posted on December 19, 2002 10:14:47 PM new
oh, brother. Why not just give the country away outright? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 19, 2002 10:34:41 PM new
I don't know how much more obvious it could be that the factions which control the Republican Party since Reagan are anything but fiscally conservative. It could only be a ploy to buy Hispanic votes, but I believe that the long term plans are more encompassing and when fully realized voting will be irrelevant anyway.
posted on December 20, 2002 12:04:36 AM new"An agreement with Mexico could add 162,000 beneficiaries in the first five years, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the story in Thursday's editions, citing an anonymous House Republican aide. The total cost could be as much as $1 billion a year."
Well, well, well! A Hand-Out? A New Socialist Program? And from the Republicans, no less! Bigger Government (Homeland Security), more Authoritarian Government (Homeland Secuirty), Higher Taxing Government (Tax and Spend!), Socialist Social programs -- who needs the Democrats around when you have the REPUBLICANS giving HANDOUTS? LOL!
Republican supporters -- have you gone COMMUNIST YET!!?!??!!
posted on December 20, 2002 01:15:27 AM new
How can you possibly not see the fairness of paying people for what was taken out of their wages as they worked?
These people were all subject to payroll withholding. Most worked at the lowest level also so any withholding was a burden.
Make a case for taking the money and then stiffing them. Lets hear it. Pure prejudice.
I wish the'd seal of the border and then the next year when strawberries were $10 a quart we'd hear the howls.
posted on December 20, 2002 05:08:29 AM new
When I read a similar article yesterday I thought Bush had lost his mind. The article I read said this subject was being discussed because Bush wasn't able to give President Fox what he had hope to prior to 9-11.
Anyway...IMO if we're already doing it for other countries why should we not for Mexico?
International Agreements The United States has bilateral Social Security agreements with 20 countries. The agreements eliminate dual Social Security coverage and taxes for multinational companies and expatriate workers. They also improve benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country.
Among comments here, I sense some prejudice toward Mexicans. Why should they be exploited and work for nothing? Denying fair pay and benefits to Mexicans who work in America only helps to maintain the poverty zone along the border.
The biggest burden to Social Security was the Bush tax refund to the wealthy. It's about time, that the Bush administration showed some degree of integrity.
posted on December 20, 2002 07:43:05 AM new
Prejudice?!?
Hello!!! Social Security is for citizens, not visitors whether they're working or not. The las ttime I looked at a map, Mexico wasn't part of our country.
As for my earlier comment: the PTB already want to allow illegal aliens to get driver's licenses...want to allow substandard Mexican trucks free access to our highways...allow illegals to clog our medical system & our schools...allow them to drain other social services. Call my attitude "prejudice" if you like, but we both know that isn't what it is.
Social Security is strained enough with our own population. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
Using poor people to balance the budget and as an excuse for underfunded schools, social services and poor health care while we spend billions every year to maintain the military machine is not acceptable. To have to quibble over social securtity and fair wages for people working in this country should be an insult to our intelligence.
posted on December 20, 2002 08:12:34 AM new
S/S was a part of the Nafta agreement.
Also if you read this,We wont be getting our S/S in 2010.The system will be broke in 2007,This artical was written before 9/11 and there are no jobs.Bottom line,Find a job,a buisness,something to feed you for the rest of your life.
posted on December 20, 2002 08:17:49 AM new
And, bunnicula, I don't believe that your opinion is prejudiced but after reading this thread in addition to other threads on immigration issues, I have come to the conclusion that there is a sense of hostility toward mexicans in general....just my opinion.
posted on December 20, 2002 08:23:57 AM new
Not Mexicans in general, Helen. Am I hostile to some Mexicans? You bet I am. Those who are here illegally, and any legal Mexican immigrants who come here & then expect *us* to conform to them. Just try doing either in any country of your choice, Helen, and see how far you get... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 20, 2002 08:29:13 AM new
And, BTW, our schools are not "underfunded." We are about average in education spending with other countries. They throw more & more $ at them and they only get worse. Money isn't the answer, there. Our social services would also be more than adequate if they weren't misused as they are. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 20, 2002 08:35:45 AM new
Look, the Republican party has ALWAYS been against social programs funded by tax dollars. They believe that tax dollars should be funneled into their own pockets through the big industry that they own. This is just one more ploy to bankrupt the system.
