Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:37:18 -0700, z wrote: On Oct 29, 4:51 pm, wrote: We are in Iraq because Saddam was a danger to Israel. He was not going to take a shot at the US and he was more than happy to sell oil to Exxon. How the hell was saddam a danger to Israel? He wasn't even a danger to Kuwait any more. If you would have asked any israeli in 2003, and I did, they'd look puzzled and tell you that Iran was their biggest danger and Syria second, and Iraq and Lybia were no longer in the running. Then there was no reason at all for us to be there since 1991. No argument from me. Well, sure there was; Bush wanted to show the Arab world our might, so he picked the weakest regime to knock over. And failed. Hellofajob, Brownie. |
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In article .com,
z wrote: Well, sure there was; Bush wanted to show the Arab world our might, so he picked the weakest regime to knock over. And failed. Hellofajob, Brownie. In the run-up I mentioned on several fora that GWB reminded me on Mandy Pantikin in the Princess Bride. "I am George Bush, you murdered my father's political career. Prepare to die." |
#43
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote: In , Kurt Ullman wrote: The fiscal years in Clinton's second term had surpluses, at least 3 of them. You were hoping we forgot that? One even had a surplus when excluding the Social Security surplus. But not the Medicare part of the surplus. Of course, you can't hold Clinton accountable for taking advantage of an accounting fraud in place since the early 80s. One other thing I forgot to mention. During the one of year of "real surplus" increased spending (from Congress, another indication of the actual impact of ANY president on this situation) was higher than the three years before. This was an indication of one brief, shining moment when the US economy was so breathtakingly overheated that money came in faster than even the combined best efforts of BOTH parties could spend it. Did not last all that long. Spending lagged economic growth due to gridlock in government. Beware unified governments. I saw preferably have the House and the White House in hands of opposing parties, since spending bills are supposed to originate in the House according to the USA Constitution. I might add to that have the Senate preferably also opposite party from the House, so that the House-Senate Conference Committee slows things down (and a majority of the time adds reason rather than subtracts reason). - Don Klipstein ) |
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In article , Manster wrote:
HeyBub wrote: wrote: Bush is off the dial when it comes to worst disappointment in U.S. Presidential history. Hmmm. Job creation continues, with 110,000 last month, which is the longest continuous record of job expansion in our nation's history. What kind of jobs??? I love it when I see stats about 35K auto workers getting put out of work when a plant closes, then they're all back off the unemployment rolls with jobs in fast food, telemarketing, and other stuff. Best line I heard from a comedian in the last couple years was that the guy thought all the new job creation was frikkin great, he had three of them himself and still couldn't afford to pay his rent... Inflation is below 2% Overall.......but what about the inflation rates in healthcare, housing, etc. Some of those costs are just now starting to gain. In 1960 healthcare was only 5.1% of GDP, in 1985 it was 10.1%, 2003 had it at 15.3%....and estimates are that by 2013 it will be at 18.4%. In the last 40 years annual per capita costs for healthcare have gone from $143 to $5670. Inflation would be near nothing for the 40+ million people in this country who can't afford healthcare. Same if you don't buy a new car, or a house........ (side note.....my health insurance premiums (which my former employer pays NONE of) went up last year from $500 a month to $800 a month.....a bit more than 2%) Productivity is at an average of 2.5%, which is more than the '70s, '80s, or '90s. What does this do to our quality of life??? Back in those days we were working 40 hour weeks, took vacations, etc. The norm today is much different. Wages have grown an average of 12% since Bush took office. For whom??? If you're talking the salaries of CEO's...I get it. If you're talking about rank and file workers???? And how do those increases compare to loss of benefits, etc.?? 12% in 6.5 years? By what measure? Even if average after inflation, that is only what the top 20% enjoyed, with the bottom 80% not gaining after even the official figures of inflation. A good half the income is enjoyed by the top 20%, probably more now as the trend has continued of raises beyone inflation mostly going to those already in the top roughly 20%. And within the top 20%, disproportionately to the top 5%. "Workers with employer-sponsored health insurance will often experience reductions in real (after adjusting for inflation) wages reductions (or wage growth) in response to health care cost growth. The empirical evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are offset by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by increases in the number of hours worked." - - From here - http://tinyurl.com/2tqxgx Tax revenues are up 37% since the Bush tax cuts took effect. I've heard this, if it's "true", why is the deficit still growing?? Actually, it shrank in some recent few years with the economy running too hot for the Fed's taste, so we got interest rate hikes to slow it down. Let's see what the deficit does now that the economy has just recently slowed. Must be because the administration is spending it all....and more. Mostly par for the course since roughly 1963, with few exceptions and the most shining ones were the surplus years of Clinton's second term where non-unified government slowed spending bills and tax cut bills. And in the meantime we've got people without healthcare, our infrastructure is crumbling.....etc. The current deficit is about 1.5% of the budget. That's lower than the '70s, '80s, and most of the '90s. You counting the $600 billion in interest we're paying on the $2.5 trillion deficit???? Probably yes - we would be now having a surplus if not for past defecits, mostly by both Bushes and Reagan, after that Carter. 49 straight months of job growth and six years of uninterrupted GDP growth. Those are all in heavy manufacturing right??? And by manufacturing, I don't mean "building" Big Macs... g But most importantly, Bush has lead the killing of as much as a hundred thousand goblins. He's single-handedly turned both Louisiana and Iraq into Republican strongholds. Yep, the dems in Louisiana had no place to live after Katrina....they moved to other states g SNIP from there - Don Klipstein ) |
#46
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
#49
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In , Kurt
Ullman wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: Spending lagged economic growth due to gridlock in government. But spending stayed pretty much the same on a %age year-to-year increase basis during that time. The GOP got a taste of pork and liked it. What happened was slower pork and impairment of tax cuts due to gridlock, and we got a sustained lack of deficits. The deficit lack was even sustained enough for some abolition of the 30 year treasury bond! One thing I noticed: When there are big deficits, "The Fed" (Federal Reserve Board) has more need to sell Treasury Bonds. Bonds sell better when the economy is less favorable to inflation, as in slower. So I suspect that when there are big deficits, "The Fed" needs to please bond investors, who are scroogier than stock investors - bond investors with major holdings outright enjoy recessions, and maybe more so "growth recessions" (when GDP grows after inflation, but to an extent less than population times labor productivity). I have noticed that "Wall Street" likes to equate working class wage growth with inflation! Also with bond holders enjoying anti-inflationary economic slowdowns more than stockholders do - stockholders benefit when the pie grows! Interestingly enough, on a %age of year-to-year growth, there was a time when it went down right after the GOP took over in '94. But by '99 the %age had returned to what it averaged in the 5 years before the GOP took over. As in late 1990's being a time when inflation was at a "tolerable" level, the USA unemployment rate managed a post-Carter maybe post-Nixon low, and with median income (whether individual or family and without gender specification of breadwinner) after inflation adjustment going up, as opposed to most of elsewhere post-1973 when USA had rich-getting-richer-at-expense-of-everyone-else to have on-average top-20%-income and to significant top-5% American individuals and families grabbing most of the benefits of USA economic growth and growth in labor productivity! I blame he 1. Immigration policy giving loopholes to let in competition from the south to wage competition for jobs where the wages are in working class to low range. 2. Politicians from "The Right" giving us tax cuts (and spending cuts to a lesser extent) and according deficits increasing/maintaining need of "The Fed" to borrow by selling Treasury Bonds. Those sell better when the economy is slowed more to reduce inflation! We have met the enemy and he is us... - Don Klipstein ) |
