Senate Shifts Iraq Funds to Borders, Ports

That's the problem. We should not have to do that!!!

61 posted on 04/26/2006 12:35:10 PM PDT by Singermom

To: West Coast Conservative

It's just a $1.3 billion money shuffle that is virtually filibuster proof. They take the $1.3 billion from the Iraq budget to go to border security which makes it a budget bill that can't be filibustered. President Bush then comes in and request another supplement war fund for $1.3 billion and challenges anyone to turn it down.

63 posted on 04/26/2006 12:49:33 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)

ah, but Tony, as much as I love him, feels we can't deport the illegals already here. He's on GW's band wagon there and that is where Mr. Snow and I part.

Quite frankly, I don't think Tony's going to change GW's mind on immigration. I heard the wishy-washy, somewhat anti-american garbage spew forth from George's mouth the other day and I thought I would puke!

Did you guys see this today?:

“With an Arab-American rights group threatening mass court filings, a U.S. immigration spokesman said Tuesday that the government would change its naturalization procedures to stave off such legal challenges. Lawyers say it's not uncommon for cases to be delayed for years, particularly for people from the Middle East, even though immigration officials are supposed to rule on naturalization petitions within 120 days after interviews. To call attention to the problem, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee was coordinating an effort by 40 attorneys to file federal court petitions on behalf of dozens of immigrants starting Tuesday.”

What is ole Bushy baby going to do about this situation? Now the moosies are dictating how our immigration procedures are supposed to take place and we are actually pandering to them?

I'm sick. Just sick...

64 posted on 04/26/2006 12:50:20 PM PDT by immigration lady (Defeat is momentary)

To: West Coast Conservative

Finally...this is the best proof that the border "dialog" is making a difference... I guess we are such a dumb a--- after all :)

65 posted on 04/26/2006 12:53:47 PM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)

Correction = we are NOT such a.... :) (are we?)

66 posted on 04/26/2006 12:54:45 PM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)

To: immigration lady

IMO, this is just for show. After the big to-do of detaining 1,000 illegals in raids a few days ago, they released most of them later. It's just for show.

67 posted on 04/26/2006 12:58:00 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))

To: savedbygrace

IMO, this is just for show...

I agree, but I do see more othe BORDER angle that at the beginning... I guess they though we would for the sappy stories about "the little children, nation of immigrants, etc. and according to Newt today, he does think we are going to have any legistation on this any time soon...And that to me, is actually good

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621954/posts?page=36#36

68 posted on 04/26/2006 1:08:36 PM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)

69 posted on 04/26/2006 1:10:29 PM PDT by ElPatriota (Let's not forget, we are all still friends despite our differences)

To: West Coast Conservative

Why is this coming out of the Pentagon's budget? It should be funded by DHS. The Pentagon is stretched to the limit as it is.

70 posted on 04/26/2006 4:09:15 PM PDT by Alissa

Who are we kidding? The EPA ordered environmental impact statement, when it's done in eight years, at a cost of twenty billion, will show that there is a family of endangered Rio Grande Meadow Mice living along the border. The fence/wall would disturb them so it can't be built.

The endangered Rio Grande Meadow mouse is distinguished from other members of the common Genus Mus by the fact that it lives along the border. Members of the genus Mus are often protected by their brethren (Rats and RINOs), when it is politically advantageous to them.

71 posted on 04/26/2006 6:38:07 PM PDT by Colorado Doug (Diversity is divisive. E. Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one))

""why stop there? we should abolish all nanny-entitlement programs.""

Earth to someone..if that amendment came up, it would get at most 5-6 votes in favor

72 posted on 04/26/2006 6:39:08 PM PDT by georgia2006

To: West Coast Conservative

Has anyone here checked out the prescription drug plan? I have. They have three plans and none of them are by any means a give away. The PDP is an independent insurance backed by the government for prescription drugs. There is a cost for this insurance each month and also has co-pay as well. It's a group insurance for those people who are on Social Security and/or Medicare just like a group insurance from a business to their employees. The other part of the cost for prescription drugs comes from the pool of premiums of all those who are in the plan that pay each month as well as those who don't reach their co-pay per year. The only part that the gov. might pay out monies is that if a person qualifies for what is called extra help, whereby IF this person qualifies for S.S. and their income for a single person is $11,000 or less per year and a married couple $23,000 per year. For the average American this is hard to qualify for because if the income from S.S. is $1,000 per mo. you can see this person will not be able to qualify, this is the way I understood this part. Also don't forget, a person on S.S. still has to pay income tax on that money each year. So lets look at this from a factual point of view for a person on S.S. This person has to pay Federal income Tax on S.S., Has to pay a premium cost for Medicare, and if that person qualifies for the PDP they will have to pay another premium cost each month plus a co-pay. Looking it over I really don't see any government give away. Least we all forget the money from S.S. that a person gets IS NOT government MONEY. It is money taken from that working person while they worked to be used for that person when they reached a certain age or get disabled. Before the 1990s, Social Security was called insurance and a person could sign a statement and elect to not pay S.S., however, that has been changed and is called a TAX and no longer can a person opt-out of S.S. Now for some reason a person is not suppose to be able to ever get any of it back and if they do they are called a burden on society and another person will say 'we are giving too much S.S. TAX to the old people'. I would like to remind all, that the S.S. money I paid was for insurance, NOT TAX, just as with any other insurance annuity I expect to extract money from it, if it is to my advantage to do so. It has to be remember that S.S. money IS NOT the governments money. Your S.S. money is yours NOT the governments and you collect interest on it just like you would any other annuity. The problem is that the politicians couldn't keep their hands off of it and started giving IOUs out for the S.S. money (my/your money) this couldn't be paid back, so what did they do, well they started putting (my/your) money into the general fund and still wrote IOUs for S.S. money. Each and every year now when the budget comes up, the politicians try to spin all of this so as not to have to pay the money they stole back to (you/me). And..that is the way it is.

73 posted on 04/27/2006 5:26:55 AM PDT by AIC

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794