Theo Francken neemt verdediging Jambon op: “Jan verspreidt geen fake news”
m.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/theo-francken-neem...
hln.bePosted Dec 30, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC
1446
hln.beIt's not fake news because it could have been true!
21
Not 'could', can.
-7
can be = present
could have been = past
Since Jambon was telling a story that he heard (past) the correct phrase should be "could have been".
8
Soo, we've arrived at the "alternative facts" in Belgium earlier than predicted. I always knew it would come to this but I thought we had a few more years at least. Ah well, we had a decent run while it lasted.
16
Volledige quote Theo Francken: "Jan verspreidt geen fake news, want das mijn job ahja!"
10
Technically he's correct, as Jambon didn't write a fake news article or a tweet.
Straight up lying during a speech, is old school propaganda.
8
And at the same time, other guys from NVA admit it is just propaganda for the base voters. https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_allocations-familiales-retroactives-aux-refugies-un-depute-n-va-reconnait-un-propos-un-peu-reducteur-mais-relativise?id=10397509
6
Theo wouldn’t even know what fake news looked like even if got dressed up in a neon pink stretch suit and rammed a black dildo up his ass.
6
dressed up in a neon pink stretch suit and rammed a black dildo up his ass
That's Tuesday night at Francken Manor.
3
Theo's claim that Jambon didn't spread fake news is itself fake news.
2
[deleted]
1†
Calculations go as high as close to 90k, it might be an extreme,case but thsta more then enough to buy a house , even in belgium.
This "well but the average price is ..." is nonsense.
It still was a dumb thing to say as it diverts attention away from the issue.
-15
The first time I heard about this "situation" was in a news article that did the worst case calculation and they got to 32k. Do you have the calculations/numbers your 90k is based on?
6
The first 'calculations' fabricated facts like all asylum procedures are completely done within 2 years. The other number assumes the (maximum?) reimbursement period of 5 years.
4
the worst
? What worst?
They didnt do any of that sort, they just randomy took some numbers and claimed it was a fact check.
And its one of the many threads about this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/ehayeb/gezinsbond_rekent_uit_kan_een_asielzoeker_een/
Een gezin asielzoekers met vijf kinderen kan in het maximale scenario 87.375 euro kindergeld krijgen. Dat heeft Yves Coemans van de Gezinsbond berekend. “Met dat bedrag kan je in ons land inderdaad een oud te renoveren appartement kopen of in sommige streken een klein te renoveren huis”, legt Coemans uit. Volgens Coemans is de retro-activiteit van het kindergeld begrensd tot vijf jaar.
2†
they just randomy took some numbers
Ironic
3
who watches the watchers
1
"What worst?": Worst case. Do I really have to explain what a "worst case" is?
That's like me replying to your post with
an extreme
? What extreme?
Now give me the damn "calculations" so I can make up my own mind instead of this 32k/90k bullshit people are throwing around unsubstantiated.
-3
Its a fucking calculation based on certain parameters.
So there is no "the worst" because not only is this child support (cant really see people getting child support as something "worse") there is just when you had your request for x months running and you have y children of (a, b ,c ages) you get z amount.
So the 30k was when you take 3 kids in this and you had to wait 2 years for aproval.
The 87k was when you take 5 kids to the max time of 5 years.
I have no clue how many people have to wait that long nor whats the most kids those had so there really is no way to calculate what the highest payment ever was, but I doubt its higher then that 87k as that already seems quite far fetched .
5
I did some googling on houses of 80k, and I only really found houses with at most 2 sleeping rooms. Like, if you have a household of 5 kids, 2 rooms aren't going to suffice at all.
Jambon literally took an extreme case of people extending the procedure to the longest possible term, with a large family, all children between 12 and 18 and then buying an extremely small house somewhere in a shithole in Flanders.
This ain't realistic case at all.
3
Yes because nobody ever heard of putting more then 1 child in a room. Now you are just looking for excuses to not have to say its possible.
And yes jambon took it to the extreme.
3†
Yes because nobody ever heard of putting more then 1 child in a room. Now you are just looking for excuses to not have to say its possible.
Spinspinspin
Francken doubled down on it calling numbers between 90 and 180k. 180k is reasonable to claim the Jambon statement as true. That was before the Gezinsbond came with their most extreme example. Jambon said "I even heared about one case where". That would mean that most extreme case was reality and how much you want to spin it, that is still a bs number to buy a house. He got caught using a stupid 'boutade'. He could have easily said afterwards: what I ment was that families used the 20-40k to help them buy a house as part of their total budget. The spinning now is just ridiculous.
5
What spinning? Fact checkers simply showed it possible.
-1†
But are you really going to put 5 children in 1 room?
I say it's possible, but it's just highly unlikely.
3
I think this just shows you have little clue of reality even in belgium.
I think there are plenty of people who sleep with 3+ in 1 room in belgium.
5
The underlying problem is that some families spend years and years in asylum centers, not that they get money for that.
2
If they wanted to critique the way these cases are handled, there is nothing wrong with that. But by using completely made up numbers, they've lost their credibility in this regard.
1
It's pretty clear the image Jambon was trying to paint didn't include the 'extremely unlikely' aspect of it.
I thought he said "I even heard of a case where...".
I even heard of a case where an NVA member sold residence permits. Surely there's a problem with all NVA members then...
Where did I state there is a problem with "all" anything? This has 0 to do with blaming the immigrants and everything with pointing out that there is a flaw in our system which creates inequality at the lowest and most vulnerable level of our society.
Using an extreme anecdote misrepresents the issue, just as if we would call the NVA a corrupt party who sell favors to their constituents that should be curtailed, while it was just one extreme example of an NVA'er. In reality, families with children are only a small part of recognized asylum seekers, and the actual payout is more similar to a delayed tax return than winning the lottery, as the example seems to imply. So using the total payout and average payout per child would have been more reasonable statistics to justify policy with.
The potential inequality that I see is that families end up living in this society who haven't been able to make the same investments in their children. That will inevitably set them back compared to their peers of the same age. On top of all the other factors that make it harder to get started properly. And then afterwards the same people complain that refugees are performing worse than the average population on the job market. Well, duh.
The whole reason that we don't pay it out right away is to avoid a pull effect. Now using the delay as a reason to not pay child benefits at all really isn't going to fly.