Military Force Against Iran Is An Option That Democrats Will Support
This is why I call the Democrats the other war party….. A better name for their party would be the Republicrat Party. It’s ironic (but not surprising to me) that the Democrats are calling for a Troop withdrawal from Iraq, and at the same time they are beating the war drums against Iran. This brings back a lot of memories. Under pro-war Democratic President Bill Clinton, the U.S. military had one of the most active periods in the nations history.
See Report Here
Monday, January 08, 2007
Israel Draws Up Plans To Attack Iran
A U.S. War Against Iran Appears to Be A Certainty
The issue now only seems to be when and how much death and chaos it will cause.
A U.S. War with Iran will make the war against Iraq look like a cake and ice cream party.
Israel is reportedly planning to attack Iranian nuclear sites, according to sources inside the Israeli government. These attacks may include the use of tactical bunker penetrating nuclear bombs. Israel has reportedly denied the plans to attack, however, according to the reports, Israel did not completely deny these plans, and in fact suggested (in a way admitted) that the reports were correct all along. It appeared that Israel really wanted to side step the issue, not fully deny it. A military option is still on the table. Meanwhile, Iran has promised strong retaliation if attacked.
Such an attack would likely bring devastating and upredictable consequences that neither Israel or the U.S. will have any control over. This appears to be Israel's way to force the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran. Israels position is- If the U.S. won't attack Iran, then we will.
Once again, Israel is controlling U.S. foreign policy and military policy. Israel wants to drag the U.S. into another desastrous war that we don't need. The Capital city of the United States may as well be Jerusalem, because Israeli politicians are making decisions that will impact Americans and will determine our future. No other country in the World has this kind of influence & control over the United States. And why does this situation exist? Because the Jewish economic and religious elite have tremendous influence in the U.S. The Jewish lobby is extremely powerful. It seems as if the U.S. has handed over it's sovereignty to Israel.
To make matters worse, no American politician is strong enough or courageous enough to even speak out about Israels attempt to control U.S. policy. Members of Congress (in both Parties) are too afraid to say anything that might be seen as criticizing or even questioning Israel. Anyone who dares to say something is automatically called anti-semitic.
This is why the Founding Fathers of this nation did not want the U.S. to be trapped in foreign entanglements. The U.S. basically came with an instruction manual-- the U.S. Constitution and the writings left behind by the Founding Fathers. If the instructions in the manual are followed properly....the nation runs smoothly. If the instructions are ignored it leads to disorder and disfunction.
Since the Congress is so afraid of protecting us from another disaster, the American people must do it. The American people must not allow Israel or the Bush Administration to go ahead with their plans for war against Iran. We can't allow Israel to drag us into another war- a war that we cannot afford to fight economically, politically, or militarily. The U.S. military is already stretched to the limit with Iraq and other hot spots. Even if the U.S. was not occupying Iraq, a war with Iran would still not be worth it.
There are no good consequences that will come from a war with Iran. A war with Iran would disrupt the Worlds economy, raising the price of fuel by unimaginable amounts (which would raise the cost of just about everything else that we buy). Furthermore, Iran would likely retaliate in a big big way by hitting Israeli cities with medium-long range missiles, warplanes and terror attacks. Iran could also hit Iraq, and/or Saudi Arabia where U.S. troops are based. China and Russia could also be drawn into a confrontation with the U.S. Both China and Russia have a lot at stake in Iran. China and/or Russia would likely send Navy ships into the Persian Gulf to assist Iran.
This war would not be worth the consequences that it would bring. This is especially true since most analysts & experts believe that bombing Iranian nuclear research sites would not work. The sites are built in such a way that bombing them would have very limited impact.
There is not even clear proof that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. They claim that they want peaceful nuclear energy- something that every country has a right to pursue. Let's hold the Iranians to their word by making them come to the UN to publicly declare that they are not seeking a bomb and have them sign an agreement and pledge that they are not seeking a weapon. This way, if they do develop a nuclear weapon, the world will see them as liars.
But right now, there is no proof of a nuclear weapons program. Iran has not violated the Non Proliferation Treaty or any other treaty. Seeking nuclear energy is within their rights under international law. What we are seeing is a double standard for Iran.
Even if Iran did acquire a nuclear weapon, we are much better off establishing a deterrence policy, like we had with the Soviets, than we are going to war. Iran will not launch a first strike, knowing that it would mean the end of its government and many of its cities....no matter how much they rant about wiping Israel off the map.
Israel should concentrate on building good missile defense systems, and other defensive capabilities, weakening the Iranian threat. These missile defense systems are already being developed and built in Israel, with the help of the U.S.
Peace groups, concerned political leaders and diplomats, and most importantly.... the American people, must make sure that a war with Iran does not happen.
Previous Blog Entries on Iran
NPR report
The U.S. Sends Navy Ships to Persian Gulf near Iran
Military options are very limited
Scott Ritter Discusses Possible U.S. Attack Against Iran
Iran Given Deadline
Earlier Report from Seymour Hersh
U.S. Moves Closer to an Attack on Iran
U.S. Seeking Confrontation
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Bush Administration Plan For Iraq Will Call For Troop Increase
Despite overwhelming public opposition, George W. Bush will make a major announcement in the next few days, describing his plan to send thousands of troops to Iraq. The plan will call for an increase of up to 10,000 troops, most going to Baghdad. An additional 10,000 will stay in the region....either in Iraq or Kuwait. The increase will take several months to complete. Some reports indicate that the plan will take 18 months.... Will Americans have 18 months of patience?
It appears that Bush has shuffled his management team around (changing Generals and advisors) to put people in place who will tell Bush & Co. what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
Without a more comprehensive plan, I don't think the troop surge will work. First of all, 10,000 or 20,000 is not enough troops to really be effective. The U.S. simply does not have enough troops available for this task. And the troops that are there are worn out. Many have had 3 or 4 rotations, putting a serious strain on their families.
Part of the plan calls for the additional troops to be exposed more than usual....placed in harms way right in the cities and neighborhoods where the insurgents live. This may end badly for the U.S. military. Additional troops placed in this kind of urban warfare environment will only provide insurgents with more targets to attack. This in turn will only result in higher numbers of casualties (on all sides). And all of this is the result of the neo-cons...first of all lying to get us into this mess and then not sending enough troops to do the job properly (if there is a right way to rape and pillage another country). We originally should have had AT LEAST 300,000 troops, and they should have gone house to house back in 2003 and confiscated all weapons. In addition, the borders of Iraq should have been sealed off immediately. Instead (this was one of the biggest blunders of all) the U.S. told the Iraqi military to go home and dissolve into the population and then they allowed them to keep their weapons. Add a little religious extremism and sectarian violence to that volatile mix, and you end up with an impossible situation for U.S. troops to deal with.
Only a comprehensive plan can save Iraq (if it can be saved at all). There must be a political component....and Iraqis have to deal with that themselves for the most part. There must be negotiations with the various militant groups (but with the hanging of Hussein.... the White House seems to have screwed that option up). The clowns in the White House always seem to sabotage themselves.... they are so incompetent that it almost looks like they are doing this on purpose. Hmmm I don't see how they can be that stupid by accident. It's unbelievable.
There must also be an economic component. Unemployment in Iraq is running at approximately 70-80%. I don't think most Americans are even aware of this or can even comprehend what the hell this means. In a situation like that.... if i'm a man trying to support a wife and children, and there are no legitimate jobs, but one of the militias or insurgent groups has a job opening... that's an easy decision. I'm going to join one of the militant groups. Or if I am offered a job as a bomb maker, smuggler, or spy....i'll take one of those jobs. Sometimes, a man may be forced to join one of these groups. A man will always act in his own personal/economic interests and in the interest of his wife and children....especially in a traditional society like Iraq where the man is often the sole provider. So the economic situation must be dealt with. Iraqis must also get economic support from the UN, so that families there can survive without taking shady jobs that are tearing the country apart.
There must also be a social and cultural/religious component as well. There must be a process of religious and political reconciliation. The U.S. has allowed foreign fighters to ignite a civil war that the U.S. no longer has any control over, and never really had control over. An effort must be made to seal the borders and to kick foreign troublemakers out.
