WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

What's the greater threat to you -- Terrorism by outsiders or just some gunman goes berserk?

I'll make this week's first blog post short & sweet.

WDEL talk-show host Al Mascitti says this frequently on-the-air, and I absolutely concur.

The average American has much more to fear from shootings (or other violence) at a public place than from international terrorists.

That's even more so if you don't spend a lot of time at large internationally known landmarks that might draw international terrorists anxious to make a statement.

Case in point: This weekend's shootings at that mall in Columbia, Maryland. (Someone very close to me worked at a store in that mall until a few years ago.)



Posted at 7:53am on January 27, 2014 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts



Comments on this post:

EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 9:14am
Even more likely would be an armed robbery or home-invasion....both reasons to be armed if you wish to protect yourself/your family. And very doubtful in any of these scenarios (international terrorists, mall shooter, mugger or robber) the perps legally obtained their weapons.

billsmith
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 9:17am
Why don't you just come out and say it? It's the gun nuts, the N.R.A., the gun industry and their lobbyists who make all this possible and likely. Every time it happens, the blood is on their hands.

A tea-party candidate offers an automatic weapon to his campaign workers as a prize.

A retired cop shoots a man for texting during the previews in a theater.

More people get shot on any given day than were killed in Newtown.

And the media and the politicians keep pandering to sickos who insist on packing heat.

Allan Loudell
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 9:18am
Mr. Grey---

Police say the mall shooter in Columbia, Maryland, legally obtained his gun.

19-year-old Darion Marcus Aguilar had no criminal history nor a history of violence, according to authorities.

His mother says her son had never shown a particular interest in guns.

And sorry Mr. Grey. Given all the domestic violence with guns, suicides with guns, intruders taking possession of guns, etc., I believe the case can be made if EVERY U.S. household had a gun, we'd have many MORE victims in the end, not fewer.

Why? Because a certain number of otherwise rational people have that moment of emotional irrational rage - during the heat of an argument, for example - when they'll lunge for that legally obtained firearm and use it against a loved one. Or, as we've seen time after time, where a child somehow gains access to the weapon and "innocently" fires it at another; or where a teen acquires the weapon and brings it to school. Or, tragically, where an intruder gains possession of the weapon.

Or simply, freak accidents where firearms are discharged. I remember an incident in Memphis (when I was there) where a woman dropped her purse on a counter at an ice-cream shop, and the gun within fired. This was in a more affluent suburban area where shootings were rare. I'd hate to think what would happen if every American were packing heat. Just by the law of statistical averages, you'd have more freak accidents... sometimes with tragic results.

Sorry. I'd honestly feel safer in a country with far fewer firearms.

EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 9:46am
Mr. Loudell,

Sorry, but from history's lessons I feel safer with an "armed society" and many police chiefs (and historians) agree with me. But I do agree with you that any firearms in a home should be properly locked away in a safe!

I wonder how many people die from kitchen-knives vs. firearms in "domestic disputes"? Once again, it's not the tool it's the operator of the tool that's ultimately responsible.

billsmith
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:18am
Why are tea baggers so in love with guns? Because guns are the weapon of choice for the stupid and incompetent. Yes, you can pick one up and do damage on impulse. No particular skill is required to do damage, especially with automatic weapons. Building a bomb takes skill. So does flying an airplane into a building. Martial arts takes skill and discipline, and requires regular exercise. Any dummy can grab a gun. And given that guns make noise and attract attention... Given that guns and bullets carry ballistic fingerprints making it easier to prove whodunit... Using a gun is the quickest and easiest way for a dumb bad guy to get caught. And teabaggers are dumb enough to believe all the crap they learned watching cowboy movies - or from wing-nut talk show hosts and bloggers.
I wonder what they'd say if somebody with an assault rifle hit a fundamentalist megachurch or a teabagger convention?

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:19am
Or is it possiblly Christine O'Donnell who's in the news again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/26/congressional-inquiry-on-christine-odonnell-tax-re/

Allan Loudell
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:19am
Mr. Grey---

But what are history's "lessons"? When the entire country of Canada has fewer - or the same number -- of violent shooting deaths as ONE U.S. city, I would submit that says volumes.

