This is the first generation ever that would be asked to pay for their own retirement

[The Raddish]

Nealz Nuze (http://boortz.com/nuze/200504/04052005.html#rock_the_vote)

Tuesday -- April 5, 2005

I JUST HATE BEING RIGHT THIS WAY

I just can't stop thinking about that story I put in Nealz Nuze yesterday (http://boortz.com/nuze/200504/04042005.html#rockthevote). It was the bit about that spokesman for "Rock The Vote" slamming the idea of private Social Security accounts. In case you missed it, or your dog at the Nuze, here is what he said:

"To us, it's totally black and white. This is the first generation ever that would be asked
to pay for their own retirement and Social Security at the same time. This is what private
accounts do. They saddle young people with an unfair burden."

Can you believe it? This is the first generation ever that would be asked to pay for their own retirement and Social Security at the same time? Who in the world do these mindless idiots think has been paying for their Social Security up to now? Is this what passes for critical, logical, rational thought on the part of today's young people? Are these the people who will be in charge of guarding our freedom in the years ahead?

They have a poll on Rock the Vote. Here's the Rock the Vote "I Love Social Security" website (http://www.rockthevote.com/socialsecurity/index.php). Check it out. Poll takers were asked to finish the following statement: "I was thinking about Social Security recently:"

Here are your possible responses:

Reading the news
Reading a blog
Watching TV
Talking with a friend
Reading an email
Something else
Wasn't thinking about Social Security recently
Wow! Now that's one hard-hitting poll, dontcha think? The website says "Take our Social Security Quick Poll" and all they want to know is how it came to pass that you were thinking about Social Security. The poll doesn't even ask about private accounts. Maybe the Rock the Vote crowd is afraid to find out what young people really think.

These people are actually selling "I love Social Security" bumper stickers, shirts and more. Is there a better way to show your friends and neighbors that you have completely lost all touch with reality? Here we have a system where they have to cough up 14% of their earnings every single paycheck, and that money is either (a) sent to current Social Security recipients; or, (b) spent by the Congress on some of their vote-buying schemes. In return for your so-called "contribution" you are told that you will receive some sort of a benefit when you reach a certain age. The benefit is not guaranteed, and the age can be changed. And you're supposed to love this system?

http://boortz.com/images/i_love_social_security_gear.jpg

And what's the alternative? You take your money and you invest it in an account that you own and you control. Nobody can take it from you. The government can't deny you these benefits ... they're yours. This is a system that has been tried in Chile, Galveston County, Texas, and several other places ... and the results are always the same. Under the private plans your retirement payments are always higher than they would be under Social Security, and they can't be taken away.

This idiotic poll on this mindless website only serves to reinforce what so many Americans think about the younger generation. We won't go there. I will say, though, that younger adults who listen to talk radio will see right through this Rock the Vote mindlessness. Unfortunately, there are more young people listening to this Hip Hop crap out there than are listening to talk radio ... so the outlook isn't all that bright.

[Schly]

^^^ Yeah, what he said! ^^^

[Striker]

How will it affect people currently on social security or who will be in the next 10-20 years? I don't really care either way how social security goes in the future, because I am not stupid enough to depend on social security. However it is unfair to the people expecting it in 10-20 years to have the policies change and cause them to lose money since they didn't have the prior knowledge to invest in retirement during their 20s.

[Squeezy]

Bush has not been upfront with the American people. His plan will do nothing to address the solvency issues with Social Security.

[dalokgawd]

You know what I don't understand about this whole private accounts thing? Bush is saying that there is a funding crisis with the Social Security program. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and have known for years that SS will likely go bankrupt long before I hit retirement age.

What I don't understand, is that by creating personal accounts, that's LESS money that's being paid in to SS. So isn't that just going to make the problem worse? I mean yeah... 50 years from now those personal accounts may pay off, but what happens to the people who are going to collect SS between now and then? How is the government going to pay all the baby boomers who are going to retire in the next 50 years with LESS money coming into the system due to younger Americans putting part of their SS deduction into private accounts?

[J. Bourne]

How will it affect people currently on social security or who will be in the next 10-20 years? I don't really care either way how social security goes in the future, because I am not stupid enough to depend on social security. However it is unfair to the people expecting it in 10-20 years to have the policies change and cause them to lose money since they didn't have the prior knowledge to invest in retirement during their 20s.

Exactly.