#50
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,atl.general,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
never@million wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:41:07 -0700, larry moe 'n curly wrote: I don't like John McCain, even though he's one of my senators, and I'm not a Republican, but don't call him a traitor because he's the farthest thing from one. He volunteered for Vietnam combat duty, endured more time in solitary confinement in North Vietnam than any other American POW did -- all while his arm bones remained broken, including one that stuck through his skin. And because his father was a big admiral at the time, the Communists tried to use him for propaganda purposes and allowed him to leave unconditionally. His response to that offer was that he'd be willing to leave only after all his fellow POWs were freed first. IOW John McCain wasn't a coward like George W. Bush or a traitor. McCain is an American hero. Good post. DCI I agree. He is an American hero, I don't agree with him on immigration but the fact remains he is a bigger and better man than the cowards in the white house. Anybody who wouldn't abandon his brothers under such conditions of being tortured and abused is a hero beyond what words can describe. |
#51
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,atl.general,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
RickH wrote: On Oct 27, 3:01 pm, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: McCain is on the same page with Hillary Clinton, Edwards and every other Republican candidate except Ron Paul. The Lieberman wing of the Democratic party is as big a bunch of war hawks as the republicans. That is most of the North East and left coast delegation. They like to bitch about the way Bush is running the war but they still want the war. If you want out, you need to vote for Obama or Ron Paul. Makes sense, but why would anybody want out? Everyone outside Illinois sees Obama as some kind of Mr Clean. In Illinois he associated himself with some mafia players, like Tony Rezko to get himself a sweethert deal on his house and lot. He was intrenched with all the corruption in this state as much as anybody, but on the national front he's Mr Clean. He's was just another influence peddler in Illinois what a joke. He also wants to bomb an ally, Pakistan I hear. That's your ****ing problem, you hear, but you don't know. How can you right wing trash be soo ****ing clueless when correct information is always there? Just want to be clueless? Afraid that the Democrats might be more productive than than the impotent Republicans? |
#52
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: Spending lagged economic growth due to gridlock in government. But spending stayed pretty much the same on a %age year-to-year increase basis during that time. The GOP got a taste of pork and liked it. Interestingly enough, on a %age of year-to-year growth, there was a time when it went down right after the GOP took over in '94. But by '99 the %age had returned to what it averaged in the 5 years before the GOP took over. The viscous cycle that never ends. |
#53
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? They
weren't sent back, that's for sure. They can't be considered lawful revenue, so they were placed in a special account. Someone told me dubya appropriated the money for his illegal occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. Is it true? If so, under what authority? I can't wait until we get dubya's trial started. |
#54
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In article ,
"Seth Hammond" wrote: What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? They weren't sent back, that's for sure. They can't be considered lawful revenue, so they were placed in a special account. Someone told me dubya appropriated the money for his illegal occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. Is it true? If so, under what authority? The outpatients are out in force tonight, I see. Exactly HOW could you identify the money coming from illegals and put it into a special account. Also, I don't think the tax laws distinguish tax by immigration status. They pretty much say a buck is .30 cents in taxes. |
#55
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message ... In article , "Seth Hammond" wrote: What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? They weren't sent back, that's for sure. They can't be considered lawful revenue, so they were placed in a special account. Someone told me dubya appropriated the money for his illegal occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan. Is it true? If so, under what authority? The outpatients are out in force tonight, I see. Exactly HOW could you identify the money coming from illegals and put it into a special account. Also, I don't think the tax laws distinguish tax by immigration status. They pretty much say a buck is .30 cents in taxes. Such money plus that similar accumulated by the SSA equaled 365 billion dollars the last I knew. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you shouldn't respond to show your ignorance. Does anyone who knows have any comment? |
#56
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,atl.general,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
#57
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:38:08 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
mumbled: What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? Dwarfed by the billions of US $ they send out in remittances to Mejico, you ****ing TRAITOR! http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html In February I reported on the record $16.6 billion sent back to Mexico from immigrants here in the U.S., a 24% increase from 2003. The latest estimates show that this year those "remittances" as they call them, are expected to top Mexico's oil industry as the number one form of revenue for the country. This is all being fascilitated by bank in the United States that refuse to enforce laws on the books regarding reporting criminal and illegal transactions and instead would sell out our country for a dollar. Lou Dobbs (transcript March 21, 2005) The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever. Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. Christine Romans has the story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wells Fargo is opening 700 new accounts every day for illegal aliens. Since November 2001, it's helped more than half a million people to, as it says, come out from the shadows. LILIANA SALAS-GRIP, WELLS FARGO: We are not if the business of immigration. We don't question any customer, Latin, American, or any other customer that comes into our financial institution in their legal or illegal status. And our responsibility as a financial services company is to make sure that all our products and services are available for all customers that come in. ROMANS: It began with Wells Fargo working closely with the Mexican government. But now almost 200 U.S. banks accept the Mexican I.D. card, the matricula consular, as I.D. MATT HAYES, FRIENDS OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT: On the one hand you have the Border Patrol, whose job it is to intercept illegal aliens as they enter the country. And on the other hand you have the Treasury Department, which is encouraging exactly those illegal aliens if they're able to evade the Border Patrol, to open a bank account once they're here. ROMANS: Indeed, a senior official said, "It is the policy of the United States that we want people in the formal financial system. It is good for the economy and good for our ability to enforce our laws." But it is clear the U.S. government is, in fact, making it easier to break U.S. immigration laws. Despite the protests of the IRS and anti-terrorism agencies, the Department of Treasury last year allowed banks to accept the matricula consular and to use tax I.D. numbers to open accounts for illegal aliens. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is encouraging banks to sign up illegal aliens in the banking system, calling the growth of the market "a compelling incentive for U.S. banks to enter this largely untapped market." And the FDIC program demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. But there are clear laws on the books for the integrity of the immigration system. United States criminal code, "It is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail for aiding and abetting someone in this country illegally for commercial gain." And the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 makes it clear banks must know their customer, and any illegal activity must be reported to the government. Banks and federal regulators all say enforcing immigration laws not their problem. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it focusing on networks smuggling illegal aliens, not the aliens themselves. (END VIDEOTAPE) ROMANS: So once an illegal alien is in this country, it's now the policy of the U.S. government to get them integrated into legitimate daily life. Terrorism experts say it's not safe. Legal immigrants say it's just not fair. DOBBS: And it's utter madness. I mean, this is Orwellian, the suggestion by the FDIC that this is tapping into a market that's important and describing this as -- I mean, this is incomprehensible, Christine. ROMANS: And every one of these agencies says, "We recognize the fact that the laws are important, but it's not our job. We are just dealing with reality." DOBBS: The fact that the spokeswoman for Wells Fargo could -- and we should not just simply say -- this is about 200 U.S. banks -- saying that it's not their jobs to enforce immigration laws or to follow other laws, the 9/11 Commission recommendation on identification, the FBI saying clearly, unequivocally that the matricula consular should not be accepted, nor should tax I.D. numbers be accepted as identification. And the banker has the temerity to say it's not their job to be good corporate citizens, not to exercise corporate responsibility, it's just their job to grow the business? ROMANS: And the Treasury Department says it's very important that the banks take responsibility for knowing who their customer is and they're going to trust the banks that they do. DOBBS: It sort of leaves one wondering what in the world are we thinking about in this country. Christine, thank you. Christine Romans. I'm starting to wonder if any of the recommendations from the 9/11 commission regarding immigration and identification are going to be implemented. Time and time again, from border patrol recommendations to identification requirements, they are being ignored. It's only a matter of time before this will bite us in the ass. |
#58
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:04:10 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
mumbled: Does anyone who knows have any comment? http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000911.html In February I reported on the record $16.6 billion sent back to Mexico from immigrants here in the U.S., a 24% increase from 2003. The latest estimates show that this year those "remittances" as they call them, are expected to top Mexico's oil industry as the number one form of revenue for the country. This is all being fascilitated by bank in the United States that refuse to enforce laws on the books regarding reporting criminal and illegal transactions and instead would sell out our country for a dollar. Lou Dobbs (transcript March 21, 2005) The Mexican citizens cross our border illegally. Some of them find work, and many of them send their earnings back to Mexico. Those earnings have added up to nearly $17 billion in the past year. Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever. Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade deficit with Mexico for the last year surpassed $45 billion. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are using bank accounts in this country to send those remittances home, and many U.S. banks are now aggressively helping illegal aliens open those accounts. Those banks refer to the practice in the political correct vernacular as banking the unbanked. Christine Romans has the story. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wells Fargo is opening 700 new accounts every day for illegal aliens. Since November 2001, it's helped more than half a million people to, as it says, come out from the shadows. LILIANA SALAS-GRIP, WELLS FARGO: We are not if the business of immigration. We don't question any customer, Latin, American, or any other customer that comes into our financial institution in their legal or illegal status. And our responsibility as a financial services company is to make sure that all our products and services are available for all customers that come in. ROMANS: It began with Wells Fargo working closely with the Mexican government. But now almost 200 U.S. banks accept the Mexican I.D. card, the matricula consular, as I.D. MATT HAYES, FRIENDS OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT: On the one hand you have the Border Patrol, whose job it is to intercept illegal aliens as they enter the country. And on the other hand you have the Treasury Department, which is encouraging exactly those illegal aliens if they're able to evade the Border Patrol, to open a bank account once they're here. ROMANS: Indeed, a senior official said, "It is the policy of the United States that we want people in the formal financial system. It is good for the economy and good for our ability to enforce our laws." But it is clear the U.S. government is, in fact, making it easier to break U.S. immigration laws. Despite the protests of the IRS and anti-terrorism agencies, the Department of Treasury last year allowed banks to accept the matricula consular and to use tax I.D. numbers to open accounts for illegal aliens. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is encouraging banks to sign up illegal aliens in the banking system, calling the growth of the market "a compelling incentive for U.S. banks to enter this largely untapped market." And the FDIC program demonstrates that unbanked Latin American immigrants can be brought into the financial mainstream. But there are clear laws on the books for the integrity of the immigration system. United States criminal code, "It is a crime punishable by 10 years in jail for aiding and abetting someone in this country illegally for commercial gain." And the Bank Secrecy Act of 1972 makes it clear banks must know their customer, and any illegal activity must be reported to the government. Banks and federal regulators all say enforcing immigration laws not their problem. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it focusing on networks smuggling illegal aliens, not the aliens themselves. (END VIDEOTAPE) ROMANS: So once an illegal alien is in this country, it's now the policy of the U.S. government to get them integrated into legitimate daily life. Terrorism experts say it's not safe. Legal immigrants say it's just not fair. DOBBS: And it's utter madness. I mean, this is Orwellian, the suggestion by the FDIC that this is tapping into a market that's important and describing this as -- I mean, this is incomprehensible, Christine. ROMANS: And every one of these agencies says, "We recognize the fact that the laws are important, but it's not our job. We are just dealing with reality." DOBBS: The fact that the spokeswoman for Wells Fargo could -- and we should not just simply say -- this is about 200 U.S. banks -- saying that it's not their jobs to enforce immigration laws or to follow other laws, the 9/11 Commission recommendation on identification, the FBI saying clearly, unequivocally that the matricula consular should not be accepted, nor should tax I.D. numbers be accepted as identification. And the banker has the temerity to say it's not their job to be good corporate citizens, not to exercise corporate responsibility, it's just their job to grow the business? ROMANS: And the Treasury Department says it's very important that the banks take responsibility for knowing who their customer is and they're going to trust the banks that they do. DOBBS: It sort of leaves one wondering what in the world are we thinking about in this country. Christine, thank you. Christine Romans. I'm starting to wonder if any of the recommendations from the 9/11 commission regarding immigration and identification are going to be implemented. Time and time again, from border patrol recommendations to identification requirements, they are being ignored. It's only a matter of time before this will bite us in the ass. |
#59
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
