Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[QUOTE="Ray
I agree SS contributions should increase. If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions. This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.
The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions. The last increase in contributions was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion. It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years. BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs. It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare. Part D covering drugs was added in 2005. It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage. It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%. It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire. The Supplemental Fund is totally different. It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment. Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years. This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help. It will also help relieve a growing shortage in the labor force. Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year. Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling. We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years. If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers. That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
So if you got a speeding ticket while your kids were in the car, they should be taken from you and locked in a cage without you knowing where they are?
How fucking fast were you going when you got pulled over, Seabiscuit, that you got arrested for it?
A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I’ve only gotten one speeding ticket in my life...55 in a 40. How many people get hauled off to jail, their children stripped from their feeding breast, for a misdemeanor?
No, you blockheaded twat, as I've said so many times I'm sick of it, all misdemeanors are NOT the same. You can keep ignoring it and coming back every couple of days to restate your imbecilic take on the world as though it's fresh and new, but it's not gonna help.
Speeding tickets and jaywalking and littering and whatever other godforsaken thing you leftist mouthbreathers dredge up are NOT the sum total of what constitutes a misdemeanor. Just as was the case the LAST six times I said this, misdemeanors come in several different classes, depending on the jurisdiction. And the most serious class of misdemeanors includes things like DUI, assault, hit-and-run, burglary . . . all things for which many people can and do "get hauled off to jail" and have "their children stripped from their feeding breast"(seriously, you have GOT to tone down the melodrama).
I agree SS contributions should increase. If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions. This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs. We don't fund it. If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long. Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens. Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
So you don't use any oil products?
How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them. And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow. So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons. And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long. It would be a failed model. Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
The good old days didn't have access to free public education. People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family. They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections. That's why they would never allow it.
The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions. The last increase in contributions was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion. It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years. BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs. It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare. Part D covering drugs was added in 2005. It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage. It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%. It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire. The Supplemental Fund is totally different. It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment. Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years. This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help. It will also help relieve a growing shortage in the labor force. Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year. Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling. We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years. If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers. That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
I agree SS contributions should increase. If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions. This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs. We don't fund it. If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long. Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens. Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
So you don't use any oil products?
How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them. And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow. So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons. And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long. It would be a failed model. Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
The good old days didn't have access to free public education. People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family. They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections. That's why they would never allow it.
The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions. The last increase in contributions was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion. It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years. BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs. It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare. Part D covering drugs was added in 2005. It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage. It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%. It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire. The Supplemental Fund is totally different. It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment. Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years. This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help. It will also help relieve a growing shortage in the labor force. Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year. Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling. We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years. If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers. That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.
That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before. The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.
Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68? What about a roofer? Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders? How about a bricklayer or laborer? Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement? What about a garbage man? The list goes on and on.
I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business. They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work. All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body. It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now. Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example. In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?
So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted. If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.
So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs? Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future. The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way. They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
It's been that way for many years over there. Nothing has changed. They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today. If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place? And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
I agree SS contributions should increase. If we don't, the choice is SS either goes the Medicare Route with government funding the difference between contributions and benefits paid or benefits are cut 25% to equal contributions. This will occur in the 2040's if nothing changes.Actually, they do collect this money... so there's that, because we don't means test SS. If we did, it would be solvent.
No, the problem with SS is the same as all other programs. We don't fund it. If people want to keep these programs, we need to pay for them, and no, I don't mean have other people pay for them for us.
I haven't seen a Medicare contribution increase in I don't know how long. Yet care gets more expensive every year, and most of the care is given to senior citizens. Of course these programs can't survive in the long run.
And they get most of the benefits. Who do you think benefits the most from our bloated military budget? The Oil Companies, mostly. The defense contracts who sell expensive planes that can't fly in the rain.
So you don't use any oil products?
How many manufacturers make military aircraft?
Guy, I hate to break this to you, but pretty much that is how hiring is done. Even though this is how I make my living, most people are hired on the basis of a resume someone else wrote, and two interviews were both sides are lying their asses off.
Frankly, to be fair, we spend a lot more time selecting our politicians. We spend months interviewing them through debates and campaign appearences. And mostly, we get it right. Except in 2016, where the people got it right and the system got it wrong.
