MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
FAIRUS.org
JUDICIALWATCH.org
ALIPAC.us
*
HOW MUCH CAN WE AS A NATION TURN OVER TO MEXICO? LET’S HAND SOCIAL SECURITY OVER TO 38 MILLION MEX FLAG WAVERS, AND THEN WATCH THEM HEAD HOME AND LIVE THE GOOD LIFE OFF THEIR MONTHLY CHECKS!
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
MEXIFORNIA
CREATED BY LA RAZA BARBARA BOXER AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN… working hard to expand Mex supremacy every day!
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits
The following are the senators who voted to
give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.
They are grouped by home state. If a state is
not listed, there was no voting representative.
Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
*
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
*
Contrary To Amnesty Supporters, Illegal Aliens Drain Social Security
By REP. LAMAR SMITH Posted 05/12/2010 06:06 PM ET
A recent Rasmussen Reports survey revealed that voters remain concerned about Social Security and whether the system can deliver what the government has promised. According to the survey, 58% of U.S. voters lack confidence that the Social Security system will pay them their future benefits.
Advocates for amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants like to claim that amnesty will "save" Social Security. They also claim that dramatically increased immigration levels will safeguard our retirements and those of our children because more people will pay into the system.
Unfortunately, the opposite is true.
During the last Congress, I asked the Social Security Administration (SSA) to calculate the value in today's dollars of the payroll taxes paid by typical illegal immigrants and their employers as well as the value of their retirement benefits should they receive amnesty. Not only the typical illegal immigrant but any low-skilled immigrant will affect the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Illegal immigrant workers, often with false identities, can't avoid paying into Social Security but are not eligible to receive retirement benefits for their illegal work. But if they receive amnesty, they can qualify for Social Security retirement benefits based on their earlier illegal work. And those benefits will amount to much more than what they paid into Social Security!
A single male illegal immigrant who works for very low wages and is now 25 years old will receive (at today's value) $15,596 more in Social Security retirement benefits. A similar female illegal immigrant will receive $20,936 more in retirement benefits.
A married illegal immigrant couple in which one spouse works can expect $52,460 more. And a married illegal immigrant couple where both spouses work will receive $39,037 more.
What would be the fiscal impact on the Trust Fund of the legalization of 5 million illegal immigrant couples who both work for very low wages? A staggering $500 billion! That would jeopardize the solvency of Social Security and threaten everyone's retirement.
Of course, Social Security is not the only way in which illegal immigrants negatively impact American taxpayers.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform has estimated that the total cost of K-12 education for illegal immigrant minors and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is nearly $29 billion a year.
And there are health care costs. If illegal immigrants are covered in the health care bill (there is not a strong verification mechanism to ensure they won't get benefits), it will increase the bill's costs by as much as $30 billion
*
Totalization is a Bad Idea
January 8, 2007
2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico that will allow hundreds of thousands of noncitizens to receive Social Security benefits.
The agreement creates a so-called “totalization” plan between the two nations. Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments simply to make sure American citizens living abroad did not suffer from double taxation with respect to Social Security taxes. From there, however, totalization agreements have become vehicles for noncitizens to become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. The new agreement with Mexico would make an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens eligible in the next five years.
Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the U.S. could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.
It’s important to note that Congress, like the American people, heretofore had not seen this totalization agreement. This decision to expand our single largest entitlement program was made with no input from the legislative branch of government. If the president signs it, Congress will have to affirmatively act to override him and in essence veto the agreement. This is the opposite of how it’s supposed to work.
There are obvious reasons to oppose a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico. First, our Social Security system already faces trillions of dollars in future shortages as the Baby Boomer generation retires and fewer young workers pay into the system. Adding hundreds of thousand of noncitizens to the Social Security rolls can only hasten the day of reckoning.
Second, Social Security never was intended to serve as an individual foreign aid program for noncitizens abroad. Remember, there is no real Social Security trust fund, and the distinction between income taxes and payroll taxes is entirely artificial. The Social Security contributions made by noncitizens are spent immediately as general revenues. So while it’s unfortunate that some are forced to pay into a system from which they might never receive a penny, the same can be said of younger American citizens. If noncitizens wish to obtain Social Security benefits, or any other U.S. government entitlements, they should seek to become U.S. citizens.