"sonic okies" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:38:08 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? Dwarfed by the billions of US $ they send out in remittances to Mejico, you ****ing TRAITOR! I didn't ask to see your nasty cocksucking racism. If you don't know the answer to my simple question, it's best to stay shut. While you're here though, you might like to know that 365 Billion dollars dwarfs the money sent to Mexico. Do you know what "dwarfs" means? |
#60
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
"sonic okies" wrote in message ... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:04:10 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: Does anyone who knows have any comment? (nasty racist drivel snipped) No, no nasty racist cocksucker. I made reference to no such chickenfeed. I asked about 365 BILLION plus dollars paid illegally to IRS and SSA, then held illegally by them. It came from persons duplicating good SS numbers, reusing old numbers from dead folks, numbers just made up by counterfeiters, etc. Did war criminal dubya illegally appropriate it so he could hire more mercenaries? |
#61
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
wrote in message ... On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:48:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote: Exactly HOW could you identify the money coming from illegals and put it into a special account In the case of income tax and FICA it is easy. The IRS sends a report to employers every year about the questionable SS#s these illegals use but they put "do not use this report as a reason to terminate the employee" right on the report. They don't follow up when the employers throw them away. The feds know this is "free" money. I doubt there is any special account tho. It just dissapears in the black hole in DC. A year or two ago, the funds were a total of 365 billion dollars from both IRS and SSA, but growing steadily. Who knows what they'd total now. Both were in accounts labeled "Old Age Retirement Fund". It's become harder to find reference as time goes on. Most deny the funds exist. I wonder why. My friend swears dubya misappropriated all the money to hire mercenaries. Who knows where all they are..... |
#62
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:21:32 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
mumbled: "sonic okies" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:38:08 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: What's become of the billions of dollars paid in taxes by illegals? Dwarfed by the billions of US $ they send out in remittances to Mejico, you ****ing TRAITOR! I didn't ask to see your nasty cocksucking racism. Shut your homo-obsessed filthy ****ing mouth, you pile of illegal-loving CRAP! If you don't know the answer to my simple question, it's best to stay shut. http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2007/swe0704b.cfm Mexicans living in the United States sent a record $23.1 billion back home in 2006, putting remittances third after oil and maquiladora exports as a foreign-exchange generator for Mexico (Chart 1). Over the last decade or so, inflation-adjusted remittances have grown at an average annual rate of 15.6 percent. Since 2000, the rate has risen to 20.4 percent. What's driving the rapid growth of remittances to Mexico? It's a question that has puzzled researchers for years because the most likely economic forces don't seem to be in play. Fundamental factors, such as the size of the Mexican migrant population, their income and the strength of their bonds to Mexico, haven't grown as fast as remittances. Other variables, such as the peso–dollar exchange rate and Mexican economic conditions, have been relatively stable since at least 1996. What have changed are money-transfer costs, which have plummeted since 2000, and Banco de México's measurement techniques. Together, these factors likely account for the bulk of unexplained remittance growth in the last few years. While you're here though, you might like to know that 365 Billion dollars dwarfs the money sent to Mexico. Do you know what "dwarfs" means? You might wish to CITE! And then PROVE your claims! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget Executive Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments. Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact. A Complex Fiscal Picture Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household. Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens. What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged. Policy Implications The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration. Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist. Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold. From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today. Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws. Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers. Summary Methodology Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration. Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute. Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens. To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700. Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent. |
#63
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:29:22 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
mumbled: "sonic okies" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:04:10 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: Does anyone who knows have any comment? (nasty racist drivel snipped) No, no nasty racist cocksucker. Shut the **** up you homo-obsessed festering pile of traitorous dog ****! I made reference to no such chickenfeed. I asked about 365 BILLION plus dollars paid illegally to IRS CITE! PROVE IT!!!!! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget Executive Summary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments. Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact. A Complex Fiscal Picture Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household. Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens. What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged. Policy Implications The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration. Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist. Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold. From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today. Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws. Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers. Summary Methodology Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration. Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute. Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens. To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700. Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent. |
#64
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:41:17 -0500, mumbled:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:48:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote: Exactly HOW could you identify the money coming from illegals and put it into a special account In the case of income tax and FICA it is easy. The IRS sends a report to employers every year about the questionable SS#s these illegals use but they put "do not use this report as a reason to terminate the employee" right on the report. They don't follow up when the employers throw them away. The feds know this is "free" money. BULL****! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). |
#65
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 13:28:33 -0700, "Seth Hammond"
mumbled: wrote in message .. . On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:48:46 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote: Exactly HOW could you identify the money coming from illegals and put it into a special account In the case of income tax and FICA it is easy. The IRS sends a report to employers every year about the questionable SS#s these illegals use but they put "do not use this report as a reason to terminate the employee" right on the report. They don't follow up when the employers throw them away. The feds know this is "free" money. I doubt there is any special account tho. It just dissapears in the black hole in DC. A year or two ago, the funds were a total of 365 billion dollars CITE!!! PROVE IT!!!! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). |
#66
