In his primary night victory speech, Mike?™ McGavick went on the attack.
With Social Security going broke already, I don’t think paying benefits to illegal workers makes sense. And yet Sen. Cantwell voted to keep that practice in place.
But as Josh Feit points out over on Slog, that’s just plain uncivil:
These are direct attacks on Cantwell’s opposition to an amendment that would have prevented former illegal immigrants (who had paid into the Social Security system) from getting those payments back when they become legal.
Social Security does not pay benefits to illegal residents; what McGavick wants to do is deny legal residents from drawing benefits based on what they paid into the system when they were illegal.
Hey… you know what’s illegal Mike? Driving with a 0.17 blood-alcohol level. Maybe we should deny Social Security benefits to you and your family?
The amendment in question failed 50-49 with 11 Republicans voting with 39 Democrats. So much for McGavick’s claims of bipartisanship.
It’s certainly not civil to leave your wife and new child to run a political campaign. It’s not civil to represent the big oil interests of Alaska ahead of the legitimate interests of your own state. And it’s certainly not civil to drive so stoned drunk that you put other people’s lives at risk.
But then again who cares? Cantwell is gonna smoke this lying punk.
McG!s mother should march him right over there to Cantwell’s house and apologize. Then he should mow lawns to pay back for the damage he caused.
The problem Democrats face in elections is: How do we get the average voter to understand our excellent and nuanced positions that are designed to improve the common good?
The problem Republicans face is: How do we get the average voter to MISUNDERSTAND what we are really all about, which is , creating an ever more powerful TOP-DOWN ECONOMIC ELITE that cares about nothing except its own self-perpetuation.
Don’t any of you self-styled conservatives remember Frederick Jackson Turner?
Here’s an idea: how about letting workers have owenrship and direct that portion of the FICA witholding tax that goes for retirmement?
Once a worker owns his or her contribution, it doesn’t matter whether he or she is illegal or not – it’s his or her money, period , dot.
Of course, some people would be scared to take control, so let ’em stay in the current system. It’s mediocre, but comforting to lots of folks.
If someone was here illegally, how do they prove that they paid into the social security system? Did they fraudulently get a number or did they use someone else’s number? Nice to say they get what they paid in, but the problem is in the details. Most of what Maria says sounds nice, but is just pile of hooey.
Her current ad about port security would be nice, except that the unions who control the ports don’t want a single one of her initiatives. Which means she doesn’t want them either, and knows they will never work or be passed. But they make a good sound bite.
Discussing Maria’s politics are fair game and what happens in politics. When Mike starts discussing her private life, then that is when he will be guilty of incivility.
So we’ll all get together and defeat Mike McGavick by using Janet S/Pam Roach’s approach. We’ll just cry hooey and not provide any hard evidence to back up our positions.
It will be tons of fun to remind Janet and her ilk that they got beat AGAIN here in Washington where free-thinking, educated people aren’t fooled by Karl Rove’s lies.
Janet,
Is it Republican standard practice to conflate the meaning of the words “discuss” and “misrepresent”?
It will be tons of fun to remind Janet and her ilk that they got beat AGAIN here in Washington where free-thinking, educated people aren’t fooled by Karl Rove’s lies.
Commentby RightEqualsStupid— 9/22/06@ 3:44 pm
========
They they obviously didn’t go to any public schools in Washington.
Rights – explain to me how a worker who is now legal but was illegal proves what they paid into the system. It seems that whatever they show will prove them guilty of a crime, either identity theft or fraud. The fact that they were working illegally pretty much means that any proof of payment is questionable.
So tell me the details of what Maria wants to do, besides pander.
“But they make a good sound bite.”
Yeah, like Swiftboating veterans.
We’ve tried the conservative model of government for nearly 6 years now and the very people who’ve prmoted its cause have clearly proven it’s a failed experiment.
This country was founded on wildly liberal and progressive ideals and not conservative values. If that were the case we wouldn’t have the Constitution, we’d have a state religion and the Bible would be the law.
