They Have no Shame

| May 12, 2012

One of our liberal Democrat candidates for Congress here in New Mexico is running an absolutely despicable ad using an old Hispanic woman to express her fear that she and her spouse will lose their Social Security if they don’t vote for this lowlife bastard because the evil Republicans want to take away their Social Security. This is an old Democrat tactic which unfortunately works because so many old people are totally dependent upon television for their information about current events. Below is my letter to the editor of the Albuquerque Journal regarding this issue:

I’m sure that Eric Griegos’ parents and his grandparents are inordinately proud of his accomplishments and the fact that he is now a candidate for Congress. However, I have to wonder if they don’t cringe at the blatant dishonesty of his campaign ad which declares that Republicans are planning to eliminate Social Security. Are they proud of their son and grandson for telling a provably stark lie that is designed expressly to scare old, uninformed citizens into voting Democrat?

What a despicable tactic, to prey upon the fears of those who are the most likely to be unaware of political realities and the most vulnerable viewers of his dishonest, fear-engendering political ad. I would imagine that Eric Griegos’ parents and grandparents are honorable people. I cannot believe that they would support his campaign’s efforts to create unwarranted fear among the most vulnerable among us, the elderly. C’mon, Eric, this is such an old, over-used, worn-out, Democrat lie trotted out every campaign that now national Democrats won’t use it. It is not only dishonest it is dishonorable to strike fear into the hearts of the viejos for no other reason than your personal political gain.

You should be ashamed of yourself, young man. With your deliberate, shameful, contemptible effort to strike fear into the hearts of those who have earned the right to enjoy the Social Security they paid into all their lives to obtain some peace in their retirement years, you have unwittingly exposed the fact that you are unworthy to serve as their congressional representative.

The most gracious move you could next make is to immediately stop those commercials and then beg the forgiveness of all those poor old New Mexicans in whom you instilled an unwarranted fear that they will become destitute.
Shame, shame shame…

Category: Liberals suck

35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Instinct

Yep, saw those ads. Not sure why he is running them, up north near the corners they’ll just trot out the dead voter rolls to pad the Dem votes.

Redacted1775

Dead men tell no tales, but they can vote.

insipid

For someone who seems to hate the gays you certainly are quite the drama queen aren’t you? After you get off your feinting couch and stop clutching your pearls and when you’re done with a “good cry” you MAY want to remember how it was the Republican’s that won in 2010 by scaring seniors on Obama putting his “government hands” on their medicare.

The fact is that seniors- and anyone planning on becoming a senior SHOULD be deathly afraid of the Republicans getting back in power. You want to destroy the social safety net. That’s a fact and, unlike you, we’re not making it up. You’re the ones that keep on passing the Ryan budget which seeks to end Medicare and YOU’RE the ones that tried to privatize Social Security just 6 years ago.

To quote the fly, seniors should be afraid. Be very afraid.

insipid

Yeah, do you all have any evidence of voter fraud in the past 30 years? Election fraud there’s evidence of. Certainly there was an election theft in 2000. But voter fraud, no there isn’t.

Redacted1775

Al Gore LOST. Get over it already.

OWB

And stupid tactics by Dems is Bush’s fault, too??

Had NO idea just how powerful he really was, apparently still is.

Overshoot

insipid,

EVERY recount by the media of the Florida ballots show Gore lost – despite sending out a flock of attorneys to get the ballots of service members serving over seas disqualified.

All Gore needed to have done to win the 2000 election would have been to win his own homestate. Sheesh, if your own people won’t elect you ….

CI

I must be truly evil since I don’t even understand why the GOP supports keeping Social Security, other than it being too popular for any politician to consider repealing the involuntary nature of it.

Joe

Gee, I wonder how they ever got the idea that republicans would ruthlessly cut social programs? I just can’t imagine……

DaveO

If someone is inherently good, s/he does not lie.

Someone who willingly lies right out of the gate is not a person who should go anywhere.

Social Security, by all accounts, is dead but twitching. There should be enough money there, but politicians of both of the major parties looted the funds. A politician blaming only one party is both lying and looking to glean profit from whatever is left in the SS fund.

streetsweeper

@ #11- Russ, If only we could channel Bill Faith’s spirit in Insipids direction? THAT would be priceless, lol.

CI

Joe – I don’t know if your comment was directed at me or anyone in particular….but I don’t want to tale away your Social Security. If you would like to pay into a shaky government sponsored safety net that resides well outside of their purview to administer…knock your self out.