Also, totalization agreements allow noncitizens to quality for Social Security benefits by working in the U.S. as little as 18 months. A Mexican citizen could work here for only a year and a half, return to Mexico, and retire with full U.S. benefits. This is grossly unfair to Americans who must work more quarters even to qualify for benefits-- especially younger people who face the possibility that there may be nothing left when it is their turn to retire.
Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst010807.htm
*
Illegal Aliens and Social Security Numbers
________________________________________
Reply to: comm-585103570@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-02-24, 9:34AM PST
I totally agree with Anthony Ramirez, illegal aliens cause problems for others when they steal others social security number.
As I worked for the Food Stamp program two years ago, I was amazed at the number of illegal aliens who came to apply for Food Stamps and had Social Security numbers.
One woman stood out, because she wound up having three social security numbers. We would not have questioned her at all, but the first number she gave was a real social security that belonged to a 16 year old disabled kid on SSI. She was 42, with 6 kids. When I questioned her about it, she admitted she had bought it to try and find work.
Eventually the kid and his family would be in trouble because the Feds would start deducting the money from his SSI check and he might loss his benefits altogether or have to pay it back. When brought to her attention, she did not care.
The second one was a made up one on a card that I turned every which way and looked just as good as the first one. The 3rd was an ITIN number that illegal aliens use to do their taxes or get tax money back. I learned they were using the ITIN numbers to open bank accounts and buy houses.
It worried me back then, because I wondered where were the people who were supposed to be the checks and balances in the mortgage industry. How could they sell homes to 5 to 6 families with no real ID, no pay stubs, no receipts, an ITIN number and their signature? Plus they had 9 to 10 renters.
The budgets were next to impossible to figure out, so a lot of the eligibility techs would put down that the Illegals were renters. In that way all they needed was a signed piece of paper saying they paid rent and how much they paid. As we now know, lack of ethics and morals has destroyed the Sub prime mortgage industry.
At the moment more then 50 percent of all welfare and food stamp benefits in Orange County are going directly to children of illegal aliens. The California Legislators have enacted laws to enslave Californians into taking care of illegal aliens and their needs while we make Americans and Legal Immigrants go to work under the CAL-WORKS program.
Illegal aliens don’t have to go to work, because it is against Federal Law for illegal aliens to work. So just like my mother-in-law received welfare for close to 25 years, Illegal Alien mothers who sometimes have children 10 to 15 years apart, can and do stay on welfare, food stamps and other social programs 25 to 30 years living off Californians. In my opinion this is a huge social cost.
*
Social Security for Illegal Aliens? THEY ALREADY GET IT!
________________________________________
Reply to: see below
Date: 2008-01-04, 2:29PM PST
When I lived in El Centro, CA. I would see MEXICANS DRIVING CARS & TRUCKS with BAJA CALIFORNIA TAGS (That;a MEXICO) Drive up to the SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE, park about 1/2 a block away, THEN WALK INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE to PICK UP THEIR SSI & SocSec CHECKS, then DRIVE OFF to the CHECK CASHING PLACE & EXCHANGE it for PESOS!
(NOTE: I AM A SENIOR CITIZEN & WORKED 65 YEARS to OBTAIN MY Social Security...it's LESS than $900.00 a month! THESE CROOKS get ALMOST $2,000.00 A MONTH!)
*
CREATED BY LA RAZA BARBARA BOXER AND DIANNE FEINSTEIN… working hard to expand Mex supremacy every day!
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits
The following are the senators who voted to
give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.
They are grouped by home state. If a state is
not listed, there was no voting representative.
Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arizona : McCain (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
*
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
*
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa: Harkin (D)
Kansas : Brownback (R)
Louisiana: Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R)
Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D)
New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (D)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R) South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)
THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS
TO KNOW THIS INFORMATION.....
UNLESS THEY DON'T MIND SHARING THEIR SOCIAL
SECURITY WITH FOREIGN WORKERS THEY LET IN ILLEGALLY TO TAKE OUR JOBS, WELFARE AND FREE BIRTHING!
*
Those in favor of sending U.S. Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of U.S. assistance to that country's aged. While poverty in Mexico truly is deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that Congress has no constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program.
*
Home » News
In 15 of Last 25 Months, Treasury Needed to Borrow Money to Pay Social Security Benefits
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
By Chris Johnson
Retired beer truck driver Frank Ferrira, 90, talks about social security on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2009 at a senior center in Pembroke Pines, Fla. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Treasury has needed to borrow money to pay Social Security benefits in 15 out of the last 25 months on record because the Social Security system was in deficit in those months, with the cost of monthly benefit payments exceeding the Social Security tax revenues flowing into the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance trust funds, according to data published by the Social Security Administration.
