heavy use of welfare programs by Middle Eastern refugees, and the fact that they have only 10.5 years of education on average, makes it likely that it will be many years, if ever, before this population will cease to be a net fiscal drain on public coffers using more in public services than they pay in taxes, he said.
As WND has reported numerous times, 91 percent of refugees from the Middle East receive food stamps, 68 percent receive cash assistance and 23 percent live in public housing. Costs also include processing refugees, cash assistance given to new refugees, and aid to refugee-receiving communities.
While the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement often claims that most refugees are self-sufficient within five years, that claim is deceiving.
The ORR defines self-sufficiency as any refugee that no longer receives cash welfare payments. A household is still considered self-sufficient if it is using any number of non-cash programs such as food stamps, public housing or Medicaid.
So we have a pretty good idea of what refugees cost, and its a lot, Camarota told WND. This raises the question of what is the most effective way to help people, and it turns out helping them in their home country or in a neighboring country may be the most effective. You cant just ignore that question. Right now the United Nations has a $2.5 billion deficit in helping refugees in the Middle East. Funding is limited.
The Syrian civil war has caused 4 million displaced persons, according to the U.N. Most are being temporarily housed in camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, but the U.N. wants to permanently resettle at least 400,000 in neighboring countries. This is on top of the more than 1 million who have already migrated illegally to Europe.
I think the public is sympathetic, but were not going to spend unlimited resources. Congress is neglecting a very important question if they dont look at this, and it is a question of how best to help, Camarota said. Its very costly, and this is a population that is extremely costly in terms of its usage of government services. You cant just say, I want to help, and not look at the costs.
There are other advantages even for the refugees, he said.
The material life might be better here, but there are other considerations. One example may be if they stay there once the war is over, they are much more likely to return home, he said. If they stay also in countries more culturally similar, they dont have the disruption of adjusting to life in an alien society like America.
Caring for refugees in the region is also less disruptive to our society, Camarota said.
Unfortunately, we have had refugees come to the U.S. and commit terrorist acts, the most cited example being the Boston Marathon bombers, who came from the Caucuses as asylum seekers, he said.
FBI Director James Comey has also warned Congress and the Obama administration that his agency is not capable of screening the Syrian refugees because the U.S. has no access to reliable intelligence data in that broken country.
Costs likely much higher
Camarota said the study used an extremely conservative methodology to come up with the cost, only using the costs that are tracked by government data.
If you assume $12,500 as the national average per student per year and 28 percent of refugees are kids between 5 and 17, if gives you actual costs, he said.
However, the study did not include many other costs, such as the cost of having to bring in mobile classrooms and eventually build new schools to deal with overcrowding. Nor does it include the cost of hiring new teachers, special tutors and language translators. Also not included in the study were costs such as energy assistance programs or refugee children using the Head Start program.
So this is very conservative. The actual costs are higher, likely much higher, Camarota said.
Its a lot to consider, but we can also help a lot more people with the same amount of money. Whatever amount you have to spend, you can do a lot more, 12 times more if you take the five-year costs to help them here, versus what it costs to help them in the Middle East for five years.
Among the other findings:
On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria.
For what it costs to resettle one Middle Eastern refugee in the United States for five years, about 12 refugees can be helped in the Middle East for five years, or 61 refugees can be helped for one year.
The UNHCR reports a gap of $2.5 billion in funding that it needs to care for approximately four million Syrians in neighboring countries.
The five-year cost of resettling about 39,000 Syrian refugees in the United States is enough to erase the current UNHCR funding gap.
Of Middle Eastern refugee households that have arrived in the last five years, 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash welfare.
The five-year costs of resettlement in the United States include $9,230 spent by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within HHS and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration within the State Department in the first year, as well as $55,139 in expenditures on welfare and education.
In 1970, fewer than 1 in 21 U.S. residents were foreign-born. Today is it nearing 1 in 7, and will soon eclipse every historical watermark and keep rising.
Meanwhile, the wage compression enabled by long-term low-skilled migration has helped employers keep wages down beneath 1973 levels.
One of the fastest-growing categories of immigration is from the Middle East, driven in part by refugee resettlement. Here are some stats:
Muslim immigration at all-time high
As part of the annual admission of 1.1 million refugees, asylum-seekers and green cards holders, the United States resettles more than 100,000 migrants from Muslim nations. For instance, in 2013, the United States
Issued 117,000 green cards to migrants from Muslim countries, including about 70,000 to migrants from just Middle Eastern countries
Admitted 40,000 designated refugees and asylum-seekers from all Muslim nations, of which approximately 30,000 come from the Middle East
Looking at just the Middle East over the last five years (FY 09-13), the United States
Issued 400,000 green cards to migrants from the Middle East
Admitted 115,000 refugees and asylum-seekers from the Middle East
Looking at Muslim nations in general over the last five years (FY 09-13), the United States
Issued 680,000 green cars to migrants from Muslim countries
Admitted 155,000 refugees and asylum-seekers from Muslim countries
Meanwhile, polling from Rasmussen shows:
49 percent of voters think the correct admissions number for all Middle Eastern refugees is zero
69 percent think it should be either zero or capped at 10,000
Only 5 percent would appear to support the current policy of admitting more than 100,000 in the next five years.