Asturian-American Migration Forum

How kind of you not to have a problem with "your" tax dollars going to help the elderly. You know Xose, you make it sound like a hand out no matter how you turn a phrase.

You also said...

"Its still a form of welfare for many people (widows for example)."

My daughter was widowed at 38...my son-in-law paid into it until he died. She doesn't receive one penny because she works.

But her daughter my grandaughter, does and will until the age of 14. She will never collect what he put into it. Many times there are widows who can't work for whatever reason, so they should collect for themselves and their children.

I think you had better get off this SS subject. For years the Dems have said this in every election and its still here!

By the way President Bush's plan is an option...

How young you are, Xose! I don't know how long you've been working and if you ever thought about how long you will have to work, but believe me, you won't think the same after you've been working and paying for 40 d----d years. When you have worked and paid that long to support preceding generations of retirees, you KNOW it's your right to be on the receiving end. That's the way things work - one hand washes the other. All democratic societies (and non-democratic ones too, i.e. Cuba) work that way.
----------------------------------------------
Qué joven eres, Xose! No sé cuánto tiempo llevas trabajando y si alguna vez pensaste en cuánto más vas a tener que trabajar, pero créeme, no pensarás lo mismo después de haber estado trabajando y pagando durante 40 malditos años. Cuando has trabajado y pagado tanto tiempo para apoyar a las anteriores generaciones de jubilados, SABES que tienes todo el derecho a poner la mano. Así es como funcionan las cosas - una mano lava la otra. Todas las sociedades democráticas (y las no-democráticas también, como Cuba por ejemplo).

Terechu, I am NOT against Social Security. I am absolutely PRO social security, and I hope that the Republicans don't wreck it, so that I'll be able to get my share when I turn 65. Even if I don't get my share, I hope that the Republicans don't wreck it, because I don't mind paying for the elderly to have decent housing and food.

Again, to be clear, I want all retirees to be able to collect Social Security, me included. My problem is with people who one one hand decry government social programs and on the other take money from the biggest of all social programs. That's hypocracy.

My other problem is with the economic advisors in this administration who are doing all they can to make the program go bankrupt. I guess when you're on the take from Halliburton, you don't need SS when you retire....

Barbara, I'm not making this up! Google "Social Security insolvency" on the Internet and see what you come up with. This is a serious threat to millions of people my age who hope to one day get out of SS some of what they put in.

P.S. I'm glad you think I'm young...that must be a good photo!

I'm curious. Ken and Barbara, this question is for you. Please don't take it as sarcastic or condescending, because it isn't. I'm legitimately curious as to your answers.

Both of you seem to think that the government hands out too much money to poor people, thus making them dependent on the government. My question is this. If you were all-powerful, and could get any law or program passed with no obstacles, what would you offer instead of welfare for the poor to keep them from living in abject poverty?

In fact, I'll ask this of everyone on the board. I'd like to see your solutions to this age-old problem.

Ken,
I know Xose don't need any help but when I write you telling that Irak must be invaded because Sadam was a harmful dictator who kill his country men, I can kelp making you a question: why you Republican,- if you don't like mean dictators- didn't invade Chile to take away Pinochet in the eighties? Hadn't he killed thousands of innocent people?. But I know, they were supposed to be comunists, that was what Pinochet said. It didn't mind. But China is comunist, it has atomic weapons, and so has Korea. Why don't you invade China or Korea?. Yes, they really have atomic weapons, they are really harmful.

Miguel, good points on Chile, China, etc. With your questions, what are your proposed solutions?? Since you brought these countries up, you surely have some ideas on how to solve that one. What would you have done about Iraq?? Keep waiting for the UN?

One solution is to use the UN. This organization has exhibited superb problem solving capabilities and has been actively involved in getting rogue states to become world citizens. I hate to pick on the UN, and you didn't even mention that group, but that is the world body for solutions, or as we hoped in the 1940-50's with Eleanor Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson, and in my opinion two of this country's greatest citizens, leading he charge.

