It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103299 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107560 May 16, 2013
Coo wrote:
<quoted text>
koo, Cookoo, Cookoo.
Yes, you most certainly are. And THIS is going to drive you even more so:

Directly from the U.S. LAW BOOK:

"29. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances [Amendments to the const. art. 1.[Pg. 72]

"30. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [Amend to const. art 2] ib

- Laws of The United States of America, From The 4th Of March, 1789, To The 4th Of March, 1815, Including The Constitution Of The United States, The Old Act of Confederation, Treaties, And Many Other Valuable Ordinances And Documents; WithCopious Notes And References. Arranged And Published Under The Authority Of An Act of Congress. In Five Volumes. Vol. V. Published By John Bioren And W. John Duane, Philidelphia, And R.C. Weightman, Washington City. 1815.

See any "militia" there? NO, you DON'T. Do you see "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? YES, YOU MOST CERTAINLY >DO<.

Good-bye, troll.
FormerParatroope r

Chicago, IL

#107562 May 16, 2013
GoGoBar wrote:
LOL> There should be a firearm registry for balistics.
As the firearm leaves the assembly line, it should be ballistically tested.
That trace should be stored against the serial number.
The serial number could be easily embedded on the inside of the frame of the firearm during casting.
Then it would be simpler for Authorities to trace the balistics of crimes where bullets are retreived back to a firearm sale. If the gun has been stolen then the police have somewhere to start. Instead of hoping that the gun has been used in a crime before and has a stored ballistic trace in an unsolved crime.
All modern firearms are serial numbered if manufactured in the US. Imported firearms, if no serial number exists, are serial numbered before sale.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107564 May 16, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The American citizens are intelligent, well educated, and awake to the preservation their liberties; every where armed, and trained to the use of arms, and comprising a militia of nearly a million of free men, Are such a country, and such a people, in jeopardy; as to their freedom, from the existence a standing army of ten thousand men?"
- John Bristed,[THE RESOURCES OF THE OF AMERICA; OR, A VIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL, MANUFACTURING, FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, LITERARY, MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CAPACITY AND CHARACTER or THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BY JOHN BRISTED, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. AUTHOR OF THE RESOURCES Of THE BRITISH EMPIRE. PUBLISHED BY JAMES EASTBURN & CO. AT THE LITERARY ROOMS, BROADWAY, CORNHR OF PINE STREET. Abraham Paul, printer. 1818
Oh - what happened to you moron?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107565 May 16, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh - what happened to you moron?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XVSRm80WzZkXX
You are the one living in the 'twilight zone'. And THIS is going to send you deeper into to outer space, traitor-troll:

"The amendment of the constitution of the United States, cited, secures "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" nor will the constitution of the United States, or the rights of the States, or of the people, be infringed, and I am very confident not endangered, if the concurrent authority of the National Government is exercised to provide arms, establish magazines, &c. and to arm indeed the great body of the militia of the United States."

- Joseph Bloomfield, Dec. 29, 1809 letter to Colonel B. Tallmadge.[American State Papers. Class V. Military Affairs. Volume 1. DOCUMENTS LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIRST TO THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTEENTH CONGRESS, INCLUSIVE: COMMENCING MARCH 3, 1789, AND ENDING MARCH 3 1819. SELECTED AND EDITED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. BY WALTER LOWRIE Secretary of the Senate, AND MATTHEW ST, CLAIR CLARKE, Clerk of the House of Representatives. VOLUME WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON 1832.](Joseph Bloomfield,(Oct. 18, 1753 – Oct. 3, 1823), was the fourth Governor of New Jersey. He was admitted to the bar in 1775 and began his law practice in Bridgeton, New Jersey. He entered the Continental Army as captain of the 3rd New Jersey Regiment on Feb. 9, 1776. He attained the rank of major on November 28, 1776, and was appointed judge advocate of the northern army. He was wounded at the Battle of Brandywine in September 1777. He resigned from the Continental Army on Oct. 28, 1778, after he was elected clerk of the New Jersey General Assembly. From 1795 to 1800 he served as Mayor of Burlington, New Jersey. At the start of the War of 1812 he was commissioned as a brigadier general in the United States Army on March 13, 1812. He served until June 15, 1815 along the Canadian border).

Imagine that! The People's Right won't be infringed if the National Government provides arms to the militia!