Many of us have wondered WHY the Republican party wants to demolish our economy. I think that the reason is because this is their way to trash all of the social programs that drain their money that they hate so much. A good economy has a lot of taxpayers paying into the system and that makes social programs viable and stable. Therefore, the only way to destablize social program starts with a dramatic downturn of the economy.
Let's look at the list of things that the Republicans have done to make social programs a target:
+ Bush & Cheney go their wish and OPEC raised their oil prices and started this downward turn in the economy.
+ The Tax Cut for the Wealthiest one percent passed, derailing the National Surplus train.
+ Bush and his cronies STOLE 300 BILLON DOLLARS from the Social Security Surplus that had already accumulated with pet projects.
+ Bush and the GOP moved as much Treasury funds as possible into the Millitary-Industrial complex, thereby percipitating a financial crisis to adequately fund social programs. In fact, the budgets for other programs that investigate and enforce laws that keep industry in check were wiped out and the money shifted to pet millitary projects.
+ Bush and the GOP made sure that Social programs couldn't even borrow money, as all the funds go to this BOGUS WAR EFFORT. This getting into free-fall spending and borrowing to pay for it also makes the stock market crash, sending many industries to lay off workers, thus burdening the system even greater.
At the very least, all of this is to unemploy American workers for some reason. It also is meant to eventually mean the dismantling of all social programs INCLUDING PUBLIC EDUCATION funding!
What the Republicans really want to do is to suck up all of the wealth of this nation and turn us all into a third-world state where people are little more than the servants and slaves of the ultra-rich aristocacy who own everything.
posted on December 20, 2002 08:36:49 AM new
Since the Hispanic population is the fastest growing minority in this country. It does make sense from a political standpoint, to cater to our friends here that are from south of the border, they can vote too, you know, as soon as the are granted full citizenship!
This country has a history of prejudice.. negro prejudice, american indian prejudice. Immigrant prejudice such as anti-irish prejudices of the mid nineteenth century, prejudice aganist Chinese railroad workers and hostility toward immigrants from eastern and southern Europe that eventially led to the restrictive immigration laws of the 1920's.
Then, Immigrants, from Mexico are blamed for taking jobs from citizens of the US, for receiving government benefits and for causing higher taxes on American citizens.
And guess what is at the bottom of it all....Corporate greed.
Now, as Kcpick4u has pointed out, the Hispanic population is growing and it's politically expedient to cater to our voting friends from Mexico.
posted on December 20, 2002 09:28:29 AM new
All countries have "a history of prejudice," not simply the US. Nice try, though.
Then, Immigrants, from Mexico are blamed for taking jobs from citizens of the US, for receiving government benefits and for causing higher taxes on American citizens.
Why is that the word "illegal" always seems to get left out of this sort of statement? Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 20, 2002 09:41:48 AM new
Order
I believe in the laws of Inevitability.
It is inevitable that ALL forests will be cut down by logging companies to make a profit from. Let's DO IT NOW and make American a barren wasteland.
Barren wastelands contain mineral wealth. It is inevitable that it will all be extracted, so lets pollute America to extract all of it NOW and get it over with!
It is inevitable that Public Education will be done away with and only those who can afford to send their kids to school will be able to give their kids an education. What is that you say? TAXES will pay for the kids to go to school? Nonsense! Once the Public Schools are gone, what need is there to tax anyone for it, silly! I think that it is inevitable that public schools will no longer be funded so let's just stop the nonsense right now and save all of our money TODAY.
It is inevitable, in fact, that ALL federal-level social service programs will be gone. In just a few more years, they will be scrapped by the Republicans, so why not do it RIGHT NOW? That's right all of those LAZY Welfare Queens out there can get off of their dead butts and go prostitute themselves as the Republicans want them to in order to make ends meet. Hey -- that's THEIR problem! If they don't like it, send their kids to Private Schools where they can learn some values -- right? So since this is so wonderful and inevitable, let's DO IT RIGHT NOW -- get rid of ALL social support programs and save us money!
Since it is inevitable that Mexico will move to America, let's open up the railways and airport for FREE transportation of any Mexican to America and give them a job, housing, and make sure that they pay taxes and oh, what the hell, since they are almost Americans themselves, let's give them the Vote as well! That's inevitable. And since English isn't being spoken by our own kids, let's toss out this old ancient bogus language for a Hip Hop version and some Espanola'! After all, that's inevitable!