Holy crap! Ken and I agree on something! YES! Use the UN!

Xose, you are having a bad day. My comments if read properly and fully understand the tone and content was a slur about the UN. "Superb problem solving capabilities and actively involved" should have been your first clues. Comments about Roosevelt and Stevenson were from the heart.

I was going to add a comment after the sentence as such (tongue in cheek) but was afraid Miguel would not understand American slang as I believe Miguel may be in Spain or Latin America.

Damn, my hopes for your Kerry conversion dashed again!

javascript:emoticon('')

Ken, in my modest opinion, the UN's superb problem-solving capacities are really nothing compared to Bush's.
You've been attacked by Saudi-based, Saudi-financed Al-Qaeda and what does he do? Invade dirt-poor Afghanistan! Who cares about Bin Landen now? He's no longer a priority! Then why stay in Afghanistan? Oh, I don't know, could it be its strategic location between the oil and gas fields of Siberia? Nawww! It must be to allow Afghan women to walk around without the burkha and men to shave their beards if they like.

What does he do next? Invade Irak and start a new Vietnam. Weren't they saying there was no money to pay Social Security? Hellooooo! Then where do those zillions of Dollars now being spent on arms and keeping the war fueled come from?
I believe the bank accounts of Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mrs. Rice et al. are bursting at the seams from their sponsors' payoffs, to me that's plain looting and pillage!

An then there's no money for pensions, no money for a national health care system free for all. I'm not criticising the USA, mind you, a country I know well and love with my whole heart, I'm criticising your current president and his politics. And because I love the USA, I hope Kerry wins.

Terechu

Yes, Ken, I'm in Asturias, happily.Thanks for no using slang, and sorry for not having answered you before (and for my bad English). I don't have to propose any solution for Irak becouse there wasn't any problem before Bush's invasion. There weren't massive destruction weapons. There is a problem now that Bush has invaded it and the problem is the invasion itself. And there is no solution for this problem. Well, there is a solution: no vote Bush. Put Bush and Cheney and co in the jail, it's the only solution. All what they have done is illegal. They do what they do against the legality of the U.N. If U.S doesn´t respect the laws and resolutions of U.N,how can U.N solve problems?. Why is there a problem in Palestina?Because is what Bush wants, because he vetoes the U.N's resolutions about Palestine. Bush only respects the U.N's resolutions when they are what he wants. Am I partial?. Probably, but you too.
But you, as a good republican politician, hasn't answered my question: why hasn't you Republican,- if don't like bad dictators-, invaded Chile, or Argentina, or China, or even Saudi Arabia ?There are plenty of bad dictators all over the world. Why did Sadam have to be the first one in being defeated? Because he was the weakest?. Because Bush wanted to be a glorious president, more than his father?. Look up "miles gloriosus" in a latin dictionary.

Miguel, I am going to try to respond to you. It will be difficult as you seem to have very strong, hateful opinions of Bush, the USA. Send Bush to jail for what? Hell, Spain, the UN couldn't even nail Augusto Pinochet and jail him.

Let me try to dissect your posting the best I can.

