Ignoring Senate vote, Beck claimed "liberals" want to "rape" illegal immigrants by preventing them from obtaining Social Security
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Glenn Beck accused "liberals" of wanting to "rape" illegal immigrants by "hav[ing] them pay into Social Security" without "allow[ing] them to get any of those funds back." In fact, when the Senate considered an amendment that would have prevented newly legalized immigrants from receiving credit for Social Security benefits for work done as illegal immigrants, Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the amendment, while Republicans strongly supported it.
On the June 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck accused "liberals" of wanting to "rape" illegal immigrants by "hav[ing] them pay into Social Security" without "allow[ing] them to get any of those funds back." In fact, when the Senate considered an amendment by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) that would have prevented newly legalized immigrants from receiving credit for Social Security benefits for work done as illegal immigrants, Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the amendment, while Republicans strongly supported it. In the May 18 roll-call vote, 38 of the 44 Senate Democrats voted to table the Ensign amendment, while 44 of 55 the Senate Republicans voted to keep the amendment under consideration. Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) also voted to table the amendment, and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) did not vote. The amendment was tabled by a 50-49 vote, effectively killing the measure.
From the June 2 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
CALLER: I've had some co-workers -- they believe that the government doesn't want us to check because they want the money to get paid into the Social Security fund by people who will most likely never collect on it.
BECK: They -- wait a minute, hang on. You know what, I gotta tell you something. This one kills me, because a lot of the people who make this particular argument, they're like, "Hey, man, they're [illegal immigrants] actually helping Social Security." Those people who make that argument usually are the liberals. And I hear that, and I think, "What kind of evil?" You call me evil? You know, "Those evil, heartless conservatives." You're saying, "Let's screw the illegal alien. Let's have them pay into Social Security, and then rape 'em. Never allow them to get any of those funds back." My gosh -- and I'm the evil one.
Is Beck copping his slanders from Limbaugh?
That all of these Limbaugh parrots get their talking points from the same source. Now, whether that source is Karl Rove, the RNC, or Limbaugh himself, I haven't a clue. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Limbaugh is actually helping write policy for this putrid administration.
I question the amount of credit you are giving to Rush, because my analysis is that he's merely an actor; a public face hired for the purposes of propaganda. He's not as intelligent and charismatic as people give him credit for.
I personally think Rush is a fool, especially if he believes half of what he pukes out over the radio. However, you cannot disregard his influence over a significant sector of the Republican base. After all, Newt made him an honorary member of the 1994 Congress. Is he smart enough to write policy? Of course not, but neither is Puddinhead George.
Surely you are not suggesting that Karl Rove would give information to the media, I mean, he doesn't *do* that. The President says so, and I believe him.
Wow, that kinda hurt my soul to type that.
This is because illegal immigrants should get benefits from a program designed to help ensure the welfare of citizens?!?
I don't even understand his logic, I guess some will go through whatever contortions they must to demonize the left..
Even if you aren't a fan of social programs (being a conservative), just point out that you don't think the benefit of the illegals contributing to Social Security outweighs whatever other cost(s) they are burdening our society with.
This pointless rhetoric is mudslinging at best and does very little to further debate. I guess that's where Beck shines.
And this clown wants to make sure no one gets any SS. That's just the kind of fella he is.
how with republicans it's always about greed? They don't want illegals to get SS benefits they paid as punishment for being here. They want them to pay back taxes on anything they earned as punishment (does this still apply if they made poverty level wages?). Punishment is gimme all yer money, and depending on how much you give I will decide if you can be my equal. Financial deicrimination at it's best, the sign of the republican times!
Not only what you've said, but I find it interesting that "illegal immigrants" are being blamed for the so-called "strain" on our social system.
How about the cutbacks in funding for social programs coupled with corporate/wealthy tax breaks. How about companies that rip their employees off..
Talk about "cultures of corruption".. I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I feel that if you were to compare corporate welfare to what illegal immigrants get from the social system... The corporate welfare would be the bigger drain..
But no one talks about that stuff.. The biggest thing with social security though is stop the government from taking money out of it and how about they pay back what they've taken out...
If you look at the census bureau table 4 data we see that Hispanic, of any race, with and without children under 18 years age, there were a total of 1,925 hispanic families under the poverty limit in 2003. Now, how many of those were illegal I can't say, but I can say the census bureau is supposed to count all persons regardless of race or nationality. So how much does 1 family drain, let alone 1,925?
the link FYI: [link to www.census.gov]
ok, this is exactly why the arguments used by your side are so dishonest and misleading..