But the actions of the U.S. & it's puppets in Iraq have run counter to many of these things.... such as the killing of Hussein so soon (or allowing it at all). This only fuels the sectarian violence, and the Sunni insurgency against U.S. troops.
There must be a security component.
All weapons must be seized and destroyed. And there must be a renewed effort to get the bad seeds out of the Iraqi police and Army (an almost impossible task). At the same time, there must be an effort to train more Iraqis. The insurgents, the militias and probably the Iranians have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces. Some of the death squads are part of the police and Army. How do you fix that problem? That situation is a disaster. If the Iraqi security forces cannot be trusted, then I don't see much hope for the situation. Border guards must be paid a good salary.....more than what they can earn from being bribed...so the foreign troublemakers cannot flow in and out so easily.
Even if all of these things were done....and if all of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group were accepted.....even after all of that.... there is only a 50-50 chance that the Iraq adventure will have a decent outcome.
I personally believe that the Bush administration has no intentions of leaving Iraq. Bush wants to have SOME kind of legacy. If that means more U.S. and Iraqi deaths, then this is something that Bush & Co. is willing to accept. The Bush crew wants to hold out long enough to pass this mess off to the next President... (Republican or Democrat), so that if it fails after he leaves, he will be able to say that it was not his fault and it didn't fail on his watch... it failed on someone else's watch.
A troop surge without a real plan will= failure....just like most of the other policies from the Bush Administration.
The Democrats have set this up to be their first battle as the leaders of the new Congress. They have sent a letter to Bush urging him to reconsider his plans for a troop increase.
But will they cut funding? No. Absolutely not. They can't be seen as not supporting the troops once they have been ordered to battle. But they can hold the executive branch accountable by giving them all kinds of hell.... strong oversight..... hearings....etc.
It appears that Bush has shuffled his management team around (changing Generals and advisors) to put people in place who will tell Bush & Co. what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.
Without a more comprehensive plan, I don't think the troop surge will work. First of all, 10,000 or 20,000 is not enough troops to really be effective. The U.S. simply does not have enough troops available for this task. And the troops that are there are worn out. Many have had 3 or 4 rotations, putting a serious strain on their families.
Part of the plan calls for the additional troops to be exposed more than usual....placed in harms way right in the cities and neighborhoods where the insurgents live. This may end badly for the U.S. military. Additional troops placed in this kind of urban warfare environment will only provide insurgents with more targets to attack. This in turn will only result in higher numbers of casualties (on all sides). And all of this is the result of the neo-cons...first of all lying to get us into this mess and then not sending enough troops to do the job properly (if there is a right way to rape and pillage another country). We originally should have had AT LEAST 300,000 troops, and they should have gone house to house back in 2003 and confiscated all weapons. In addition, the borders of Iraq should have been sealed off immediately. Instead (this was one of the biggest blunders of all) the U.S. told the Iraqi military to go home and dissolve into the population and then they allowed them to keep their weapons. Add a little religious extremism and sectarian violence to that volatile mix, and you end up with an impossible situation for U.S. troops to deal with.
Only a comprehensive plan can save Iraq (if it can be saved at all). There must be a political component....and Iraqis have to deal with that themselves for the most part. There must be negotiations with the various militant groups (but with the hanging of Hussein.... the White House seems to have screwed that option up). The clowns in the White House always seem to sabotage themselves.... they are so incompetent that it almost looks like they are doing this on purpose. Hmmm I don't see how they can be that stupid by accident. It's unbelievable.
There must also be an economic component. Unemployment in Iraq is running at approximately 70-80%. I don't think most Americans are even aware of this or can even comprehend what the hell this means. In a situation like that.... if i'm a man trying to support a wife and children, and there are no legitimate jobs, but one of the militias or insurgent groups has a job opening... that's an easy decision. I'm going to join one of the militant groups. Or if I am offered a job as a bomb maker, smuggler, or spy....i'll take one of those jobs. Sometimes, a man may be forced to join one of these groups. A man will always act in his own personal/economic interests and in the interest of his wife and children....especially in a traditional society like Iraq where the man is often the sole provider. So the economic situation must be dealt with. Iraqis must also get economic support from the UN, so that families there can survive without taking shady jobs that are tearing the country apart.