Because the overall federal budget was in deficit during this entire period, the surplus revenues Social Security earned in the remaining 10 months of the last 25 was used during those months to pay ongoing general government expenses and was not saved to pay future Social Security benefits.
The government gave the Social Security trust funds IOUs for this money.
Prior to August 2008, the Social Security system usually—but not always—ran monthly surpluses, and surplus Social Security taxes were always used by the government to cover deficits in the general federal budget with a promise by the Treasury to eventually pay the money back to the Social Security trust fund when the funds were needed to cover anticipated shortfalls in Social Security revenue. Surplus Social Security tax revenue was never actually set aside to cover these anticipated deficits in Social Security. It was always immediately spent.
In August, the latest month on record, the Social Security system was $8.621 billion in the red, according to the Social Security Administration. That was the fifteenth month since August 2008 in which the system posted a monthly deficit. Back in August 2008, the Social Security system dipped into deficit by $118 million.
For more than decade prior to August 2008, however, the Social Security system ran up an unbroken string of monthly surpluses. The last time before August 2008 that the system posted a deficit in any given month was November 1997, when it ran a $154 million deficit. November was the only month in 1997 that the Social Security system ran a deficit.
In the 259 months from January 1987 to August 2010, according to data published by the Social Security Adminisrtation, Social Security ran deficits in 22 months, or about 8 percent of the time. In the 25 months since August 2008, Social Security has run deficits 60 percent of the time.
In a summary of their annual report released in August, the Social Security trustees predicted that the Social Security system would run an annual deficit in 2010 for the first time since 1983, and that it would also run an annual deficit in 2011. After that, the trustees predicted, Social Security would run “small surpluses” in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and then, barring changes in the system, lurch permanently into the red as the bulk of the Baby Boom moved into retirement and began collecting benefits.
“Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983,” said the trustees.
“The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years," the trustees said. "This deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers.”
Mark Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, told CNSNews.com that the recent shortfall was “due, in part, to more beneficiaries coming onto the rolls than originally anticipated due to the economic downturn.”
“There is no significant distinction between OASI and DI in terms of the additional beneficiaries. But the bigger impact is less revenue coming into the system than anticipated due to unemployment,” he said.
*
CUT SSI FOR LEGALS, BUT ADD THE ILLEGALS! NO WONDER THE MEXICAN ARE OUT THERE WAVING THEIR MEX FLAGS IN OUR FACES! THE POLITICIANS THEY ELECTED WORK HARDER FOR LA RAZA ‘THE RACE” THAN THEY EVER WOULD US, THAT IS UNLESS YOU’RE A BANKSTER!
*
Social Security cuts are part of deficit plan
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press 48 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Divisions remain within President Barack Obama's deficit commission on politically explosive budget cuts and slashes in Social Security benefits, even as the panel's co-chairmen go public with a revised plan to tame the runaway national debt.
The new plan by co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, to be unveiled Wednesday, faces an uphill slog. Resistance is certain, not only because of the idea of raising the Social Security retirement age, but also because of proposed cuts to Medicare, curtailment of tax breaks and a doubling of the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline.
Though the plan appears unlikely to win enough bipartisan support from the panel to be approved for a vote in Congress this year or next, Bowles has already declared victory, saying he and Simpson have at least succeeded in initiating an "adult conversation" in the country about the pain it will take to cut the deficit.
The plan faces opposition from many commission members. House Republicans appear uniformly against tax increases, while liberal Democrats like Jan Schakowsky of Illinois appear unlikely to be able to accept big cuts in federal programs for seniors.
Obama named the commission in hopes of bringing a deficit-fighting plan up for a vote in Congress this year, but it appears to be falling well short of the 14-vote bipartisan supermajority needed.
A new version of the plan, obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, makes mostly minor changes to a draft that whipped up enormous controversy when unveiled earlier this month. Some domestic spending cuts are modestly higher than previously proposed, and health care savings from overhauling the medical malpractice system would reap less than proposed earlier this month.
Unlike their original proposal, Bowles and Simpson stop short of calling for caps on medical malpractice awards. Instead they recommend changes in how awards are made.
But other proposals remain the same. Among them are a gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075, using a less generous cost-of-living adjustment for the programs and increasing the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment