|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 2, 2007 21:05:34 GMT -5
After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government was forced to make the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group. The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S. But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non- government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest. According to the SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040. Link: news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061229/pl_usnw/social_security_agreement_with_mexico_released_after31_2_year_freedom_of_information_act_battleNote: I'd like to thank JB Hickock over at the Freedom Forum for making me aware of this article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meanwhile Democratic candidate for President John Edwards advocates that we spend more money on socialized medicine and to pull people out of poverty. Edwards wants to spend all this money on socialism even if it grows the deficit. Talk about buying votes. Hopefully this spending whore is dispatched quickly in the primary.
|
|
|
Post by jobee on Jan 3, 2007 10:00:24 GMT -5
After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government was forced to make the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group. The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S. But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non- government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest. According to the SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040. Link: news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061229/pl_usnw/social_security_agreement_with_mexico_released_after31_2_year_freedom_of_information_act_battleNote: I'd like to thank JB Hickock over at the Freedom Forum for making me aware of this article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meanwhile Democratic candidate for President John Edwards advocates that we spend more money on socialized medicine and to pull people out of poverty. Edwards wants to spend all this money on socialism even if it grows the deficit. Talk about buying votes. Hopefully this spending whore is dispatched quickly in the primary. did he say when the're gpnna get texas back-or will it go to the UN
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 4, 2007 11:28:56 GMT -5
jb: did he say when the're gpnna get texas back-or will it go to the UN
I doubt Mexico wants to re-aquire Texas. Mexicans don't come to the US to recreate conditions in Mexico. If that was the case, they wouldn't make the effort to come to the US. To them, it's an issue of economics. Other people have their own issues with this.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 5, 2007 0:07:30 GMT -5
After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government was forced to make the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group. The Totalization Agreement could allow millions of illegal Mexican workers to draw billions of dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S. But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non- government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest. According to the SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040. Link: news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061229/pl_usnw/social_security_agreement_with_mexico_released_after31_2_year_freedom_of_information_act_battleNote: I'd like to thank JB Hickock over at the Freedom Forum for making me aware of this article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Meanwhile Democratic candidate for President John Edwards advocates that we spend more money on socialized medicine and to pull people out of poverty. Edwards wants to spend all this money on socialism even if it grows the deficit. Talk about buying votes. Hopefully this spending whore is dispatched quickly in the primary. yes thank JB Hickock for me too pretty interesting article, even if it did raise my blood pressure!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 5, 2007 8:13:14 GMT -5
wtf: yes thank JB Hickock for me too pretty interesting article, even if it did raise my blood pressure!
It raised my blood pressure as well. What is SS to Americans if we're going to be expected to be responsible for the whole GD Hemisphere?
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 6, 2007 2:29:05 GMT -5
wtf: yes thank JB Hickock for me too pretty interesting article, even if it did raise my blood pressure! It raised my blood pressure as well. What is SS to Americans if we're going to be expected to be responsible for the whole GD Hemisphere? no wonder the idiots are predicting SS isn't going to be around much longer, giving it away like that... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that much out!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 7, 2007 8:01:21 GMT -5
wtf: no wonder the idiots are predicting SS isn't going to be around much longer, giving it away like that... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that much out!
Uh Huh, one would think huh!
Well, how about this:
President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned. The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail. (NY Daily News 1-4)
This supposedly will allow the Feds to open mail without a warrant. How's that for gall?
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 9, 2007 20:58:21 GMT -5
wtf: no wonder the idiots are predicting SS isn't going to be around much longer, giving it away like that... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that much out! Uh Huh, one would think huh! Well, how about this: President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned. The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions. That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it. Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise. Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail. (NY Daily News 1-4) This supposedly will allow the Feds to open mail without a warrant. How's that for gall? I'm just curious are you still hoping on a peaceful solution to take our country back? I'm just trying to figure out myself, when enough will be enough...
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 10, 2007 11:08:02 GMT -5
wtf: I'm just curious are you still hoping on a peaceful solution to take our country back? I'm just trying to figure out myself, when enough will be enough...
I completely understand your feeling about this, trust me. But there's that question. What would violence accomplish at this stage? The honest answer is to give the government the reason to further consolidate power. Violence simply woudln't be effective now. I can't speak for down the road.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 10, 2007 15:09:18 GMT -5
wtf: I'm just curious are you still hoping on a peaceful solution to take our country back? I'm just trying to figure out myself, when enough will be enough... I completely understand your feeling about this, trust me. But there's that question. What would violence accomplish at this stage? The honest answer is to give the government the reason to further consolidate power. Violence simply woudln't be effective now. I can't speak for down the road. well can we at least agree at this point it's going to take some pretty drastic measures to get our country back, no matter what they be?
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 11, 2007 6:58:03 GMT -5
Not Exactly Mrs Lee. I don't rule out that it could take some sort of drastic measure to restore contitutional rule. I don't rest on that option. There are non drastic alternatives out there. If we start assuming that it'll require drastic measures, then we'll unintentionally leave out other alternatives. We need all the practical alternatives at our disposal. Beside's resting on drastic measures could be used against those of us who dissent. There is a Public relations aspect of this. We must be aware of that.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 13, 2007 11:38:25 GMT -5
you're killing me, but your point is well taken... we'll just sit around a few more decades and see what happens, if we still have a country by then!
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 14, 2007 7:51:05 GMT -5
wtf: you're killing me, but your point is well taken... we'll just sit around a few more decades and see what happens, if we still have a country by then!
We can't what going to happen a few weeks down the road, much less decades. Sooner or later Human nature is going to spur resentment in other at a heavy handed government, just like it has in me and you. I won't even try to speculate the timing or the conditions. Whatever the future may hold, we must try to be sure we pick our battle wisely.
I'm picking your brain about this, but believe me, I take your point about drastic measures very very well. I do not rule that out down the road.
Some would say we don't have a country now.
|
|
|
Post by wtf on Jan 16, 2007 21:22:12 GMT -5
well I'm starting to honestly agree with the ones who would say our country is no longer ours... =(
|
|
|
Post by Steady Micro Aggressor on Jan 17, 2007 3:21:21 GMT -5
wtf: well I'm starting to honestly agree with the ones who would say our country is no longer ours... =(
It still is to a decent degree, even after 09-11. People need to wake up fairly soon though. Right now politicians think they can do about what they want and get away with it. And why not, Americans keep re-electing the same corrupt liars based of partisan loyalty and to keep the other side from winning. All we would have to do is show the politicians who's boss, and that still can be done via the ballot box.
|
|