I want to ruthlessly take my Social Security away…..and the involuntary withholding that comes with it.

Instinct

Also, the way the Social Security laws are written it is a TAX which mean the government actually doesn’t have to pay you anything if they decide to change their mind.

Social Security always was, and always will be a pyramid scheme. What the government needs to do is start weaning people off of it. Take care of those that are on it now, but those that aren’t on it need to have their money moved out into private accounts that they, not the government, are responsible for.

The idea that the government should somehow be responsible for taking care of me in my old age is insane. When did we become a nanny state where someone else is responsible for me and my life choices?

Instinct

Oh, and yes, actually there WAS a lot of evidence about voter fraud in Houston but as the investigation began to gain steam a very unfortunate accident happened and the warehouse where the voting machines were stored (and thus, all the evidence) burned to the ground.

Strangely coincidental, isn’t it?

insipid

This thread is probably the most unintintionally hysterical thread ever. From the “How dare they accuse us of wanting to destroy the Social Safety net” to “yeah, we kind of do want to destroy the Social Safety net, don’t we?”

Not that i want to stop you as you’re eviscerating each other but my guess is the founding fathers would have a much bigger problem with the size of our standing army then with the Social Safety net.

Adam_S

#13 I agree completely. If someone is stupid enough to trust the government to hold their money for them, let em go for it.

#16 See #11 then try to find something productive to do.

Adam_S

Actually if you really believe the founding fathers would have a bigger problem with our military than the government taking money for a broken program you should change your name to delusional.

insipid

How is SS broken? My mother gets her check every month and she has for the past 15 years. If anything is broken it’s the massive military industrial complex which doesn’t allow for an easy dismantling of out-dated weapons systems and allows easy entrance and impossible exits from useless quagmires.

UpNorth

@#9, Dem focus groups, Joey. Which lie is the biggest lie, which will play well with the dependent class? Then, run with it.
As for “ruthlessly” doing away with it, actually the Republicans, if that were their aim, would have to do exactly nothing. The dems are doing it, all by themselves.
For just one example, go back through the archives here, and find the post about the asshat who lives in a diaper, at 30 some years of age, and collects SSI. Now, mulitiply that by thousands.

CI

!19 – Some of us are more worried about the Constitutional validity of such a program rather than it’s solvency issues.

But to your point, does your defense of Social Security really rest on ‘my Mommy gets her checks, so what could be wrong’?

insipid

It has constitutional validity that’s been decided for 70 years. If the founders wanted libertarianism they had that with the Articles of Confederation. As Lincoln stated “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.” There’s no doubt that SS does just that. This site has a nice rundown of the legal cases concerning SS, including a nice summary of Judge Cordoza’s opinion which i’ll quote below: Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. After giving the 1788 dictionary the consideration he thought it deserved, he made clear the Court’s view on the scope of the government’s spending authority: “There have been statesman in our history who have stood for other views. . .We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton . . .has prevailed over that of Madison. . .” Arguing that the unemployment compensation program provided for the general welfare, Cardozo observed: “. . .there is need to remind ourselves of facts as to the problem of unemployment that are now matters of common knowledge. . .the roll of the unemployed, itself formidable enough, was only a partial roll of the destitute or needy. The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose [other] than the promotion of the general welfare.” And finally, he extended the reasoning to the old-age insurance program: “The purge of nation-wide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. . . Spreading from state to state,… Read more »

insipid

Somehow i forgot the link:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

OWB

@ #19 – That really was funny!

Having grown up in a community of both Dems and Reps whose opinion it was that the institution of social security would lead to the ruination of this country, I’m had to reschool on who has the greater resonsibility for it. Here’s what I learned:

1) It’s a ponzi scheme. If any of us were to try it on our own, or as a group, we would risk jail. Therefore, it is a bad idea whatever it’s original intention might have been. As with all ponzi schemes, it is not a matter of if it will fail, only when it will fail. The only ones to benefit from it are those collecting the $$. Congress keeps tinkering with it which has only resulted in a ponzi scheme wearing a bunch of bandaids.

2) It was institued by a Dem prez and a Dem Congress. That’s simply a fact of life. The Reps have squandered several opportunities to fix it or to eliminate it, but in typical elitist fashion, the ruling class of both parties preferred to develop a dependent class from formerly free and self-sufficient peoples. (In reality, there are several segments of society that were never all that free, and thanks to dependancy on gubmint have simply moved from one plantation to another one which is no better.)

