Don't some of you get mad at any of this?
At what level of hard working Americans who make this country what it is getting screwed does it take before people care?
If we had to write checks to the SS office every pay check, then I bet more people would care...
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Social Security billions could go to Mexicans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
(Warning! Populism 101 rant) This is certainly a big problem but the biggest concerning this issue, to me, is that they are low wage workers that are driving down the wage base for the poorest and least skilled worker. The basic oversupply,lack of demand, situation leads to declining wages. In the mid 70s in my home state of Iowa the packing plants were paying from 10 to 12 dollars an hour to start. A nasty job but worth it for many in those days when the minimum wage was around 1.75. People were willing to work hard at dirty jobs for that kind of wage. Guess what starting wage is now? 9 to 12 dollars an hour. Not a horrible wage but 0% wage growth in over 30 years!!!! In the mean time your meat has gone way up. We can not continue to export jobs and import low wage labor and hope to maintain our standard of living.
I am all for legal immigration and appreciate greatly the diversity they bring to this country. However there must be limits.
I feel this is a large part of the problem that we have with our workforce now. How do you care when a company treats you like crap no matter what you do? There is little reward for hard work and effort or faithfullness to an employeer,especially at the lower end of the ladder. This is the reason that employeers say they can't find anyone to work anymore. It is a mirror image of their attitude toward their workers. Bring back more competition for the best workers. It will raise wages and inspire workers with a real payoff for their effort.
Or we can continue to run the country on the cheap with that as the ultimate goal all the way around. I hope that is not what we choose.
Side note, Mexicans aren't the only illegals in this country. There are large numbers from other countries. It's a simple matter of geography that they are more easily able to make their way back after being sent home again. I have no problem with mexicans(actually I love some of the lovely raven haired, brown skinned beauties:-). It is illegal immigration I have a problem with, not Mexicans.
Before you go having a s**t fit, perhaps you should do some of the research that WorldNutDaily DIDN'T do.
Go to the Social Security Administration website and read about the US/Mexico Totalization agreement and the agreements currently in effect with 20 other countries. The web page is dated 2004, so it seems this is not really a secret.
There is no indication on this website or in the copy WorldNutDaily links to that illegal immigrants would collect Social Security under this agreement. The purpose of the agreement is to eliminate the dual taxation of workers who pay into a social security system in more than one country. Somehow I don't think illegal immigrants would be paying SS taxes in both the US AND Mexico on wages they earn in the US. Furthermore, I don't think illegal immigrants can collect SS payments anyway.
Got any real "evidence" that this whole thing isn't a bunch of BS?
the whole illegal immigration issue is, and people like Ron and Dedanna who actually see what is happening first hand understand...
That is fine if you think the report I state is false...it is only linked to start up a conversation anyway...that illegal immigrants ruin this country...and not enough people really care about it...
But your original post has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It is simply a link to a rant about a Totalization Agreement that is not the problem. We all agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but it won't be solved by those in power who can. Big business does not want to solve the problem and big labor doesn't want to solve the problem.
We need the resources to enforce immigration laws. Don't have the resources because of tax cuts and ill-advised wars. (Wow, where have I heard this before?)
you were doing okay until you had to blame Bush for our immigration problems...
NO ONE wants to fix it...
What is the reason Clinton didn't have the resources in the 90's Jim?...if that is the game you want to play
I could post for eons on the troubles illegal immigration causes, but idiots like Jim have to make it a political football. Democrats believe that illegals are a fertils ground for votes. In CA they try registering them every chance they get. I wouldn't doubt that many states voter rolls contain many illegals courtesy of LULAC, MALDEF, and other "latino" groups.
We can go off on a racism tangent because the left loves to obscure the issue as one of racism.
Jim, until you've seen a bonzai charge of illegals at San Ysidro (San Diego), to see union carpenters and drywallers put out of work by illegals, you will be just as partisan and myopic as you've shown here.
Jim
How many times does this have to be pointed out to you? You’re like a small child with his fingers stuck in his ears, chanting, “I can’t hear you”, over and over again.
The tax cuts INCREASED revenues to the treasury. Got it? No? You see, it worked just like planned, just like it always does. When you cut tax rates, you encourage people to make more money, to invest, which in turn create more revenues to be taxed. Tax cuts encourage the hard workers, the productive, the risk takers in this country when we’re allowed to keep more of our own money.
I know it’s a tough concept for Lefties to grasp. Why, you probably ask, would anyone want to work hard for something, when we can vote people into office that will take it from the greedy/lucky rich and give us everything we need/want? And here you have a fundamental difference between the left and the right. If you don’t know why, I can’t explain it where you can (want to) understand, all I can say is you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Scorpion says---
Social Security and illegal immigrants should NEVER be mentioned together in any fashion.