There must also be a social and cultural/religious component as well. There must be a process of religious and political reconciliation. The U.S. has allowed foreign fighters to ignite a civil war that the U.S. no longer has any control over, and never really had control over. An effort must be made to seal the borders and to kick foreign troublemakers out.
But the actions of the U.S. & it's puppets in Iraq have run counter to many of these things.... such as the killing of Hussein so soon (or allowing it at all). This only fuels the sectarian violence, and the Sunni insurgency against U.S. troops.
There must be a security component.
All weapons must be seized and destroyed. And there must be a renewed effort to get the bad seeds out of the Iraqi police and Army (an almost impossible task). At the same time, there must be an effort to train more Iraqis. The insurgents, the militias and probably the Iranians have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces. Some of the death squads are part of the police and Army. How do you fix that problem? That situation is a disaster. If the Iraqi security forces cannot be trusted, then I don't see much hope for the situation. Border guards must be paid a good salary.....more than what they can earn from being bribed...so the foreign troublemakers cannot flow in and out so easily.
Even if all of these things were done....and if all of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group were accepted.....even after all of that.... there is only a 50-50 chance that the Iraq adventure will have a decent outcome.
I personally believe that the Bush administration has no intentions of leaving Iraq. Bush wants to have SOME kind of legacy. If that means more U.S. and Iraqi deaths, then this is something that Bush & Co. is willing to accept. The Bush crew wants to hold out long enough to pass this mess off to the next President... (Republican or Democrat), so that if it fails after he leaves, he will be able to say that it was not his fault and it didn't fail on his watch... it failed on someone else's watch.
A troop surge without a real plan will= failure....just like most of the other policies from the Bush Administration.
The Democrats have set this up to be their first battle as the leaders of the new Congress. They have sent a letter to Bush urging him to reconsider his plans for a troop increase.
But will they cut funding? No. Absolutely not. They can't be seen as not supporting the troops once they have been ordered to battle. But they can hold the executive branch accountable by giving them all kinds of hell.... strong oversight..... hearings....etc.
Bennie Thompson Discusses His Plans For The Next Congressional Session
An interview with Bennie Thompson, the new Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Interview taken from the Public radio program News and Notes.
Listen Here.
The Congressional Black Caucus Starts New Session
VIDEO BELOW
The Congressional Black Caucus held an orgy this week, celebrating their new position of power in the 110th Congress. (You may not want to watch this video on a full stomach).
I hate these kinds of celebrations by the Black elite. They are always more about style than substance, which is why few people take the CBC seriously.... I stopped taking them seriously some time ago. Despite their elite parties and slogans, poor folks on the ground (myself included) seldom feel any benefits or see any results from their time in Washington D.C.
These people have no business celebrating. They don't have a damn thing to celebrate about. I don't see how they could party while their people are suffering (both in the U.S. and overseas).
While they are partying, so called Black culture continues to degenerate, wealth inequality is still a serious problem, the crime rates (especially black on black) have shot up over the past couple of years all over the country, the poor struggle to get decent healthcare, Blacks struggle to find decent economic opportunities, inner cities are crumbling, gangs are making a comeback, and urban school systems are a disaster.
So I wish I could have asked these folks.... "what's the occasion?" I just don't see the cause for celebration by these Black elites. Mr. Cosby has called them poverty pimps.... I won't go that far, but I may end up taking that point of view at some point, if they don't roll up their sleeves and get to work. (For those who may not know... I am firmly in the Cosby camp).
Some of these CBC characters have been around for 30 years or more. But look at the inner cities where most of their constituents live! These communities are devastated. This is partly due to the fact that these politicians have never been able to remedy many of the problems that plague so-called "Black America". Access to education, economic empowerment, and the dying Black American culture are the real issues here, NOT the lack of entitlements, or civil rights problems alone. Black America has to look inward.
And as soon as these Black politicians begin to think that they are there to govern only for Black Americans instead of all Americans, that is when the entire Democratic Party will suffer and will start to lose elections again. Because white America will reject the racial politics of the past. the CBC has to redefine itself and let the race based politics go. White Americans will have none of it....and the CBC only has a short time to show the country what they will do and what they are capable of doing.
