Gun control debate heating up in stat...

Gun control debate heating up in statehouses

There are 2688 comments on the NBC29 story from Dec 21, 2012, titled Gun control debate heating up in statehouses. In it, NBC29 reports that:

By The Associated Press Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and stories that will be talked about Friday: President Barack Obama says his administration has received an outpouring of support for stricter gun laws following last week's elementary school massacre in Connecticut, telling respondents to an online... President Barack ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC29.

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#1597 Jan 17, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mainly people with illegal guns killing other criminals.
More often than not when their is a murder in Indy the news report includes a mug shot of the victim with the report. Coincidence? I think not.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#1598 Jan 17, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...
"You can expect to pay $350,881 in Social Security taxes over your working life for retirement and survivors benefits. For those taxes, you can expect to receive $2,467 a month in Social Security retirement benefits. Your rate of return under todayís Social Security is -3.56%.
However, if you had been able to invest your Social Security taxes in a Personal Retirement Account (PRA), you would have had a total of $1,401,434 when you retired. Your monthly benefits would have been $11,416. You lost $8,948 a month.
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/0 ...
Your privatization scheme is bogus Ė itís pie in the sky ... it would turn the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan entirely subject to market movements and an astronomical windfall for Wall Street sharks. The current system guarantees a specified amount of return at a specified time; privatization would remove that component subjecting the payouts to financial market fluctuations turning it into a roll of the dice!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1599 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your privatization scheme is bogus Ė itís pie in the sky ... it would turn the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan entirely subject to market movements and an astronomical windfall for Wall Street sharks. The current system guarantees a specified amount of return at a specified time; privatization would remove that component subjecting the payouts to financial market fluctuations turning it into a roll of the dice!
FDR Planned to give the to banks originally

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1600 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your privatization scheme is bogus Ė itís pie in the sky ... it would turn the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan entirely subject to market movements and an astronomical windfall for Wall Street sharks. The current system guarantees a specified amount of return at a specified time; privatization would remove that component subjecting the payouts to financial market fluctuations turning it into a roll of the dice!
FDR Planned to give the money to banks originally.

Since: Nov 09

Newnan, GA

#1601 Jan 17, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know any, tea bagger.
Tea bagger??? the only one around here with a nutsack resting on their chin is you....be sure to wipe the jizz off your face before you go hang out with your occupy pals
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#1602 Jan 17, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>FDR Planned to give the money to banks originally.
The U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure, with 20.8% for Social Security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. The combined spending for all social insurance programs in 2006 constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product. Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40 percent of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty. Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget it is separate from the General Fund.
JustUwait

Rochester, MN

#1603 Jan 17, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>That means it must be a really good one.
Yes I have noticed that this fellow barefoot2626 is some kind of liberal progressive.
seems all he cares about is getting our country to become a communist nation.
He could care less about our american childrens future, as long as he gets what he wants, that is typical of these liberals.
Our children will soon owe $79,000.00 each and he doesnt care one bit.
Liberals adore to use other peoples money. what the hell right I mean they havent worked for it.
This guy as I have read before, gets food stamps and is on disibilty. He hasnt worked for yrs, and even when he did it was merely a minimum wage job. He isnt educated and never sought to do better for his self. Now he thrives to make us pay his way.
This is whats wrong in our country, too many of these lazy morons sitting around doing nothing but begging for handouts.
Rather than trying something to earn a living.
you are

Huntsville, AL

#1604 Jan 17, 2013
JustUwait wrote:
<quoted text>

.
possessed by every BS myth out there.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1605 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure, with 20.8% for Social Security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. The combined spending for all social insurance programs in 2006 constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product. Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40 percent of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty. Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget it is separate from the General Fund.
Remember when Johnson & the Democrats created the Unified Budget.

Unified budget

In the United States a unified budget is a federal government budget in which receipts and outlays from federal funds and the Social Security Trust Fund are consolidated. The change to a unified budget resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity. When these fund groups are consolidated to display budget totals, transactions that are outlays of one fund group (i.e., interfund transactions) are deducted to avoid double counting.

History

The United States government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968, beginning with the 1969 budget. The surplus in the Social Security OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disabilities Insurance) budget offsets the total deficit, making it appear smaller than it otherwise would.

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, however changed this so that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are considered to be 'off-budget' and are excluded from the unified budget. This means that the Social Security Tax is not counted as revenue to the General Fund, and interest paid to the Trust Funds is counted as an expense to an external entity. Often Federal budget reports will contain two sets of numbers for the yearly Federal Budget: an 'off-budget' deficit (or surplus) and an 'on-budget' deficit (or surplus) the former of course including the receipts and outlays of these budgets, but by law for purposes of balancing the budget they are 'off-budget'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_budget
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1606 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your privatization scheme is bogus Ė itís pie in the sky ... it would turn the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan entirely subject to market movements and an astronomical windfall for Wall Street sharks. The current system guarantees a specified amount of return at a specified time; privatization would remove that component subjecting the payouts to financial market fluctuations turning it into a roll of the dice!
It is a federal Ponzi scheme for the timid.

"A few weeks ago I got my annual "Your Social Security Statement" from the government. This is a statement carefully crafted to look like itís telling you a lot while at the same time covering up Social Securityís dirty little secret. But with a spreadsheet and 5 minutes of work, one can figure out what is really going on.

The statement shows the total of my social security taxes paid into the system, including the employer share. It also shows my taxed earnings per year, and my "benefits." The main benefit is the monthly annuity payment Social Security will make to me after I retire. My statement shows that $140,139 total taxes have been paid into the system on my behalf over the last 25 years. Based on these taxes and (this is important) the assumption I and my employer will continue to pay in at least $7440 per year until I retire, I can expect an annuity at retirement age of 67 (under current law, which the statement makes clear can be changed at any time) of $1,985 per month.

