Weiner's District Causing Headaches For Democrats

There are 13 comments on the Sep 10, 2011, National Public Radio story titled Weiner's District Causing Headaches For Democrats. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

It's been more than two months since former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner resigned in disgrace after sending lewd messages and then lying about it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Kat

Coffeyville, KS

#24 Sep 14, 2011
Show me the money wrote:
<quoted text>
Normally, when you purchase disability insurance, it's tax free when you collect.
Exception: Social Security disability income. FULLY TAXED!
People I know getting SSI say they are taxed for it at 85% so it's not quit 100% just yet....but give it time.

“Slightly below above-average”

Since: Jul 10

arguably garrulous

#25 Sep 14, 2011
What kind of underwear does the new guy wear?
Susan Rothman

Long Beach, CA

#26 Sep 14, 2011
That you for reminding Obama's handlers that making the choice to endanger our strongest Allie in the Region, Israel's, very existence by rushing to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood in the Region WON'T play with principled Americans, including Jews. It is a proud Day for America. Shalom.
El Rushbo

West Hempstead, NY

#27 Sep 14, 2011
sick of paying wrote:
<quoted text>SS is NOT an entitlement!!
What is it then? If you made an average of $50K per year and made your 6% contribution for 30 years, you will have put about $85K into the system. If you average a $1200 a month payment you will get back all you put in within 5 years. Average lifespan is now about 78 years, so therefore where is the remaining 16 years of collecting going to come from?
Contrary to popular belief, you did not put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Social Security. It is a pyrimad scheme that pays out to those on top of the pyrimad by those who are at the bottom of the pyrimad.
Just Saying

New Rochelle, NY

#28 Sep 14, 2011
El Rushbo wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it then? If you made an average of $50K per year and made your 6% contribution for 30 years, you will have put about $85K into the system. If you average a $1200 a month payment you will get back all you put in within 5 years. Average lifespan is now about 78 years, so therefore where is the remaining 16 years of collecting going to come from?
Contrary to popular belief, you did not put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Social Security. It is a pyrimad scheme that pays out to those on top of the pyrimad by those who are at the bottom of the pyrimad.
You're right. The math doesn't lie, and these programs as they presently exist are unsustainable, as more people are living longer and collecting longer, while the number of workers paying into the system is decreasing.
El Rushbo

West Hempstead, NY

#29 Sep 15, 2011
Just Saying wrote:
<quoted text>You're right. The math doesn't lie, and these programs as they presently exist are unsustainable, as more people are living longer and collecting longer, while the number of workers paying into the system is decreasing.
The Social Security system was introduced by the Patron Saint of the Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt. We can bring up all of the facts that we have presented here adn they will still refuse to believe or accept the fact that the system is flawed and while it might have been a good idea in 1935, it can not work in 2011.
Franklin Roosevelt died before he was eligible to collect Social Security. That just shows you how times have changed.
Spare a dime

Englishtown, NJ

#30 Sep 15, 2011
El Rushbo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Social Security system was introduced by the Patron Saint of the Liberals, Franklin Roosevelt. We can bring up all of the facts that we have presented here adn they will still refuse to believe or accept the fact that the system is flawed and while it might have been a good idea in 1935, it can not work in 2011.
Franklin Roosevelt died before he was eligible to collect Social Security. That just shows you how times have changed.
Everything wrong with SS today was predicted in the 1960s. No surprise. It was, is, and always will be (until it crashes in 10 years) a true, honest-to-God, Ponzi scheme.
Teddy R

London, UK

#31 Sep 18, 2011
pigpen911 wrote:
<quoted text>Wasn't it Clinton that signed the bill to tax S.S. when you collect it? Wasn't it also the dems that started using the S.S. funds to help support their "entitlemt" programs under Clinton?
The looting of the SS Trust Fund started under Lyndon Johnson, actually. His administration opened the vault door.