I will be keeping an eye on the CBC. I will particularly be interested in what they do about election reform. Will they push for real, substantive, fundamental change (revamping the undemocratic system, giving real power to voters), or will they simply attempt to do a patchwork job within the existing flawed and broken voting system? What will they do about jobs? What will they do about education? What will they do about job training and economic opportunities in the inner cities?
And one other thing that I will be looking for is their assertiveness in the international arena. International Affairs is one of my special areas of interests....and has been for several years now. The CBC can no longer look at issues like AIDS in Africa, poverty at home and abroad, genocide in Darfur Sudan (and other places), and out of control militarism and fail to even speak out. Now they have the power to actually do something about these issues. Not only must they speak out, but they must follow through and act.
The Master of Ceremonies for this orgy... I mean swearing-in event.... is none other than the intellectual thug extraordinaire Michael Eric Dyson- someone whom I disagree with 97% of the time. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson is also in attendance....and they heap all kinds of praise on this guy (under investigation by the FBI for taking a bribe). Black Democrats are still whining about what they see as the poor treatment of Jefferson and Alcee Hastings. Boo hoo! How crazy can they be to seriously believe that either of these guys could hold their positions with the backgrounds that they have?
I sometimes wonder if there is even still a need for self segregated organizations like the CBC. Has time passed them by? Has the CBC outlived its usefullness? I think that it probably has.
And I get a little weary with Black folks getting this much power....for one thing, I am afraid that they are going to be an embarrassment to the people if they screw something up....and also because Black folks in charge and having this much power often run things into the ground. I have seen it too many times. Not in all cases of course. But in many cases.
I still wish them luck in the 110th Congress....and will be watching to see what they do. Part of the sarcasm stems from my desire for results...and seeing nonsense come from these folks so many times in the past.....and that goes for Black folks in power in all sorts of environments....not just in the political sphere. I just want to see some results.... like one of my teachers (Dr. Cornel West) says.... I don't like seeing these people acting as celebrities, "strutting like Peacocks". I want to see some real action and real results.
Watch the CBC Swearing-in Event Here.
The Congressional Black Caucus held an orgy this week, celebrating their new position of power in the 110th Congress. (You may not want to watch this video on a full stomach).
I hate these kinds of celebrations by the Black elite. They are always more about style than substance, which is why few people take the CBC seriously.... I stopped taking them seriously some time ago. Despite their elite parties and slogans, poor folks on the ground (myself included) seldom feel any benefits or see any results from their time in Washington D.C.
These people have no business celebrating. They don't have a damn thing to celebrate about. I don't see how they could party while their people are suffering (both in the U.S. and overseas).
While they are partying, so called Black culture continues to degenerate, wealth inequality is still a serious problem, the crime rates (especially black on black) have shot up over the past couple of years all over the country, the poor struggle to get decent healthcare, Blacks struggle to find decent economic opportunities, inner cities are crumbling, gangs are making a comeback, and urban school systems are a disaster.
So I wish I could have asked these folks.... "what's the occasion?" I just don't see the cause for celebration by these Black elites. Mr. Cosby has called them poverty pimps.... I won't go that far, but I may end up taking that point of view at some point, if they don't roll up their sleeves and get to work. (For those who may not know... I am firmly in the Cosby camp).
Some of these CBC characters have been around for 30 years or more. But look at the inner cities where most of their constituents live! These communities are devastated. This is partly due to the fact that these politicians have never been able to remedy many of the problems that plague so-called "Black America". Access to education, economic empowerment, and the dying Black American culture are the real issues here, NOT the lack of entitlements, or civil rights problems alone. Black America has to look inward.
And as soon as these Black politicians begin to think that they are there to govern only for Black Americans instead of all Americans, that is when the entire Democratic Party will suffer and will start to lose elections again. Because white America will reject the racial politics of the past. the CBC has to redefine itself and let the race based politics go. White Americans will have none of it....and the CBC only has a short time to show the country what they will do and what they are capable of doing.
