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.

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."

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 )

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 )

In , wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:42:13 -0700, Manster wrote:

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.

Just imagine how expensive it will be when it is "free"

What about percentage of GDP spent on healthcare in industrialized
prosperous democracies with nationalized healthcare?

Just for exanmple - Canada's national healthcare spends percentage of
GDP about the same as USA spends on Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare,
military healthcare, sCHIPS, county level medical assistance programs, and
employer contribution of health insurance premiums for Federal employees
in these programs. This does not even count employer contribution of
health insurance premiums of government workers outside the above programs,
such as most police officers, most public school teachers, nor most
non-Federal court employees!
Let alone employee contributions to health insurance premiums,
totally-employee-funded health insurance premiums, private sector employer
contributions to employee health insurance premiums, self employed paying
mainly 100% out-of-pocket, and about 15% of USA's population remaining
uncovered by any of the above!

- Don Klipstein )

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.

We have met the enemy and he is us...

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.




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.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


Let alone employee contributions to health insurance premiums,
totally-employee-funded health insurance premiums, private sector employer
contributions to employee health insurance premiums, self employed paying
mainly 100% out-of-pocket, and about 15% of USA's population remaining
uncovered by any of the above!

Overall, less than 20% of healthcare expenditures in the US are
out-of-pocket, and that includes the premiums for insurance. This is
from the annual report from the Office of the Actuary at Medicare and
includes ALL healthcare expenditures in the US and has been remarkably
stable over the last 20 years I have been following it.
So, you get something that is subsidized 80% or better and then
wonder why everything costs so much. Also since much of even the 20% is
essentially hidden because it is taken out of a paycheck, you get people
even more divorced from econ reality.
About 90% of the problem could probably be taken care of by
divorcing health insurance payment from the job.

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 )

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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?

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:05:58 -0800, mumbled:

Afraid that the Democrats might be more productive than than the
impotent Republicans?


After their "productivity" since taking the House and Senate??

LOL!

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.

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.

"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?

"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?

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.....

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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 )

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

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.

In ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

Let alone employee contributions to health insurance premiums,
totally-employee-funded health insurance premiums, private sector employer
contributions to employee health insurance premiums, self employed paying
mainly 100% out-of-pocket, and about 15% of USA's population remaining
uncovered by any of the above!

Overall, less than 20% of healthcare expenditures in the US are
out-of-pocket, and that includes the premiums for insurance. This is
from the annual report from the Office of the Actuary at Medicare and
includes ALL healthcare expenditures in the US and has been remarkably
stable over the last 20 years I have been following it.
So, you get something that is subsidized 80% or better and then
wonder why everything costs so much. Also since much of even the 20% is
essentially hidden because it is taken out of a paycheck, you get people
even more divorced from econ reality.

Despite government kicking a higher percentage of GDP than that in
Canada does, private sector employers are kicking quite a bit as well as
that 20% out-of-pocket.

About 90% of the problem could probably be taken care of by
divorcing health insurance payment from the job.

I thought that was the case in prosperous industrialized democracies
other than the USA.

- Don Klipstein )

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 )

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 )

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!

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:44:26 -0500, mumbled:

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:45:01 GMT, Merryweather Louis
wrote:

And that has NOTHING to do with illegals' overall cost to the system!

They do pour $16 nillion down the government rat hole

THEY SEND MORE THAN THAT OUT TO MEXICO EACH YEAR!!!!!