Iraq:
--Hussein was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of his own people. Mostly Kurds and Shiittes, or anyone else who opposed him so he could stay in power. Evidence are the mass graves that have been unearthed. And the Iraqis who survived his torture camps provide evidence of his butal dictatorship.
--Hussein invaded Kuwait, and it took basically the US and British armies to move him back into his borders. Prior to that he took on Iran to a stalemate.
--As a result of the Iran/Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, mass killings by chemical weapons (also know as WMD's), the United Nations passed resolutions (I believe close to 20) seeking to have Hussein remove his WMD's and stop the killings of Kurd's. A no-fly zone was put into place to protect, primarilly the Kurds. Prior to implementing the no fly zone, Hussein requested after the first Iraq war if his military could keep their helicopters for peaceful purposes and the US/UN said okay. Those helicopters were than used to gas Kurds.
--The UN sat idly by and just passed resolutions, taking no firm action. Yes did sent in inspectators, and we can challenge that until the end of time if they, the inspectators were left in Iraq long enough. We will never know. Also, I am not sure if the UN inspectators were granted access to all of Iraq. One fact is they were not to the many large grounds that served as palaces for the Hussein family.
--With the threat of terrorism, and after the attack on the US by radical Muslims, the US felt justified in moving the attacks from this country to where the radicals are located. First stop in this war on terrorism was Afghanistan and the Tailban who were supporting Bin Laden and others. With the evidence that was available it was apparent to the UN that Iraq was harboring radicals and was further developing WMD's and possibly had not disposed of their WMD's as requested in the UN resolutions. Hussein would not prove the necessary data to substantiate the disposal of the WMD's from the surrender in the first Gulf War. The UN, being as weak as it is, and with France, Germany, Russia with oil interest in Iraq, there was no way to get support from the UN with veto power of France, Germany and Russia in the UN. The US had to go it alone with Britian and some other allies to include Spain at the time. Yes the Iraq war is unpopular in Europe. But what has to be done has to be done and it is. Out of the ashes of this Iraq will be a democratic, maybe not in the terms of a US democracy, but one where women and men can vote, practice their religion, get educated and move about freely without fear of Hussein, his sons and the Bath party. You should appreciate those freedoms, after all Spain now enjoys those freedoms with Franco gone.

Palestine:
--Depends if you support Hammas or the Palestinian case. Remember this issue started shortly after WWII with Jews from Europe and Asia going to the so-called promise land, which was then known as Palestine. Harry Truman, our Democrat President, at the time authorized the recognition of Israel as a state. Well, as we know there has been no peace in that area since. Since the establishment of Israel we have had 5 presidents from the Democratic party and 6 residents from the Republican party who all supported Israel, and Israel's right to exist. Each president tried to bring the two groups together with their various "Camp David" accords. But have failed. What is the solution? One is to grant Palestinian people a homeland and a guarantee of safety for the Israelis and the state of Israel. Will Hammas and the surrounding countries, Syria and Iran, allow that to work or even happen?
--You stated Bush veto's UN resolutions on Palsetine. Please provide me with the date and the resolution title as I would like to do some research on that.

Republican
--Miguel, I am not sure if you fully understand the meaning of political parties in the US. Being a Republican in the US is not the same as a Republican in Spain (guess I am thinking of the Spanish Civil War era). The two major parties in the US, Democrats and Republicans, at one time had different views on how to manage our economy. Republicans were thought to be from the rich class owning business or executives controlling companies, and the Democrats represented the blue collar worker and not so rich. Well today you really cannot tell the difference, in my opinion, between the two parties. In Congress today, there are more millionaire Democrats than Republicans. Views have merged and messages are confused to the point it is hard to label one versus the other, except when they try to convince the electorate of their positions. That's when you have to separate the b..s..from the reality. So my being a Republican is not the same as being a republican in Spain. Hell, I was Democrat from the time I registered to vote at 18 (1959) until the mid 1970's, and I still do not vote a straight party ticket, but split my vote for the individual not the party. See in the USA, unlike a lot of countries, being in a political party doesn't give you the choice jobs, etc. Here I am thinking of the Bathe party in Iraq under Hussein.

Dictators
--Why hasn't the US invaded Chile, Argentina. Hell, I don't know. We went to Granada to stop Castro and his Communist thugs from taking over that country. You are right, under all of our presidents since WWII the objective has been to stop Communism in South America. Hell the Monroe Doctrine was used in the 1800's to stop foreign influence in South America. Was it right, probably not today; Was it right then, probably yes.
--Key objective was to stop the growth of Communism in Central and South America and elsewhere. Were we successful, yes. Soviet style communism is no longer a threat to world peace. Still have Castro, but he is now but a joke, just waiting to die and the time will come. Nicraraua could have been an issue, but no longer is. The rebels there with a communist leaning were checkmated.
--Blame Bush for Augusto Pinochet and Juan Peron. Give me a break. Pinochet was in office from 1973 to 1990. That's under Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and the first Bush. Peron, 1946-1955 and again, 1973 until his death nine months later. US presidents, Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon. I do admit you did not mention Peron, but I assume he could be included as I believe since WWII he was the last dictator of Argentina.