All those interviews and reporting doesn't do any good if most don't read or listen to them. And half of what the MSM reports is crap anyhow. So dopes go to the polls and vote on people for a number of other reasons. And any company that hires people not on their past performance but on personality won't be in business very long. It would be a failed model. Any real interviewer can see right through a resume made by somebody else.
Um, yeah, guy, maybe you should look up "Literacy Tests" in the Old South and see why those happened. Oh, wait, they told you at your Klan meeting that those were the "Good Old Days".
The good old days didn't have access to free public education. People quit school like my father did in 8th grade to help support the family. They didn't have advanced communication like smart phones, cable television and the internet.
There is no reason today for an ignorant voter except laziness or lack of interest, and the Democrat party relies on both of those groups of people to win elections. That's why they would never allow it.
The government already funds Medicare, to the tune of 275 billion in 2015 and it increase every year.
There're two Medicare trust funds, the Hospital Insurance Fund which pays hospital bills (Part A) and the Supplemental Fund (Part B and Part D).
The Hospital Insurance Fund is funded by payroll contributions. The last increase in contributions was in 1985. It has balance of 205 billion. It's expenditures exceed income by about 3 to 5 billion, so it will probably not need an increase in payroll contributions for some years. BTW this was Medicare until the 1960's when congress expanded Medicare to include Part B which includes medical expenses other than hospital costs.
The Supplemental Insurance Fund is the problem. It pays for doctor visits, drugs, and all other medical expenses other than hospital costs. It is a voluntary option, called Part B of Medicare. Part D covering drugs was added in 2005. It is funded by contributions from beneficiaries who choose this coverage. It pays roughly 80% of covered expenses and beneficiary pays 20%. It's funded by monthly payments by beneficiaries and transfers from the general fund.
In 2015, the general fund transfers were 272 billion and payments by beneficiaries were 82 billion to the Supplemental Fund.
The concept of the Hospital Insurance Fund is similar to Social Security, the workers pay into the fund to defray cost when they retire. The Supplemental Fund is totally different. It's a system of sharing medical costs of the retired and disabled between beneficiaries and goverment. Expenses of the Supplemental Fund are more than twice that of the Hospital Fund and growing rapidly.
I believe we need to gradually raise retirement age and Medicare eligibility age to 70 over the new 20 years. This will not totally solve the funding problem with either S.S. or Medicare but it will certain help. It will also help relieve a growing shortage in the labor force. Right now we have 3 million jobs openings and we are adding hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year. Also, our birthrate is almost equal to our death rate and is falling. We are retiring 10,000 people a day and will for many years. If the nation is to continue to grow we have to have more workers. That can come from much higher immigration rates, which doesn't seem likely or we spend more of our life working and less in retirement.
That's all fine and dandy and has been suggested before. The problem is that many can't make it to 65 now.
Do you want to see the guy bussing tables carrying heavy trays of dishes and glasses doing that job at 68? What about a roofer? Want to see an old man climb a ladder two stories high with bundles of shingles on his shoulders? How about a bricklayer or laborer? Can you see a 68 year old guy carrying clamps of bricks to the job site or mixing cement? What about a garbage man? The list goes on and on.
I have two cousins, each run their own remodeling business. They are in their early 60's now and tell me how every day is pain and suffering because they have to work. All that hammering, sawing, dragging heavy equipment in and out of houses takes a real toll on the body. It was great in their 20's. 30's and 40's, but not now. Hell, I'll even take my own career as an example. In a heavy snow shower, do you want to be the guy in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle and we suddenly have to hit the breaks to stop on the highway?
So we make this new requirement, and all these people end up on disability if they are even accepted. If not, go homeless and find a way to eat. I'm sorry, but it's not the answer.
So why don't we just increase employee contributions to support these wonderful programs? Because if people knew what they actually cost, there would be a movement to get rid of them and depend on private insurance in the future. The Democrats want nothing to do with that because you can't buy votes that way. They wouldn't be able to tell people all the things Republicans want to take away from them if voted into power.
Why not adjust the retirement age to the occupation?
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
It's been that way for many years over there. Nothing has changed. They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today. If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place? And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
Because people have kids. We are biological creatures. Kids represent our hopes for the future. I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it? It's been our problem for several centuries.
If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crimeIn Human Trafficking Report, State Dept. Warns Against Separating Children From Parents
WASHINGTON — The State Department warned in a report on Thursday that separating children from their parents can cause lasting psychological damage that leaves them vulnerable to trafficking, a cautionary tale that comes amid an uproar over a Trump administration immigration policy that has temporarily broken up migrant families as they enter the United States.
