Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    desktop
    Posts
    1,760

    Rush Rebuts(NYTimes Claims Illegals Bolster Social Security)

    LINK to article

    New York Times Makes Case for Illegal
    Immigration as Social Security Solution

    April 5, 2005

    BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Here's a story from the New York Times. It's by Eduardo Porter. Yes, my friends, Eduardo Porter. Headline: "Illegal Immigrants are Bolstering Social Security with Billions." I saw the headline, I said, "This is unbelievable. I don't need to read the rest of the story to know what this is going to be," and, lo and behold, I knew what it was going to be, but I read the story anyway and I confirmed itself. It's one of the reasons I don't read the New York Times. I can tell you what's going to be in it. You tell me the topic; I can tell you what the story is. If you would have told me last night the New York Times is running a story on illegal immigration and Social Security I could have told you what the story is. "They're going to try to kill two birds with one stone. They're going to try to elevate illegal immigration and kill Social Security reform," and that's what the story attempts to do here again by Eduardo Porter. Story dateline from Stockton, California. Of course if you work for public broadcasting you have to say Stockt'n. "Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ã?ngel MartÃ*nez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour." As an aside, he's really upset when he sees crayon markings on cars in red crayon. Very stressful.

    "Not surprisingly, Mr. MartÃ*nez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. MartÃ*nez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system." Contributes more than most? More than most? At 8.50 to 12.75 an hour, he's been here -- what, did it say ten years? -- six years ago and he's contributed more than most? Well, I, my friends, even though it's the New York Times, I am intrigued to keep reading. I'm hooked, I will admit it. Next paragraph. Mr. Martinez "belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States..." It's 11 million. The story just came out two weeks ago. It's 11 million. It's six million Mexicans that are illegal. Which, you know, I always wondered: If we know how many there are, we gotta know who they are. We're always told, "We can't round them up. It would be too big a project. We don't know where they are." Well, we know enough to count them. Nevertheless... "He belongs to a big club. As the debate about Social Security heats up, the estimated 7 million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year." Now, this takes the cake. The Social Security taxes of illegal immigrants are now called ''subsidies,'' not Social Security taxes. They're subsidies, ladies and gentlemen! Yes. Let's keep reading. "While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system..."

    Now, why can't you say that the people making, on an assembly line, contribute 20% of the surplus? I mean, we all contribute to the surplus. We're all paying taxes. You take this group of illegals and chalk them up for 7% of the surplus with their subsidies? You see the manipulation going on here. "Illegal immigration, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, co-director of immigration studies at New York University, noted sardonically, could provide 'the fastest way to shore up the long-term finances of Social Security.'" Illegal immigration could provide -- and this is the co-director of immigration studies at NYU! Problem solved, folks! Grab those Minutemen and pull them out of there. End the Minutemen project right now; shut down the borders! Or shut down the Border Patrol; open the borders up! Send engraved invitations to every resident of Mexico. "You are desperately needed and wanted in the US to bail us out of our Social Security reform plan by the evil George W. Bush. The more of you in a come here and get work and pay Social Security subsidies, the better chance we'll have of holding onto a failing program that keeps you and other recipients at a basic poverty level for the rest of your lives," and they'll show up because our basic poverty level dwarfs theirs. The fastest way to shore up long term finances of Social Security equals illegal immigration. "It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes." Well, then doesn't that sort of negate every fact that has come prior to this in the story?

    The 10% that they supposedly contribute into the surplus, the seven million that are here working? "It is impossible to know exactly how many illegal immigrant workers pay taxes. But according to specialists--" Ah, what would we do without specialists and experts? "--most of them do." Oh, so now most of them, but we don't know exactly how many. "Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most such workers have been forced to buy fake ID's to get a job." Poor babies! We need to legalize fake IDs. So if you have a fake ID it's legal because you're contributing to Social Security and saving the plan from the dastardly reform scheme of George W. Bush. "Currently available for about $150 on street corners in just about any immigrant neighborhood in California, a typical fake ID package includes a green card and a Social Security card. It provides cover for employers, who, if asked, can plausibly assert that they believe all their workers are legal. Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the 'earnings suspense file' in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to. The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's." We know that Zoe Baird's employees were not in the suspense file. So all these unknown, unnamed, it's impossible to know, but, boy, are they saving the plan, folks! They are saving $189 billion! Imagine if the number of illegals were double what it is. Imagine the robust shape that Social Security would be in for the remainder of this nation's lifetime. "Most immigration helps Social Security's finances, because new immigrants tend to be of working age and contribute more than they take from the system. A simulation by Social Security's actuaries found that if net immigration ran at 1.3 million a year instead of the 900,000 in their central assumption, the system's 75-year funding gap would narrow to 1.67 percent of total payroll, from 1.92 percent - savings that come out to half a trillion dollars, valued in today's money."