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:03:30 -0500, mumbled:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:49:40 GMT, sonic okies wrote: BULL****! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). That is $16 billion more than the americans who are on these programs pay. Hey ASSHOLE - illegal immigration costs ALL Americans! http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/24...-COUNTIES.html The Front Line—Twenty-Four U.S. Counties on the Border In a study conducted for the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition (USMBCC), researchers from the University of Texas at El Paso, New Mexico State University, and San Diego State University found that the twenty-four border counties along the U.S.–Mexico border spent about $108.2 million providing law enforcement, criminal justice, and emergency health-care services to illegal aliens apprehended in fiscal year 1999 (Illegal Immigrants in U.S./Mexico Border Counties, Washington, DC: U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition, February 2001). Another study conducted by MGT of America for the USMBCC, Medical Emergency: Costs of Uncompensated Care in Southwest Border Counties (September 2002), analyzed the cost of providing emergency medical care to illegal immigrants who crossed the border for health care (including mothers ready to deliver babies) or who were injured in attempted border crossings. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1395 dd) requires hospitals and emergency personnel to screen, treat, and stabilize anyone who seeks emergency medical care regardless of income or immigration status. This 2002 USMBCC report cited an American Hospital Association survey, which found that the hospitals in the twenty-four border counties incurred $832 million in uncompensated care in 2000. The report attributed about $190 million of uncompensated emergency care to undocumented immigrants. The USMBCC study also determined that if the twenty-four border counties were combined into one state, by comparison to the other forty-nine states it would have the lowest per capita income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest percentage of children living in poverty, and the highest percentage of residents without health insurance. In July 2004 the Associated Press reported in two separate stories ("Texas to Get $47.5 Million in Funds for Uninsured," July 22, 2004, and "Arizona to Get Reimbursed for Illegal Immigrants' Hospital Care," July 23, 2004) that hospitals and other health-care facilities in Arizona and Texas would receive compensation for the care they provided to the uninsured, including illegal immigrants. Arizona facilities were to receive $42 million and Texas providers $47.5 million annually over four years as part of a $1 billion, four-year federal program administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The program was designed to help hospitals and other health-care providers across the United States recoup their estimated $1.45 billion losses for medical care to uninsured patients, many of whom are illegal immigrants. Of the $250 million to be disbursed for each of the four years to hospitals across the country, Arizona and Texas facilities would receive more than one-third (36%). U.S. towns along the southwestern border also face the burden of identifying and burying the bodies of illegal immigrants who died while attempting to enter the United States. Between October 2003 and September 2004, 314 people died crossing the U.S.–Mexico border ("Cost of Illegal Immigration Seen in Graveyards," Associated Press, September 24, 2004). The average burial cost for an unclaimed body was reported to be $900 while the cost of investigating the death and identifying the body could be as high as $2,500. Imperial County, California, expected to pay $30,000 in 2004 for autopsies of bodies found along the border. Border issues divide communities and politicians. In a story for the Philadelphia Inquirer ("'Neighborhood Watch' at the Nation's Borders," February 2, 2004), Dave Montgomery related: "Thousands of furious Arizonans complain that undocumented workers consume millions of dollars in public services and wrest jobs from U.S. citizens." Citizen "watchdog groups" threatened to patrol the borders in an effort to stem the flood of illegal immigrants crossing public as well as private property, while human rights activists described the self-appointed groups as "paramilitary vigilantes 'driven by hate."' During the month of April 2005 an estimated 900 volunteers, working in eight-hour shifts, conducted stationary patrols of a twenty-three-mile stretch of border in Cochise County, Arizona. Although some volunteers came armed, their mission was simply to alert Border Patrol agents of border crossers. Organizers called the "Minute Man Project" a success. They reported that calls to Border Patrol agents resulted in arrests of 335 illegal immigrants and brought national attention to the problem of border control ("Minuteman Project Draws to Close in Arizona," Associated Press, April 30, 2005). A 2004 study by the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated that illegal immigration cost the state of Arizona $1.3 billion per year (The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Arizonans, Washington, DC, June 2004). The study considered the cost of education, health care, and incarceration for the illegal alien population. It also credited the estimated $257 million per year in taxes paid by illegal immigrants. FAIR published a similar study focusing on California (The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians, Washington, DC, November 2004). They concluded that the illegal alien population in California cost the state's taxpayers $10.5 billion. Taking into account the estimated $1.6 billion in taxes paid illegal immigrants, the total cost was approximately $9 billion. Another recent FAIR report analyzed the costs of illegal immigration on the state of Texas (The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Texans, Washington, DC, April 2005). The report estimated that the illegal population in Texas cost the state $4.7 billion, or $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident. The study asserted that $1 billion of that overall cost was offset by the taxes of these illegal immigrants. |
#67
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: Mostly par for the course since roughly 1963, with few exceptions and the most shining ones were the surplus years of Clinton's second term where non-unified government slowed spending bills and tax cut bills. But the Clinton surpluses were largely due to accounting fraud (admittedly a fraud in place since the mid-80s or so). If you take out the SS "surplus" all but one year goes away and if you take out the Medicare part of the surplus it all goes away. Since the surplus HAS to be placed into NON_MARKETABLE treasury securities that will have to be repaid, only in DC can you turn a long-term liability into a short term asset. The accounting rules were pretty much the same from sometime in the Lyndon Johnson administration to now, and Clinton still managed 3 surpluses, and one SS-excluded surplus, and nobody else did that in the past 30 years. Probably yes - we would be now having a surplus if not for past defecits, mostly by both Bushes and Reagan, after that Carter. Or by the various Congresses. Reagan's budgets were "dead on arrival" in the Dem controlled House, if you remember all the gleeful press conferences of the time. The Reagan budget requests had about as much spending as what Congress approved. Congress spent a few billion less on Defense Dept, a few billion more elsewhere than Reagan requested. Keep in mind what happened in first half of Reagan's first term: He had effective majoprity of Congress! Republicans ruled the Senate (and Jeremiah Denton was a Democrat who was quite a rightwinger), while the House had a conservative coalition of Republicans and some very conservative Democrats from the South who had not yet switched parties! Reagan even achieved tax cuts more than he was previously willing to settle for, and spending level was close to that of his budget requests! And the annual deficits did not take long to go from $80 billion to $200 billion! - Don Klipstein ) |
#68