Furthermore, just from my experience following local news in different places over decades, surely the number of "domestics" resulting in death from guns far exceeds the number from knives and other weapons.

By the way, I've always thought the idea of locking a firearm away in a safe illustrates the conundrum of safe firearms use: Yes, lock your firearms so a child - or an intruder - can't easily gain access. But if the homeowner confronting a break-in really "needs" that firearm, does he/she really have the time to open that safe, presumably in the near dark, let alone call police? And if the police DO arrive, is there not a slight chance the firearms-owner might shoot the cop, or vice-versa...




EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 12:07pm
But what are history's "lessons"? When the entire country of Canada has fewer - or the same number -- of violent shooting deaths as ONE U.S. city, I would submit that says volumes.

History? Like Germany, Russia, and various other dictatorships sir.
And, of the violent shootings you cite, notice that the U.S. cities with HIGHEST shootings/deaths have the strictest gun laws...Chicago wins in this category.

As to the safe conundrum...the solution is a biometric safe (only works for the owner).

kavips
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 1:19pm
It's been over a year and a month since Sandy Hook. After a year of arguments from both sides, it is sparkling clear, that what we have to fear are guns in the hands of mentally ill.

The guns could be legal or illegal. But the person firing them is always mental...

So increasing mental health is one option; one that should be pursued and billed to the wealthy.

Also some form or way of keeping guns from legally entering the hands of the mentally ill. I like tracking them. Give every gun a VIN number and record its bullet marks to that registered gun.

That may not solve all mental gun shootings. It would go a long way in making us all feel safer.

As for terrorism, one of the good side effects of Iraq and Afghanistan, was that all jihadists matriculated over there to fight the Great Satan. We've been spared. It's been rather peaceful.

Once we come back, they will too...

I think both of those effectively answer Allan's question.

Allan Loudell
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 1:20pm
Mr. Grey---

To borrow the mythological Chicago metaphor, Mrs. O'Leary's cow had already knocked over the lantern, igniting the Chicago fire, by the time Chicago adopted stricter gun laws. The firearms were already rampant.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't necessarily think stricter gun laws would do very much good - especially at the local or state levels, even Federal - because they're already so many guns out there.

Bluntly, I think it's virtually hopeless for this country. Guns permeate the culture.

Could the Founding Fathers have done a better job of specifying what absolutely it was they intended? (Although to non-2nd Amendment absolutists, they DID offer specificity when referring to "well regulated militia".)

People arguing for the necessity of guns always trot out Germany, Russia, etc. Yet that doesn't account for the numerous countries which did NOT become dictatorships, yet never elevated gun ownership to an absolute right.

It also doesn't address countries where the citizenry voted IN the government which became despotic, and by the time citizens might have resorted to ordinary arms, it was too late.

Taking such logic to its conclusion - that ordinary U.S. citizens require guns, even machine guns, as a defense against tyranny - doesn't that raise the question of ordinary citizens having access to weaponized drones and tactical nukes?

Allan Loudell

billsmith
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 1:48pm
We've had recent stories of somebody stopping to ask directions and getting shot through somebody's front door. Or somebody coming home late, in the dark, and getting blown away by a family member. And, all the stories over the years, of kids killing a friend or family member playing with real guns. Let's just wait until Earl comes home late. Or Pizza has the wrong address on his late delivery. I wonder what they'll say about the second amendment as they take their final breath.

billsmith
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 2:26pm
Study: 20 young people a day hospitalized for gun injuries

Gun injuries prevalent in children

Researchers found that 7,391 young people under age 20 were admitted to U.S. hospitals in 2009 because of firearm injuries - about 20 a day. More than 6% of them died from their injuries.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/27/guns-children-hospitalizations/4796999/

mrpizza
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 6:25pm
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. - 2 Timothy 3: 1-4

Allan Loudell
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 7:13pm
mrpizza...

But don't some 2nd Amendment absolutists come off as though they are lovers of guns, lovers of weapons?

Not to be argumentative, but one will occasionally see a vehicle (more often than not an SUV or pick-up truck) plastered with pro-gun bumper stickers, and occasionally, with a Confederate battle flag as well. It seems some of these folks are absolutely obsessed. I probably shouldn't even introduce the notion that their frequent aggressive driving just confirms the stereotype.

