Senate RCOB

May 19, 2006
7:05 AM CST

I’m beginning to think that our worthy senators don’t want to be reelected. How else can you explain this?

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment—even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents. [my emphasis]

So I can be clear on the concept here… if a guy robs a bank, he’s okay as long as he pays taxes on his “income”? (The IRS, by the way, would have no problem with this—which is why the INS and IRS computers aren’t linked. The INS doesn’t mind whether you pay taxes or not, as long as you have a work permit; the IRS doesn’t care how you got your money, as long as you pay taxes on it.)

Good grief. And it gets worse.

On Wednesday, senators narrowly approved an amendment to require a foreign worker to have a job lined up in the United States before applying for a green card. The purpose, supporters say, is to ensure that the job market isn’t flooded with foreign workers. Also, it prevents foreign workers from coming to the United States only to wind up unemployed and dependent on public assistance.

But yesterday, the Senate essentially gutted that amendment by allowing foreign workers to apply for permanent residency without having a job lined up.

As I said before, this proves, as if any proof were needed, that the U.S. Senate is living in a parallel dimension.

Well, I’d like to move them to yet a third one: the “no longer in Government” dimension—because they prove, day by day, that they don’t live in our world.

Here’s the RCOB quote of the day, from (who else?) that little prick Patrick Leahy:

“We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts,” he said. “That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund.”

That sets my teeth on edge at so many levels, it’s even making my dentist nervous.

1.) The money is not being “stolen”—it was earned illegally.
2.) There’s no such thing as a “Social Security account”—it’s an accounting fiction.
3.) Social Security is due to go bankrupt in the next ten years—why should we “trust” it?

Except, of course, that we know why everyone in government is so all-fired ready to let a hundred million immigrants into the country legally: all those new workers will contribute to the bankrupt Social Security mess (thus delaying the day of reckoning, but not eliminating it). And when the bill for this horrible Ponzi scheme finally comes due (as it must), it means that the next generation of Congressweasels will be dangling from lamp poles, not this one.

Which is all they care about.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

“And when the bill for [insert any of a great many bad things here] finally comes due, it means that the next generation of Congressweasels will be dangling from lamp poles, not this one.

Which is all they care about.”

That is exactly what drives a lot of decisions in Washington - Kick the Can.  That’s one reason that W still has some respect from me, as he didn’t.  Come to think of it, I think that’s the only reason he’s got left at this point…

Basically, most politicians seem to want to hold power, abuse power to a greater or lesser extent, and not pay for their foulups as they execute the second point.

Author ID: 289 | 5/19/2006 08:37 AM CST | #63319


Of course the INS was briefly the BCIS and is now the USCIS. But apparently this organization, whatever its title, doesn’t actually care about workers having permits either.

Author ID: 7401 | 5/19/2006 08:57 AM CST | #63323


I’ll wager that if we had a more conservative Senate, even if only by the elimination of RINOs such as Snow, McCain and their type, that the President might have taken a tougher stand on illegal immigration.

Or, maybe not.

But I did send back my solicitation from the Senate ReElection Committee with a Red Sharpie Note:  NOT ONE DIME TILL YOU BUILD A WALL !

The Senate ought to be the target of most of our ire, and our efforts should be to effectively unseat them.  Effective, in terms of organizing and supporting truly conservative opponents to win their seats.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Author ID: 2853 | 5/19/2006 09:18 AM CST | #63325


I was wondering about something and maybe this is a good place to ask about it.

Would it be productive to start a “veto Congress” movement?  It would entail getting a grass roots movement out to simply oust the incumbent this November.  Doesn’t matter who you vote for, get the incumbent out. Yes, that might get someone in from an opposing party, but the idea here is to send a message to Washington that we’re dissatisfied with their performance.  Firing 33% of Congress just might get that message across.

Then, in two years, if they still haven’t figured it out, fire another 33%.

Anyway, it was a thought.  Seems a simple meme: depose the incumbent.  Nothing scares establishment politicians more than those three words.

Author ID: 7781 | 5/19/2006 12:11 PM CST | #63339


It seems that a day does not go by that a new level of BS from politicians is not reached.

We (America) are being SO rode hard and put away SO wet that it boggles the mind.

I’m nearing wit’s end.

Author ID: 7762 | 5/19/2006 01:23 PM CST | #63342


I’ve had little respect for Congress since GCA ‘68.  I don’t really recall much out of that bunch that’s really been helpful to my life.

A helluva lot more meme chose than ca change.

I started this thread, just out of curiosity.  Certainly, no rational reason exists for all the blathering.  http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/13201/

As I said, I’m not in love with the idea, but there’s just gotta be more than what we’re seeing, hearing or being told.

Damfino,

‘Rat

Author ID: 6252 | 5/19/2006 01:45 PM CST | #63344


Hear hear!

Seems every time I turn around, some other goobermint bureaucrat is pulling a fast one.

Author ID: 7925 | 5/19/2006 02:15 PM CST | #63345


I would write what I think should happen to Senator Depends and his ilk, but it would be viewed by the FBI as threatening a public official.  But I can fantasize....................

Author ID: 372 | 5/19/2006 02:40 PM CST | #63349


It’s been since the Carter/Ford fiasco since last I used the Pat Paulson option. This fall’s selection will bring it back.

Author ID: 8147 | 5/20/2006 07:22 AM CST | #63360


GGGGGRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Author ID: 567 | 5/20/2006 09:15 PM CST | #63376


sounds like our court decision of a few years ago where a drugs dealer was given tax compensation for his illegal firearm.
He’d claimed it to be a business expense, tax agency denied him, and he took them to court.

When later the police arrested him for having an illegal weapon and selling drugs he got off again on the grounds that the police had no rights to use the tax data he’d submitted as proof (or even as a ground to launch an investigation).

Author ID: 2818 | 5/21/2006 09:44 PM CST | #63416