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Nov 5, 1:45 pm, sonic okies wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:29:22 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: "sonic okies" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:04:10 -0700, "Seth Hammond" mumbled: Does anyone who knows have any comment? (nasty racist drivel snipped) No, no nasty racist cocksucker. Shut the **** up you homo-obsessed festering pile of traitorous dog ****! I made reference to no such chickenfeed. I asked about 365 BILLION plus dollars paid illegally to IRS CITE! PROVE IT!!!!! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*----- This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion. Among the findings: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services. On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households. Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them. If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion. Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments. Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled. The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work. The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact. A Complex Fiscal Picture Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household. Social Security andMedicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security andMedicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security andMedicareis unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change. The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens. What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged. Policy Implications The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration. Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist. Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold. From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal ... read more » Cool list-pass it on to medicare people in need? Genice AARP - Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage: an extensive explanation of the new Part D benefit. http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare the site for the Medicare Part A (hospital) payor. http://www.veritusmedicare.com Resources on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - from the Kaiser Foundation: "The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law on December 8, 2003. The Foundation has compiled some resources to reflect the latest information, as well as background materials on various parts of the law. http://www.kff.org/medicare/rxdrugbenefit.cfm" Medicare Rights Center . Low income issues (esp SPAPs) http://www.medicarerights.org 1999 Medicare Overpayments Estimated At $13.5 Billion http://www.medicareoverpayments.com Consumer health information from the Harvard Medical School as well as the University of Pennsylvania's School of Dental Medicine is found at the InteliHealth site. Click on anything from "Allergies" to "Weight Management" for useful information. This is an active site with discussions on current topics of interest. InteliHealth is a subsidiary of Aetna-U.S. Healthcare, and 150 top healthcare organizations contribute to the site. http://www.InteliHealth.com Medicare and MediGap Supplemental Insurance Health economists estimate that seniors with both Medicare and Medigap spend about 30 percent more on health care than those with Medicare alone http://www.medicareandmedigap.com A free website sponsored by HealthMetrix Research, Inc. offers independent cost comparisons for Medicare HMOs. Enter your ZIP code and search, or search by the name of a city. Over 100 Medicare HMOs are listed, from Aetna-U.S. Healthcare to WellCare. The site includes "Tips for Selecting a Medicare HMO" as well as links to other Medicare websites and Frequently Asked Questions (and answers). http://www.hmos4seniors.com Medicare Part D Information. Consumer Alert. Medicare Beneficiaries Urged to be on the Look-out for Phone Scams - Includes new CMS Part D Reference Guide for Pharmacists. Medicare Part D - Resources & Links http://www.medicarepartdinformation.com Center for Medicare Advocacy medicareadvocacy.org This category includes information about states' aged and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, such as enrollment, demographics, Medicare beneficiaries and providers have certain rights and protections related to financial liability http://www.medicarebeneficiaries.com The official U.S. government site for Medicare information covers the basics of Medicare, information to help you choose a nursing home, publications, helpful contacts, information on how to recognize and prevent fraud and abuse. Health plans and nursing homes in your area can be compared. Medicare participating physicians in your area are listed, as well as prescription assistance programs. http://www.medicare.gov Medicare reform policy in the 106th Congress, a watchdog report http://www.medicarereformpolicy.com Maryland's HealthChoice Homepage http://www.dhmh.state.md.us/healthchoice Alliance for Health Reform Nonpartisan organization that conducts research on a variety of health care issues, including children's health, Medicare, and the cost and availability of health are. 1900 L St., NW, Suite 512 Washington, D.C. 20036 phone: (202) 466-5626 fax: (202) 466-6525 http://www.allhealth.org National Council on Aging Nonprofit group does research on aging issues and legislation on healthcare for the aging. Also engages in healthcare advocacy. http://www.ncoa.org This calculator allows users to enter their prescription drug costs to determine what they will pay, Useful to calculate your medicare benefits http://www.medicareprescriptiondrugcalculator.com Pharmacy Information Network Latest development in pharmaceuticals. Links to websites for specific diseases and treatments. Discussion groups. Glossary of pharmaceutical terms is provided. http://www.PharmInfo.com http://www.PharmInfo.com Families USA Enrollment/ disenrollment; late fees; plan marketing Formularies Appeals/Grievances Industry relations (PDP conflicts) Your Medicare rights http://www.medicarerights.org Medicare Access for patients RX http://www.maprx.info Yahoo Health Directory (http://www.yahoo.com/health) A good place to start your search for health information. http://www.medicarerights.org Wayne State University Institute of Gerontology - Information useful to those interested in geriatrics, the process of aging and services for the elderly. Designed for researchers, educators, practitioners, and the general public. Includes description of programs and courses, calendar of events, and tips. http://www.iog.wayne.edu/ We explain the Medicare insurance plans that fill the gaps of Medicare and the benefits, everyone with Medicare Insurance can get prescription drug advantage coverage that may help lower prescription drug costs http://www.medicareandinsurance.com Benefits Check-up (for senior citizens) http://www.benefitscheckup.org National Osteoporosis Foundation Prevention and treatment. http://www.nof.org provides ratings of doctors, dentists, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living residences and health plans. http://www.healthgrades.com The Access to Benefits Coalition Web site, can help you see if you're eligible for low-income help and can direct you to other resources. http://www.accesstobenefits.org developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, this site directs you to reliable information from government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and universities about health topics, health care organizations, Medicare, health fraud, and medical privacy. http://www.healthfinder.gov Projected Early Medicare Bankruptcy Underscores Importance of Immediate Retirement Planning for All Americans postponed Medicare's bankruptcy to around 2015 - when the huge Baby Boom generation starts retiring http://www.medicarebankruptcy.com AgeNet.com Health and drug information specific to seniors including online senior drugs reviews of commonly prescribed drugs for the elderly. http://www.agenet.com Extremely complex and changing constantly, Medicare payment policy will drive $479 billion in health spending in 2008 http://www.medicarepaymentpolicy.com The Eldercare Locator, a service of the Administration on Aging, has dedicated a section of its Web site to helping those with Medicare understand the new drug benefit. http://www.eldercare.gov/Eldercare/Public/medicare.asp Therubins.com Health, medical and social information of interest to the elderly. http://www.therubins.com The Medicare prescription drug benefit This line includes Medicare benefits for prescription drugs and catastrophic coverage http://www.medicarebenefitsforprescriptiondrugs.com Network Of Care - Community-based resources and tools for seniors, people with disabilities, caregivers and service providers.http:// www.networkofcare.org Eligibility for Medicare Disability Benefits: For adults aged 18 to 64, eligibility for Medicare is tied to eligibility for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits http://www.eligibilityformedicare.com http://www.eligibilityformedicare.com ElderHope, LLC - Provides information, support, links and book recommendations to the elderly, their caregivers, and the bereaved. http://www.elderhope.com Summary of the latest report for the Social Security and Medicare programs The Impact of Social Security and Medicare on the Federal Budget http://www.socialsecurityandmedicare.com Describes the aging process, discusses myths, statistics, and problems, and suggests ways of maintaining health into old