I will be keeping an eye on the CBC. I will particularly be interested in what they do about election reform. Will they push for real, substantive, fundamental change (revamping the undemocratic system, giving real power to voters), or will they simply attempt to do a patchwork job within the existing flawed and broken voting system? What will they do about jobs? What will they do about education? What will they do about job training and economic opportunities in the inner cities?
And one other thing that I will be looking for is their assertiveness in the international arena. International Affairs is one of my special areas of interests....and has been for several years now. The CBC can no longer look at issues like AIDS in Africa, poverty at home and abroad, genocide in Darfur Sudan (and other places), and out of control militarism and fail to even speak out. Now they have the power to actually do something about these issues. Not only must they speak out, but they must follow through and act.
The Master of Ceremonies for this orgy... I mean swearing-in event.... is none other than the intellectual thug extraordinaire Michael Eric Dyson- someone whom I disagree with 97% of the time. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson is also in attendance....and they heap all kinds of praise on this guy (under investigation by the FBI for taking a bribe). Black Democrats are still whining about what they see as the poor treatment of Jefferson and Alcee Hastings. Boo hoo! How crazy can they be to seriously believe that either of these guys could hold their positions with the backgrounds that they have?
I sometimes wonder if there is even still a need for self segregated organizations like the CBC. Has time passed them by? Has the CBC outlived its usefullness? I think that it probably has.
And I get a little weary with Black folks getting this much power....for one thing, I am afraid that they are going to be an embarrassment to the people if they screw something up....and also because Black folks in charge and having this much power often run things into the ground. I have seen it too many times. Not in all cases of course. But in many cases.
I still wish them luck in the 110th Congress....and will be watching to see what they do. Part of the sarcasm stems from my desire for results...and seeing nonsense come from these folks so many times in the past.....and that goes for Black folks in power in all sorts of environments....not just in the political sphere. I just want to see some results.... like one of my teachers (Dr. Cornel West) says.... I don't like seeing these people acting as celebrities, "strutting like Peacocks". I want to see some real action and real results.
Watch the CBC Swearing-in Event Here.
Yet Another Bush & Co. Attack On Constitutional Rights?
Bush has reportedly slipped language into one of his signing statements, giving his administration the power to open personal mail.
The Field Negro takes aim at the continued abuse of Executive power by Bush & Co., with a little comedy included.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
See one of my previous blog entries on the subject of "Presidential Signing Statements". A great discussion is included.
Keith Ellison Takes Ceremonial Oath on Quran
But not just any Quran. Ellison used a Quran once owned by one of the nations Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.
This was a brilliant and eloquent way to hit back at the ignorance and bigotry of Congressman Virgil Goode and his supporters.
Follow the story from Public radio. Listen Here.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Previous Blog Entry On This Story
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Skeptical Brotha has also covered this story with one of his great posts.
This was a brilliant and eloquent way to hit back at the ignorance and bigotry of Congressman Virgil Goode and his supporters.
Follow the story from Public radio. Listen Here.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Previous Blog Entry On This Story
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Skeptical Brotha has also covered this story with one of his great posts.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Social Security Benefits For Illegal Immigrants?
George W. apparently made a secret deal with Mexico in 2004, allowing illegal immigrants from Mexico to get Social Security benefits in the U.S. once their residency or citizenship status became legal. The benefits would cover work done during the time that the individuals were working illegally. Additional report here.
I'm torn in a way on this. But I really lean on the side of saying no to this idea. Why should illegal immigrants (from any country) qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits? Sure, they should qualify for these benefits AFTER they gain their legal status....I have no problem with that. Their benefits clock should begin from that point. But they should not be grandfathered into the system for work done while they were in the country illegally. That's the wrong answer Mr. Bush.....and Democrats better not approve this mess. Here I am struggling for low wages....have no real health benefits, and will probably never see Social Security, but someone here illegally is going to qualify for benefits???? Bush & Co. will have to do better than that one.
Apparently a senior citizens organization had to sue the Bush administration to obtain a copy of the documents regarding the agreement. Now the Social Security administration is saying that everything about this agreement was o.k., everything was on the up & up, etc. Well, if that is the case, then why was the agreement made in secret? Why did Bush try to hide this from the American public?
