Posted on 01/05/2007 8:10:44 PM PST by T.L.Sink
The U.S.- Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement ...an agreement signed between the Bush administration and the Mexican government in 2004 that would funnel billions of U.S. Social Security funds to Mexican citizens. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has already warned that as a result of this agreement, the number of unauthorized Mexican workers and family members eligible for social benefits will likely increase. The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy - yet they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I guess that would take believing they are not laying back on orders from higher up.
To: thoughtomator
If you want to impeach Bush, go join the trolls at DU. Keep it OFF FR. Jim
58 posted on 03/31/2006 7:16:08 PM EST by Jim Robinson
To: name deleted
Disrespecting the president by referring to him as "Jorge" is a personal insult to me and every other member of this forum that supports him and I see it as a disruptive tactic of a common DU troll. When you post like a DU troll, don't be surprised when you get banned like a DU troll.
25 posted on 08/27/2006 11:35:51 PM EDT by Jim Robinson
Please clarify. Are you blaming President Bush for 9/11?
For the attack? No! That was done by the terrorist. For the readiness that day? Partially. As for the lack of even knowing if two carriers afterward were even capable of getting underway? Partially. I'll explain. 9/11 took place 8 months after he took office. At that point in time he and Rummy should have had knowledge of the state of readiness of our military. It is their Constitutional Duty to know. How we got to that point began in 1989.
There was ample evidence that our military was in deep trouble before W took office. There was ample evidence that the Navy was in trouble before he took office. All of the sudden the KITTY HAWK and JFK were not deployable and they acted like it was something new to them?
Navy May Have To Dock Ships Due to Poor Maintenance
Navy Orders Complete Standdown
Record deployments take toll on military
The Shrinking Navy: Build-Down To Breakdown?
All of those links are in 2000. My point is how could they not know there were serious issues? Why ask a carrier to deploy when you know it can't? Who was blamed? The Captains were. Who approved or disapproved the funding for the needed shipyard only capable repairs? The Pentagon did. Who's Admiral and JCOS Stars came off? None. Who was relieved of duty? To mid level ranking Navy Captains took the fall because as Captains of their ship they are responsible for the condition of their ship. How much more so then for the Commander in Chief?
Like I said this was not the first time this nation faced such a threat. We became lax in national defense. Had 9/11 not occurred our troop levels and related equipment, ships, etc would have been cut even deeper. I can not believe that the Secretary of Defense did not know that two carriers were not deployable. If he did not know he should have been fired for not knowing.
We were a fortunate nation on 9/11 as bad and horrible as that attack was it could have been far worse. It could have been Norfolk, Virginia attacked just as easily. If a plane could fly into the Pentagon unchallenged it could have flown into NNSB&DD and N.O.B. Norfolk at the carrier piers just as easily. We would have been wide open then for attack as it would have likely put us down 5 or more carriers with only one east coast carrier likely remaining. It would have taken decades to even tool up a shipyard and build more carriers. This is the Legacy of Bush SR/Cheney, Clinton/Aspin, Bush/Rummy of placing major assets all in one basket and only having one capable ship builder.
Bush was Commander in Chief that day. With him knowing the state of the military as it was public knowledge as I have shown above in links then yes he holds some blame as well. He, Clinton, the GOP majority, the DEM Minority, in the house and senate as well are partially to blame. It is the duty of congress to provide funding for the military. Where was the GOP from 1995-present on defense? They acted like Democrats. The GOP had both chambers with ample time to undo the Clinton damage.
I am not blaming Bush for the attack itself No, but I hold every elected official who let us get to that point across all party lines morally accountable for letting us get to the point where it happened. GOP & DEMs both are to blame for creating the conditions that allowed it to happen to begin with. Military readiness can never rest or take a vacation. The moment it does is the moment the enemy can kill you.
I'll go one further on this issue. I believe had we reacted with a military strike against Yemen whom BTW seems to have more to do with giving safe haven to terrorist as anyone, I think 9/11 may not have happened. We failed to respond then. We failed to respond when China forced down our plane. We were shown as weak and the terrorist acted on it.
Had eye surgery a few days ago and my eye's get tired.
So far it doesn't sound good for us.
You are both welcome. If you are like me, you like both sides of the story and this link certainly gives both sides. The Government Accountability Office did a fantastic job on this.
For telling the truth.
(Don't be afraid to say "yes", you are amongst friends and the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing one exists)
Please don't take the attacks (i.e. lies) of some on this thread, nor my defense of the President's character as agreement with the policy.
I am very troubled by what is going on at the border, but I want reasoned discussion without 'impeach the bum' posts.
This is a conservative forum made up of mostly adults. I don't think that respect for the President and reasonable discussion of the issue are too much to ask..............do you?
The reason I don't come on immigration threads is because of the malcontent nutcases, not because of the issue. If they would go away (or stay on DU or LP where they came from), maybe some decent discussion could take place.
As long as they are here, the discussion is tainted by insanity. (The number of deleted posts on this thread is proof).
I will do so this afternoon (after church) and will reply.
The sheeple would never stand for it.
Respect is one thing, idolatry is another. Bush is President, not King.
He is subject to legitimate criticism, and his policies should be able to endure an open debate on a Conservative (not-Republican)discussion forum. If they can't, they can't. I think his negligence regarding the border can't.
America is a country founded on the rule of law, not the rule of men.
What does it mean to be a Republican anymore, if the principles that made the party great are ignored by the people empowered to implement them?
Don't lose hope. There is a remnant of true Reagan conservatives and the party has to be reconstructed in the image of that legacy.
Of cource, I agree. Unfortunately, the party is becoming increasing populated by those willing accept anything as long as it comes from a Republican politician instead of a Democrat politician.
Yes, it sounds pretty good. Neither am I an economist and I don't understand all the complexities of investment. But I do have some common sense (I like to think!) and, in that spirit, I believe a few proposals are in order. First, I think Bush made an error by using the terms "private account", "stock portfolio", etc. This just gave ammunition to those who opposed reforming a system (all agree) is headed for bankruptcy. It inserted the elements of "gambling", "risk", and insecurity with respect to the S.S. Trust Account. In short, it scared people.
Instead, a person should have the option of investing some of his payments in GUARANTEED government funds. For example, some could be invested in Treasury bonds or guaranteed money market accounts, etc. The interest those totally safe instruments bear is FAR higher than the return given by S.S. They are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
Also, when FDR began the S.S. Trust in 1935 many didn't reach 65, and those who did didn't live much beyond.
With today's longevity it's not unusual for people to be active into their 80's and 90's. While people are living longer that ever, we've reduced the eligible collection age to 62!!
It's common sense to raise the eligible age. Any simple actuarial table of any insurance company would tell us that immediately! Why not run this program according to the sound business principles of a private insurance firm?
The trouble is that the pols won't touch the "third rail". At the same time they're willing to hasten its demise by expanding it to include non-citizen aliens.
It's a sad story. Rather than conduct some belt-tightening reforms in order to preserve the system - they'd rather destroy it in the long term in order to pander to the irrational fears (which they create and exploit) of people.
Like any conservative cares what YOU think, birdie......
(You're still sore cause you didn't get away with your cascade of lies about me, aren't you? LOL! Too bad. Only one of us is a conservative, and it sure ain't you).
I can post my conservative activism again if you want to try to pull your little game on this thread too. But I want to warn you. All the name calling in the world doesn't negate the facts, and the fact is that I'm a real conservative, and you're only one when your liberal "I make my own truth" feelings tell you to be.
btw, did you used to be Governor of New Jersey? He makes up his own 'truth' too......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.