age. http://www.helpguide.org/aging_well.htm The American Diabetes Association. http://www.diabetes.org Senior Health Insurance Benefits Assistance program Benefits Assistance program provides education and information about Medicare http://www.benefitsassistanceprogram.com Senior Health Week News and information for seniors. http://www.seniorhealthweek.org medicare prescription drug bill R 108 1st U.S. House of Representatives 669 H R 1 House prescription drug bill offers skimpy benefits to seniors. http://www.prescriptiondrugbill.com Seniors Resource Guide - A guide to senior services and resources on healthcare providers, housing options, emergency services, community resources, and professional articles on aging. SeniorWorld Online A directory of health, fitness, and nutrition for seniors. http://www.seniorworld.com Whether to enroll in a Medicare drug prescription plan depends upon what kind of coverage, if any, you have join a Medicare Drug Prescription Plan. If you have. both Medicare and Medi-Cal, you can enroll in a plan that covers you http://www.medicaredrugprescriptionplan.com Keiser Institute on Aging Information on the enhancement of older adult wellness by changing the perceptions of aging and improving the quality of life. http://www.keiser.com/kioa/ transfer health-care costs from companies to the government http://www.coalitiononmedicare.com Avoiding Slips, Trips and Broken Hips Supports the ongoing UK Department of Trade and Industry campaign on falls prevention aimed at older people in the home. http://www.preventinghomefalls.gov.uk/ Senior Health Week News and information for seniors seniorhealthweek.org The Medicare Medicaid Assistance Program is available to help seniors and caregivers make informed decisions, health benefit counseling service for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries http://www.medicaremedicaidassistanceprogram.com Senior One Source http://www.senioronesource.com MedlinePlus: Senior Health Listings on physicians, nutrition, drug trials and caregiver support for seniors. Site info for nih.gov Medicare is a critically important source of health insurance for 43 million Americans How Medicare works http://www.healthmedicare.net Flu information from the Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/ Research into Ageing This national registered charity in the UK furthers medical research in healthy aging at universities, hospitals and medical schools. Current research programs, newsletter, fundraising and links. Free pamphlets. "Exercise for Healthy Ageing" book and "More Active - More Often" video available for purchase. Site info for ageing.org Medicaid enrollment among elderly medicare beneficiaries Medicaid enrollment among elderly medicare beneficiaries: individual determinants, effects of state policy, and impact on service use http://www.elderlymedicare.com Offers information to the caregiver for a person with dementia. Includes a chat line for caregivers. http://www.alzwell.com for Medicare Beneficiaries. Prescription Drug Helpline is a service for Aging Groups. Helpline counselors are available to provide assistance. http://www.prescriptiondrughelpline.com Alzheimer Web Resource for research on Alzheimer's disease, including care and support for victims. werple.mira.net.au/~dhs/ad.html) Enrollment in the private Medicare plans has been growing rapidly, here is a list of them http://www.privatemedicareplans.com The Medicine Program (free prescription program) http://www.themedicineprogram.com Pennsylvania Institute on Aging University of Pennsylvania Health Care System's site. The "Institute on Aging" section provides information on holistic health, end-of-life care, Alzheimer's disease and ways the elderly can improve their health. Medicare Rights Center http://www.medicarerights.org AgeNet.com Health and drug information specific to seniors including online senior drugs reviews of commonly prescribed drugs for the elderly. Sunrise Assisted Living Inc. Owns and operates assisted living facilities which provide basic care and services to elderly. Features corporate, financial, and invstor data. (Nasdaq: SNRZ). http://www.sunriseassistedliving.com Find in-depth information to help you choose the best Medicare Plan and Drug Benefits for you consequences of caps on Medicare drug benefits http://www.medicareplansanddrugbenefits.com The National Advisory Council on Aging The NACA is a Canadian federal government organization. http://www.naca-ccnta.ca/ Low Cost Medicare Prescription Drug Plans low cost Medicare products and new prescription drug benefit. http://www.lowcostmedicare.com Action for Healthy Aging and Elderly Care The Novartis Foundation for Gerontological Research. Areas of interest to physicians and researchers, other healthcare professionals, and patients. Weekly news updates from Reuter's Health Information. Patient area topics include impaired mobility and nutrition. The Ask the Expert forum is free to view, but does require registration if you wish to participate. http://www.healthandage.com Online tutorial on how to perform a breast self-exam. http://www.intelihealth.com Helpguide: Lifelong Wellness Describes the aging process, discusses myths, statistics, and problems, and suggests ways of maintaining health into old age. Site info for helpguide.org The Patient Education Forum The American Geriatrics Society. Aging FAQ. Site info for americangeriatrics.org http://www.americangeriatrics.org/ed...um/index.shtml Step by step information to help you understand the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan and help you as you review plan options Discounts to Medicare Part D Drug Plan. Insurers adding new bells and whistles to attract senior citizens http://www.medicarepartddrugplan.com New Medicare Reimbursement Rule - step-by-step, easy-to-understand explanation of a complicated Medicare reimbursement rule http://www.medicarereimbursementrule.com Staying Healthy at 50+ AHRQ consumer information on ways people age 50 and older can stay healthy, tips on living habits, to help prevent disease, screening tests, and immunizations. Online tutorial on how to perform a breast self-exam. http://www.ahrq.gov/ppip/50plus/ Senior One Source Referral service and magazine designed to help seniors achieve a healthier life. http://www.senioronesource.com The Social Security Administration -perscription help - http://www.ssa.gov/prescriptionhelp Medicare Seniors have heard the following in waiting rooms around the USA this week. What did they think? What I've Done Linkin Park In The End Linkin Park Stronger Kanye West Bleed It Out Linkin Park Boulevard Of Broken Dreams Green Day Numb Linkin Park Mauja Hi Mauja Labh Janjua Saawariya Shail Hada Don't Matter Akon Big Girls Don't Cry Fergie Gimme More Britney Spears Hey There Delilah Plain White T's Jab Se Tere Naina SHAAN Say It Right Nelly Furtado Tired Of Being Sorry Enrique Iglesias Ye Ishq Hai Shreya Ghosal You're Beautiful James Blunt Tum Se Hi Mohit Chouhan How To Save A Life The Fray Wake Me Up When September Ends green day (as reported by http://www.chairbrownTrends.com) Our Senior Years Health Topics Articles on multiple health concerns for senior citizens, written by doctors and nurses. http://www.oursenioryears.com/health.html Senate panel OKs $35B increase for kids' health care - Bush to Veto Kids' Health Plan http://www.kidshealthplan.net The Patient Education Forum - The American Geriatrics Society. Aging FAQ. Provides health insurance coverage for those individuals who cannot obtain health insurance coverage elsewhere http://www.healthplanhome.com Baltimore Health Care Access http://www.bhca.org Jannsen Eldercare Information and resources on medical conditions related to aging, health insurance, Medicare, and nursing homes for the health care professional, consumer and caregiver. http://www.janssen-eldercare.com SeniorWorld Online A directory of health, fitness, and nutrition for seniors. Site info for seniorworld.com Senate Passes Child Health Measure The Senate passed a bill to provide coverage for 10 million youngsters after efforts to find a veto-proof bipartisan compromise in the House were cut short. Congress Set for Veto Fight on Child Health Measure http://www.childhealthmeasure.com National Health Law Program http://www.healthlaw.org FirstGov for Seniors, hosted by the Social Security Administration (SSA). http://www.seniors.gov The Resource Directory for older people is published by the National Institute on Aging and the Administration on Aging. It contains links to hundreds of websites. You can browse through its alphabetical Index by Topic ("A" begins with Adult Day Care...African-American Health...Aging Research...AIDS...). If you want to visit an organization's website, it will be in a list of