"British Bulldog"
Sir Winston Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill
Many people believe either the Republicans or the Democrats have the best party. However, as a non-partisan, I believe they are the same and do not wish to be labeled as either. Therefore, I have chosen Sir Winston Churchill quotes as the lead in to this creation with the hope that everyone can relate to his philosophy. (Notes: Only a couple of you know that I developed an e-mail list of all the U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators, U.S. President, and White House staff about 10 years ago. It was not effective in helping U.S. veterans so I gave up using it. Some of you also know that I do not sign and/or forward signature lists and requests for donations. I also try to weed out the most flagarant false forwards that some of you send me. I have received corrections for my own errors in judgment from several of you for which I will always be grateful. After saying GOODBYE to my friends on my mass distribution list, I received an e-mail with a request for a donation from one of my older friends. Shortly afterwards I received a request from another older friend to join a list to send to the President to request him to veto the Social Security bill that will increase the drain on Social Security by giving it to other countries as I warned below. This creation is my response to these requests so that I can get back to supporting my wife and her multiple life threatening conditions. U.S. Social Security May Reach To Mexico
By Jonathan Weisman
Pushed by the Mexican government, the Bush administration is working on
a Social Security accord that would put tens of thousands of Mexicans onto
the Social Security roster and send hundreds of millions of dollars in
benefits south of the border. White House and Mexican government officials say discussions on an
agreement to align the Social Security systems of the two countries are
informal and preliminary. But excerpts from an internal Social Security
Administration memo obtained this month say the agreement "is expected to
move forward at an accelerated pace," with the support of both
governments, and could be in force by next October. The pact would be the latest, but by far the largest, of a series of
treaties designed to ensure that people from one country working in
another aren't taxed by both nations' social security systems. In its
first year, the agreement is projected to trigger 37,000 new claims from
Mexicans who worked in the United States legally and paid Social Security
taxes but have been unable to claim their checks, according to a memo
prepared by Ted Girdner, the Social Security Administration's assistant
associate commissioner for international operations. Extrapolating from U.S. and Mexican government statistics, the accord
could cost $720 million a year within five years of implementation. One
independent estimate put the total at $1 billion a year -- a large sum,
but a trifle compared with the $372 billion in Social Security benefits
currently being paid to 46.4 million recipients. Mexican President Vicente Fox has been pushing President Bush to sign a
Social Security agreement with Mexico as something of a consolation prize
to make up for Bush's failure to pursue promised immigration reforms,
according to Latino lobbyists close to the Fox administration. Mexican
officials began pressing the White House hard at meetings that preceded
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Los Cabos, Mexico, in
October. "When the legalization talks began going nowhere, the Mexicans began
focusing on this," said Maria Blanco, national senior counsel for the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "They really bore in
at Los Cabos." Arturo Sarukhan, a top official in Mexico's foreign ministry, said that
after Mexico's failure to win a comprehensive package of immigration
reforms from Bush, it is lobbying in Washington for important incremental
steps. "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time," he said. The Social Security agreement, he said, is one of those less-sexy
things that Mexico has been pushing to deepen its relationship with the
United States and improve the day-to-day lives of Mexicans. Just yesterday, Fox underscored the political pressure he is under
domestically to secure concessions from the United States when he
journeyed to the border city of Nuevo Laredo to call for an "urgent"
immigration accord to end discrimination against Mexican workers north of
the border. Concern is rising on Capitol Hill -- and even among some White House
economic aides -- that any agreement on Social Security could add a new
burden to the benefits system, just as the baby-boom generation is
preparing to retire. House Ways and Means Committee staff members are
meeting today with Social Security officials to hash out projected costs
for such an agreement. "We are concerned about the sheer magnitude of the agreement," said a
House Republican aide who is an expert on Social Security. About 94,000
beneficiaries living abroad have been brought into the system by the 20
existing international agreements. A Mexican agreement alone could bring
in 162,000 in the first five years. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the issue is being explored
only at a "technical level" at this point, and the administration has not
yet decided to move forward with formal negotiations. "A totalization
agreement with Mexico would have significant implications," she said. Miguel Monterrubio, a spokesman for the Mexican Embassy, said several
meetings have taken place between the Social Security Administration and
its Mexican counterpart since November 2001, but he, too, called them
informal. The Social Security memo indicates that work may be further along than
both governments are saying. According to the memo, "the application
workloads generated by an agreement with Mexico will be much larger than
those resulting from any of the 20 existing agreements" with other
countries. In addition to the flurry of new claims, an additional 13,000 Mexicans
entitled to benefits but cut off by provisions in recent immigration laws
could also begin receiving their checks. In a 1996 immigration reform law,
Congress decreed that foreigners not legally residing in the United States
could no longer claim benefits, unless their home countries were subject
to a treaty. Those beneficiaries alone were owed nearly $50 million in
1998, according to a Mexican government document. The team of negotiators from the Social Security Administration and
State Department working on the agreement already anticipate that the U.S.