So anyway, you may not like Bush or even the USA, but the freedoms you are enjoying today in Spain come from the sacrifices many an America boy and now women as they laid their blood down for you and will continue to do. You see most of Europe is too afraid to get involved, but enjoyed the hand outs from Americans (Marshall Plan), the war died and wounded, an so on, so you can have the right to bitch.

And if Spain does not feel a threat from radical Muslims, then look over your shoulder to Morocco and keep you eye pealed there. Its coming my friend. Remember, the Muslims feel a claim to your country. You ran them out in the 15th Century and they don't forget. It will come some day like a bad dream probably further worst than the Madrid train bombing, unless your prime minister, Rodriquez, wakes up and joins the fight to stop radical Islam in its tracks.

When you blame Bush, you blame America, me and thousands of others who have given you your freedom, otherwise Franco's party could still be running Spain. I know that is stretching it a bit to add Bush to this paragraph, but our war in Iraq, under Bush, and believe me if Kerry is elected, it will be under Kerry also, to provide the Iraqis with a level of freedom that haven't enjoyed in 30 years. Radical Islam does not want that as it threatens Iran and the potential spread of radical Islam into all countries of the Middle East, and to a degree Syria. Don't stop it now, it will be in Austrias before you know it and at your back door.

You spoke of dictators and why doesn't the US go after them, well I guess we do and did, in one way or another---Stalin is gone and the Soviet Communist empire is gone, Franco's gone, Pinochet's gone, Peron is gone, Hussein is gone, Orgeta is gone, Hitler is gone, Castro is a manner of time until his death will be gone. Just hope the Basque and the radical Islamic groups don't get together or you will see fireworks in your neighborhood.

Thank you Ken for your brillant response...

I am in complete agreement with you!

Please remember to respond to the ideas expressed by other members, but please do not characterize other member's opinion in negative ways (stupid, hateful, etc.) that could give inadvertent offense. It's perfectly possible for someone to support the positions of Bush or Kerry without necessarily loving them as people or as politicians. It's also perfectly possible for someone to oppose the ideas or policies of either one without necessarily hating them.

One small correction of a factual nature. After WWII, Spain was ruled by Francisco Franco and did not, as far as I know, benefit from the Marshall Plan. Franco remained in power--as the last Fascist dictator in Europe--until his death in 1975. Spain has since become a democracy. Perhaps our friends in Asturias could enlighten us about the series of events that led to this happy outcome.

Bob Martinez

I agree in that I'm not sure how the U.S. had anything to do with ending fascism in Spain; especially since we made all sorts of deals with Franco while he was in power to get access to his country for our military bases.

"With the evidence that was available it was apparent to the UN that Iraq was harboring radicals and was further developing WMD's and possibly had not disposed of their WMD's as requested in the UN resolutions."

I would disagree with this statement. It was anything but apparent.

"In Congress today, there are more millionaire Democrats than Republicans."

I would be interested to see factual data backing up this statement. I don't know if it's true or not, but it sounds fishy to me.

Ken is correct that Bush had nothing to do with Pinochet being in power in Chile. Nixon did. Now about the attempted coups in Venezuela recently....that's another matter.

"But the freedoms you are enjoying today in Spain come from the sacrifices many an America boy and now women as they laid their blood down for you and will continue to do." "When you blame Bush, you blame America, me and thousands of others who have given you your freedom, otherwise Franco's party could still be running Spain."

Ken, I don't agree with you on these points. I don't see how this could be true. It might be a good argument for France, Holland, Italy, or even Germany, but the U.S. government did nothing to stop Franco from gaining power (or keeping it).