Clinton simply went Lyndon one better, looting SS by the ship-load.
El Rushbo

West Hempstead, NY

#32 Sep 19, 2011
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
The looting of the SS Trust Fund started under Lyndon Johnson, actually. His administration opened the vault door.
Clinton simply went Lyndon one better, looting SS by the ship-load.
Regardless of the looting of the fund, the system is not viable because people are living longer, the population decreased after the baby boom and the government should not be in the business of investing my money. I would rather mandatory payroll deduction, but I get to determine where my money should be invested.
Teddy R

London, UK

#33 Sep 20, 2011
El Rushbo wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it then? If you made an average of $50K per year and made your 6% contribution for 30 years, you will have put about $85K into the system. If you average a $1200 a month payment you will get back all you put in within 5 years. Average lifespan is now about 78 years, so therefore where is the remaining 16 years of collecting going to come from?
Contrary to popular belief, you did not put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Social Security. It is a pyrimad scheme that pays out to those on top of the pyrimad by those who are at the bottom of the pyrimad.
Not so fast, chief.

That $3000 annual SS contribution, had it been invested instead at an average 8% per annum return instead of funding Washington DC, at the eand of 30 years would have been worth $405,397.05 in a lump-sum payout on retirement.

So you bet your azz that's what the US Federal government owes the 30-year SS contributor/retiree for having use of THEIR money for all those years.

Again, if invested at that same 8% avg annual return, that amount would fund an annuity paying $38,232.02/annually for 20 years of retirement.
Just Saying

New Rochelle, NY

#34 Sep 20, 2011
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast, chief.
That $3000 annual SS contribution, had it been invested instead at an average 8% per annum return instead of funding Washington DC, at the eand of 30 years would have been worth $405,397.05 in a lump-sum payout on retirement.
So you bet your azz that's what the US Federal government owes the 30-year SS contributor/retiree for having use of THEIR money for all those years.
Again, if invested at that same 8% avg annual return, that amount would fund an annuity paying $38,232.02/annually for 20 years of retirement.
Sure, but 8% is an overly optimistic rate of return over a 30 year term. The sad truth is that Social Security recipients are living longer, and thus collecting more, while the number of workers contributing to the system continues to fall. This makes the system unsustainable without changes, such as increasing the age to begin collecting benefits, and perhaps restricting it to those who truly need it.
Anthony Hazmat Weiner

Englishtown, NJ

#35 Sep 20, 2011
Get the Lysol wrote:
Weiner lying about his Schlongcam was the least of it. That rave on the House floor set a record low for NYC Dems.
Will it play on MSNBC?? NO PROBLEM!
Any station that can harbor Maddow, Olberturd and Dribbling Chris can easily support Weiner.
Fun's over. Time to clean the House.
After this was written, they really DID get the Lysol.

Life imitating art.
El Rushbo

West Hempstead, NY

#36 Sep 21, 2011
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast, chief.
That $3000 annual SS contribution, had it been invested instead at an average 8% per annum return instead of funding Washington DC, at the eand of 30 years would have been worth $405,397.05 in a lump-sum payout on retirement.
So you bet your azz that's what the US Federal government owes the 30-year SS contributor/retiree for having use of THEIR money for all those years.
Again, if invested at that same 8% avg annual return, that amount would fund an annuity paying $38,232.02/annually for 20 years of retirement.
The key phrase that you use Teddy is, "had it been invested". It is not invested in anything that pays out at 8% per year. It is invested in government treasuries paying about 1% a year. The government didn't promise anyone that they would invest the money for them. All the government does is take your money and gives you back a paltry sum. I would like the opportunity to invest that money for myself. So techinically you are right that the government owes you the money you put into the system, but the amount you paid in isn't a whole lot, and their investment isn't a windfall for you. It's a pyrimad scheme.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Siena College Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Study: Economic future is bright for the N.Y. C... Apr 16 Rich M 1
News Upstate voters support NY fracking ban, poll says Jan '15 conklincolt 15
News Embattled Rep. Michael Grimm has a real shot at... (Oct '14) Oct '14 barefoot2626 4
News Sen. Jack Martins leads Adam Haber in 7th Senat... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Just Saying 1
News New York Rep. Rangel holds strong lead ahead of... (Jun '14) Jun '14 Asian Guy 9
News Over 80 PERCENT Of New York Residents Say Commo... (Jun '14) Jun '14 MacDaddyobama 1
News Illegal Immigrant Supporting Dream Act Fails in... (Mar '14) Mar '14 wild child 12
More from around the web