The great Bush deception

Seriously, I can't wait for Bush to be gone. Read about this secret attempt to sell out what's left of the failing Social Security system to the Mexicans and subvert the will of a vast majority of law-abiding Americans , and see if you don't agree that George Bush has overstayed his welcome...

U.S.-Mexico Pact Revealed: Billions to Non-citizens

WASHINGTON -- As a result of lawsuits, the U.S. government released this week the actual U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement, an understanding signed between the Bush administration and the Mexican government in 2004 that would funnel billions of U.S. Social Security funds to Mexican citizens.

That's right folks, Bush signed a secret agreement with Mexico to give them billions in our Social Security money. Read on.

In general, Totalization Agreements are between the United States and other countries to coordinate their respective social security programs. For instance, such agreements typically work to eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries — when companies in one country send workers to the other country. Also they are crafted to protect benefit eligibility for workers who split their working careers between the two countries.

According to TREA, if an illegal worker working in the United States today gets a "work authorized" Social Security number — through guest-worker immigration legislation, the Totalization Agreement, or perhaps just over time — that worker could eventually apply for Social Security benefits once the worker has met eligibility requirements.

The Dreaded Loophole

"A law called the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 forbids illegal immigrants from claiming Social Security benefits — but a loophole exists," Phillips explained.

"If an immigrant gains what's called a valid ‘work-authorized' Social Security number at some point, then he or she could eventually file a claim for benefits. The government would use all earnings to calculate the retirement benefit — even earnings while working illegally," Phillips added.

For example, say TREA officials, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under Totalization Agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits.

The agreement with Mexico, like other Totalization Agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.

So what that means is that a Mexican national who had worked for 20 years in Mexico, could come here and put in just 18 month in a meat-packing plant, or lettuce farm, file for SS benefits based on 21.5 years of work history, and return to Mexico and collect benefits. All paid for by the same people who foot the bill for every damn thing...the American tax payer.

In addition, advised TREA, that worker could be able to claim credits for work performed while in the United States illegally. The SSA maintains an "earnings suspense file," which tracks wages that cannot be posted to individual workers' records because there is no match for a name and Social Security number.

Once an immigrant gains access to a work authorized Social Security number — whether a legal citizen or not — wages earned while in the United States unlawfully could be reinstated to the worker's new Social Security account, warned TREA officers.

The cost of such an agreement is highly uncertain. In March 2003, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimated that the cost of the Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million (in constant 2002 dollars) in 2050. The actuarial cost estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow six-fold over time.

According to the Social Security Administration, 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.

Phillips noted that [before the emergence of the agreement] "the Administration always called it ludicrous to suggest that illegal immigrants could get their hands on our Social Security."

"We not hearing that anymore," Phillips lamented.

There you have it folks. Bush selling out the American people to curry favor with the Mexican government. The question is why, given that he should be trying to curry favor with American citizens. I think Bush's world view is one in which Mexico and the U.S. are one country for all practical purposes. Where workers flow back and forth seamlessly and our economies are one. Combine this disaster of an idea with the treacherous amnesty bill that will instantly create 20 million new Democrat, non-English speaking, hostile-to-America voters, and you have the beginning of the end of the U.S. as we know it.

This is why I might vote Liberterian in '08.

Democrats will always be Democrats

They will seduce most of America by using all the feel-good jargon you can imagine to justify raising taxes on productive Americans, but at the end of the day, they remain vile, loathsome liberals disguised as progressives...

WASHINGTON – Democrats are not ruling out raising taxes for the wealthiest people to help pay for tax cuts for middle-income families, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
She spoke of pursuing an estimated $300 billion that people owe in back taxes, eliminating deficit spending and reducing wasteful federal spending.

“As we review what we get from ... collecting our taxes a reducing waste, fraud and abuse, investing in education and in initiatives which will bring money into the treasury, it may be that tax cuts for those making over a certain amount of money, $500,000 a year, might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America's children,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview aired Sunday.
A budget rule, known as the pay-as-you-go rule, that was approved by the Democratic-run House on Friday requires that tax cuts have corresponding cuts in government spending or tax increases elsewhere to pay for them.

“What we're saying is Democrats propose tax cuts for middle-income families. And we want to have 'pay-go,' no new deficit spending. We're not going to start with repealing tax cuts, but they certainly are not off the table for people making over half a million dollars a year,” Pelosi said.

The Senate's top Republican said most GOP senators oppose this budget rule because “it almost guarantees that the majority, if it enacts it, will try to raise taxes.”

It's a forgone conclusion that Democrats will raise taxes...they're Democrats for heaven's sake. Here's the twisted reasoning they'll use: it's for the children, we'll balance the budget, rich people are evil and don't need all that money, working Americans deserve more from the rich. These are typical tried-and-true liberal rationalizations that dumb Americans are happy to fall for every time.