These two things should have nothing to do with each other as there is NOTHING in common.
Blamin', let me take my fingers out of my ears to type here just a few of the many, many articles that refute your assertion that taxes increase revenues:
Oregon Center for Public Policy: "If you look at the numbers in the President’s budget, you see there is no such thing as a free lunch. Despite the spin from Senator Smith, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.
"Actually, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the President’s Office of Management and Budget, if Congress extends the tax cuts as proposed by the President the deficit gets worse!"
The Economist's View: The Myth that tax cuts pay for themselves.
The Washington Post: "Nobody serious believes that tax cuts pay for themselves, as I noted last week. But most senior Republicans flunk this test of seriousness."
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves."
Former Feferal Reserve Chairman Greenspan Rejects Claims That Tax Cuts Will Pay For Themselves: "It is very rare and few economists believe that you can cut taxes and you will get the same amount of revenues." - Alan Greenspan Testimony before the House Budget Committee 2004
You "righties" always trot out the Laffer curve to prove that lowering taxes increase revenues, but you fail to demonstrate where on the laffer curve the US economy IS. Therefore, your arguments using the Laffer curve are spurious.
I know it's a difficult concept for "righties" to grasp, but there actually is factual information out there that's not on Drudge, WorldNutDaily, or the lips of George W. Bush.
Blamin..wrong, wrong, wrong..(get ready to stick your fingers in your ears) The fact that more and more corporate money is going to profit and not workers or benefits has more than anything to do with any rise in treasury returns. Personal tax returns are not up. Now if we eliminated corporate taxes that money would be gone too but I bet you'll favor that anyway because it works in your voodoo economics secenario. The returns are still below the late 90s and are being compared to recessionary years.
Jim is right and has the reputable links to prove it. Of course you will swiftly dismiss it as liberal propaganda because it doesn't fit your world view. It is stuff like this that is moving the radical right to the radical fringe more everyday so you guys keep poundin away k?
Jim and ron,
I know you don't accept this, but it isn't the GOVERNMENT'S MONEY, it is the individuals FIRST!!!
Government doesn't need to have an overflowing treasury, people do.
You do are flaming socialists.
Jim – Ron
Where to start?
How about the Laffer Curve (LC). While Fiscal Conservatives tend to be proponents of the LC, we know it’s not always about cutting taxes; it’s about finding the optimal rate for a given economy. Fiscal Cons tend to be influenced by the LC, supply-side economics, free-market capitalism, smaller government, and all this invariably leads to a belief in low tax rates.
The supply-siders argument was (is), during the administrations of Bush, Regan, and Kennedy (though I don’t think it was called supply side during Kennedy’s admin), that a tax rate reduction, coupled with the correct economic policies, would increase revenue through a growing economy – this growing economy changes the Laffer Curve (the LC assumes a given or static economy) enabling additional tax cuts, changes in policy, etc., until the optimum economy – tax rate relationship is established.
The supply-siders tend to believe that optimum tax rate is in the lower 30 percent (considering a normally fluctuating economy). The lefty socialist types who admit the validity of the Laffer Curve believe the optimum rate is 65 to 80 percent!!! Go figure!
Jim’s “reputable links” leave a lot to be desired. The Oregon Center is a haven for socialist and anti-capitalist. The other three links all have something in common, namely Sebastian Mallaby, the poster boy of pro socialism and anti-capitalism, thus leading to circular arguments and one huge circle-jerk of communal reinforcement.
All four links lead to groups or people that have something else in common (other than a group-think mentality that history doesn’t support). That is they take an extremely complicated issue like the economy and dupe many with a play on numbers and statistics. The variations and influences of/to economies are almost infinite. That’s why the Oregon Center for PP will argue that a tax increase wasn’t a major factor in a stagnant economy; it was really the devastation of the mango crop on Bora Bora caused by the titsi fly infestation that was the real culprit. Then they’ll show corresponding (and colorful!) graphs to prove it. And, oh, so many will be convinced.
Then they go on to razzle, dazzle the Dupes with a play on numbers. For instance it doesn’t matter if the actual revenues (in real inflation adjusted numbers) swell the tax coffers, the Razzler-Dazzlers will point out how the percentage of taxes over incomes went down. Gasp! Duh
And last but not least, they’ll try to tie tax rates to budget deficits, which is a result of spending, not tax rate cuts.
PITIFUL YET PREDICTABLE!
Every time a tax cut is proposed you get the same old arguments from the same old socialist types with a Gnome Chumpski groupthink mentality.
To support the supply-siders I can give you links to articles in not only the Wall Street Journal, but also the NY Times. I can give you links to The Heritage Foundation policy papers that, while is a conservative think tank, they actual use “reality-based scoring” (are you listening Oregon CforPP?). Or maybe I should encourage you to research Robert Mundell, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and George Sigler, all awarded a Nobel in Economics and one and all big influences to Fiscal Conservatives.