It’s time for the failed Christian Conservative leadership in this country to step aside and let honest people back in government.
Oy… Janet… I really hate to reply to you because of course, you know the answer.
All your payments and benefits are attached to your Social Security number, and are based on the amount of FICA tax you have paid over your lifetime. If you were paid under the table and didn’t make contributions, then you won’t get any benefits.
For a number of reasons, you don’t need to be a permanent resident to get a Social Security number, and so many “illegal” residents get one. (For example, one might have a temporary student or work visa that expires, and you become illegal by overstaying your visit.)
But of course, that’s so obvious, you must know it.
How can we trust Republicans on protect us from terrorists when this is the best Homeland Security can do to protect our political leaders in Washington, D.C.?
WASHINGTON – An armed man who ran through the U.S. Capitol this week was stopped by civilian employees, not police officers, authorities said Friday, reversing course in what was already an embarrassing security breach.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14955500/
This is precisely the reason why we cannot elect or re-elect Republicans into office. They simply have another agenda which has nothing to do with protecting America.
Want to know what their agenda is really about? Ask Abramoff, DeLay, Ney, Safavian, “Duke” Cunningham blah, blah, blah. You know the story. The conservative agenda is about greed, and the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil.
The Christian Conservatives sure do LOVE their money. Right, JCH? Except Abramoff, he’s just a conservative who loves money — same problem though.
Libertarian @ 4:
“Here’s an idea: how about letting workers have owenrship and direct that portion of the FICA witholding tax that goes for retirmement?”
You’re almost inferring that it’s a “good” idea, and not just and “idea.” Really?!?! Do you mean in a sarcastic way that it’s a good idea?
IF, if that were to happen, what would the actual federal deficit be?
How much more borrowing would Bush and the Rubberstamp, lockstep Republicans have to borrow from China to cover the difference?
How much?
How much more borrowing would Bush and the Rubberstamp, lockstep Republicans have to borrow from China to cover the difference?
How much?
Commentby GBS— 9/22/06@ 4:17 pm
===========
If people had control, how would the government get to use the peoples’ retirements to funf the boondoggles? The whold point is to keep the government away from the money. If they can’t borrow to pay for these shenangans, maybe they’ll stop getting involved in them.
I think the term that comes to mind is “starve the beast” by cutting off the money.
I can’t help but notice that Goldy spanked Janet S and then she suddenly vanished. Hmmmmmmm….
re 4: How does one obtain “ownership” of money that is involuntarily withheld? Do you “own” the money if you can put it in the stock market or in SS? What if you want to buy a television instead? Your decision to call “allocation” ownership is a feeble conceit.
How about if we take the money from the business sector, but not in in the form of taxes. Instead, we allow the business sector to “decide” where they want to put the money that they still “own”. By law they cannot invest it in useless defense boondoggles that the irresposible business sector wants to pursue. Instead, we invest it in infrastructure, education, jobs for those who cannot find one in the private sector, and all the things that go to making a strong and vibrat middle class.
What’s good for the goose….
McGavick did a few other things in his speech on tuesday night that are sorta odd for a candidate trying to run on the issues.
He basically that he’s not running against Maria Cantwell, but rather he’s running against the politics of Washington, DC. And he implies that his opponent is responsible for the way politics works in the nation’s capitol.
This doesn’t make any sense. Blame a junior democratic senator for the ways of Washington politics, which is run, top-to-bottom, by the GOP? These statements by McGavick don’t connect. Just more proof that he’s not saying this stuff because he believes it. He saying it because he beleives its the only way he has any chance of winning.
McGavick was probably the most partisan freak staffing the entire congressional delegation from the Northwest when he played hardball for Slade Gorton. Leopards don’t change spots. When he left Gorton’s staff he supported (along with his expert low-ball campaign shark Eddie Mahe) Dan MacDonald, the most conservative GOP candidate for Governor in 1992. MacDonald was the darling of the right to life wing of the GOP – and the anti-tax crowd. He was blown away in the primary. He lost in his own legislative district.