And since you mention God, I'll introduce a theological argument: To see pro-gun bumper stickers accompanied by religious and/or anti-abortion bumper stickers, I would argue, does no favors either for religion or for the anti-abortion movement. And, it sickenly elevates 2nd Amendment worship to the level of a deity or "innocent life".




billsmith
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 7:17pm
Pizza: Interesting how you look away from the nature of the relationship between Paul and young Timothy (and before that, Paul and young Silas). Back then this male-male "mentor-protege" relationship was very fashionable in the Hellenized world.

mrpizza
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 7:29pm
Whatever argument you may have, take it up with God.

I post - you decide.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 7:35pm
Mrpizza: Not to pile on, but Allan & Billsmith are making excellent points. There does seem to be an obsession with guns/rifles as Allan pointed with the Pickup / SUV gang & bumper stickers on their vehicles that usually show a Confererate flag, along with the the gun stuff, + Pro-life & probably now Duck Dynasty too.

I challenge you to read the Red Lettered parts (the words Jesus said) of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John then after reading that compare what Jesus actually said & what the TEA party is saying & I think you will better understand why I can't be a TEA party person. I see nothing in what the TEA folks advocating remotely close to what Jesus said. I'm sorry I really don't.

mrpizza
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:24pm
MFD: I think you guys are missing the point of my scriptural post. I didn't post that scripture in order to defend any particular side. Rather, that was what God gave me as a prophetic illustration as to the current condition of mankind in general. If all have sinned, then that means Republicans, Democrats, TEA party, communists, nazis, nice people, mean people, Christians, atheists - the list goes on forever.

I've argued in favor of my side on this blog for the past 3 years, and it's become redundant. Everybody knows what I stand for and what politics I support, and I feel it's time to present something that rises above all that. Politics of any stripe can't solve our problems - only God's holy word can. I give scripture not to force religion down anyone's throats, but rather to present a perspective that transcends politics. The scripture I post is what God says to me about the subject. When I say take it up with God, I mean search out the scriptures for yourselves and find out what he'd say to you about it.

EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:47pm
mrpizza: I think that is the best post you have written on this blog...bravo and very well said.

mrpizza
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:49pm
Bill: You mentioned the possibility of getting blown away because of a wrong address on a late delivery. I can't speak for other pizza drivers, but my policy (which, by the way, is part of official policy) is to establish contact with the customer on my cellphone to make sure I'm at the right address before I even get out of my car.

And yes, we "racially profile" certain neighborhoods by not going to some of them after dark.

mrpizza
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 10:52pm
Thanks, Earl. Look for more scriptural perspectives in the future.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 11:09pm
Mrpizza: That is a good scripture & does describe our world today, but am not sure how that fits into the discussion you, Allan,& Billsmith were having.

EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 11:14pm
I agree with kavips' assessment that we need to focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Every mass killing in recent history has been committed by a mentally ill person...most of them had consulted with a doctor and were on some type of medication for their illness. This information should be available to the law enforcement database for those screening who should or shouldn't be granted access to a firearm.

EarlGrey
Mon, Jan 27, 2014 11:27pm
"I don't necessarily think stricter gun laws would do very much good - especially at the local or state levels, even Federal - because they're already so many guns out there."

There really isn't a need for more laws...there is a need to prosecute those who do break the current gun laws. Chicago, LA and NYC receive the worst records for actual prosecutions of gun-related crimes.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes

mrpizza
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 12:20am
MFD: What Allan and Bill said was in response to the scripture I posted, I guess based on the assumption they thought I was using it in an "in your face" fashion.

billsmith
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 6:47am
Pizza: And people were so nice 2,000 years ago? I guess your total knowledge of the ancient world comes from Hollywood "code" movies. And this is written by same Saul of Tarsus who liked boys, and who got his jollies watching people get stoned to death.

"That is a good scripture..."