But, I guess it all comes down to whom you (want to, for some) believe. The numbers don’t lie.
You can believe history, or you can believe the socialist/anti-capitalist.
And once you embrace history you may be ready to tackle the big boogey man in the closet. Namely the real reason, the bottom line, the one thing the lefty leadership shudders when contemplating, they don’t want us to keep more of our own money – it makes lefties less powerful.
So why do we see deficits as far as the eye and the Congressional Budget Office can see? And how long before the country goes broke and the Saudis and Chinese start dumping our bonds?
I thought mexicans had been doing this for years? Raping our system? I see more of them on disability than anything else, and when I really, really, need it, because of this, I can't get it --
PCD, the government IS the people, or at least it is suppose to be. It's not like the treasury is overflowing right now unless you are talking about communist Chinas. How do you plan to build and fund better weapons or advance our civilization to remain as the leading one in the world with no money? Your world of a largely stateless society of self regulating individuals is at least as naive as your dreaded "socialism". I think it is called anarchy. I am as much a socialist as you are an anarchist.
Blamin...like I said, liberals links was your response. Then you direct us to conservative links and profess them to be the "truth". We have to have taxes, there is no two ways around it that I can see. If you would like to come up with something other than reduce taxes on the rich, there by increasing it on the rest of us, I would be willing to listen. I actually think a national sales tax or consumption tax might be a good idea. It would have to be at least 18 or 20 per cent though and that would make lots of people scream. Maybe the biggest plus is that it would delete a lot of the confusion and bureaucracy that is in our current tax system
The tax cut/increased revenue angle is a no brainer. If people are taking their cuts and sticking them in their pockets, then it's not likely to increase revenues. But we know that people can't stand having money and not spending it, so more consuming means more profits for the consumed and thus, more tax revenues result. As for corps using the cuts to expand, most companies would love to expand anyway and generally seek ways to do so. If they are moving in that direction anyway, which I believe is the case (expansion means more profits), then tax cuts means they get there that much faster. If I'm saving for a car and my property taxes, income taxes, utilities, groceries, etc. all go up, I can't save as much as quickly. But should those taxes go down, the utilities goes down, the grocery bill goes down, there's more money to save for the car and I buy it sooner. There's simply no way you can objectively look at the subject and not see a benefit of reducing taxes as much as possible.
Of course we need taxes for maintaining certain areas of federal responsibility. Currently, there are thousands of areas for which we are taxed that can be immediately eliminated, since there's very little with which the feds should be concerned.
Jim
Proponents of the Laffer Curve know that tax rate cuts (within reason) increase production and grow economy. Therefore rate cuts are purely a method to increase revenues, budgets have nothing to do with the mathematical model. If our budget deficit continues to grow after our treasury has increased revenue, then we damn sure need to look at spending. To put it simply, the out of control spending by our government is the cause of the increasing deficits, not tax policy that has increased the revenues to the treasury and to state otherwise is a flat out, purposeful, lie. But a very useful lie if it helps liberals convince millions of Dupes whom will keep them in power.
RON
“Liberal links” was not my only response, I took the time to make the case that they were playing with numbers and comparing apples to oranges (see above, budgets, spending and increased revenues). As anyone with reasonable intelligence and an open mind could determine on their own if they had the time to do the research. Regardless, that’s why I made the comment about some believing who they want to believe, and encouraging you to look at history.
I’m also not sure why my asking you to research four Nobel awarded economists is considered a “conservative link”.
Also, nobody is arguing for no taxes. That’s more misdirection and I’m surprised you fell for it.
Also, your statement, ”If you would like to come up with something other than reduce taxes on the rich, there by increasing it on the rest of us…” is pure out partisan BS with no basis in reality, another useful lie, because the fact is that the last round of tax cuts, reduced taxes for everybody. See the “misdirection” comment above.
I do agree with you on the national sales tax or consumption tax (NST-CT). It would force pimps, thieves, organized crime, etc. to pay tax like everybody else. It would drive down prices and therefore inflation. It would give people more power and choices. Do you suppose that’s why the Democrats are against it? I’d really like to know, because in every election last year where a Repub had a NST-CT platform their Demo opponents, with much financial backing from the national party, used false and misleading (useful lies) information, and flat out distortions in their advertising to trash the NST-CT.
Were they lying just to gain power?
Were they afraid if more people are financially happy, the less need for Liberals?
Were they just automatically against anything good coming out of the Republican Party?
Were they merely uninformed or ignorant?
Please enlighten me. I believe it’s a combination of all the above. But I’m open to other explanations.
Post a Comment