government will have to erect a new building in the embassy complex in
Mexico City just to deal with the crush, according to a source familiar
with the negotiations. If the new beneficiaries in Mexico received payments roughly equal to
the average $8,100 benefit that Mexican-born retirees in the United States
now receive, the total would easily surpass $1 billion a year, said Steven
A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a
nonpartisan research organization. And even that number could seriously
underestimate the number of Mexicans who would seek Social Security
benefits, if not qualify for them, he said. Such talk has caused growing concern at the State Department and on
Capitol Hill. A memo from the State Department's assistant secretary for
consular affairs, Maura Harty, to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell even
indicated the White House National Economic Council has raised objections.
As one State Department official put it, "the staffing and budget
implications haven't been fully worked out, but we're thinking about
it." To the Mexican government and immigrant advocates, such concerns are
beside the point. "How can [the U.S. government] say this is too costly?" Blanco asked.
"This is money these workers paid into the Social Security system. This is
their money." The United States has been negotiating Social Security "totalization"
agreements with other governments since the late 1970s. They allow workers
to "totalize" the number of years they have worked in both countries to
meet the minimum years required to qualify for benefits in one of the
systems. Until now, the cost of such agreements has been relatively small, since
they have been almost exclusively with European countries. According to
the Social Security Administration, the annual cost of all 20 existing
accords equals about $183 million. "All of the deals before this have been noncontroversial and low-cost,"
said a House Republican expert on Social Security. "This could be
dramatically different in all kinds of ways." The GOP aide said Mexican officials would also like benefits to be
adjusted upward for a legal Mexican worker who worked in the United States
for some time illegally and paid into the Social Security system using a
false Social Security number. Gabriela Lemus, director of policy and
legislation for the League of United Latin American Citizens, said as much
as $21 billion in Social Security payments have not been tracked to
potential beneficiaries, most likely because they were paid under a false
Social Security number. Correspondent Kevin Sullivan in Mexico City contributed to this
report.
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
"There is no such thing as a good tax."
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
End of Sir Winston Churchill quotes
Has 8 years really passed since I distributed this warning? How many of you understood? Also, how many of you understand that the Democrats and Republicans are the same when it comes to running our nation? When you read everything this creation has to say about both viewpoints on Social Security, maybe you will get a glimmer of why joining one or the other is like the pot calling the kettle black or the reverse if you are smart enough to determine which one you really are. End of Notes.)
washingtonpost.com
Washington Post Staff
Writer
Thursday, December 19, 2002; Page A01
When America went off the "Gold Standard" and dropped its citizens into the hole of "Deficit Spending," America created slaves for some generations yet to be born. i.e. Americans no longer have "Freedom" in the true definition of "Freedom." And there is even more salt being constantly put into our open wounds as I mentioned in one of my e-mails that follows:
Subject: Don't Cry for Our Children and Their Children and etc.
Dear Anymouse,
I have received a few PPS files regarding the Muslim growth rate that will exceed all Christian religions and a warning from Sir Winston Churchill that "You can't tax your way out of poverty." In addition, our current Head of Government will add an additional 9 trillion or more to our national debt before he leaves office according to current economists.
