 | CanadaSucks (45)
10/09/2006 | I just fell off the back of my chair at work after reading this. . .I need smelling salts. . .I'm not kidding. . .I actually read it twice to make sure it wasn't a misprint. . .
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | VirileVagabond (32)
10/09/2006 | I'm afraid that anyone who argues that immigration is necessary to save Social Security and similar programs isn't really arguing in good faith. I say this because while it may help shore up these programs in the short-term, this is by no means a viable long-term solution. First, lower-skilled workers contribute less than average, and as they age others will simply have to take their place. It would only work (as another comment noted) if they are not allowed to benefit from the system, which works for me since the program is actually a general revenue tax as presently administered. Nevertheless, since such a plan is obviously unsustainable, it would never work long-term without enacting additional real and material reforms. The bottom line is that this idea is akin to saving Amway by simply finding more suckers to buy into the scheme.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | DrEntropy (38)
05/03/2006 | The immigration of medical personel (Indian doctors, Fillipino nurses) does help lower the cost of health care, which will be necessary if medical entitlements for an aging population are to continue. However, Social Security is not going to be saved by importing unskilled migrants from Mexico and Central America. Unless you want to get really Machiavellian and import them as 'guest workers' who must pay payroll taxes, then send them home to their host countries before they retire and collect benefits (the Bush plan).
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