groups. Appendices include one on state agencies for the aging and another on state long- term care ombudsman programs. Intended for a wide audience, this site provides names, addresses and FAX numbers for health and social welfare experts and organizations. NOTE: A print version of The Resource Directory is available by calling 1-800-222-2225. http://www.aoa.gov/ Healthy Aging Campaign Healthy Aging is a national, ongoing, health promotion designed to broaden awareness of the positive aspects of aging and to provide inspiration to adults, ages 50 plus, to improve their physical, mental, social and financial health. http://healthyaging.net ThirdAge Health Starting point for people over 40 for information about a healthy life and life style. http://www.thirdage.com/health/ push for profits could combine with a poorly designed and badly monitored Medicare payment program, operates on a fee-for-service basis http://www.medicarepaymentprogram.com Care Pathways Provides families and health professionals with details of the care options available in the USA, as well as offering support, needs assessment, and product sales. http://www.carepathways.com the site for the Medicare Part B (physician office and lab testing) payor. http://www.hgsa.com Medicare fraud claims are suspected to be about $35 billion a year http://www.medicareoversight.com Lumetra Information on Medicare for beneficiaries, their families and providers. http://www.lumetra.com ElderHope, LLC Provides information on Alzheimer s Disease, grief, medical ethics, aging, and caregiving for families, professionals, and patients. Site info for elderhope.com You can add drug coverage to the traditional Medicare plan through a "stand alone" prescription drug plan Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for the extra help if they have limited income and resources http://www.medicareplanfordrugbenefits.com The Medicare Access for Patients-RX is a coalition of patient, family caregiver, and health professional organizations committed to safeguarding patients with chronic diseases and disabilities under the new Medicare prescription drug coverage. The site, at , has numerous links, both general and state-specific, that can put you in touch with organizations that might be able to help you sort through plan choices. http://www.maprx.info Managing the Risks of Service to Seniors Excellent resource on service to seniors http://www.servicetoseniors.com When Does Someone Attain Old Age? The Ohio Department of Aging, Senior Series. SS-101-96. Site info for osu.edu Aging Issues Message Board Forum on the process and affects of aging. http://www.healthboards.com/aging-issues/ Pro-Ops Articles on common health conditions in senior citizens. Site info for rivernet.com.au Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services http://www.hcfa.gov Alzheimer's health plan debuts -- Internet Source Alzheimer's sufferers in the Valley will have access to the nation's first Medicare health plan http://www.alzheimershealthplan.com Pfizer for Living Offering personalized articles, health management tools and health information. Requires free registration. http://www.pfizerforliving.com Mental Health and Aging This site will assist older adults and their families in obtaining appropriate mental health and aging services, and teach them how to advocate to get their needs met. http://www.mhaging.org/ information about states' aged and disabled Medicare beneficiaries, such as enrollment 380000 Medicare beneficiaries signing up each week http://www.medicarebeneficiaries.com Senior Connections Resources for seniors and their caregivers in Virginia http://www.seniorconnections-va.org A Medicare HMO is a viable option for those who wish to limit their out of pocket medical expenses free medicare hmo annual cost comparisons for seniors http://www.medicarehmosearch.com Lifesphere Retirement Communities A not-for-profit family of services that offers exceptional retirement community living, home-delivered services, senior centers, a radio station, consulting services in Ohio. http://www.lifesphere.org Elderly Medicare, Medicaid Patients Not Receiving Quality Care Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries http://www.elderlymedicare.com the Durable Medical Equipment payor. http://www.umd.nycpic.com this free and confidential government Web site, sponsored by several federal agencies and organizations, helps you find government benefits that you may be eligible to receive. http://www.gov/benefits.gov/govbenefits_en.portal this free online service, sponsored by the National Council on the Aging, screens individuals over 55 for federal, state, and private benefits programs. http://www.benefitscheckup.org provided by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, this site features information on diseases and conditions and has links to dictionaries and educational materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus The American Cancer Society. Index on site provides links to information on care and treatment of cancer. http://www.cancer.org |
#69
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
#71
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In article ,
wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:49:40 GMT, sonic okies wrote: BULL****! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). That is $16 billion more than the americans who are on these programs pay. Many American citizens who use Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and/or free school lunches for their children are low income wage earners, and not all of these qualify much for earned income credit. A few American citizens on Medicaid were inunsured wage earners bankrupted by a big ticket illness. Many with Federally subsidized health insurance (notably most using sCHIPS for their children) are low to medium income wage earners. Many Federal prisoners who are American citizens had taxpaying jobs in the past. And many American families that pay taxes do send their children to public schools, even many making too much to qualify even for sCHIPS. - Don Klipstein ) |
#72
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , (Don Klipstein) wrote: The accounting rules were pretty much the same from sometime in the Lyndon Johnson administration to now, and Clinton still managed 3 surpluses, and one SS-excluded surplus, and nobody else did that in the past 30 years. Gee and in all this time (thru GOP and Dem presidents alike) I thought it was the Congress that appropriated money. If you look at the proposed budgets vs the actual expenditures in those years, you will find that the latter bore little resemblance to the former and was higher than the budget requests. Not at all an unusual occurrance through the years. My experience has been that appropriations mostly resembled budget requests, mostly just a little bigger. Exception: a little less for Defense when the White House was held by a Republican and the House was controlled by Democrats. Next notable exception in my memory was that for one fiscal year in the first term of the current president, he requested $8 billion appropriations for energy, and got a $14 billion "Energy Bill". He signed it. I do suspect the highway bill that has spending for 5 years gets to be more like $20 billion bigger than requested. - Don Klipstein ) |
#73
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:05:28 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) mumbled: In article , wrote: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:49:40 GMT, sonic okies wrote: BULL****! http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). That is $16 billion more than the americans who are on these programs pay. Many American citizens who use Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and/or free school lunches for their children are low income wage earners, and not all of these qualify much for earned income credit. A few American citizens on Medicaid were inunsured wage earners bankrupted by a big ticket illness. Many with Federally subsidized health insurance (notably most using sCHIPS for their children) are low to medium income wage earners. Many Federal prisoners who are American citizens had taxpaying jobs in the past. And many American families that pay taxes do send their children to public schools, even many making too much to qualify even for sCHIPS. And that has NOTHING to do with illegals' overall cost to the system! |
#74
Posted to az.politics,az.general,alt.california,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
McCain Alert
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
In the Words of Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain | Woodworking | |||
spam alert | Home Repair | |||
OT - Scam Alert | Metalworking |