NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right everyone - you heard me. It is not the illegal immigrants, as so often claimed that are prfiting from our social security and unemployment system, it is actually US citizens that are doing this.

The NYTimes Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/business/07immigrant.html?hp&ex=1118203200&en=110a39999e2b66a1&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

American citizens, whether at home or abroad are actually renting their social security numbers to illegal immigrants. The US citizens finds a contact and sells his or her SSN to an immigrant who masquerades as that person in order to find work in the states.

Besides the obvious issues of identity theft and national security, this also affects the whole idea of the immigrant 'mooching' off the US pension system. While the immigrant holds the SSN, the US citizen will not only get paid by the immigrant, but they will also get higher social security benefits as well as payments from the department of labour for being 'unemployed'.

Despicable? Commendable? Thoughts?

#1 - Old.

#2 - SocSecin it's current incarnation is a stupid idea and it doesn't help your case, it just gives another reason to abolish or completely change the damned system.

"Oh my, what a lovely War.
Oh God what a bloody mess!"
-some Dead British Actor

#1 - Old.

#2 - SocSecin it's current incarnation is a stupid idea and it doesn't help your case, it just gives another reason to abolish or completely change the damned system.

On the first point, its been re-reported today. Probably because no one has paid any attention to it.

On the second point, what case did I make? I asked for opinions. I think SocSec needs to be reformed, but not with private accounts because that won't solve any problems either. Not being an expert on how economic systems function and how different controls could be applied, I don't really have a viable solution, yet anyway.

I think SocSec needs to be reformed

Not being an expert on how economic systems function and how different controls could be applied, I don't really have a viable solution, yet anyway.

, but not with private accounts because that won't solve any problems either.
Looking at the rearranging of your sentences, do you see an incongruency between what you posted and what they say?

The article is talking about the issues with social security, I stated I don't have a solution to the problem.

The article is talking about the issues with social security, I stated I don't have a solution to the problem.
Let me try again.


Not being an expert on how economic systems function and how different controls could be applied


not with private accounts because that won't solve any problems either

You're telling me you don't see any incongruency when you look at these two quotes of yours?

private accounts don't eliminate the issue, all they do is move it to a new sector of the economy.

The other quote is stating that I don't have a plan to fix them, but I know private accounts won't work. There is no inconsistancy there because I am not forwarding a new plan, I'm simply stating a non-economic reason why the current 'fix' of social security won't work.

If I were to be inconsistent in my quotes, I proceed to forward a plan involivng the government expenditures of GDP, NI, RGDP, and try and explain how cost-push or demand-pull consumer markets could affect those. Then I would probably move on to estimate what factors of the RGDP could be manipulated to fix the expenditure-collection gap within the social security network.

But, I am not doing that.

Having private accounts would make it possible to keep the government away from your money.

What happens to the money you put in is that they use part of it to pay existing obligations, and the rest ends up in Congress' Pork Barrel.

SS has become a double-dip for the Government because they can spend it, and leave an IOU.

The problem with Social Security is that its a Pyramid Scheme.

To maintain its existing obligations, it relies on more and more people being recruited into the scheme, who must in turn be paid off. Eventually, it becomes impossible to meet its obligations.

The Securities and Exchange has a very simple graphical representation of what I mean:

http://www.sec.gov/images/pyramid.gif

Some people have had social security drawn by illegals using their number before they actually turned old enough to collect.

I would have to say that if you are stupid enough to give your Social Security number knowingly to an illegal immigrant to provide him with ID to work, and he or she cleans you out via identity theft and drawing your SS monies out before you are of retirement age, you've gotten what you deserve.

It's good that I run into this thread after having read this article on hunger in LA: http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2907650,00.html

Let's see if illegal immigration factors into the causes as listed in the article:

unemployment - Check. When population increases faster than jobs increase, unemployment increases
low household wages - Check. Cheap labor pool suppresses wages, particularly for unskilled labor.
the high cost of housing - Check. Immigration causes demand for housing to grow faster than supply.
health care - A check so big it can be seen from space. Illegals receive treatment that goes uncompensated, meaning the rest of us have to be charged more. Trauma centers all over Southern California are closing down because they can't afford to stay in business anymore.
child care - Check.
low participation in such federally funded food programs as food stamps - Check. Illegals won't apply.

So, we can see that there are some significant costs from illegal immigration. Are they offset by Social Security contributions? Absolutely not.

On the flip side of all this an illegal alien was using an old co-worker of mine's social security number a couple of years ago. When my co-worker and I were laid off from work he couldn't collect unemployment because his SSN was still showing up as employed.

Illegal aliens violated US law to come here.

They lower the average wages.

Some of them commit crimes while here, and if the crime is punishable by death or life without parole the Mexican government refuses to extradite them to the USA in violation of our extradition treaty with them.

If you can't be bothered to enter the USA illegally, stay out. If you come here illegaly you should be put in prison for several years before being deported back home. If your company harms the American worker by employing illegal aliens they should face severe fines and the people responsible for employing the illegals should be imprisoned for several years.

On the first point, its been re-reported today. Probably because no one has paid any attention to it.

On the second point, what case did I make? I asked for opinions. I think SocSec needs to be reformed, but not with private accounts because that won't solve any problems either. Not being an expert on how economic systems function and how different controls could be applied, I don't really have a viable solution, yet anyway.

Private accounts are a good idea.

Let me put it to you this way:

Would you rather put your money into an account that gathers no interest over time, which means that AS INFLATION COMPOUNDS over time, said money will actually lose value...

or

Would you rather put money INTO STOCKS, which in the US stand a pretty good chance of gaining value over time (the DOW never stays down for long)?

In a very average stock, the value of your money will increase about 7% per year.... which means that every dollar you put into the stock this year will be worth $1.07 next year. Considering that inflation is somewhere (generally) around 2%, you will have made 5 cents on the dollar, for one year. Imagine that same 5% real growth every year ... and upon retirement, you will have actually made a good deal of money off the investment.

Or you can leave it to the government, where it will lose value fairly quickly.

It's a pretty easy answer.
--

This troubles me, how some people are so afraid of investing... a few bad companies out of thousands should not scare people away from stocks. If you are afraid of picking a bad company and getting stuck losing all your money, then diversify.

What happens to the money you put in is that they use part of it to pay existing obligations, and the rest ends up in Congress' Pork Barrel.

SS has become a double-dip for the Government because they can spend it, and leave an IOU.

And...

If SS money is placed in private accounts then the government will merely issue more bonds to cover the debt. Which will, of course, drive the price of bonds down so our debt burden becomes greater.

The problem is debt, not the structure of SS.