    All this says is more people working. Why do you have to extend it to illegals? Folks, this is just a pathetic effort. It's absolutely purely pathetic, transparent effort on the part of the liberals at the New York Times to bust through on illegal immigration and make it more legal and more possible and at the same time kill the president's Social Security plan. But, my God, what must they think of the average IQ of their readers to put that out and think that it's going to pass any kind of a sniff test? Tsk-tsk-tsk, you liberals.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Sometimes liberals call this program and they are on hold for a while and they want to talk about something they've heard me say, and the call screener then goes to whoever is next and says, "Okay, you're next. Stand by." Well, it just happened. We had a liberal, a school teacher from Northville, Michigan, who said she was calling from the classroom who wanted to dispute my take on the New York Times story. Specifically she wanted to say that the New York Times was not advocating illegal immigration, and I was looking forward to this conversation, but, see, we know who she is, because we get this information. So we know that she's a teacher calling from the classroom in Northville, Michigan, and I'm going to respond anyway. Now, it is true to say that the New York Times in the story did not advocate by exact word illegal immigration, but we who know the New York Times know what their editorial position is. The Times has yet to stake a position on illegal immigration and come out against it, and they are for anything that can derail Bush's Social Security reform plan. So you have a story here, and they go quote some guy at NYU who says the long-term salvation of the funding problem of Social Security lies in illegal immigration, what the hell is a reasonably intelligent person to conclude?

    The New York Times may not have per se on its editorial pages but by virtue of the story there's no question what they're doing. There was no mention, not one word in the article about illegal immigration being criminal. There was not a word about all the other costs involving illegal immigrants. For all their so-called subsidies -- I love that -- and contributions to Social Security, they didn't tell us about all the costs that these people cause us to incur. Public schools, hospitals, crime, they didn't even find it necessary to be outraged about the fake IDs and the fake green cards and the fake Social Security. They seemed unmoved by that because it advanced the agenda of solving Social Security without Bush being involved. I mean, to not even talk about the other costs and make it sound like illegal immigration is a net plus. Come on, folks, this is where you liberals lose me intellectually. The Times doesn't have to say -- when you know what The Times stands for anyway, you read what's in their newspaper, and it all fits, so what know they stand for. I also understand, ladies and gentlemen, the New York Times believes that death by starvation isn't painful, that in fact death by starvation, dehydration, according to the New York Times, is euphoric.

    END TRANSCRIPT

    Read the Article...

    (NY Times: Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions)
    "This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position." .... Ronald Reagan

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    554
    Yeah, I heard this one live. I came away with the opinion that the New York Times can't add either.
    '58 Airedale

  3. #3
    Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    8
    This is old news, but Rush makes it seem like the Times is just brining it up. The news media has been reporting on this for years, and it's true. This is why Mexico had been trying to get a totalization agreement. In 2001 Alan Greenspan, speaking at a retirement conference sponsored by the US Department of Labor, mentioned this as well as how immigration may be helpful in supporting the baby boomers in their retirement.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,032
    The baby boomers had already provided for their retirement. Years ago. Until the Democrats decided to put the monies into general funds and waste it.

    RR
    The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try to do nothing and succeed. " - Lloyd Jones

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,365
    Specifically she wanted to say that the New York Times was not advocating illegal immigration,
    This is true, but the article was written in a light sympathetic to the illegal immigrant. Of, course there was no mention of the costs of illegal immigrants.
    http://www.alipac.us Enforce immigration laws!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •