Advanced Beneficiary Notice Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

How will the proposed rule change for continuing disability reviews (CDR) affect your benefit qualifications adjusted for advances in medical treatment and technology that mitigates or removes the impairment to work? (Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability Reviews)I do not think the proposed rules will affect my disability benefits.The upside of the proposed rule appears to benefit disabled seniors over the age of 55 during the periodic CDR (continuing disability review) by taking into account thatage reduces functionality andit is more difficult to return to the workforce.This is good news since advances in medical technology or treatment could lead to a CDR determination that you are able to return to work.SOURCE: Robin4asciiThe downside is the categories for determining how often to perform CDR has expanded from three to four in an effort to better match the probability of medical improvement with medical advancement. Critics believe a significant number of beneficiaries will lose their benefits although their health is still poor because medical improvement is expected by the date of CDR. It is assumed, beneficiaries will have to apply and o prove otherwise — a process that can take upwards of two or more years..STATUS:The comment period ended on January 31, 2020.Printed version: PDFPublication Date: 11/18/2019Agency: Social Security AdministrationAgency Contact Cheryl Williams, Office Director [email protected] 966-4163Office of Disability Policy, 6401 Security BoulevardBaltimore, MD 21235-6401Dates:To ensure your comments are considered we must receive your comments by January 17, 2020.Comments Closed: 01/31/2020Document Type: AdministrationDocument Citation: 84 FR 63588Page: 63588-63601 (14 pages)CFR:20 CFR 40420 CFR 416Agency/Docket Number: SSA-2018–0026 Regulations.govRIN: 0960-AI27Document Number: 2019-24700Docket Name: Rules Regarding the Frequency and Notice of Continuing Disability ReviewsDocket RIN 0960-AI27Public Comments: 125400 Pageviews views: 404,706 as of 02/19/2020 at 4:15 pm EST

There are several answers to your question. I will offer one of my own invention (which I consider the superior of the two), and the other was published and thoroughly studied by the IMF, or at least by several of its employees with the use of IMF resources and computer modeling. The IMF concept is an excellent proposal in its own right, but i believe it could be considerably improved on. I would suggest implementing the IMF proposal immediately, nationwide, then experimenting with my proposal at a local level, in an individual state, city or county, before expanding it nationwide and globally (since fractional reserve banking is used around the world, not just in the United States).The first proposal is known as “The Chicago Plan”. It was originally put forward in the wake of the Great Depression (which occurred only 16 years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed). The proposal was forgotten for many years, then resurrected by the aforementioned team within the IMF after the 2008 crash, with a new study of the old proposal, titled “The Chicago Plan Revisited”.My plan is fairly simple. Abolish not only fractional reserve banking, but all usury, so that nearly all lending as a form of capitalization for corporations is replaced entirely by equity (i.e stock, investments in corporate shares, instead of debt/bonds), while commercial deposit banks are replaced by investment banks with a cash reserve ratio and some small limitations on withdrawals that exceed a certain percentage of the total value of the account, i.e. such withdrawals might take a few extra days while the account-holder’s securities are being sold to satisfy their withdrawal. So instead of putting one’s money in a bank for perhaps 1% interest on deposits, while those deposits are lent out by the bank at perhaps 5%-10% on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, etc., the depositor would have a little less than half their deposits kept in cash, while most of the deposits are invested in stocks, resulting in capital gains and dividends of around 5% on the deposited funds (10% on the investments, 0% on the cash), while the bank charges a fee on the invested portion of the deposits, like an investment bank or a fund manager would, except the fee would be on the profits from the investments, not a percentage of the funds invested).The Chicago Plan, in short, was also very simple: require 100% reserve backing for deposits. The “revisited” plan used the latest and greatest computer modeling software available to the IMF to model exactly what such a proposal would look like if it were implemented nationwide in the United States, and their findings were that such an economy would look far better than the current US economy, across the board.The broad headlines of the IMF findings were that:a. All of the findings of the original Chicago Plan proposal are supported by the best available IMF data and computer modeling of the modern AUS economy, given the proposed changes put forward by the Chicago Plan.b. US GDP would grow by 10% per year.c. Virtually all public and private debt in the entire United States, including all government debt, would be eliminated within roughly a 10 year period (the IMF’s words, and the conclusions of their super-computer modeling, not my words or my conclusions).d. There could never again be a run on the bankse. Inflation would drop to zero.f. Enormous reduction of the boom-bust economic cycle, i.e. no more crashes of 1929 or 2008, but not so much “irrational exuberance” in the recovery from those crashes either, which of course would be vastly better for the average retail investor and pensioner, since most investors do the worst thing possible, and sell in the terror of the crash, then buy in the exuberance of the recovery (i.e buy high and sell low, rather than buying low and selling high), when the professional investors take Warren Buffet’s advice to be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.But if you don’t believe me when I say that is what an economy without fractional reserve banking would look like, then hear from the IMF themselves in the paragraphs below.To save a bit of time on my part, I will simply quote both the abstract and the conclusion of the IMF report directly, rather than paraphrasing. I should note, however, that the full report is 71 pages, and is filled with abundant details of what such an economy would indeed look like. You may read the full report here, on the IMF’s website:The Chicago Plan RevisitedAt the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/31/The-Chicago-Plan-Revisited-26178Abstract:“At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher's claims. Furthermore, output gains approach 10 percent, and steady state inflation can drop to zero without posing problems for the conduct of monetary policy.”Conclusion:“This paper revisits the Chicago Plan, a proposal for fundamental monetary reform that was put forward by many leading U.S. economists at the height of the Great Depression.Fisher (1936), in his brilliant summary of the Chicago Plan, claimed that it had four major advantages, ranging from greater macroeconomic stability to much lower debt levels throughout the economy. In this paper we are able to rigorously evaluate his claims, by applying the recommendations of the Chicago Plan to a state-of-the-art monetary DSGE model that contains a fully microfounded and carefully calibrated model of the current U.S. financial system. The critical feature of this model is that the economy’s money supply is created by banks, through debt, rather than being created debt-free by the government.Our analytical and simulation results fully validate Fisher’s (1936) claims. The Chicago Plan could significantly reduce business cycle volatility caused by rapid changes in banks’ attitudes towards credit risk, it would eliminate bank runs, and it would lead to an instantaneous and large reduction in the levels of both government and private debt. It would accomplish the latter by making government-issued money, which represents equity in the commonwealth rather than debt, the central liquid asset of the economy, while banks concentrate on their strength, the extension of credit to investment projects that require monitoring and risk management expertise. We find that the advantages of the Chicago Plan go even beyond those claimed by Fisher. One additional advantage is larges teady state output gains due to the removal or reduction of multiple distortions,including interest rate risk spreads, distortionary taxes, and costly monitoring of macroeconomically unnecessary credit risks. Another advantage is the ability to drive steady state inflation to zero in an environment where liquidity traps do not exist, and where monetarism becomes feasible and desirable because the government does in fact control broad monetary aggregates. This ability to generate and live with zero steady state inflation is an important result, because it answers the somewhat confused claim of opponents of an exclusive government monopoly on money issuance, namely that such a monetary system would be highly inflationary. There is nothing in our theoretical framework to support this claim. And as discussed in Section II, there is very little in the monetary history of ancient societies and Western nations to support it either.”Direct Link to the PDF of the Full Report:https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdfAs for the details of my proposed plan, I would suggest a fairly large portion be held in cash, around 40% of each depositor’s total funds, while the rest would be invested in highly diversified, un-leveraged, mid- to low-beta securities (i.e. equities, stock in corporations, since there would be no bonds left to invest in if public and private debt would soon be completely eliminated, first by the Chicago Plan proposal, then by law). This would be a deposit bank, after all, and if the depositor wanted to invest a higher percentage of his funds in equities, he could simply deposit most of his money in a normal brokerage, while the aforementioned “commercial deposit investment bank”, if you will, would be used for everyday deposits and withdrawals. Of course, there would be many accounts that would have little money in them, or none at all by the end of the month, so little money would be made from them, but the same is true for today’s commercial deposit accounts. The bank would not be allowed to charge a fee on deposits, or on holding an account, but rather, it would earn a percentage of the profits that the depositor earns on his investments, which should add up to an enormous amount of money each year. The notion that banks would go bankrupt or be forced to charge higher fees if an account has low funds, or if fractional reserve banking were not allowed, as argued by some of the other answers to this question, is of course absurd. Bankers and financiers are the wealthiest people in the world. This should really not be so, because their contributions to the economy are not greater than that of other sectors of the economy, in terms of actual value and wealth generated. They should be less wealthy than the operators of the corporations that produce goods and services of greater value. They should not become multi-billionaires simply because they are managers of everyone else’s money, but rather, the fact that they do is the clearest evidence of corruption, inefficiency, and perverse incentives in the industry and in the broader economy, especially since well over 90% of their wealth was not created by their services, or their fees, but rather, by a single law which allowed them to lend out 10 times more money than they had in deposits (i.e. the Federal Reserve Act itself, which was written and promoted by the financiers, by the lenders and bankers). If the US has M3 Money Supply of $19.2 Trillion, as it does, and all of that is deposited in some bank, as most of it is, and this new variety of “commercial deposit investment bank” invests 60% of that amount, rather than lending out 10 times that much (or $11.5 Trillion in investments), and those investments average a return of 10%-11% compounded annually, as the well diversified S&P 500 does (a total return of $1.15 Trillion annually), and the deposit investment banks charge a fee of 5% of those average annual profits, that would result in an average annual revenue of $57.5 Billion per year. Since our modern banks have proven that, while they pretend there is a free market, in reality, the various firms collude as an oligopoly to fix prices and fees above market rates, this 5% of annual investment profits will be set as an upper limit to what a firm is allowed to charge. They may charge more as a regular brokerage if they wish, if their customers will pay it, but these deposit investment banks will be the monetary backbone of the society, so usury and exploitation through price fixing and collusion must be prohibited, in any and all forms such behavior may take, including the form of excessive fees on investment income. Firms would be further required to set aside much of their fees on investment income, to ensure they could weather downturns in the stock market, for years at a time, when there might be little or no return on investments on which to charge a fee, much like the story of Joseph and the 7 fat years followed by 7 lean years. Thus, they would be expected to accumulate enough cash reserves (not the depositors’ cash, but their own cash, from their own firm’s profits made from fees charged as a percentage of the depositors’ profits) to cover their operating costs for up to 7 years, after which they could spend as much as they wish on whatever they wish. The firms would not be permitted to charge a fee as a percentage of the amount deposited, nor the amount invested, but only a percentage of the profits earned from the investments, so the bank would only profit when its depositors profit, so that their financial interests would be aligned with those of their depositors, unlike now, where the bank profits most when their depositors earn least and are most in debt, which creates a perverse, predatory incentive ot maximize debt, which actually also minimizes household wealth and GDP. As with the depositors, 60% of the firm’s reserves could be invested, while the rest should be held in cash, to limit the risk of loss of principle during economic downturns, and to ensure liquidity and stability of the commercial deposit investment banking system and the overall economy. Similarly, the depositor’s account would be re-balanced each year to ensure a 40/60 ratio between cash and investments is maintained, so that, in the event of an investment downturn, or larger than usual outflows, liquidity would be maintained while risk was also mitigated. Depositors could invest less than 60% of their cash, but to keep the bank profitable, the economy growing, and the depositor participating in that economic growth, the depositor would be required to invest at least 10% of their deposits in the bank. They would have broad choices in what to invest in, but the funds that could be invested in would have to include at least 100 different stocks spread across at least 3 minimally-correlated sectors, and the fund would be required to have a beta of less than 1.2, to maximize stability and liquidity of the system, while minimizing fluctuations. These figures are strategically calculated by the author, but could of course be modified by the legislature, at either the state or federal level, however they wanted to regulate it.In a very few years, and for all generations that would follow thereafter, the citizenry would have substantial and steadily growing net median household savings, instead of net median household debt, would own their homes outright, and would be able to pay for their childrens’ homes, because debt would no longer be artificially created nor artificially inflated to 10 times the levels that would ever have been possible without fractional reserve banking, which would never have existed in free markets without the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, which was proposed by net lenders and the primary beneficiaries of the system, such as Paul Warburg, J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, and Rockefeller’s uncle in law, Senator Nelson Aldrich , the primary sponsor of the Federal Reserve Act (Aldrich’s daughter married John D. Rockefeller 7 years prior to the formation of the Aldrich-Vreeland commission, and 12 years prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act). At first, though, citizens would be required to save money and pay cash for their homes, if you can imagine that. While that might sound like a hardship, at first, I would remind you that doing so cuts the total cost of the home in half, since half the cost of most mortgaged homes is interest. Those who had to build sooner would have to turn to their community, their family, and their church or their synagogue for help, and they would have a moral duty to help them, without charging them interest, just as the Bible commands us to.So there you have it: a perfectly viable plan for an economy that not only does away with fractional reserve banking, but does away with usury altogether. Not only that, but this plan would still have all the economic benefits of the Chicago Plan (tripled GDP, elimination of all public and private debt, minimized boom/bust cycles, 0% inflation, etc), and on top of that, Americans would very soon find the median household income would be rapidly increasing, as most of it would soon be investment income, since rather than the paltry 1% return their savings account, while inflation is 2% to 3%, in my proposed banking system, their return would be at least 6% on average (10% return on 60% of their deposits, while 40% remains in cash), but probably the return would be more like a 9% return (15% return on 60% of their deposits), since the overall GDP would be growing so much faster than it is in our current heavily indebted and therefore mostly stagnant economy, since there would be no corporate or consumer or government debt to slow it down, and surely much of that GDP growth would be passed down to the corporations, which would in turn pass those increased profits on to the investors of the diversified exchange traded funds, which 60% of the deposits would be invested in. And on top of that 6%-9% return on deposits, the depositors would have 0% inflation (so that would result in a net return on savings of 6%-9%, rather than negative 1%-2%, as it is today, after their deposit interest is adjusted for inflation), and their overall costs of living would be dramatically reduced, since their cars and houses would cost half as much once the cost of interest on mortgages and car loans is eliminated, even if that means working and living with your parents for a few years before you get married and buy your first home with cash, without a mortgage. Overall, America would be a far better place, far more politically stable, far more prosperous, far more free and just, with much happier citizens, and our bankers would still be extremely wealthy, wealthier every year, but would no longer be accurately seen as thinly veiled tyrants, undeserving of even 10% of their present wealth, which they acquired through debt that was created by law, artificially, who therefore have acquired total domination of the entire economy and total subjugation of nearly the entire citizenry and all future generations, as is the case today.(Belated image caption: notice in the image at the top that interest rates and the inflation rate steadily declined as the national balance sheet’s debt to income ratio steadily deteriorated; this is not at all normal, cannot be maintained indefinitely, and is a ticking economic time bomb that will go off eventually, globally, much as it did in 1929, 16 years after the FED was established. The FED rate being stuck at 0, and negative in other nations, means the fuse is getting rather short, with no further stimulus available, without hyper inflation, and the only way out is abolishing fractional reserve banking, or else forgiving the debt, worldwide, with the abolition of fractional reserve banking and the active encouragement of household savings being the preferred option, by far, and the only long-term solution. Watch and see if you don’t believe me. Polish-Lithuanian