Good-bye, traitor-troll.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107567 May 16, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh - what happened to you moron?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =XVSRm80WzZkXX
"As far as the whole body the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought to require more than is necessary; for that be a just cause of complaint."--Mr. Fitzsimons,[Pg. 1852]

"... Mr. Jackson said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burthensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[Pg. 1852]

"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army. Mankind have been divided into three classes, Shepherds, Husbandmen, and Artificers--of which the last make the worst militia; but as the arts and sciences are the sources of great wealth to the community, which may excite the jealousy and avarice of neighbors, this class ought to be peculiarly qualified to defend themselves and repel invasions; and as this country is rising fast in manufactures, the arts and sciences, and from her fertile soil may expect great affluence, she ought to be able to protect that and her liberties from within herself ..."--Mr. Jackson [Pg. 1853]

"There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves arms and accoutrements, that any provision on the part of the United States is unnecessary and improper. He had no doubt that the people, if left to themselves, would provide arms as are necessary, without inconvenience or complaint; but if they are furnished by the United States, the public arsenals would soon be exhausted--and experience shows, that public property of this kind, from the careless manner in which many persons use it, is soon lost."--Mr. Sherman, Dec. 16, 1790.[Pg. 1854]

"He asked by what means minors were to themselves with the requisite articles? Many of them are apprentices. If you put arms into their hands, they will make good soldiers; but how are they to procure them? It is said, if they are supplied by the United States the property will be lost; if this is provided against, every objection may be obviated. He then offered an addition to the motion, providing for the return of the arms to the commanding officer."--Mr. Vining [Pg. 1855]

"Mr. Wadsworth apologized for detaining the attention of the committee a moment, while he asked the gentlemen who favored the motion what was the extent of their wishes? The motion at first appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock; but now it seems minors and apprentices are to be provided for. Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and rouse a jealousy dangerous to the Union. With respect to apprentices, every man knew that they were liable to this tax, and they were taken under the idea of being provided for by their masters; as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed." [Pg. 1855-56]....

- Annals of Congress. THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107569 May 17, 2013
George H wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe, but at least we are not prisoners of mother england, we used our guns to throw that yoke off.
Was that after they burnt the Presidents mansion and had him and his men on the run...FYI the Brits gave it to you...you uneducated noong.

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107570 May 17, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The American citizens are intelligent, well educated, and awake to the preservation their liberties; every where armed, and trained to the use of arms, and comprising a militia of nearly a million of free men, Are such a country, and such a people, in jeopardy; as to their freedom, from the existence a standing army of ten thousand men?"
- John Bristed,[THE RESOURCES OF THE OF AMERICA; OR, A VIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL, MANUFACTURING, FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, LITERARY, MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CAPACITY AND CHARACTER or THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BY JOHN BRISTED, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. AUTHOR OF THE RESOURCES Of THE BRITISH EMPIRE. PUBLISHED BY JAMES EASTBURN & CO. AT THE LITERARY ROOMS, BROADWAY, CORNHR OF PINE STREET. Abraham Paul, printer. 1818
Yes you yanks are really very smart, ROTFLMFAO!
Ahomana Swatter

Mesa, AZ

#107572 May 17, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you yanks are really very smart, ROTFLMFAO! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Hp4iI59BfpQXX
I hate doing this, because there are some very decent Australians. However, you've left me no choice:

a american interviews stupid australians
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

MORE dumb australian interviews by awsome american! BONUS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Australian bag thief runs through glass door during escape - Dumb Stupid Thief
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107573 May 17, 2013
Ahomana Swatter wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate doing this, because there are some very decent Australians. However, you've left me no choice:
a american interviews stupid australians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sdWST9-X-sEXX
MORE dumb australian interviews by awsome american! BONUS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Australian bag thief runs through glass door during escape - Dumb Stupid Thief
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Can't beat this stupid.....

http://www.ozzienews.com/chin-wag/study-concl...

Since: Dec 10

Perth, Australia

#107574 May 17, 2013
Ahomana Swatter wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate doing this, because there are some very decent Australians. However, you've left me no choice:
a american interviews stupid australians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sdWST9-X-sEXX
MORE dumb australian interviews by awsome american! BONUS!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Australian bag thief runs through glass door during escape - Dumb Stupid Thief
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
What is so scary about you airing these as stupid Aussies is that the dumb (or should I say normal in yankee terms) interviewer can't distiguish between Indians, Lebs or Aussies and he says that he (the interviewer speaks American(Not English)....that is bloody priceless..thanks for the laughs...

Since: Feb 11

Peterborough, UK

#107576 May 17, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
What is so scary about you airing these as stupid Aussies is that the dumb (or should I say normal in yankee terms) interviewer can't distiguish between Indians, Lebs or Aussies and he says that he (the interviewer speaks American(Not English)....that is bloody priceless..thanks for the laughs...
Aluminum
Aluminium

Color
Colour

Since: Feb 11

Peterborough, UK

#107577 May 17, 2013
Babararacucudada
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107578 May 17, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>no its not Complete Nonsense look up the two landmark SCOTUS cases of Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis dealing with Social Security and you will find it's you that is misinformed and are a pea-brained Leninist Wingnuz... better wake up.
Why is Social Security so difficult for some people to understand?

Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the Republicans (so desperately) would have you believe, unless you believe that the United States is literally going to collapse in the near future - Social Security is not -! Besides, Social Security isn't even hard to understand, FICA taxes go in, benefits go out. Unlike healthcare, which involves extremely difficult questions of technological advancement and the specter of rationing, Social Security is just arithmetic. Right now, Social Security costs about 4.5% of GDP. That's going to increase as the baby boomer generation retires, and then in 2030 it steadies out at around 6% of GDP.
FICA taxes only apply to earnings up to an inflation-indexed cap, now at $106,800. Anything you earn above that amount has no FICA tax deducted from it. Raise the cap to $150,000 and the problem is solved.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107579 May 17, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"As far as the whole body the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought to require more than is necessary; for that be a just cause of complaint."--Mr. Fitzsimons,[Pg. 1852]
"... Mr. Jackson said, that he was of opinion that the people of America would never consent to be deprived of the privilege of carrying arms. Though it may prove burthensome to some individuals to be obliged to arm themselves, yet it would not be so considered when the advantages were justly estimated."[Pg. 1852]
"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army. Mankind have been divided into three classes, Shepherds, Husbandmen, and Artificers--of which the last make the worst militia; but as the arts and sciences are the sources of great wealth to the community, which may excite the jealousy and avarice of neighbors, this class ought to be peculiarly qualified to defend themselves and repel invasions; and as this country is rising fast in manufactures, the arts and sciences, and from her fertile soil may expect great affluence, she ought to be able to protect that and her liberties from within herself ..."--Mr. Jackson [Pg. 1853]
"There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves arms and accoutrements, that any provision on the part of the United States is unnecessary and improper. He had no doubt that the people, if left to themselves, would provide arms as are necessary, without inconvenience or complaint; but if they are furnished by the United States, the public arsenals would soon be exhausted--and experience shows, that public property of this kind, from the careless manner in which many persons use it, is soon lost."--Mr. Sherman, Dec. 16, 1790.[Pg. 1854]
"He asked by what means minors were to themselves with the requisite articles? Many of them are apprentices. If you put arms into their hands, they will make good soldiers; but how are they to procure them? It is said, if they are supplied by the United States the property will be lost; if this is provided against, every objection may be obviated. He then offered an addition to the motion, providing for the return of the arms to the commanding officer."--Mr. Vining [Pg. 1855]
"Mr. Wadsworth apologized for detaining the attention of the committee a moment, while he asked the gentlemen who favored the motion what was the extent of their wishes? The motion at first appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock; but now it seems minors and apprentices are to be provided for. Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and rouse a jealousy dangerous to the Union. With respect to apprentices, every man knew that they were liable to this tax, and they were taken under the idea of being provided for by their masters; as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnishing them with arms themselves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them reclaimed." [Pg. 1855-56]....
- Annals of Congress. THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND ALL THE LAWS OF A PUBLIC NATURE
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...
If only you could manage to pull your empty head out that dark ans smelly place its in and post something that is relevant and makes sense!!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#107580 May 17, 2013
Ahomana wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that after they burnt the Presidents mansion and had him and his men on the run..
In 1814 we took a little trip,
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
And we fought the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

We fired our guns and the British kept a comin',
There wasn't 'bout as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

Oh we looked down the river and we seen the British come.
There must have been a hundred of 'em beatin' on a drum.
They stepped so high and they made their bugles ring.
We stood behind our cotton bales and didn¹t say a thing.

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise,
If we didn¹t fire our muskets till we looked 'em in the eyes.
We held our fire till we seen their faces well,
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and gave 'em a little...Well....we...

....fired our guns and the British kept a comin',
There wasn't 'bout as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

THEY RAN THRU THE BRIAR AND THEY RAN THRU THE BRAMBLE
THEY RAN THRU THE BUSHES WHERE A RABBIT WOULDN'T GO
THEY RAN SO FAST THAT THE HOUNDS COULDN'T CATCH 'EM
DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI TO THE GULF OF MEXICO

We fired our cannons till the barrels melted down,
Then we grabbed an alligator and we fired another round.
We filled his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind,
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

We fired our guns and the British kept a comin',
There wasn't 'bout as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired our guns and the British kept a comin',
There wasn't 'bout as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin'
On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107581 May 17, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you could manage to pull your empty head out that dark ans smelly place its in and post something that is relevant and makes sense!!
GAME OVER, traitor-troll:

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107583 May 17, 2013
sillystring wrote:
<quoted text>There is too a national gun registry, how do you think they trace ballistics and guns in forensics? If you have a gun, take it to the sheriffs department, let them run the numbers, and see if your name comes up? If it's legal, then yes, your name will come up. If it's an illegal gun then anybodys guess whose name will come up. You dont seem to be able to grasp, so I will go real slow so a retard like you can follow, ready?.........Here goes, It's the drug dealers and illegal gun dealers, criminals, whom are doing the killings. They don't register their guns, buy stolen guns, are steal their own. Perhaps, with a little help, you can understand that something needs to be done with that group of ppl, not your average citizen. You need to leave california, it's warped your brain.
No there is not child, you are watching wayyyy too much TV! It is against federal gun law, there is however a federal database containing any gun found during the investigation of a crime.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#107584 May 17, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
No there is not child, you are watching wayyyy too much TV! It is against federal gun law, there is however a federal database containing any gun found during the investigation of a crime.
Not for much longer, traitor-troll.

"...But great complaint is made of the war preparations of South Carolina. Can any one be serious in saying that there is no cause for this? A State surrounded by military force denied the right to prepare to meet it? Take care, Mr. Speaker this is alarming doctrine to the States! In vain the constitution allows the privilege to the citizen to bear arms for his protection, if, when he rubs up his musket and furnishes it with a fiint, he runs the risk of becoming a traitor! Sir, preparation is no force; as well may you tell me that the gentleman who sits before me with his sword cane, and which, no doubt, he carries for his honest defence, is obliged to run it through the body of the first man he meets, because he has thought proper to be ready for the assaults of either insolence or avarice. I well remember, sir, my own State had once to make warlike preparation against the usurpations of this same Government, and I should like to see the man who would dare to say she meant any thing more than the lawful defence of her undoubted rights. Against this Union she never meditated the slightest movement; but against the unconstitutional acts ot its Government, she did plant herself upon her arms, and hurled defiance in the very teeth of your usurping laws. What Georgia has done in good faith against the designs of arbitrary power, I am willing to accord to other States, without imputing bad motives to the act."

-[Judge] Augustin S. Clayton, Feb. 27, 1833.[REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, COMPRISING THE LEADING DEBATES AND INCIDENTS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS: TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING IMPORTANT STATE PAPERS AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, AND THE LAWS, OF A PUBLIC NATURE, ENACTED DURING THE SESSION: WITH A COPIOUS INDEX TO THE WHOLE. VOLUME IX. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1833. Pg. 1834](Judge Augustin S. Clayton, served in both the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and then a representative of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1831–1835).

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#107585 May 17, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is Social Security so difficult for some people to understand?
Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the Republicans (so desperately) would have you believe, unless you believe that the United States is literally going to collapse in the near future - Social Security is not -! Besides, Social Security isn't even hard to understand, FICA taxes go in, benefits go out. Unlike healthcare, which involves extremely difficult questions of technological advancement and the specter of rationing, Social Security is just arithmetic. Right now, Social Security costs about 4.5% of GDP. That's going to increase as the baby boomer generation retires, and then in 2030 it steadies out at around 6% of GDP.
FICA taxes only apply to earnings up to an inflation-indexed cap, now at $106,800. Anything you earn above that amount has no FICA tax deducted from it. Raise the cap to $150,000 and the problem is solved.
Why Keep the Social Security Scam going when no one is legally entitled to Social Security and the Social Security tax is property of the US Federal Government

Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform

By

Charles E. Rounds Jr.

April 19, 2000

Executive Summary

One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system’s benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.

http://www.cato.org/publications/social-secur...

Democrats Deny Social Security’s Red Ink

Some claim it doesn't contribute to the federal deficit, but it does.

Posted on February 25, 2011

Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute “one penny” to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-de...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#107586 May 17, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Why Keep the Social Security Scam going when no one is legally entitled to Social Security and the Social Security tax is property of the US Federal Government
Property Rights: The Hidden Issue of Social Security Reform
By
Charles E. Rounds Jr.
April 19, 2000
Executive Summary
One of the most enduring myths of Social Security is that a worker has a legal right to his Social Security benefits. Many workers assume that, if they pay Social Security taxes into the system, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system’s benefits. The truth is exactly the opposite. It has long been law that there is no legal right to Social Security. In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits.
http://www.cato.org/publications/social-secur...
Democrats Deny Social Security’s Red Ink
Some claim it doesn't contribute to the federal deficit, but it does.
Posted on February 25, 2011
Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute “one penny” to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-de...
Like I said, some just can't understand social security yet it is such a simple concept and can very easily be fixed by simply increasing the cap!

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 1 min welfare check losers 4,857
News Being conservative is not being racist 1 min Barros chingon 53
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 1 min Dumass_Rick 18,173
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP 234,416
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min Trump failed Us 409,542
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min SobieskiSavedEurope 1,482,782
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 min U R A Know Nothing 3,756
News Actors, mayors rally at inauguration eve Trump ... 1 hr Mothra 67
More from around the web