MFD: In contrast to all the crap scripture?

billsmith
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 7:09am
West Virginia man, 62, shoots dead his two new black neighbors as they were inspecting their shed and then claims he thought they were burglars

* Rodney Bruce Black, 62, shot brothers Garrick and Carl Hopkins Jr, 60 and 61, on Saturday as they were inspecting a shed on their property
* Black claimed the men were breaking into his shed so he shot them with a rifle from inside his own home and only called 911 afterward
* While the Hopkins brothers are black and Black is white, authorities don't believe race was a factor in the attack
* Black has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547018/Homeowner-62-charged-murder-shooting-new-neighbors-mistaking-burglars.html#ixzz2rh6ndVRV


Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:29am
Mrpizza: I believe the point you're overlooking is in this piece of scripture.

John 15:19 (Amplified Bible)
19 If you belonged to the world, the world would treat you with affection and would love you as its own. But because you are not of the world [no longer one with it], but I have chosen (selected) you out of the world, the world hates (detests) you.

As we do live in the world, we aren't to become like the world. It's one thing to defend yourself and your family, but too many of the gun folks want more than that as their bumper stickers, attitude, hatred towards others who don't see the world as they do, or who are different from them, etc., etc., and whose words are very different from how I intrepret Jesus's words in the Gospels such as when Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery.

11 Jesus said, I do not condemn you either. Go on your way and from now on sin no more.

12 Once more Jesus addressed the crowd. He said, I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me will not be walking in the dark, but will have the Light which is Life.

John 8: 11-12 Amplified Bible

EarlGrey
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 11:40am
Mike: What do these bumper stickers of which you speak say? I personally only have a IXOYE fish on my car (neither a SUV nor a F-250 pickup truck) and a few band stickers of my favorite musical groups. Too many people associate the Tea Party with pick-up trucks, Confederate flags, the Gadsden flag, anti-0bama stickers, and a 3rd grade education...other than the Gadsden flag (Don't Tread on Me) I don't think the remaining descriptions aptly fit the majority of those who believe in the values of the Tea Party movement.

The real Tea Party supporter does not look like the caricature of the stupid redneck riding around in his truck/SUV with a huge Confederate flag waving behind it...they are everyday people who feel that our government is completely too large/powerful and it started before our current leader.

billsmith
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 1:06pm
"The real Tea Party supporter does not look like the caricature of the stupid redneck riding around in his truck/SUV with a huge Confederate flag waving behind it."

Wrong! That's exactly how you look. That's exactly what you tea baggers are. Not all tea baggers have a fish on the bumper. Some have plastic Jesus on the dashboard.


Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 1:49pm
EarlGrey: Obviously you are not a "redneck", Confederate Battle-flag-waving yahoo, who has a third-grade education, who seems to hate anything or anyone they don't agree with etc., etc., but sadly, far too many seem to be.

If more of the outspoken TEA folks were more like you, I'd be far more interested in hearing what they're saying, but I've run into far too many of the other type, and they give your movement a bad name.

Not to mention some of the national TEA folks, such as Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and Phil Robertson of the Duck Show, etc., again don't help your movement.

The extreme Left has a similar problem [albeit they tend to not be the "redneck" types.] Sadly the extremes [both left and right] seem to bring out the loud-mouthed, obnoxious, hateful types [Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Nancy Pelosi, etc., come to mind for some on the Left]. So it isn't only the TEA Party that suffers from this type of problem, in my opinion.

EarlGrey
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 2:25pm
Thanks Mike.

I'll agree 100% on your opinion of O'Donnell but think that the real Palin is far different from the caricature S.N.L. and Katie Couric portrayed (Couric is now gone, but Palin is still a relevant voice on Fox and "evil" Breitbart's site). But again, her reputation has been trashed beyond repair to ever be taken seriously by the general public who only remember that she can see Russia from her house.

And, as far as I know, Phil has mostly stayed out of politics (they never talk politics on their Duck Dynasty show). The Tea Party supporters like the Robertson family (Duck Dynasty) because they (even with their mega-empire) believe in God, family, and self-reliance.

If you would like an example of an upcoming Tea Party type then check out Matt Blevin. He's the Tea Party candidate challenging Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. He is not a redneck (born & raised in New Hampshire); he's pretty smart; and sounds like a breath of fresh air for Congress.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/matt-bevin-kentucky-senate-2014-on-the-ground-mitch-mcconnell-102498.html

billsmith
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 2:46pm
Maybe you two should get a room.