3) There is no government “social safety net” which is Constitutional. Lots of people choose to feel that it is, or choose to ram it down all productive persons’ throats, but that changes nothing. As disgusting a concept a many these days find it to be, the founders saw such things as caring for widows and children to be a function of the churches. The ultimate violation of church vs state has occurred when those who support big gubmint took over the proper and legitimate functions of churches by instituting all these “social safety nets.”

OWB

@ #22 “As Lincoln stated “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.” There’s no doubt that SS does just that.”

In your mind only! To the rest of us, it has done exactly the opposite. Try using your brain for something besides keeping your shull from caving in!

Why was I forced to pay into Social Security at all? I was quite capable of taking care of myself, my family, and my neighbors.

NHSparky

Okay insipid, why don’t we discuss the more pertinent question, that being how can you possibly consider a system that doesn’t guarantee YOUR money will ever be available to you if/when you retire a success?

How do you consider a rate of return, based on how long you draw and your income prior to retirement of less than one percent (or in many cases a NEGATIVE ROR) a success?

How do you consider a system that takes in less money than it pays out yet won’t consider possibly cutting benefits to remain solvent a success?

You just nailed yourself to the wall when you say, “But my mom gets checks!” Sure–and what did she do to earn them? Whose money is she holding each month, cause it sure as fuck ain’t hers.

OWB

That statement, ‘sip, also begs the questions – what are YOU contributing to her upkeep? Does she depend upon social security for her needs (not wants)? If so, then why are YOU not taking better care of her? She birthed you and, presumably, raised you. Seems like YOU owe her, not me.

PintoNag

It isn’t hard to understand. More people now draw from our system than pay into it. If any politician attempts to cut social programs, he’ll be looking for another job, almost immediately. Too many people are dependent on the programs, and there are no longer enough tax payers to force the necessary cuts to keep the programs solvent. The system will eventually collapse under its own weight.

And then nobody will get anything, including everone who paid into the programs. The economists now predict the insolvency of the Social Security system to occur in 2024. They just revised that recently, from an original assessment of 2027. The programs themselves will eventually prove the economists right…or wrong. IMO, they’re right.

Adam_S

You guys aren’t seriously attempting to have a debate with insipid and expecting him to answer your questions are you? Insipid took the same class Rick Maze did when it comes to responding to a question.

509th Bob

“insipid” How apt!

Yat Yas 1833

Insipid, are you THAT desperate for attention that you will subject yourself to verbal abuse by making inane statements with no basis in fact or logic? Joe, the same statement applies to you! In the words of GySgt Hartman, “Didn’t mommy and daddy love you enough.” Why don’t you two put on your soft helmets, get on the short bus then go back to retard school and leave serious discussions to the adults.

streetsweeper

That #31 is a sure-fire *liquids-alert* LMAO!Pretty damn good, Marine! Pretty damn good! Hooah!

Chockblock

It’s the baby boomers fault that they fell for the okeydoke.

1) They were promised Social Security and goodies from the state.

2) They were told to stop having kids.

3) The number of workers fell as they got older.

It’s retards like this politico that keep us from reforming the system and making it solvent. New Mexico dems love gov’t bennies and they were raised on socialism. Fat lot of good it does the state. If it wasn’t for the DoD NM would be on dead last in everything. Trust me, I used to live there.

This a$$klown is just another of the good ole boys promising to save New Mexicans from those big meanie Republicans. Sadly he may win because New Mexicans love the okeydoke.

NHSparky

Not all of us, Chock. Some of us raised in NM don’t drink the KoolAid. A trip to the Four Corners region might give you some hope.

Like some people from CA might say, don’t lump the entire state in with a few whackjobs just because they get enough people to buy into their bullshit.

DaveO

PintoNag has the right of it.

People drawing SS (the boomers) paid into the system which paid for the Greatest Generation and older (their folks and grandparent). The rest of the money was looted using Congressional and Executive earmarks (aka Pork Barrel Projects and Presidential Discretionary Spending).

Now there are not enough people paying in due to there being fewer (and daily fewer) people working. As the children of the GenX generation can’t find work, there won’t be enough actual cash to pay SS. Please recall, it was only a few years ago, during the election, that the Old Folk were told they wouldn’t be receiving their SS checks due to lack of funds.

Bernie Madoff is in jail for doing this.