“Children in institutional care, including government-run facilities, can be easy targets for traffickers,” the department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report concluded.
It added: “Even at their best, residential institutions are unable to meet a child’s need for emotional support that is typically received from family members or consistent caretakers with whom the child can develop an attachment.”
You know...I've asked that many times. They never answer. The thing is - many of those illegally immigrating are fleeing horrific situations, they aren't economic migrants. Many are trying to claim asylum - a perfectly LEGAL thing to do even if they cross illegally - it's the federal law, it's international law, it's their right. They may not get it, often don't - but it's legal.
I was just listening to a piece on this...and one woman from El Salvador, who fled with her 5 yr old son. She tried 6 times to claim asylum at a legal point of entry only to be turned away each time because they "didn't have enough facilities or resources to take more people" (illegal to turn away asylum seekers). So she finally entered illegally and turned herself in. She was promptly arrested, charged with a crime and her son was taken away from her. For two months she had no idea where he was. Finally he was located in a foster home in NY. So now he is in the foster care system which is ANOTHER nightmare to get a kid out of.
It's absolutely sickening.
More than 100 politicians have been murdered in Mexico ahead of Sunday’s electionIf you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
It's been that way for many years over there. Nothing has changed. They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today. If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place? And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
Because people have kids. We are biological creatures. Kids represent our hopes for the future. I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it? It's been our problem for several centuries.
And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
------------------------------------------------------------- no kids eh , another poster in a different thread made the comment that those without their OWN Flesh and blood kids don't really care about what the USA is like tomorrow [in 20 years] because childless people don't really have a stake in TOMORROW . I agree with that thinking . The other poster was talking about some 'europeOn' leaders that are willing to feck up 'europe' with muslim immigrants because the leaders will be dead and gone when the muslim immigrants take over Coyote .If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.Another reason their parents shouldnt take them when they are planning to commit a crime
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
It's been that way for many years over there. Nothing has changed. They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today. If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place? And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
Because people have kids. We are biological creatures. Kids represent our hopes for the future. I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it? It's been our problem for several centuries.
------------------------------------------------------------- no kids eh , another poster in a different thread made the comment that those without their OWN Flesh and blood kids don't really care about what the USA is like tomorrow [in 20 years] because childless people don't really have a stake in TOMORROW . I agree with that thinking . The other poster was talking about some 'europeOn' leaders that are willing to feck up 'europe' with muslim immigrants because the leaders will be dead and gone when the muslim immigrants take over Coyote .If you leave you're home because you are in fear for the lives of your family, you should leave your children at home.
Right, I'm sure that's why every one of them are coming here. It couldn't possibly be they are using their kids to draw sympathy
And I'm sure everyone of them are using their kids to draw sympathy - hell why else would they be leaving some of the most violent gang ridden regions of the America's.
It's been that way for many years over there. Nothing has changed. They had violent gangs and drug lords 20 years ago, today, and will have them 20 years from today. If things are so bad there, WTF did these people have kids in the first place? And how did they become OUR problem, simply because they ended up on our doorstep?
Because people have kids. We are biological creatures. Kids represent our hopes for the future. I chose not to but I don't blame those who chose to and who try to do right by them. Is that so hard to understand?
As to why it's our problem...well that's nothing new is it? It's been our problem for several centuries.
And that's why it has to stop now; because it has been our problem, a problem we don't need any longer. Let people solve their own problems. I too never had kids. The wonderful thing about having kids is that it's a choice--not an infliction. I chose not to have children because of the expense and my health problems I didn't want to pass along. But now my taxes have to support kids other people had in countries where they should have known better? It's bad enough I have to support American kids lowlifes have.
So your argument is that we are trying to make sure these kids are productive citizens, and you want to complain about that?
We need the replacement workers, that's the thing...
I'm complaining because other people create problems that we have to solve, and we can't even solve our own yet.
STF out of this country. If your country is so bad, fight to change it as we have ours in history. We can't babysit the world. We have 7.6 billion people on this planet, some of which have children living in worse environments than south America. How many of these 7.6 billion are we to take in?
Look Ray - OUR ancestors didn't stay to fight to change their country - the FLED. HERE. That's a weak argument Ray.