They should abolish the welfare state program of social security entirely. However, if people have been paying into the system to date, at least give them their investment back with a decent rate of return.

[Schly]

How will it affect people currently on social security or who will be in the next 10-20 years? I don't really care either way how social security goes in the future, because I am not stupid enough to depend on social security. However it is unfair to the people expecting it in 10-20 years to have the policies change and cause them to lose money since they didn't have the prior knowledge to invest in retirement during their 20s.

I believe that Bush's plan is one that would be eased into. A percentage every few years until it's 100%. Realistically, I don't think it will ever be 100% because there will always be disabled, orphaned, etc. that will need the support, which is as it should be.

It was never the intent of the program to be the retirement vehicle for every US Citizen.

[dalokgawd]

Exactly.

They should abolish the welfare state program of social security entirely. However, if people have been paying into the system to date, at least give them their investment back with a decent rate of return.
And how is the government going to:

a) pay back the people who have already paid into it
b) continue to pay the people who are currently collecting?

[Blaubart]

And how is the government going to:

a) pay back the people who have already paid into it
b) continue to pay the people who are currently collecting?
c) without going further into debt which the current workforce and future generations would need to repay. If that's the case, what's the difference between paying your money towards a debt and continuing to pay your money towards social security. You're being taxed either way.

No privatization. Just come up with a simple forumula that keeps social security taxes where they are and the retired community splits the proceeds. Benefits would go up and down based on how many people are in the workforce to support them. That's about as fair as the current system can be and still be what it was designed to be - the current workforce helping to support the retired. The big difference is the acceptance to the idea that the benefits would fluctuate based on the numbers of workers and retired. People would also have to stop thinking about themselves, because that's not what social security is all about. They aren't "paying into their retirement", they're helping to support the retired with the assumption that the upcoming generations are going to return the favor. The amount you pay in should have an effect on how much you receive when you retire, but only as a variable in the forumula which is used to disperse the available funds. There should be no solvency, investments or giant pool of money. All the money taken in over the course of a year should be spent in the next year, or possibly even on a month to month basis.

If you want privatization, open an IRA. Don't expect social security to be your sole provider when you retire.

[dalesd]

And how is the government going to:

a) pay back the people who have already paid into it
b) continue to pay the people who are currently collecting?
Bush's plan is half baked. It won't 'fix' social security. Like dalokgawd said above.

I'm all in favor of private accounts. Bush says private accounts are the answer. I agree. But these aren't private accounts. They're government forced savings accounts.

================================================== ====================
A SMALL, SIMPLE SOLUTION TO SOCIAL SECURITY
by Michael Cloud
================================================== ====================

Democratic politicians have circled the wagons for Social Security.

“Social Security is a sacred trust.” “It’s a social safety net.” “Social
Security is part of our social contract.” “We can and will defend Social
Security.”

Republican politicians say, “YES, Social Security is wonderful and
necessary, but we can make it better with our `Ownership Society’ reform,
with our `partial privatization’ modification, with our `personal accounts’
approach.”

Newspapers, magazines, Broadcast TV News, Cable TV News Analysis shows, Talk
Radio, Websites, and Blogs are all weighing in. We are overloaded and
overwhelmed with information, analysis, and opinion on Social Security.

Numerous polls have been done on the subject.

One USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that the Republican “Social Security
plan is based on the belief that we know how to protect our nest eggs,” BUT
“Most Americans are no good at investing.”

59% of those polled said it is a “bad idea for the government to let workers
invest some of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds.”

USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Pollsters did NOT ask these questions:

1. “Do you believe the federal government is good at investing your Social
Security taxes?”

2. “Do you believe you will get the Social Security payments you are being
promised?”

3. “Do you trust the federal government to protect your nest egg?”


Why aren’t the pollsters asking these questions? They can’t handle the
truth.

Ask yourself a few basic questions.

If the Social Security System didn’t exist, would you work to create it?

If it were possible for you to get out of the Social Security System, would
you do it?

If it were possible to satisfy those who want to stay in the Social Security
System and those who want to get out, would you want it?

Here’s a small, simple solution: make each individual’s participation
voluntary.

Those who want to stay in, stay in. They pool their money. They participate
in a voluntarily-funded, government-run social safety net. Social Security.

Those who want to get out, get out. They will neither give to nor receive
from Social Security. These individuals can save or invest as they see fit.

This eliminates the conflict. It offers us choices and cooperation.