Questions for SanFranNan: Sure you're going to raise taxes on the richest Americans to use in vote-buying schemes for the lower classes...I get that, after all you're a Democrat. But when was the last time a poor American created a job? When was the last time a poor American contributed anything to the strength of the economy? Poor people consume resources provided to them by the money you seize from productive Americans. You don't really want to make productive, tax-paying achievers out of the lower classes. You want to give them just enough of other people's money to keep them happy, lazy, unmotivated, and dependent on you.

You(liberals) would be happy to have an America comprised of exactly three classes of people:
1- a vast nationwide underclass of loyal Democrat voters who are utterly dependent on you for their wellbeing, and unmotivated to improve their own lives...kind of like the residents of New Orleans.
2- a rich, productive, achieving class from whom you can extract vast sums of money in the form of taxes which you will use to pay for the goody bags with which you spoil your voting base(Group #1).
3- an elitist class of progressive, enlightened "leaders" like yourself who have all the answers for society's problems and can dictate how the Neanderthal, working-class Americans live their lives and to whom the rules of the Constitution do not apply.

This is Nancy Pelosi's vision of America. It's also Hillary's vision of America. If you vote Democrat in '08, expect the picture above of a Socialist America to start taking shape.

Shut up and act!

Though I couldn't be less interested in suffering through another "Rocky" movie, I was sort of glad to see Stallone land on his feet after all these years....that is, until I read this...

MEXICO CITY (AP) - Sylvester Stallone defended boxing, praised the hard work of Mexicans and dished out some jabs against U.S. plans to build a wall on its southern border, as the 60-year-old actor visited Mexico City to promote his sixth "Rocky" film.

In "Rocky Balboa," an MGM Pictures release, the aging scrapper is running a restaurant when a computer-simulated bout inspires him to put the gloves back on. In one scene, his character defends his restaurant's immigrant cooks and waiters against slanderous comments.

"I support Mexicans who work in my country," he said, adding that the United States depends on the hard work of Latinos to keep running.
In comments to Mexican media later, Stallone criticized plans to build 700 miles of fence along the border as an immigration-control measure.
Such a fence was "crazy" and "ridiculous," he said, arguing that nations should be able to interact without being divided by walls.

So the cowardly Stallone goes to Mexico to criticize his country. I'll bet he wouldn't say that stuff here for fear it might cost him some ticket sales. I just lost what little respect I had for Sly.

just blame Bush

In light of the fact that liberal Democrats think that George Bush controls everything evil in the modern world including the weather and oil prices, how would they explain this news?

Oil prices fell further on Friday to hover at about $55 a barrel, bringing the week's decline to nearly 10%.
The slide came after oil prices saw their most dramatic drop in two years a day earlier.

You don't mean that George Bush allowed world crude oil prices to fall, causing his cronies in the oil industry to lose all that money? We've been told by liberals that Bush, and not the world crude oil markets, controls world gas prices and is solely responsible for the record profits enjoyed by American big oil companies. How then would liberals explain the dramatic drop in prices? Surely if Bush controlled the prices, he would have lowered them before the election, not after.

Typical Democrats...when times are bad, they blame Bush. When times are better, they pretend that they're not and blame Bush.

America is overrun while Bush fiddles

Why aren't we attacking Mexico after something like this?

A U.S. Border Patrol entry Identification Team site was overrun Wednesday night along Arizona's border with Mexico.

According to the Border Patrol, an unknown number of gunmen attacked the site in the state's West Desert Region around 11 p.m. The site is manned by National Guardsmen. Those guardsmen were forced to retreat.

The Border Patrol will not say whether shots were fired. However, no Guardsmen were injured in the incident.

The Border Patrol says the incident occurred somewhere along the 120 mile section of the border between Nogales and Lukeville. The area is known as a drug corridor. Last year, 124-thousand pounds of illegal drugs were confiscated in this area.

The Border patrol says the attackers quickly retreated back into Mexico.

How humiliating...American troops forced to retreat from invaders. America-hating Democrats love this news.

The government of Mexico refuses to intervene while the drug runners, who operate as an independent country of their own, attack American border troops. Tell me why we shouldn't retaliate against the drug runners with extreme prejudice. Who cares if they're civilians? We should deploy tanks, snipers with .50cal rifles, and armed drones to patrol the entire southern border with shoot-to-kill orders, and shut the door to the illegal invasion once and for all...then let's talk about a guest worker program.

They are attacking American citizens! And Bush looks the other way.

Bush and the impotent Republicans squandered 6 years of legislative control and did nothing about the Mexican invasion...they deserved to lose control. I swear...I am this close to giving up entirely on Republicans. I don't know how I could be more disappointed in them.

Oprah's school for girls...in Africa

A lot of conservatives are criticizing Oprah for this...

Billionaire talk show host Oprah Winfrey opened her new school for poor girls this week in South Africa. Winfrey hopes the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy will empower the young students to be the country's leaders of tomorrow.