Funny you all still like guns. I guess you figure guns only shoot people you hate. Martin Luther King. Jack Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy...

Guns also shoot tea bagger heroes... Ronnie Reagan. George Wallace. Huey Long.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 3:22pm
EarlGrey: I just took a quick look at his Matt Bevin for Senate website. No mention of what he'd do to Social Security [Too many in the TEA Party want to get rid of it, or take some of the benefits... I will have worked full-time paying into the system for 47 years to get], and he's for a flat tax [That works great for the wealthy, but it's bad for the middle-class, and worse yet for the poor.]

Those are deal-breakers for me. The only way a flat tax could work, realistically, is different levels for different income levels, but flat within each level, but the wealthy wouldn't support that.

mrpizza
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 7:39pm
MFD: Just to be clear, I don't drive a pickup truck at all let alone one with a shotgun in the back and a confederate flag waving, nor do I display any bumper stickers at all let alone ones that express hate. Furthermore, I don't condone what you're talking about here and I include the people you speak of as part of the lovers of pleasure rather than God.

However, where it concerns the TEA party, those people are the exception and not the rule. The average Joe TEA party guy simply wants some sanity restored to government.

billsmith
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 7:56pm
No, you guys don't need bumper stickers to express hate. You come here to express it. No, some tea baggers don't drive pick-ups. They drive Crown Vic geezer mobiles and wear loud plaid slacks and plan shirts (while normal people wear plain slacks and plaid shirts). And they keep their guns at home because they have a pathological fear of intruders with dark skin.

mrpizza
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 8:28pm
Hey Bill: Have you ever seen the bumper sticker that says "How's my driving? Call 1-800-EAT-****?"

mrpizza
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 8:52pm
EarlGrey: That was Tina Fey who played Sarah Palin on SNL.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 9:13pm
Mrpizza: I understand what your saying, sadly that hasn't been my experience. Even so, the focus is in cutting government spending with no regards who gets hurt in the process. The attitude that retirees are takers is one such issue. If I get to retire in 4 years @ 66, I'll have worked full time for 47 years never missing a single payment to Social Security Insurance plan. So I golly well expect to receive my benefits as I did my part so tell your TEAParty buddies that retired folks are not takers, they've been paying their entire adult life, per the plan.

There are many working poor who work full time hours yet are struggling to feed, clothe, & house their families, yet the Tea party doesn't care about helping these folks, but worrys about helping the wealthiest 2% most of whom are NOT job creators.

I've numerous times here & other places suggested that the way to reward true job creators is to make it work like it does for donating to charities. So if you create jobs in the US for legal Americans in 2014 then you're eligible for a tax break, if you didn't no tax break for you. Never any interest by any TEA folks, no no we've got to protect those wealthy 2%.

Sure there are things that should be cut, but why does the TEA folks only ever want to always cut the little guy & not touch the wealthy? One time it would be great if they hit the wealthy before going after the middle class & poor.

mrpizza
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 9:51pm
MFD: I haven't seen any evidence that the TEA party is out to cut the people like ourselves who have worked and paid into the system. In fact, the reason the movement was started was out of concern that the middle class and poor are being hurt by runaway government spending. If government continues to borrow and just kick the can down the road, they'll eventually run out of road to kick it down. Remember, TEA means "taxed enough already" and all we really want to do is to cut government extravegence. You talk about the 2% but if they got taxed the way you want it wouldn't help precisely because the government wouldn't use the money to pay down the debt but rather use it for more new spending.

The bottom line is, TEA folks fear that Social Security and Medicare will be destroyed by current policies and truth be told we want to rescue these programs from those policies.
Of course, the left will forever continue the same drum beat that we're out to put old folks on the street, etc. Problem is, if that were true, we'd be doing that to ourselves because like it or not we are the old folks.

Get it through your head, my friend. We're here to save the middle class, not destroy it.