@ 14:
Think about what you said.
How are you going to keep government away from money and still have a functioning government?
The point really is, they’re supposed to be doing honest work for the people, the commons, not lining the pockets of the elites like DeLay, Ney, Abramoff, etc.
But you’re still avoiding the underlying and more important question: How much more borrowing, on top of the $10 Trillion dollars of debt, would the Republicans have to borrow to cover the costs?
Janet/Pam is big on demanding we tell her what Senator Cantwell will do but she appears to have no idea or concern about what Mikey (Alaska) McGavick plans to do.
Once again Janet, prepare to looooooose. You can spin all you want you still loooooose!
Cantwell (D-Mexico) on Social Security: It’s racist to not let illegal aliens draw social security on wages they earned using stolen social security numbers while working illegally. Screw the Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens. America-Bad,Racist; Mexico-Diverse,Good.
fascistfirst – Vote for McGreedvick :( or write in Buchanan if you want to throw your vote away.
Can Janet/Pam give us ANY reason why we should vote for McGavick? Didn’t think so.
Goldy has a logic problem!
JCH,
“Loser.”
Commentby GBS [………..Er, GBS, you were busted to E-3 after your chief [E-7], division officer, department head, XO, and CO all turned their backs on you. That is the definition of a “loser” shitbird! Get it?]
McGavick is either lying, or a retard. Social Security is not going broke. Just raising the cut off level to $100,000 would shore up the program FOREVER. Even if nothing is done we will at the present rate get 70% to 80% regardless!!!!
Either McGavick can’t count, or he can’t tell the truth. Two things are for sure. Wall Street wants private accounts. McGavick does not have to worry about any Social Security with $28,000,000,000 dollars worth of the stockholders stolen money.
Hey Mike. Why don’t you do what Branson did. Donate it all to fight global warming…… You could live in your big red gas hog motor home, and campaign, and tell your lies, and distortions to all the people stupid enough to believe you.
I asked you 2 direct questions in person, and you ducked them.
You had your chance to be honest.
You blew it.
Check out this youtube of Olbermann telling Bush to apologize. It is a must see!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtXsvPUvP-0
Goldy,
You just proved in this post that McGavick was being absolutely honest about what he said.
Godly said, “These are direct attacks on Cantwell’s opposition to an amendment that would have prevented former illegal immigrants (who had paid into the Social Security system) from getting those payments back when they become legal.”
Now let’s do something that Goldy has a hard time with at times; look at this logically.
Assuming the legislation goes through exactly the way that Sen. Cantwell wants (as stated above). How do you determine which illegal alien used which stolen social security number? And if we begin this process won’t we then encourage a new “cottage industry” that will begin to manufacture forged documents in order to pillage the Social Security Fund? Further, can you imagine the enormous cost that whould be required to set up the administration of this give-away?
Finally, democrats have made it a point to say that there is no problem with the social security trust fund in gthe last two years. They say this because it is already widely known in Washington that these same illegal aliens are helping to keep the system afloat. Even with this additional money (that was never intended to be paid back to the contributors by the way) all the studies of the projected distribution of monies from the fund begin to go into the red sometime in our childrens future.
If we allow the democrat’s (Sen. Cantwell included) plan to be implemented, how much sooner will it go bankrupt?
By the way, our senator is well aware of the above and has been for some time (either that or she is as dumb as rumored).
jaybo,
1. Goldy’s reply said nothing about stolen SSN’s. Evidently you cannot read.
2. Social Security is not going broke. Mike’s first sentence out of his idiot mouth was an absolute lie.
Libertarian @4: Ew, ew, ew….such impeccable logic, but why stop there? Why have any such program at all that “forces” people to “save” their “own money”? And think of the government expense! Why, we cannot have such waste!
So when grandma is begging in the street, why, you as a healthly person, would be free to just walk around her. Spitting on her wouldn’t be polite, but hey, no harm, no foul, right? And if you are wheelchair bound like Charlie Krauthammer and cannot, well fuck him and his misery. It’s not your fault.