People are asking, "Why doesn't she build a girl's school here in America where we have poor people too?" I don't have a problem with her building a school in Africa. Nobody can argue that there is much need in Africa for girls to be afforded opportunities to improve their lives, and America's poor are among the most priviledged poor in the world. Our poor live better than most middle class families in other countries. There are opportunities here in America for anybody who is motivated enough to reach out and grab them. But the biggest reason for Oprah to have built a girl's school in South Africa is because it's her money and she can spend it where she wants. We conservatives don't like for liberals to guilt us into spending our money on kooky environmental things, or programs to give aid to the undeserving, or some other liberal pet programs, and we shouldn't tell Oprah where she should spend her money. She's an ingorant, kooky liberal but she has the right to spend her money in any way she wishes.

A deal is a deal

If you're one of the three people who're currently watching the CBS Evening Fluff featuring perky news-reader Katie Couric every night, you'll probably be familiar with the story she ran last night. She incredulously wondered why the CEO of TheHomeDepot, Bob Nardelli, was fired, but with a golden parachute worth 210million dollars. She cited the contradiction between the golden parachute package and his lack of results as CEO.

Hey Katie, take a look in the mirror sister. CBS News viewership has dropped below what it was with the hapless Bob Sheiffer who you replaced. Nobody watches your show, yet you command a 15 million per year salary? How does that make sense? According to you, the results you produce in your job should be directly reflected in your compensation, whether it's good or bad. Based on your production in terms of ratings, you should be making like 100K a year.

I guess legally negotiated employment contracts are appropriate only for liberal, news readers and not for eeevil, capitalist CEO's.

Dumb, out of touch with reality kids

Generally, I'm not one to ridicule kids, but this has to be the dumbest kid on earth...

HOUSTON Jan 4, 2007 (AP)— Police and family members said a 10-year-old boy who died by hanging himself from a bunk bed was apparently mimicking the execution of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Sergio Pelico was found dead Sunday in his apartment bedroom in the Houston-area city of Webster, said Webster police Lt. Tom Claunch. Pelico's mother told police he had previously watched a news report on Saddam's death.

Why would he want to mimic a hanging? Apparently there are kids all over the world hanging themselves while mimicking Saddam's execution. Are there kids so out of touch with reality and consequences that they think killing themselves is not for real?

Seriously, the implications of this story shocked me. It seems that kids these days are so insulated by their doting parents from risk, reality, and possible consequences of stupid behavior, that the possibility of injury or death as a result of their activities never occurs to them.

Stupid is as stupid does

Just in case you were in doubt about the intelligence of residents of New Orleans, listen to this: Displaced Katrina refugees are trickling back to the Big Easy to rebuild their lost homes. The brilliant mayor Ray Nagin, ignoring advice from Army corp engineers, thinks it's a good idea to let them build anywhere they like. In places where it's practical, returning residents are being told to raise their new homes to above the level of flood waters during Katrina, kind of the way they do it at the beach. There are places in New Orleans which flooded by 20 feet or more. It's would be pure idiocy to rebuild a house in these areas...engineers rightly say these areas should be abandoned entirely. But determined Katrina refugees, not exactly known for acting with wisdom, insist on rebuilding their homes exactly as they existed prior to the hurricane.

Guess who's paying for all this construction? Remember these are helpless, not-smart-enough-to-save-themselves-from-a-cat5-hurricane, Katrina parasites...they aren't exactly America's best and brightest. Every American taxpayer is paying these morons to rebuild their homes in exactly the same place as before. Billions in taxpayer dollars are "flooding" into the Big Easy and they are making the same mistakes as before.

Tell me why a single cent of money seized from taxpayers should go to rebuild a city in a cereal bowl below sea-level? How abysmally stupid can a group of people be to re-expose themselves and their families to the threat of flooding again? It's not a matter of if, but of when another hurricane will flood New Orleans.

And we all know what will happen. Ray Nagin will cry and complain that not enough was done by white America to care for the poor, miserable have-nots in his chocolate city. The same people will be once again on their roofs waiting for somebody else to risk their life to save their miserable ones. If stupid people want to spend their own money to build in a known flood plain, fine, but my pay check shouldn't be seized to pay for it.

Why?

Predictably, the main-stream media are all a-dither about the apparent taunting of Saddam Hussein immediately prior to his well-deserved hanging death. According to the perpetually outraged liberal media, George Bush, who had nothing to do with Saddam's death sentence or his execution, should condemn the taunts.

Why? Why should George Bush have anything to say about Saddam's execution at all? He had nothing to do with it. It would be akin to asking Britney Spears to comment the genocide in Darfur. Why?

Why aren't the whining media liberals upset about the thousands of rapes, murders, gassings, tortures, and executions that occurred during Saddam's 30 year reign? They don't care about that. They just want the American President to make some meaningless gesture to make them feeeeel better.

No wonder the media love the United Nations...it's an organization obsessed with symbolism, gestures, and feelings rather than results and substance.