Make Social Security voluntary. Allow each individual to opt in or opt out.
Voluntary involvement or non-involvement. Voluntary participation or
non-participation.

(to be continued…)

[Clark Howard Jr]

the is from the rock thevote/I love social security site form the list OP posted.

when you click on the WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY? link:



1. Because you love to visit your grandparents--at their house. Back before Social Security, for most families, all the generations lived under one roof, and without Social Security, half of all seniors would live in poverty. Right now. Today. And that's not going to change in 5 years, 15 years, or even 50 years, when it is our turn. That's just the way it is.

2. Because this is not only about retirees. This is about the kid down the street whose dad died. That kid gets Social Security now, so the family can pick up the pieces. They have a lot to lose.

3. Because you're paying into the fund every month and that money had damn well better be there when you need it!

4. Because taking Social Security money out of the fund so people can invest it in "private accounts" means having to cut benefits even more.

5. Because investments are a gamble. A system that depends on good luck and bad luck can't provide a safety net guarantee.

6. Because the only way to pay current benefits if people take their money out of Social Security to invest is to borrow trillions of dollars for decades to come. That's a loss that young people are going to have to make up through tax increases!

7. Because according to the Wall Street Journal, "The White House, in a private memo to conservative allies, strongly argues that Social Security benefits paid to future retirees must be significantly reduced. The memo disputes those on the right who insist that creating private investment accounts is all that's needed to fix the retirement system. To fail to make benefit cuts while diverting payroll taxes to workers' personal accounts, the memo argues, would be irresponsible and 'have serious short-term economic consequences.'" (WSJ, 01/06/05) Translation: please look at the private investment account over here so you don't notice the benefit cuts over there!

8. Because some politicians want to trick you. If you think Social Security won't be there for you, you're falling right into the trap. They want you to think that, because they don't want to pay your benefits. Social Security can pay 100% of benefits for the next 50 years. After that, it can pay 80% of benefits for your entire lifetime. Don't let anyone trick you into thinking you've got nothing to lose.

9. Because the reason Social Security needs more money in the future is that younger generations are living longer. If people are going to collect benefits for a longer period of time, then Social Security needs more money. It's important to keep the Social Security guarantee at about the same level it is today--not less--even if that means paying a little more to get it.

10. Because Social Security is retro chic.

[XXnarg]

Lyndon Johnson was responsible for putting Social Security into the general fund, so that they could be spent on other things besides their purpose. Oh, and he launched Medicare, which is a bigger fraud and a bigger disaster than Social Security!

[JayVee7777]

the is from the rock thevote/I love social security site form the list OP posted.

when you click on the WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY? link:



1. Because you love to visit your grandparents--at their house. Back before Social Security, for most families, all the generations lived under one roof, and without Social Security, half of all seniors would live in poverty. Right now. Today. And that's not going to change in 5 years, 15 years, or even 50 years, when it is our turn. That's just the way it is.

2. Because this is not only about retirees. This is about the kid down the street whose dad died. That kid gets Social Security now, so the family can pick up the pieces. They have a lot to lose.

3. Because you're paying into the fund every month and that money had damn well better be there when you need it!

4. Because taking Social Security money out of the fund so people can invest it in "private accounts" means having to cut benefits even more.

5. Because investments are a gamble. A system that depends on good luck and bad luck can't provide a safety net guarantee.

6. Because the only way to pay current benefits if people take their money out of Social Security to invest is to borrow trillions of dollars for decades to come. That's a loss that young people are going to have to make up through tax increases!

7. Because according to the Wall Street Journal, "The White House, in a private memo to conservative allies, strongly argues that Social Security benefits paid to future retirees must be significantly reduced. The memo disputes those on the right who insist that creating private investment accounts is all that's needed to fix the retirement system. To fail to make benefit cuts while diverting payroll taxes to workers' personal accounts, the memo argues, would be irresponsible and 'have serious short-term economic consequences.'" (WSJ, 01/06/05) Translation: please look at the private investment account over here so you don't notice the benefit cuts over there!

8. Because some politicians want to trick you. If you think Social Security won't be there for you, you're falling right into the trap. They want you to think that, because they don't want to pay your benefits. Social Security can pay 100% of benefits for the next 50 years. After that, it can pay 80% of benefits for your entire lifetime. Don't let anyone trick you into thinking you've got nothing to lose.