So I built a spreadsheet (click to download excel file), going back to my first year of employment. Each year, I added the social security taxes to savings, and grew the accumulated balance by some interest rate. For past years I used actuals from the report, for future years I used the $7440 tax number the report uses to calculate the social security payout.

This allowed me to answer a question: If I had been able to take these social security taxes and instead put them in a required savings plan, and then took the accumulated balance out at age 67 and bought an annuity (at current rates), what would be my monthly payment? Well, assuming a very conservative after-tax rate of return of 5%, I would have $1,077,790 at age 67 to buy an annuity, which at current rates quoted on the Vanguard site, would give me $7,789 a month until I die. This return is just about four times the amount I get from having the Social Security Administration manage the money for me instead.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/01...

Since: Nov 11

Salt Lake City, UT

#1608 Jan 17, 2013
JustUwait wrote:
<quoted text>

Liberals adore to use other peoples money. what the hell right I mean they havent worked for it.
I would love for the requirements to be President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member, Congressman or Czar have one addition. Run a company and be required to make payroll for a minimum of 10 years. Then they would know a bit more about spending money that isn't available and the consequences of doing it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1607 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
The U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure, with 20.8% for Social Security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. The combined spending for all social insurance programs in 2006 constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product. Social Security is currently estimated to keep roughly 40 percent of all Americans age 65 or older out of poverty. Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget it is separate from the General Fund.
You Have NO Right to Social Security



Social Security advocates defend this massive program as an inalienable entitlement. The checks will be in the mail, they say, come Hell or high water.

* In his response to President Bush's 2005 State of the Union address, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada called Social Security "the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned."1

* Franklin Delano Roosevelt said Social Security revenues "are collected in the form of taxes... held by the government solely for the benefit of the worker in his old age." Roosevelt added: "We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions."2

* The government reinforces this belief by calling Social Security taxes "contributions" to FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.3 Americans actually have no property rights to their Social Security "contributions." Unlike private pension funds, which actually belong to workers, Americans have no legal claim on the money Uncle Sam theoretically salts away for their golden years.

* The U.S. Supreme Court decided this in 1960 in the case of Fleming v. Nestor. Bulgarian immigrant Ephram Nestor was deported in 1956 for being a Communist in the 1930s. After Congress prohibited Social Security benefits for deportees in 1954, Nestor sued. He claimed title to his FICA tax payments between 1936 and 1955, the year he retired. The Supreme Court disagreed: "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands."4

* The Court added: "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."5

* This decision reflected the Court's precedent in Helvering v. Davis. In 1937, it ruled: "The proceeds of both the employee and employer [Social Security] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."6

* Various congresses and presidents have raised Social Security taxes at least 40 times since the program commenced in 1935. Also, the retirement age currently is creeping toward 67. Such steps deprive Americans of their retirement assets. None of this should be surprising. Social Security funds do not belong to individual workers and entrepreneurs. This money is the property of Washington politicians and they may do with it whatever they please.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TPSocialSecurit...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#1609 Jan 17, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your privatization scheme is bogus Ė itís pie in the sky ... it would turn the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan entirely subject to market movements and an astronomical windfall for Wall Street sharks. The current system guarantees a specified amount of return at a specified time; privatization would remove that component subjecting the payouts to financial market fluctuations turning it into a roll of the dice!


It guarantees nothing. If you are single and didn't opt for early reduced benefits and turn 67 next month and also die next month, you get nothing, your beneficiaries get nothing and your estate gets nothing. Oh wait, they pay 255 dollars to bury you. If I get four times the monthly benefit from privatization that I get from government controlled SS I could care less if the Wall Street sharks were Great Whites.
drink The hive

Anonymous Proxy

#1610 Jan 17, 2013
JustUwait

Rochester, MN

#1612 Jan 17, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love for the requirements to be President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member, Congressman or Czar have one addition. Run a company and be required to make payroll for a minimum of 10 years. Then they would know a bit more about spending money that isn't available and the consequences of doing it.
I like that idea
How

Huntsville, AL

#1611 Jan 17, 2013
duzitreallymatter wrote:
<quoted text>
I would love for the requirements to be President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member, Congressman or Czar have one addition. Run a company and be required to make payroll for a minimum of 10 years. Then they would know a bit more about spending money that isn't available and the consequences of doing it.
silly. Governing is much broader,more multifaceted, more collaborative and with completely different goals than running a business.
Was your mother

Denver, CO

#1614 Jan 17, 2013
Only wrote:
<quoted text>
if you just ignore the first half.
The SCOTUS think that corporations are people and money is speech. They are corporate toadies makin sht up.
a drug addict?
you are

Denver, CO

#1615 Jan 17, 2013
you are wrote:
<quoted text>
possessed by every BS myth out there.
a special kind of stupid that can only come from your mother doing lsd while pregant.
what a

Denver, CO

#1616 Jan 17, 2013
How wrote:
<quoted text>
silly. Governing is much broader,more multifaceted, more collaborative and with completely different goals than running a business.
brainwashed government loving fool.
Nope

Huntsville, AL

#1617 Jan 17, 2013
Was your mother wrote:
<quoted text>
a drug addict?
nothing like yours.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min VetnorsGate 1,521,678
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 11 min Rico from East Los 184
News Elizabeth Warren: 'Fearless' foe against a char... 17 min BHM5267 80
News Obama tells heckler he can't halt deportations ... (Nov '13) 18 min Julia 11
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 20 min dane jah 278
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 41 min Strel 26,077
News Bloomberg to world leaders: Ignore Trump on cli... 49 min Retribution 38
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) 55 min Sheriff Joe 529 3,594
More from around the web