First, we've got a guy saying "I don't have the numbers to prove it..". Well then its completely your conjectured opinion and until you provide some facts to back that up, what you are saying has no validity (except to you and the other moonbats who believe something is true unless it can be proved false--ala Mary Mapes).
Second, we've got another guy who can't even properly read a table. Yes, there were only 1, 829 families of Hispanic origin in the entire US. Perhaps you missed this "Numbers in thousands". 1, 800 families or 1.8 million they're pretty much the same..
A little off-topic here, but I just heard an advertisement for Beck's CNN show on my local Air America station! (KPOJ, Portland, OR.)
I guess AAR is failing so miserably that the righties want to target their audience.
Those numbers are in thousands so 1,925 thousands it's pretty clos to 2 million Mack
but still, how does that compare to 5+ million whites? or 1.8 million blacks? Main point you didn't answer, what does 1 family cost, and how many of that # I provided translate into illegal immigrants? I just don't see that "drain". Trickle maybe, but no drain.
I guess math wasn't your strong point in school. 22% of the family's under poverty level are hispanic. Unknown are illegal, my guess is half or more. Legal ones wouldn't keep jobs below poverty level very long. Only a fool would believe they come from poverty in another country to live in poverty in America.
So, yes, 22% is a drain on the system. Even 11% is a drain on the system. You want to have some "fun" with your numbers? Check out the current unemployment numbers and compare it to estimated illegals working in the US. Soon you'll be paying their unemployment benefits, too. Good thing we'll get a democrat as the next president...he'll raise the taxes about 80% to cover what the illegals will be getting.
it's actually 25% I think;
Total number of families below poverty leve in 2003: 7,607, 000
Total number of Hispanic families below poverty level: 1, 925, 000
so 25.3% of all families below the poverty line are Hispanic...Note, this is a slightly different statistic from the 21 % of Hispanic families that are below the poverty line..
In any case, about the "strain" vs "trickle" Tom Tancredo wrote an article which has a lot of numbers in it, but unfortunately he doesn't provide any sources, so take it for what it is worth
[link to article.nationalreview.com]
*Colorado taxpayers would save almost $3,000,000 in one day if illegals do not access any public services, because illegal aliens cost the state over $1 billion annually according to the best estimates.
I made a mistake, but at least provided factual data. You provide a link making claims but has no verifiable source to back it up, and that is better how? Because Tancredo is a congressman (R)? Like I'm supposed to believe he wouldn't lie or fabricate. NOT!
Your comment:
"22% of the family's under poverty level are hispanic. Unknown are illegal, my guess is half or more. Legal ones wouldn't keep jobs below poverty level very long. Only a fool would believe they come from poverty in another country to live in poverty in America. "
Ghrino's response to Spintronic:
"arguing with idiots
ok, this is exactly why the arguments used by your side are so dishonest and misleading..
First, we've got a guy saying "I don't have the numbers to prove it..". Well then its completely your conjectured opinion and until you provide some facts to back that up, what you are saying has no validity (except to you and the other moonbats who believe something is true unless it can be proved false--ala Mary Mapes). "
Guess your response puts you into the idiot category too. By your own side's definition, nontheless!
no worries about my comment - I know it was "conjectured" opinion. Just like it's "conjectured" opinion with regards to the exact number of illegal immigrants live here.
Then again conservative pundits are well-practiced in "conjectured" opinions..
I still stand by my assertion though that corporate welfare and corruption are a greater drain on our society and economy than illegal immigrants.
I do realize that to most conservatives, you are some "evil moonbat lefty idiot" if you assail the "oh so great and wonderful" corporo-tocracy that our government is devolving into..
Then again, we're not the ones that want to bring back slavery in a new and shiny form..
who wants to bring back slavery???
You're doing well at the liberal handbook though. Step #10: Insinuate that people you disagree with are racists and bigots...
snoopy - just for the record, my comments are not directed towards you - they were in response to ghrino or whatever their name is saying that i made an idiotic statement..
again, i know it was "conjectured" opinion... I don't bother to find any figures to support it because they'd be disputed anyway.