9. Because the reason Social Security needs more money in the future is that younger generations are living longer. If people are going to collect benefits for a longer period of time, then Social Security needs more money. It's important to keep the Social Security guarantee at about the same level it is today--not less--even if that means paying a little more to get it.

10. Because Social Security is retro chic.

wow... just wow...

[Candide]

Because the reason Social Security needs more money in the future is that younger generations are living longer. If people are going to collect benefits for a longer period of time, then Social Security needs more money. It's important to keep the Social Security guarantee at about the same level it is today--not less--even if that means paying a little more to get it.

The reason Social Security needs more money is Congress raids the surplus for use in the general fund. They couldn't stand having money sitting in accounts without raiding it. Supplemental SSI payments are the biggest rip off of the working class ever perpetrated. This is welfare. I don't have a problem funding disabled children and adults who've never worked or paid SS. I have a huge problem with funding it using my retirement money through a tax paid only by those who work for wages.

Don't get me started on this issue because it infuriates me. That action alone by the US government should have caused an electoral revolt in this country.

[jamegumb]

Don't get me started on this issue because it infuriates me. That action alone by the US government should have caused an electoral revolt in this country.

Agreed, but it was done with the consent of both major parties. And, last I checked, the vast majority of people is still voting for the jerks on either side of the aisle.

The quote from Rock the Vote (that this is the first generation to fund both SS and retirement, and that we shouldn't have to) is basically an admittance that it's pro-Ponzi Scheme.

[The Raddish]

Holy bumped threads, batman!!

The reason Social Security needs more money is Congress raids the surplus for use in the general fund. They couldn't stand having money sitting in accounts without raiding it. Supplemental SSI payments are the biggest rip off of the working class ever perpetrated. This is welfare. I don't have a problem funding disabled children and adults who've never worked or paid SS. I have a huge problem with funding it using my retirement money through a tax paid only by those who work for wages.

Don't get me started on this issue because it infuriates me. That action alone by the US government should have caused an electoral revolt in this country.

Incorrect. The reason that Social Security needs more money is because it exists in the first place!!

All pyramid schemes are doomed to failure (http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/pyramid+schemes).

[Doctor_Wu]

Paris Hilton's inheritance will help us sustain social security.

[Parafly9]

Bush has not been upfront with the American people. His plan will do nothing to address the solvency issues with Social Security.

It would at least make some of the money I put into the system actually be MINE in name and ownership.

My dad died at 63. Guess who gets his social security he paid into his whole life. No one.

$200,000 of contributions going (rough estimate... i said $10k per year * 20 years may be higher) to someone else. Social Security in it's current form is friggen BS.



It was never the intent of the program to be the retirement vehicle for every US Citizen.

so it is actually social insecurity?

[rooobosmith]

Paris Hilton's inheritance will help us sustain social security.

As will millions of illegal immigrants.

[Parafly9]

As will millions of illegal immigrants.

:crazylaf:

wow.

[Doctor_Wu]

:crazylaf:

wow.

I agree with roo on that point. That's what happens when the gvt grows large, the people fat, and the population stops reproducing itself naturally... all that money has to come from somewhere... the economy must continue to grow to support the many entitlements... governments have historically turned to immigrants to continue growth.

[JayVee7777]

so you're saying that illegal immigrant's will help fund SS? :huh:

Am I missing someting?

[rooobosmith]

I agree with roo on that point. That's what happens when the gvt grows large, the people fat, and the population stops reproducing itself naturally... all that money has to come from somewhere... the economy must continue to grow to support the many entitlements... governments have historically turned to immigrants to continue growth.

What does large govt and fat people have to do with not reproducing?

so you're saying that illegal immigrant's will help fund SS? :huh:

Am I missing someting?

Apparently. It changes the worker to retiree ratio.

[JayVee7777]

Since when do iis pay SS?

[rooobosmith]

Since when do iis pay SS?

iis?

Illegal immigrants all pay SS; unless paid under the table. Many use legal citizen's SS number. Many don't collect SS, so they really help out.

[Danman114]

What does large govt and fat people have to do with not reproducing?

It's more difficult for fat people?


:omg:

[Doctor_Wu]

What does large govt and fat people have to do with not reproducing?

A large goverment generally follows a large and diverse economy. A large and diverse economy means that the people are well off... they don't need to have a large family to survive... or at this point, any family. People don't need to work the land to eat... they "grow fat". Literally and figuratively.