peasantry (near-slave) driving, justified by malevolent and entirely artificial, hereditary indebtedness to the landholding oligarchy was what actually invented the Cossack/proto-Marx alliance, which led to the violent destruction of that same landholding oligarchy (regardless of whether or not the landholding oligarchy intended to accomplish the exact opposite, which obviously it did), just as fractional reserve banking and fiat currency money printing established by the Rothschilds and Paul Warburg’s ancestors, with the blessing of (and in actuality under the direct command of) the Holy Roman Emperors, was what really did lay the groundwork for WW1, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, and WW2, with its supposedly baseless but actually quite accurate tendency to blame certain classes of financiers for the hardships of the German working class (much as the peasantry of medieval Europe had so often blamed the first and only middle class in Europe at that time for all the evils of the world, while conveniently over-looking the role of the European monarchs and nobles, whom had employed said middle class in the coining of currency and the lending of money, and given them little choice in the matter other than a torturous death and genocide of their entire population, then laid all the blame for the misery of the peasantry on said middle class, which nonetheless did share some blame, in the eyes of God, if only that of a junior partner) and Alan Greenspan + J.P. Morgan + Paul Warburg + Bretton Woods + Rockefeller + Aldrich-Vreeland + Bush Wars + Deep State budgets + Bank Bailouts, etc. were the true founders of Antifa, American Socialism, the Tea Party, the Proud Boys, the Mexican Invasion and the coming thalassocracy of the People’s Liberation Army Navy of China in the Pacific and the south and east China seas. They dug their own graves with their terrible, misguided, unjust and ultimately self-defeating policies, just as the arrogance and over-confidence of Coriolanus led to the first Plebeian secessions in Republican Rome, then the murder of Spurious Cassius led to the murder of Cicero, followed by the murder of Boethius and the reign of Theodoric (the first German King of Italy), and the complete destruction and subjugation of the “Eternal City”, whose ruins became a cautionary tale for all future empires which might build their edifices upon a most unsound foundation of net household debt and crushing usury … because sometimes, fore-warned is not fore-armed, but is rather merely for-gotten by the many, and fore-boding to a minuscule, disempowered, and much-ridiculed un-lucky few, who fore-saw the impending disaster, but whose warnings were promptly ignored and discounted as overly pessimistic catastrophizing, until the catastrophe arrived, as it was always certain to from the moment the unsound foundation was laid)(The images below are both paintings by Michelangelo. On the left is the Jewish Prophet Ezekiel, who said. “[He who] hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” On the right is the Jewish Prophet Isaiah, who accurately foretold the conquest and destruction of Israel by the Assyrians, and rightly attributed the downfall of the nation to its sins, its oppression of the majority for the benefit of the ruling elite, and its persecution of the most wise and just, in order to conceal the truth of the rot that was consuming the nation from within. For this honorable and benevolent service, the King of Judah had Isaiah sawn in half alive. It is said in the Midrash that, when God called Isaiah to speak to Israel on His behalf, the Lord forewarned Isaiah of the danger of speaking the truth of the consequences of sin and injustice, saying, “My children are troublesome and sensitive; if you are ready to be insulted and even beaten by them, you may accept My message; if not, you would better renounce it."(Image below: Cassandra looks on as Troy burns. after her father the King and all the nobles of Troy ignored her forewarnings of that very fate, illustrating the common theme across the ages and around the world, of those who accurately foretell impending ruin, brought on by the poor judgement, self-destructive behavior, and willful blindness of the rulers and the people of a society, yet who are then completely ignored and ridiculed and sometimes even murdered simply for trying to warn their people of a coming disaster, in an effort to save them from it, if only they would take the hard but right choices that would be necessary to escape their own destruction, which they so seldom do)Cassandrahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

It would be in their best interests to enter US a legal alien permanent resident. It is the preferred routeThe problem is getting a US immigrant visa.Here is a link to the US Department of State’s Visa Bulletin page. Check the current bulletin for current delays on issuance of immigrant visas. (the famous green card)The Visa BulletinThe first column is the visa type. You can look up the requirements & cost of filing in each category at USCISHomeThere is a third group of immigrant visas. Asylum and special visas for designated categories granted visa rights for a purpose approved by the US Government (Translators in the Iraq Gulf Wars and their families for example who were being killed for working with the US government). The odd duck in this group is the Visa Lottery. If you are a resident of a country that US receives fewer than the Congressional quota of immigrants from, then US holds a lottery in order to distribute the unused visa numbers. This is officially called a “Diversity Visa” (Diversity Visa Program)The problem for those wanting to temporarily enter legally is also getting a visaAlmost anyone can apply for a visitor visa and for countries on the US Visa Waiver list it is as easy as presenting a valid passport at a land border Port of Entry and getting a visa stamp with an expiration date (Air and Sea travelers must apply for an ESTA before boarding for travel to US) Visa Waiver ProgramFor other countries such as Philippines it requires filing at a US Consulate, paying the fee and interviewing (the denial rate for Philippines is “only” 80% to 90% for B1/B2 tourist/business visitor visas)non-immigrant visas have time limits that range from 90 days no extension allowed to 7 or 8 years (non-immigrant employment)The interview stops a percentage of applicants every year. Basically if, in the opinion of the interviewer at the US consulate, the beneficiary is not seeking to enter for the purpose stated on the petition, then the visa is denied. This includes US citizen family member petitions. Additionally for non-immigrant visas, if in the opinion of the interviewer, the applicant is at risk of not leaving US before their visa expires then the visa is denied (this is the most common reason for denying a visa)Immigration control at Ports of Entry is the next hurdle. If in the opinion of the Immigration Officer you are not admissable (no appeal, including to onsite supervisor permitted) then you are refused entry to the country. If this occurs at a land border, then you are simply not allowed to cross the border. If this occurs at an airport or seaport then you are held (technically outside US territory since you were not admitted to the US, so NO civil rights) until transportation to another country can be arranged.If you consider the difficulty for those without advanced college degrees, US citizen “immediate” relatives, or the right connections, you will quickly understand why so many choose to enter illegally, raise US citizen children and do their best to avoid attracting the attention of CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) and ICE (Immigration and Citizenship Enforcement)The good news is that once in US if they behave in an otherwise lawful manner, find ways to support themselves and avoid the notice of ICE and CBP they will be tolerated by the government and for the most part welcomed by their Legal Resident and US citizen neighbors. Even when caught, if they don’t have a serious criminal record, the deportation proceedings can be drawn out for decades while the “deportee” continues to live and work in the US.The famous DACA program falls in this category with limited support from the US government to award citizenship to children who illegally entered the US and attended school while remaining illegally in the US. In order to discourage the practice of illegally bringing ofr sending minor children into US, many US politicians wish to make an example of how harsh US Government punishment can be and inflict the ultimate torture … Giving US citizenship to these childrenThink of it, for the rest of their lives, they will have to report their income to the IRS and be free of harassment when crossing the US Border. Can you think of a worse punishment than that?What is required is to illegally enter the United States and live a law abiding lifestyle, receiving free schooling (in many countries families pay enrollment fees for their children as there are no free schools) and for decades violating US immigration law and subjecting their friends and family to possible criminal prosecution (it is a crime for anyone to transport, harbor or encourage an illegal alien without government permission … this can result in years of jail time and/or thousands of dollars in fines)https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/IF11410.pdf (PDF).If they can avoid deportation until the next amnesty, then their odds of obtaining a green card or US passport is extremely high.Illegal alien amnesties that grant green cards or citizenship to long term illegal aliens in order to reduce the illegal alien population come up for Congressional review roughly every 20 to 30 years. We are currently overdue for the next one. For some reason though forcing illegals to become legal residents with a path to citizenship or immediate citizenship fails to discourage others who might be planning to settle illegally in US. Whoda thunkit … SMHWe really need to work harder to convince them furriners of the harsh and godawful reality of living in US as a poor person (with a lifestyle that only the upper middle class and wealthy can afford in the poor countries they are leaving)