After all, true freedom means the rich and the poor alike are free to beg for food and sleep under bridges.
Dumbo @ 29,
(I can’t believe he actually posted this)
“1. Goldy’s reply said nothing about stolen SSN’s. Evidently you cannot read.”
Now, read this slowly and carefully; how do you think an illegal alien gets a job using a social security number if it isn’t a falsified document?
LOL
Finally, post a reference to one legitimate study that says social security will not eventually be paying out more money than it takes in if we do nothing to change it.
Also, please explain to me how any of the above research means anything if it was produced without any consideration to incorporating illegal aliens.
proudtobeanass @ 30,
So what do you want? Socialism? Nanny State programs? No personal responsibility? Government in charge of everything? No incentive to work? No capitalism? No private anything?
OK, here’s all I’m saying about social security: there is a component of the funds withheld from our paychecks that is planned to be used for our retirements. I don’t know what that number is, but I’m willing to bet the actuaries that work for the Social Security Administration do know this number and use it a lot in planning.
Yes, social security has insurance aspects. Participants are “pooling” the risk of disability and the risk for the surviving spouse and children should a worker die at an early age. That risk pool is funded by FICA contributions, both from the employee and the employer. But part of the FICA contribution goes for the employee’s retirement. That’s the portion I think workers should have the option of controlling – not the WHOLE FICA whthholding amount!
What I believe workers should have is choice. That retirement portion of their FICA should be invested per the directions of the workers. OK, some folks think this is a bad idea, so they should stay with the current system, with their FICA retirement money ostensibly invested in government “bonds.” No harm, no foul. Other workers may feel comfortable taking control of their money, but don’t think the stock market is for them. They can opt for FDIC-insured deposits, CDs. Still some people may feel that equity investments met their needs. Maybe they prefer mutual funds versus remaining in the system or going the FDIC-insured route.
In any event, workers should have a choice as to what they do with their retirement money, that portion of FICA that goes to their retirements. What is it about choice that you liberals don’t like?
I don’t have the quote down exactly, but FDR commented that the purpose of social security was to provide something for the worker that “no damn policitian” could get his hands on. Hey, folks, FDR is one of your patron saints! How do you think he’d feel about the government (i.e., whatever political party is currently slopping at the hog trough) using the social security trust fund like its private line of credit?
Janet wrote: Discussing Maria’s politics are fair game and what happens in politics. When Mike starts discussing her private life, then that is when he will be guilty of incivility.
Janet, no matter how you spin it and you try to spin it as elegantly as anyone, it is still deceptive. She never said to give ss to illegals. If there is an honest bone in your elitist body, fess up.
When they are legal, they get it like everybody else. If you want to argue that, fine. But at least try not to lie.
really dumbo @ 31: “Now, read this slowly and carefully; how do you think an illegal alien gets a job using a social security number if it isn’t a falsified document?”
Hey, stupid shit. Read Goldy’s reply. Read slowly, because you have some obvious comprehension problems. Under some circumstances, temporary LEGAL (yes, all caps–pay attention, please) residents are denied benefits when they subst=equently lose legal status, but the SSN# was obtained LEGALLY. Gawd. What a dolt.
“Finally, post a reference to one legitimate study that says social security will not eventually be paying out more money than it takes in if we do nothing to change it.”
LOL to you, too, ignoramus. Read the SSA Trustees report. They lay out three scenarios. Which one will pan out? You don’t have a fucking clue. The distant future “shortfall” is critically dependent on what assumptions you make. If the economy continues more or less as it has since WWII, then Social Security is just fine into the foreseable future.
Lib @ 32: You continue to conflate retirement accounts with the concept of social insurance. What is it about democracy and the social contract that libertarian ideologues such as yourself do not like?
The fact that our GOP led mantra of lower taxes for the rich has resulted in fuzzy fiscal math is obvious to all. That we are now told that future social security recipients will have to “take the hit” for this is a crime. That you consciously participate by cheering on this fraud is truly a tragedy.
Proud to be Ignorant @ 34,
Why don’t we let the congressional record speak for itself?.
Notice in the following that our senator voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent illegal aliens from drawing social security benefits paid in as illegal workers.
Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Ensign Amdt. No. 3985 ) Vote Number: 130 Vote Date: May 18, 2006, 12:50 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3985 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 ) Statement of Purpose: To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
http://www.senate.gov/legislat.....vote=00130
Secondly, here is your study of the social security system.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_project.html
Mike Mcgavick was being totally honest when saying that Senator Cantwell wants to give illegal aliens the social security benefits that they paid in using stolen cards. The record proves it.
It’s too bad that Goldy can’t be trusted to give you the facts.
They paid in . . . so you want to steal their money? You are a true ethically-absent empire builder.
sgagit @ 37,
So in other words, anyone that profits from an illegal activity should be able to profit from it?
If that’s true we have a lot of laws to re-write.
Also, that opinion puts you in the 30% minority that agrees with you. Good luck trying to convince the rest of us that it makes sense.
@38: “So in other words, anyone that profits from an illegal activity should be able to profit from it?”
Apparently that is what you believe. Illegals pay taxes, and make FICA contributions. You feel they are not entitled to lawful benefits, but you appear to have no qualms spending the funds (ilegally obtained?) on say, idiotic wars in the Middle East.
This is further reinforced by the Bush regime pushing to make protection of his torturers retroactive. A fine touch that, making illegals actions in the past unpunishable under current law. So why is some poor immigrant, now a LEGAL resident or even a citizen, lower on your shit list than torturers? Explain that, please.
Ass @ 39,
“Apparently that is what you believe. Illegals pay taxes, and make FICA contributions. You feel they are not entitled to lawful benefits, but you appear to have no qualms spending the funds (ilegally obtained?) on say, idiotic wars in the Middle East.”
Actually, you’re talking to the wrong person. Ask Sen. Cantwell that question, cause up to the moment that she cast her vote, she seemed to not mind at all………
What is it about democracy and the social contract that libertarian ideologues such as yourself do not like?
Commentby Proud To Be An Ass— 9/24/06@ 6:56 am
=============
What is it about personal choice and personal responsibility that YOU don’t like?
All I’m saying is that we should have choices as to how our retirmement money (that portion of FICA) is invested. For those that want to remain with the current system, fine. Others might want to invest in FDIC-insured products. Still, others may shoot for higher yields with equity investments.
What’s wrong with personal choice?
BTW, don’t confuse Bush’s tax cuts with the topic at hand. I’m talking about social security here, not the IRS and the ridiculous tax code. If you’re going to critcize me, stay on topic.
“What’s wrong with personal choice?”
That’s a typical loaded bullshit question. Either way I answer, I am “wrong”. Therefore it is illegitimate (same as mine, which, by the way, you did not answer). So stop the crap already and explain how your proposal will make society “better off” than under the current system.
But I’ll give you a heads up. Your “personal choice” mantra is A.) Unfunded (i.e., transition costs), B.) Destroys the insurance part of the compact (despite what you say–cause you really have not delved into this issue beyond libertarian talking points; and C.) Destroys the progressive redistributionist aspect of the current payment scheme.
Go ahead and give it your best shot, but something tells me I already know what you’re going to say. After all, I’ve actually read some of the Cato Inst. and Reason mag. bullshit on this issue. Be my guest, and please bring numbers that make sense, not ideological pap.
No, proud to be an ass,
You’re wrong because you’re a fucking idiot that can’t see that re-distribtuion of wealth is a socialist wet dream and social security has simply become a re-distribution scheme. How else can you explain taxation of social security benefits? I love that on – put into our Ponzi scheme for 40 years, get no tax deuduction for those taxes, and then have up to 85% the “benefits” taxed as ordinary income. Jesus Tap-Dancin’Christ! Nobody but a socialist Democrat cocksucker would think that’s a retirement system that works!
If you want your fucking wealth re-distributed – go ahead. Have at it. But leave the rest of us out of your pipe dreams, asshole!
Proud To Be An Ass,
If you don’t think it’s right for you to invest you money as you choose, then that’s OK. Just don’t attack others for wishing to have control over their retirements.
Fair enough?
Lib,
There is no absolute right to “invest as you choose” (try starting your own meth lab for instance). The people have the right to have a say in this matter, and they have chosen wisely. The Social Security privateer scamsters have been routed.
Rod: Au contrare, you are a fucking idiot. Soc. Secuity is not a Ponzi scheme and most benefits are not taxed as ordinary income since retirees are typically in a lower tax bracket. The fact that rich folks have to pay tax on their benefits is just another beautiful part of the program, idiot. Enjoy it or feel free to leave the country, jerk.
@44: People who take pleasure in destroying straw men are not worth the effort it takes to argue with. Get lost.
There is no absolute right to “invest as you choose”
Commentby mold-rovian turd blossom— 9/26/06@ 3:10 pm
=====
Mold, we’re talking about taking charge of your future. If people want to stick with the government scheme, then they have evry right to do so.
Are you neo-socialists so terrified of people exercising personal responsibility that you can’t allow the freedom to choose?
If it’s true that “There is no absolute right to “invest as you choose,” then there is no absolute right to be an individual. I feel sorry for you guys.
Hey, Mold, are you drawins social security now?
Mold,
You are incorrect when you say:
“Soc. Secuity is not a Ponzi scheme and most benefits are not taxed as ordinary income since retirees are typically in a lower tax bracket.”
If you look at a Form 1040, you will notice that Line 20a is where the taxpayer enters the gross amount received from social security. Depending on his or her total income, up to 85% of the gross social security distribution is taxed and added to total taxable income at line 20b. This amount on 20b is taxed AT ORDINARY INCOME TAX RATES. Retirees may be in the lowest tax bracket, but they’re still taxed as everyone else in that bracket. Ask a tax person if you don’t believe me. Finally, if you were to design a definde benefit plan as social security is structured, you’d get to be a guest of the feds from committing fraud: it’s actuarily unsound!
Another thing you folks tend to forget is that no one gets a tax deduction for the social security taxes-paid while working. But they can get taxed on 85% of their benefits if they were smart enough to plan for their retirements and have other retirement income! Does that make sense? No dedution over one’s working life, and taxed up to 85% of the benefits. Incredible!
You know what? I’m hopong that people like you, GSB, Roger Rabbit, and the other usual neo-socialists have nothing BUT social security for your retirements. It would be so SWEET to see you and the others greeting people at Wal-Mart or hanging around intersections begging for handouts because your wondeful social security benefit won’t last a week!
The more I think about it, I’m convinced that social security is just a scam to get politicians elected by taking from the successful and rewarding the unsuccessful. It’s forced re-distribution of wealth.
Funny libertarian: “If it’s true that “There is no absolute right to “invest as you choose,” then there is no absolute right to be an individual. I feel sorry for you guys.”
Yeah. So go yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. Come back and tell me how proud you are of your “individualism”.
and more! Look at this crap:
“You are incorrect when you say:
‘Soc. Secuity is not a Ponzi scheme and most benefits are not taxed as ordinary income since retirees are typically in a lower tax bracket.'”
Look. If your income is low enough, you pay no income tax. You can scream all you want, but that income is NOT TAXED. The fact that “ordinary income rates apply” is just a red herring. You claim to know something about taxes–why the blantant dishonesty?
But wait. There’s more!
“The more I think about it, I’m convinced that social security is just a scam….”
One of the most successful social programs in human history, and you snivil about it being a scam. That is a mendacity which passeth all understanding. You have my sympathy, but not my respect.
Hey, Mold, are you drawins (SIC) social security now?
Commentby Libertarian— 9/26/06@ 4:03 pm
Not content to demolish straw men, now you resort to grasping for them? You’re pathetic.