And it is all inevitable because that's how republicans want it, no matter how absurd or contradictory such ideas are. Let's do it now and get it over with. Why agonize for decades of slowly being slipped the shiv? Let's do it all at once and then we'll save all of that money!!
posted on December 20, 2002 09:42:24 AM new
junquemama - We all worry and wonder about SS being there when we retire. It's used by both sides to instill fear in us all. I've stated before that I'm of the opinion that to let SS fall would be political suicide for either party. I just don't see that happening.
Your URL took a long time to load for me [using a webtv unit] so I didn't read it all. But when I got to the paragraph where it said: Today this maximum taxable income is $57,600 I knew it was outdated. I didn't take the time to see what year the max. was $57,600 but it's over $87,000 now.
SS being there for us will always be a worry, and I share your concern. Each time we [the US] add an additional burden to the funds that are there, it will create even more worry.
posted on December 20, 2002 09:55:58 AM new
This is nothing new! The taxpayers have subsidized immigrants and illegals via the Prucol loophole for years.
posted on December 20, 2002 09:59:37 AM new
They aren't talking about illegals that are here working under the table. They are talking about legal workers who should be able to be paid back for all the money they put into the system in payroll deductions. Do we really need to take money from the lowest paid group of workers and then cut them off from recieving what it was paid for? This is what the corperations are trying to do right now to the middle class workers pensions and ithat has y'all upset.
Just like Lott you can all couch the reasoning for doing that in complicated legal explainations, but the real root of it is contempt for the brown skinned funny speaking furriners. Of course you can't admit that the jobs they are doing are ones very few Americans want or are willing to do even if nothing else is available.
All the talk about conservatism and patriotism is a big sheet with no wizard under it.
posted on December 20, 2002 10:24:18 AM newJust like Lot you can all couch the reasoning for doing that in complicated legal explainations, but the real root of it is contempt for the brown skinned funny speaking furriners.
Please don't speak for me, gravid. Like I've said before, it wouldn't matter to me if this same thing was being done by illegal white Canadians [or anyone else]. I really resent statements like that when no one knows what's in the heart of someone who disagrees with SOME US policies. On the topic issue, I do agree that it's only fair. But we can all still verbalize our concerns for our SS system without being accused of being racists.
posted on December 20, 2002 11:00:11 AM new
I read Canada has a S/S system set up for Mexicans in Mexico.
LindaK,I always worry about the numbers......They just don't add up.I thought,to keep the economy perking,The money had to go around in the American system.Maybe we ought to make all those people move back here.
I too believe you get what you paid in,as long as the same rules apply to all.
What I would want to ask is,What else would be covered?
posted on December 20, 2002 11:13:19 AM new
junquemama - Here's where I stand. I didn't think we should have agreed to NAFTA. So this topic issue [most likely wouldn't even be being discussed. But since it was, I'd agree that this proposal is only fair. Do I think it's in our best economical interests? NO. Do I think it will further problems for the SS $$$ yes.
And to show you how much my opinions, in regards to any SS funds go, I didn't agree when the Disability benefit was added to the SS system. I didn't agree when survivor benefits were added either. I felt SS should have stayed for retirement benefits only. Make a separate benefit programs independant from SS all together. So...guess that 'proves' [to some] I'm a racist against white US citizens.
On the numbers, junquemama, each side can 'show' them to prove their side. Games.
posted on December 20, 2002 11:34:18 AM new
LindaK,The numbers bother me now, more then ever as to what is being spent.Everybody was so happy, to have a 20 million surplus a couple of years ago.Now everything has a starting cost of 1 billion.
Somebody some where is gonna end up with a big bill.
posted on December 20, 2002 11:46:39 AM new
I understand that junquemama. You're certainly not alone. What I project will probably happen is that the government will use funds [from general sources] to get us over the 'hump' of the baby boomers retiring. Then the program will go back into the black. They may decide to raise the withholding taxes [with many screaming about that]. I would also agree with legislation being passed to raise the max. level for payments to SS..just like there is no income [cap] limit on Medicare.
What we have to insist on, from our elected representatives, is that they work together to solve these issues, rather than continually using the subject for political gain.