Children are work... they are often seen as a burden. So people enjoying the fat of the land have less interest in having any children. The birth rate falls.

[Parafly9]

I agree with roo on that point. That's what happens when the gvt grows large, the people fat, and the population stops reproducing itself naturally... all that money has to come from somewhere... the economy must continue to grow to support the many entitlements... governments have historically turned to immigrants to continue growth.

I agree with THAT, but remember that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are not the same caliber or contributing the same on average to society as do LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

The majority of illegal immigrants have little to no education or job skills. They take the lowest-paying jobs around. Why is this? Because they are escaping from worse circumstances in other countries. So if we were to legalize them, most of them would be contributing minimally to social security because of their low income levels (many would be in / below the poverty line). Also, once we give them citizenship, they get access to things like public schools; healthcare if needed, medicare, disability, and so on. I highly doubt their incomes would be sufficient to pay for what they would be taking back, at least not without an increase in gov't income from the top end. So what happens then? We will start to tax the more well-to-do more to pay for the leeching on the low end.

The majority of legal immigrants, on the other hand, get into the US because they HAVE a job on the way in. They are typically college educated and earn a good living. They are contributing a lot more to society than they take since they typically have health insurance at their jobs and own houses so they pay property taxes to support their schools.

Big, big, BIG difference, IMO.

iis?

Illegal immigrants all pay SS; unless paid under the table. Many use legal citizen's SS number. Many don't collect SS, so they really help out.

Yes, well, that's super. As long as illegals continue to steal peoples SS numbers; then i guess Social Security will be well-funded. :yuk:

[Doctor_Wu]

I agree with THAT, but remember that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are not the same caliber or contributing the same on average to society as do LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

The majority of illegal immigrants have little to no education or job skills. They take the lowest-paying jobs around. Why is this? Because they are escaping from worse circumstances in other countries. So if we were to legalize them, most of them would be contributing minimally to social security because of their low income levels (many would be in / below the poverty line). Also, once we give them citizenship, they get access to things like public schools; healthcare if needed, medicare, disability, and so on. I highly doubt their incomes would be sufficient to pay for what they would be taking back, at least not without an increase in gov't income from the top end. So what happens then? We will start to tax the more well-to-do more to pay for the leeching on the low end.

The majority of legal immigrants, on the other hand, get into the US because they HAVE a job on the way in. They are typically college educated and earn a good living. They are contributing a lot more to society than they take since they typically have health insurance at their jobs and own houses so they pay property taxes to support their schools.

Big, big, BIG difference, IMO.


Roo did say millions. Historically... when we get to this point of comfort... and lack of internal population growth, the gvt opens the gates and the immigrants flood in in order to sustain our population growth, and hence economic growth.

I'm not saying there aren't really bad tradeoffs... I'm just saying this is what happens.

[xillix]

And how is the government going to:

a) pay back the people who have already paid into it
b) continue to pay the people who are currently collecting?
It is not an insurance program or savings plan. According to the legal decisions even people who have paid into the program have no right to any payments. So it does not matter if people already paid in.

In fact the surplus that existed in the past is completely gone. The government needs to spend the money no matter what (that is how it works). There is no money, just outstanding debts that can never ever be repaid.

[Candide]

Agreed, but it was done with the consent of both major parties. And, last I checked, the vast majority of people is still voting for the jerks on either side of the aisle.

Agreed, I still can't figure out why voters keep alternating between two parties proven to be corrupt over and over again.

[Candide]

Holy bumped threads, batman!!



Incorrect. The reason that Social Security needs more money is because it exists in the first place!!

All pyramid schemes are doomed to failure (http://encyclopedia.tfd.com/pyramid+schemes).

That's not entirely correct. Social Security was well funded with surpluses until Congress started raiding it in the 70's and 80's. Had those surpluses been invested instead of squandered, the fund would be quite solvent at this point.

[XXnarg]

That's not entirely correct. Social Security was well funded with surpluses until Congress started raiding it in the 70's and 80's. Had those surpluses been invested instead of squandered, the fund would be quite solvent at this point.Congress didn't start the raids.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) raided Social Security to fund Medicare and his failed "Great Society."

That's when our savings rate went down the tubes, since people felt they no longer had to save for their retirement. One effect of a lower savings rate was less capital for firms to lend for expansion and greater consumer spending, which added to the pressure to buy from overseas.

LBJ's efforts added to the willingness on the part of voters to put those in office who would continue to promise to take care of them.