Your latest warning tells me that I can not warn our fellow Americans enough. So, I will continue to sound the alarm even if no one listens.
When many Americans voted for Nixon and Agnew, my wife, Lois, and I were horrified that Americans were lacking the information that Agnew had stolen 1 million dollars a year from the state treasury as governor for two consecutive years and no one cared. Obviously, we did not vote for them. But we all suffered the consequences.
I detest most politicians because they have been liars from the get-go. If not, when they bed down in congress after being voted in, they are corrupted in general by their new environments. Of course, there are exceptions.
But unless the American public becomes more educated, we will continue to vote for the wrong candidates.
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
I am truly sorry that this e-mail is such a downer. One Voice Crying in the Wilderness
SOCIAL SECURITY
The way it really happened. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Richard Nixon and the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Republican Party
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Republican Party with Dick Chaney casting the deciding vote.
Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Republican party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.
Then, after doing all this, the Republicans turn around and tell you the Democrats want to take your Social Security and the worst part about it is people believe it!
Pass it on please.... Election Issue
This must be an issue in "Every Election."
Please! Keep it going! Remember, every vote counts!
MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Democrat.
First, Some Social Security History
*Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones)
didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. *
*Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson
on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat
or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!*
*
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,*
*No longer Voluntary*
*
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,*
*Now 7.65%* on a growing maximum.
*
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,*
*No longer tax deductible*
*4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,*
*Under Johnson the money was moved to*
*The General Fund and Spent*
*5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.*
*Under Clinton & Gore*
*Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed*
*Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with /Al Gore/ casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
--------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!*
*/Jimmy Carter/* *and the Democratic Party.
immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it! **
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ ---------
---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your
Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!*
*If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.*
*/AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT
FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!/*
*/A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson/*
Pass it on please.... Election Issue
This must be an issue in "Every Election."
Please! Keep it going! Remember, every vote counts!
MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican.
I received the following in an e-mail. It's a mixture of truth and untruth. I agree to a point and have added my comments and corrections in blue for all concerned.
Retribution is less than 1 year away!Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.
- U.S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
- They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
("By law, Social Security benefits increase automatically to keep pace with inflation. When there is a period of no inflation, the law does not permit an increase in benefits. Based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the Department of Labor, there was no rise in the cost of living during the past year, so your benefit will remain the same in 2010. The CPI is the federal government's official measure used to calculate cost-of-living increases.")
(Notes: There is some discussion on the Internet about changing how the CPI should be calculated versus the current method. In other words, we need for everyone to encourage their elected officials to pass a law changing the current method for calculating the CPI to at least include a minimum for incidental increases by landlords who ignore the CPI, etc. While I lived in Washington, D.C., when the government worker got a yearly raise, the rents were raised by the same percentage. When there was no raise, rent was increased to cover the incidental increases in building maintenace and fuel. End of Notes.)
- Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
- You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
- Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
- Over these same 2-years EACH Congress person will get $10,000
- Do you feel SCREWED?
- Will they have your cost of drugs - doctor fees - local taxes - food, etc., decrease?
- NO WAY!!
Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than YOU or I.
- Why should they care about you?
- You never did anything about it in the past.
- You obviously are too stupid or don't care.
- Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?
Send the message to these individuals --- “YOU'RE FIRED!”
In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!
Make sure you're still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.
It is OK to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse. Maybe it's time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution.28th Amendment will be as follows:
"Congress shall make NO law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply EQUALLY to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make NO law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply EQUALLY to the citizens of the United States."
Let's get this passed around, folks - these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves! It's time for retribution. Let's take back America.
(Notes: And it is already happening as a Republican takes over the Kennedy seat. And others are following. Watch out November! End of Notes.)
Prophet of Doom and Gloom
(Notes: The trigger points for this creation are given next for the curious. The e-mail for a donation was hidden behind a stained glass window. The reason for the signature list was covered partly by the Washington Post article above dated 2002 that I published 8 years ago. And I love it when both parties show how much alike they are and complete each others bills 8 years later. End of Notes.)
Econ101=> Index
Click here to return to Petey and Petunia home page.
