Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[DanaC]

They also pay tax dollars.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

They also pay tax dollars.

The only time they pay taxes is when they consume. I would love to be able to do that, pay only when I make a purchase. That would save me about $55,000 dollars a year in income tax.

[DanaC]

From the New York Times:

TOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez 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.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - 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.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

He 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 are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/bu...1dc383&ei=5090


I understand from a fairly wide range of sources, that Mr Martinez is not exactly an atypical case.

[TheMercenary]

The border agents got the shaft. They deserved nothing more than a slap on the wrist, suspension with or without pay, or dismissal. 12 years in prison is bull shit. This case was in the news last week. The perp that got off was is suspected in numerous other drug cases since the border agents were sent to prison. He supposedly used his immunity in the first case to cross back and forth over the border unchecked by agents to continue to smuggle drugs. They should have capped his ass the first time.

[TheMercenary]

A copy of the news relating to the July 18th hearing by Congress on the matter:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20070718a.html

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, after the drug dealer was brought to the U.S. for medical treatment for the bullet wound, U.S. authorities gave him a "humanitarian pass" to cross the border freely. It was during this time, according to Drug Enforcement Administration documents, that Aldrete-Davila was allegedly involved in further drug-smuggling.

"Was it wise to give a humanitarian pass to a known drug dealer?" Cornyn of Texas asked.

Sutton responded: "You're assuming he ran another load of dope."

Feinstein interjected, raising her voice slightly. "His question was, 'Do you think it was wise to give a humanitarian pass to a known drug dealer?'"

Sutton wavered, "If he ran another load of dope, it was a mistake [to give him the pass]. If he did not run another load of dope, it wasn't."

[TheMercenary]

July 18, 2007
Bipartisan call for commuting border agent sentences
Especially in these partisan times, it is encouraging to see bipartisanship on any issue. And, as detailed in this Lou Dobbs commentary, the extreme sentences for former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean has brought leading Senators from both sides of the aisle together:

There was an unusual spectacle in the nation's capital Tuesday, downright rare, in fact: U.S. Senators seeking truth, and justice, and taking action. And they deserve great credit and thanks. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, led by Dianne Feinstein, focused on the reasons for the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents now serving long sentences in federal prison. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were given terms of 11 and 12 years respectively on their convictions for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler. Senator Feinstein, and Senators Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn demanded answers of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who chose to prosecute Compean and Ramos and give that illegal alien drug smuggler blanket immunity to testify against the men....

Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn announced Tuesday night on our broadcast that they have decided to request that President Bush commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean.

[yesman065]

Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited? Obviously not.

"everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric."

Just more rhetoric.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited?

Obviously read it and more. Then I cited - what - 15 different reasons why that one isolated point is in direct conflict with history. Did you read all those maybe 15 reasons? Or ignore them? Or not understand them because the author assumed you know the history?

Your point is simply a paragraph quoted from a newspaper article; taken as if a verbatim fact. Provided were other sources, the bigger picture, AND why other facts dispute your conclusion. Did you spend enough time reading and then reading that post to grasp so much information?

Did you even grasp the significance of S Vietnam's invasion of Laos when Saigon's forces were (as you believe) equivalent to the enemy (on paper) AND had US airpower in support? Did you ignore that example because you did not know that history? Did you learn why better card players know when to fold ‘em?

Yesman065, you are very young to already have such firm opinions. That is not a good thing especially when humans typically don't even start grasping the world until after age 16. Posted were three reasons necessary to have a victorious war. Do you just ignore fundamental concepts to ‘keep spending good money after bad’?

In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War since even the wise men said in 1968 that the war could not be won. Even Nixon had conceded that reality but continued that war so as it not be ‘lost on his watch’. Did you know those facts? Did you know that N Vietnam so well understood the power of their position as to even show their own secret assessments to Kissinger in Paris? And yet you know otherwise because you read a 'Daily News' type summary in a newspaper article.

If Saigon forces were so good, then why were they massacred in their first major operation, fully supplied, and without American troops? Did you even read the reality I cited?

Show me something with facts such as why. Show me - and I am not from Missouri. A paragraph in one newspaper article has a severe credibility problem especially when 15 some examples demonstrate it wrong - with 'whys'.

[yesman065]

tw - do you not get it??? I didn't make any claims - only you did and it took you 5000 words to ask me a question based upon an incorrect assumption.

[yesman065]

Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?

[glatt]

Is it really amazing?

Edit: Sad maybe, but amazing?

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?

That is the point. You selectively posted an isolated event. Demonstrated but again is that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost at every level. And yet our glorious president repeatedly said we were winning. Even this minor good news only confirms how often our leader was a liar.

Citing success in tactical objective while ignoring the entire picture is also called propaganda.

Meanwhile also know who O'Hanlon and Pollack are. Pollack was 'person non-grata' by George Jr because he wrote about needing a force that exceeded 150,000 and then over 100,000 for five or ten years minimum. The political agenda said America does not do nation building.

O'Hanlon got same treatment because he wrote in his 2002 book that Saddam paniced; his regime destabilized when Clinton executed Desert Fox in 1998. Saddam was so destablilzed as to be a threat to no one. Clinton had almost completely solved the problem created by Cheney, Wolfovich, Rumsfeld, et al. O'Hanlon also stated that containment was working. Facts are wrong when they contradict a political agenda? That too is part of the story that was ignored.

Who does not support the troops? Those who believed a lying president. Those who denied we were losing "Mission Accomplished" at every level. Finally troops have one limited success. Those who have contempt for the troops repeatedly ignore or deny that bigger picture. Contempt even promoted pre-emption while disparaging containment.

Well at least someone finally did something for the troops. The mental midget was so publically disparaged that troops finally got a competant general and got relieve from political agendas. We did that in PA by voting against the wacko extremist Senator Santorum.

What is postive? The mental midget is slowly coming around to what the Iraq Study Group, et al (including this poster) have long been saying. Unfortunately he is doing it so slow as to protect his legacy at the expense of American troops. Notice many who claim to support the troops really have contempt for those troops. That political agenda is contempt for the American soldier.

Meanwhile, notice what is happening as a result of "Mission Accomplished"? When are we going after bin Laden? Does one worry about saying things only positive - or confront reality in full perspective and without emotion? Those who instead deal with reality are only those who support the troops.

Never rejoice due to postive news. That only creates an attitude based in silly emotion. Take news as news. Add that news to the big picture. A picture that also asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Those who only rejoice in good news are doing propaganda; intentionally ignoring THE most important fact. We make no effort to go after bin Laden. We have one little accomplishment. Some tactical victories that all acknowledge will turn into losses if the strategic objective for "Mission Accomplished" remains ignored.

What does that good news say? Our leaders have been lying to us - an indisputible fact. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Ten or more years in Iraq - so that the war will not be lost during George Jr's watch. George Jr does zero to demand a strategic success - which is also in that 'good' news - when one looks at the big picture.

[yesman065]

I get beat up on for saying that the democratic party (NOT EVERY ONE) but the leadership - whatever doesn't support our troops. This d-bag comes right out and says that it would be "a big problem" if there was a positive report given by our commander in chief. Sad and really effed up. I don't like ANY of them anymore and I'm afraid if I do like one its just cuz he's a better liar than the rest!

[glatt]

But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?

The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.

What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by glatt

But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?

Yup

Originally Posted by glatt

The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.

And therein lieds the rub.

Originally Posted by glatt

What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.

I think you're right - they should act like any normal person and rejoice at positive news. I'd even be willing to let them take credit that they are responsible for the change in tactics.