[smegalicious]

I agree with THAT, but remember that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are not the same caliber or contributing the same on average to society as do LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

The majority of illegal immigrants have little to no education or job skills. They take the lowest-paying jobs around. Why is this? Because they are escaping from worse circumstances in other countries. So if we were to legalize them, most of them would be contributing minimally to social security because of their low income levels (many would be in / below the poverty line). Also, once we give them citizenship, they get access to things like public schools; healthcare if needed, medicare, disability, and so on. I highly doubt their incomes would be sufficient to pay for what they would be taking back, at least not without an increase in gov't income from the top end. So what happens then? We will start to tax the more well-to-do more to pay for the leeching on the low end.

The majority of legal immigrants, on the other hand, get into the US because they HAVE a job on the way in. They are typically college educated and earn a good living. They are contributing a lot more to society than they take since they typically have health insurance at their jobs and own houses so they pay property taxes to support their schools.

Big, big, BIG difference, IMO.
Link to substantiation of your claim that legal immigrants have such a good standard of living? Have college educations? Have health insurance? Own homes? :look:

There is no requirement for most legal immigrants to have a job "on the the way in." Obviously, H1B visa-holders are an exception, but they are also but a small, small percentage of the overall legal immigrants coming into this country. (And technically, they're not even "immigrants" as the H1B visa is a temporary visa w/no intent for permanent settlement in the US.)

[Parafly9]

Link to substantiation of your claim that legal immigrants have such a good standard of living? Have college educations? Have health insurance? Own homes? :look:
)

It's primarily supposition, looking at immigrants that I know, (including myself - Canadian!). The bottom line is, the motivation for immigration to the United States is VERY DIFFERENT depending on whether you are legal or illegal.

Legal Immigrants - typically with a Green Card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card) - (I had one for 20 years before becoming a citizen in 2001)

can enter the country for these reasons:

* immigration through a family member
* immigration through employment
* immigration through investment
* immigration through the Diversity Lottery
* immigration through "The Registry" provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act

So, most of them come through for JOBS which they already have or investments. This means they are coming into the country typically already contributing.


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - why do THEY come here? It's to escape a crappy lifestyle for the promise of a better life. Certainly noble... if I were a poor Mexican or Honduran or Cuban I would sure as hell rather be in the US as well. However, their conditions are by default different. If life was great in Mexico, they would stay there. But life SUCKS in Mexico. (in this context, Mexico = majority of illegals so I am using it as the example here) Illegal Immigrants from Mexico are typically teh poorest people in Mexico - not the well to do or well educated. The immigration from Mexico is the poorest of the poor, the least able portion of the populace.


(This is from Wikipedia; It is the following format:

TYPE OF VISA
DESCRIPTION
YEARLY LIMIT
BACKLOG

Family-Sponsored
IR Immediate relative (spouses, minor children & parents) of US citizens
(A US citizen must be at least 21 years of age in order to sponsor his or her parents.) No numerical limit)

F1 Unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age or older) of US citizens
23,400
6-7 years

F2A Spouses and minor children (under 21 year old) of lawful permanent residents
87,934
5-6 years

F2B Unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age or older) of lawful permanent residents 26,266
9-10 years

F3 Married sons and daughters of US citizens
23,400
8-9 years
F4
Brothers and sisters of adult US citizens
65,000 10-11 years

Employment-Based EB1 Priority workers -- persons with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics, or outstanding professors and researchers
40,000
currently available

EB2 Professionals holding advanced degrees (Ph.D., master's degree, or at least 5 years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) or persons of exceptional ability in sciences, arts, or business
40,000
currently available

EB3 Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers
40,000
5 years

EB4 Certain special immigrants -- ministers, religious workers, current or former US government workers, etc.
10,000
currently available

EB5 Investors
10,000
currently available

Diversity Immigrant (DV)
55,000

Political Asylum
No numerical limit

Refugee
70,000

[Parafly9]

Interesting power point

http://www.nast.net/2007.annual.conference/Ben%20Wattenberg%20Demographic%20Trends%20In%20the %20US.ppt

[smegalicious]

It's primarily supposition, looking at immigrants that I know, (including myself - Canadian!). The bottom line is, the motivation for immigration to the United States is VERY DIFFERENT depending on whether you are legal or illegal.
Well, at least you admit it. ;)

Legal Immigrants - typically with a Green Card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Permanent_Resident_Card) - (I had one for 20 years before becoming a citizen in 2001)

can enter the country for these reasons:

* immigration through a family member
* immigration through employment
* immigration through investment
* immigration through the Diversity Lottery
* immigration through "The Registry" provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act

So, most of them come through for JOBS which they already have or investments. This means they are coming into the country typically already contributing.
:shake:

The links you provided do not in any way substantiate your prior claim that most legals already have a job upon entry to the US.

Family-member sponsorship is the biggest category of immigration. There are no job requirements in this category. Such immigrants may have a "plan" or a suggestion re where to get work on arrival, but the same can be said for illegals. And such a plan does not mean they are coming here "already contributing". :shake:


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - why do THEY come here? It's to escape a crappy lifestyle for the promise of a better life. Certainly noble... if I were a poor Mexican or Honduran or Cuban I would sure as hell rather be in the US as well. However, their conditions are by default different. If life was great in Mexico, they would stay there. But life SUCKS in Mexico. (in this context, Mexico = majority of illegals so I am using it as the example here) Illegal Immigrants from Mexico are typically teh poorest people in Mexico - not the well to do or well educated. The immigration from Mexico is the poorest of the poor, the least able portion of the populace.

And legal immigrants come here because life was peachy-keen back in their home country? :dontknow: There are *legal* immigrants from Mexico (and other parts of Central America) who come here in order to escape their crappy life back home.

Not to be too personal, but what was your movitation for coming here? Did you think you would have more or fewer opportunities than in Canada? Were you trying to make a better or worse life for yourself and your family? :dontknow:

[Parafly9]

Not to be too personal, but what was your movitation for coming here? Did you think you would have more or fewer opportunities than in Canada? Were you trying to make a better or worse life for yourself and your family? :dontknow:

My father came here (i was only 2 so I didn't have a hand in the decision :D) because his job transferred him here.

[Parafly9]

And legal immigrants come here because life was peachy-keen back in their home country? :dontknow: There are *legal* immigrants from Mexico (and other parts of Central America) who come here in order to escape their crappy life back home.
:

Of course not. But these are metered out by the government. It should be up to our government to decide HOW MANY people we should take in each year from various socioeconomic lifestyles to benefit the USA.

There's a big difference between 100,000 or 200,000 legal poor immigrants and 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 poor people entering illegally.

Reviewing the link from earlier again:

Each year,
140,000 people legally immigrate for JOBS or INVESTMENTS
200,000 for FAMILY SPONSORED
50,000 for "DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT"
70,000 for REFUGEE

Of those, the backlog is basically all in FAMILY SPONSORSHIP

The bottom line is, that EVERYONE who comes here illegally is looking to improve their lives by coming to America, but sadly they are also typically the bottom-of-the barrell.

Illegal immigrants typically don't turn into great success stories in the US.

Legal immigrants, at least 1/3 of them, are here for jobs and investment. These people are contributing members of society.

[smegalicious]

Of course not. But these are metered out by the government. It should be up to our government to decide HOW MANY people we should take in each year from various socioeconomic lifestyles to benefit the USA.

There's a big difference between 100,000 or 200,000 legal poor immigrants and 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 poor people entering illegally.
Like what? Aside from the obvious difference wrt method of entry, what is so fundamentally different about X number of poor legal immigrants and X number of poor illegals?

Reviewing the link from earlier again:

Each year,
140,000 people legally immigrate for JOBS or INVESTMENTS
200,000 for FAMILY SPONSORED
50,000 for "DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT"
70,000 for REFUGEE

Of those, the backlog is basically all in FAMILY SPONSORSHIP

The bottom line is, that EVERYONE who comes here illegally is looking to improve their lives by coming to America, but sadly they are also typically the bottom-of-the barrell.
I'm not suggesting that illegals immigrants aren't typically poor. I'm suggesting that legals "typically" are, too.

Illegal immigrants typically don't turn into great success stories in the US.
Source?

For many, simply leaving their home country and raising their family in relative peace and comfort might be considered a *huge* success story.

Legal immigrants, at least 1/3 of them, are here for jobs and investment. These people are contributing members of society.
Again, many of the employment-based visas (like the H1B) are not for immigrants. To be an immigrant, by ICE's own definition, means demonstrating an intent to permanantly reside in the US. H1B holders do not have to display any such intent and are by definition, temporary visitors to the US.

In other words, apples and oranges.