I was just showing our "conservative" guests how they put us down for following a particular vein and then turn around and do the exact same thing. I think the real truth here though is that no one knows for sure what the actual #'s are, and anyone who uses Tancredo as a source is really more interested in "national unity" than they are in controlling terrorism. It's been a few days now and I still haven't heard any reichwing outcry about protecting the northern borders now that a terrorist cell has been busted just across the border.
[link to www.cis.org]
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
so maybe $10.4 billion is a "trickle" to you..but to me that's a lot of money...
[link to www.fairus.org]
"The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion."
CIS describes itself as “independent” and “nonpartisan,” but its studies, reports, and media releases consistently support its restrictionist agenda and works closely on Capitol Hill with Republican Party immigration restrictionists.
CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.” A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans” described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.”
Boy, that's data, but it don't smell like data. Good thing I didn't step in it.
you didn't give 1 reason to distrust or disprove the accuracy of the data from that study....sure you can try to smear the group all you want....but you haven't given 1 reason why those numbers they came up with aren't accurate. just saying someone is partisan doesn't automatically discount their study or their methodology. however, if you had actually provided a reason or two why their methodology is flawed, then you might have a point...but until then, you don't...
The fact that the head of the group split from a well known right wing team seems to escape you. You are already convinced they are good to go regardless. I'd be wasting my time. So find a bipartisan source that says the same and we can talk.
you honestly thought that there were only 1,829 Hispanic families in the whole US. nowhere in your typing did it occur to you that that number was a little low or a little off.
you've never made an error before? must be nice being perfect.
not of that magnitude...yes I've made errors before...but never on the order of 10^3!!!!!
dude. guess what? I didn't try to hide that I made a mistake, and am not trying to cover it up. You are the one who slung the 1st dirt. Are you so childish that you can't see someone trying to ask an honest question? Your only source is Tancredo, a known "nationalist" i.e. white is the color of America type of guy? Why is there not a word regarding the terrorists caught in Canada from this "source"?
We can talk, but if your only rebuttal is slinging dirt because of a mistake, then don't waste my time.
alright whatever, forgetting about your "trivial" error..several things
1) I like how you dismiss the group because they are right-wing without taking any look at the methodology of the study. You guys quote things from the Center for Budget Policies and Priorities (CBBP) and Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) which are far-left partisan groups. But according to your reasoning they should automatically be disqualified because they are partisan. I disagree. Their studies should be disqualified because they use misleading or inaccurate assumptions or flawed methodology. For example, there is a Social Security calculator on Chuck Schumer's website set up in part by Jason Furman of the CBBP to show what would happen if the system were changed so that you "privatize" part of your payroll tax money.
[link to www.schumer.senate.gov]
Now of course whatever amount of money you enter for your salary, the calculator shows you losing money. Why? Because they are using a very flawed assumption to reach the partisan conclusion that Soc Sec privitization is bad and scary.....The problem is that they assume that the rate of return on your privately invested money is 3%.
[link to www.schumer.senate.gov] calculator_assumptions2.pdf
This is grossly inaccurate. First of all, the historical rate of return on stocks has been around 8%. Even if you throw bonds in there you’re at 5-6%. Even if you took your money and set it up in an account with Emigrant Direct, you would be making 4.65% (at least that’s where their interest rate is right now on a no-fee no-minimum savings account. So that’s why this calculator is flawed. Until you show me something that is flawed in their methodology or the assumptions they use, then you have no reason to discount the study.
2) Second, I knew it was only a matter of time before you started smearing the people you disagree with as racists. Seriously, what is wrong with your side. Just because we (the majority of Americans) want our borders secured and protected and don't want millions of people coming here illegally (with no health exam or no criminal background check) as compared to legally, that makes us racists. Get a grip...
an actuall requirement for getting a cable talk show?
understand why CNN has someone like Beck on.. Do they really think the majority of their viewers are ignorant idiots??
Personally I do my best to avoid CNN..
Any show/host that provided accurate, unbiased information: news
Any show/host that provided biased, inaccurate information: pundits
Any show/host that deliberatly didn't point out lies told by political candidates or recited their talking points: party hacks
Any show/host of any sort, including the above three, that provided inaccurate information more than once w/o public, open retraction: liars
But who would pick what was what? And how many actual "news" shows actually exist today?
As long as I'm wishing for things, I think I'd like a Lamborghini.