The U.S. has these agreements with other nations (21), however, I don't think that a fair comparison could be made between Mexico and the other countries for which we have such agreements. Geography and economics make a big difference here. Those other countries do not share such a long border with the U.S. (except for Canada), and there are not thousands of people flooding the U.S. illegally from these other countries. The immigration from overseas countries is a trickle in comparison to Mexico.... In that sense, Mexico has its own set of circumstances that make it unique.
But, there is also an alternative view provided by the New York Times, in an article written in 2005. The report claims that illegal immigrants pay into the system (even though they don't have valid SSN's, etc). I doubt that most of these people are paid via legitimate methods. For instance, many day laborers, and migrant workers are paid cash. Some restaurant workers, janitors, and others are also paid under the table. That's one of the main reasons why employers like to use illegal immigrant labor.... they can pay them less than minimum wage, they can avoid paying into the workers compensation system, they can work them to death, and can avoid paying overtime. So it's hard for me to imagine that suddenly employers are playing by the rules and adding these workers to legit payrolls and paying the Social Security taxes on their workers behalf. That's just really hard to believe.
I'm torn in a way on this. But I really lean on the side of saying no to this idea. Why should illegal immigrants (from any country) qualify for U.S. Social Security benefits? Sure, they should qualify for these benefits AFTER they gain their legal status....I have no problem with that. Their benefits clock should begin from that point. But they should not be grandfathered into the system for work done while they were in the country illegally. That's the wrong answer Mr. Bush.....and Democrats better not approve this mess. Here I am struggling for low wages....have no real health benefits, and will probably never see Social Security, but someone here illegally is going to qualify for benefits???? Bush & Co. will have to do better than that one.
Apparently a senior citizens organization had to sue the Bush administration to obtain a copy of the documents regarding the agreement. Now the Social Security administration is saying that everything about this agreement was o.k., everything was on the up & up, etc. Well, if that is the case, then why was the agreement made in secret? Why did Bush try to hide this from the American public?
The U.S. has these agreements with other nations (21), however, I don't think that a fair comparison could be made between Mexico and the other countries for which we have such agreements. Geography and economics make a big difference here. Those other countries do not share such a long border with the U.S. (except for Canada), and there are not thousands of people flooding the U.S. illegally from these other countries. The immigration from overseas countries is a trickle in comparison to Mexico.... In that sense, Mexico has its own set of circumstances that make it unique.
But, there is also an alternative view provided by the New York Times, in an article written in 2005. The report claims that illegal immigrants pay into the system (even though they don't have valid SSN's, etc). I doubt that most of these people are paid via legitimate methods. For instance, many day laborers, and migrant workers are paid cash. Some restaurant workers, janitors, and others are also paid under the table. That's one of the main reasons why employers like to use illegal immigrant labor.... they can pay them less than minimum wage, they can avoid paying into the workers compensation system, they can work them to death, and can avoid paying overtime. So it's hard for me to imagine that suddenly employers are playing by the rules and adding these workers to legit payrolls and paying the Social Security taxes on their workers behalf. That's just really hard to believe.
New Congress Sworn In
The 110th Congress has been sworn in, and Nancy Pelosi has become the first female Speaker of the House.
See who the key players are in the new Congress. Also see list of key Committee Chairs.
On an ironic note.... Pelosi and the Democrats held a $1000 per person fundraiser on the same day that they took over the Congress under the banner of cutting the link between members of Congress and big money donors. This event was part of an expensive 3 or 4 day celebration. This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that the Democrats were serious about cleaning up the Republican mess.
Perhaps Pelosi just wanted to take one last bath in the dirty swamp before draining it.
See who the key players are in the new Congress. Also see list of key Committee Chairs.
On an ironic note.... Pelosi and the Democrats held a $1000 per person fundraiser on the same day that they took over the Congress under the banner of cutting the link between members of Congress and big money donors. This event was part of an expensive 3 or 4 day celebration. This is the kind of thing that makes me doubt that the Democrats were serious about cleaning up the Republican mess.
Perhaps Pelosi just wanted to take one last bath in the dirty swamp before draining it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