EarlGrey
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 10:33pm
Get it through your head, my friend. We're here to save the middle class, not destroy it."~mrpizza

EXACTLY!!
Mike: No one in the Tea Party wants to touch or modify your social security...NO ONE. The only modifications to S.S. would be for the younger generations (like extending retirement age) and IF future generations hope to receive any of the money they have paid into the system changes must be made or the system will collapse and we "younger folks" will get back none of the money we were forced to put into S.S. for years.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 28, 2014 11:31pm
I've discussed this with some TEA folks usually those under 40. They see no future for Social Security & don't want to pay taxes to keep it going. That part of the TEA party is the problem. Once they get power, the rest of us will lose. They are of a libertarian mind set they don't want to pay any taxes if they can help it. These are the young folks Obama is having problems getting to sign up for Obamacare. They'll openly say they have no problem with you & I paying for their trips to the ER as has been the case for years. They are the takers.
So there might a good part of the TEA movement, but there's this other part that I could never agree with or want running our government.




EarlGrey
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 9:19am
Mike: I agree with those Tea Partiers you mentioned...I'm in the same age range as them and know that I cannot rely on S.S. for my retirement. The only way to make it work is to extend the age of retirement ( when S.S. was first instituted the average age of death was 65)...we now live much longer and (after ridding society of 55 million future taxpayers via abortion) now have more "takers" from the system than those paying in...the Ponzi sheme only works when you have more "suckers" paying in than taking out.

EarlGrey
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 9:25am
Under the Tea Party social security would be paid to those who have already paid in but younger individuals could have THE CHOICE to opt out of social security for themselves. On social security it seems I'm pro-choice.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 10:29am
EarlGrey: I'd sure like to see that statement you just mentioned somewhere in TEA party speeches. If they want to make a different plan for the kids, then fine, but it's a bit late for folks like me and would be wrong to change our plan.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is an insurance plan. We have life insurance that we pay into, during our lives the money we've paid in goes to other families who's loved ones have died, when our turn comes to die, someone elses money will go to my family. Social Security was designed to work the same way. So if Social Security is a Ponzi scheme then so in insurance, yet I never hear Republicans lambast the insurance industry.

What did happen is American society changed since 1932 when Social Security was first introduced via FDR and the Democrats in Congress as part of the New Deal.

Back then we had larger families, no abortions other than a some of illegal types, and yes folks didn't live as long as they do today, darn those geezers just won't die off.

So yes 55 million tax payers are not here paying into the Social Security insurance plan thanks to abortion being legal and easily gotten. American families are far smaller than they were in 1932, Congress has used the Trust Fund money for other purposes, so please quit calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, as it has worked and worked well as designed by FDR and Congress for 78 years [first benefits paid out in 1936]. How many other government programs have such a track record?

What's telling about all this is Republicans have been against Social Security since 1932 when they started the Liberty League [strikingly similar to today's Tea Party being against Obamacare]. The GOP is still trying to get rid of this popular Democrat program so one way to do that is to demonize it and calling it a Ponzi scheme is part of that process.

By the way, all that would have to be done to make Social Security solvent into the 22nd century would be to raise the ceiling on how much income would be taxed by SS. Today the tax cuts off at $110K salary gross /yr. Raise it to $220K gross salary/yr and problem solved well into the 22nd century, meaning you younger folks would have no worrys about receiving your Social Security benefits. But guess who's against doing that? The wealthy folks and yep Republicans/TEA folks, because they really would rather get rid of this successful DEM program and replace it with a Republican program. That's the reality of the issue and what probably would keep me from supporting a Republican/TEA candidate. Due to their total hatred of Social Security, especially among you younger Republican/TEA folks, I don't know that I can count on your party to NOT [sorry Bill] stick it to folks like me and somehow burn down the pier of Social Security as my boat approaches the dock.


EarlGrey
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 12:18pm
"By the way, all that would have to be done to make Social Security solvent into the 22nd century would be to raise the ceiling on how much income would be taxed by SS. Today the tax cuts off at $110K salary gross /yr. Raise it to $220K gross salary/yr and problem solved well into the 22nd century."

I agree with you...but would go even further and remove even the $220k ceiling...why should there even be a ceiling? Everyone should pay the same amount, right?

That solution sounds like something a Tea Party leader like Rand Paul, Cruz, or even Scott Walker would propose...definitely not a Moderate like Romney/Christie/McCain or a Progressive like Hillary.

Merrium-Webster:
Ponzi scheme: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.
That definition looks like Social Security to me.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 1:20pm
EarlGrey: I've never one time ever heard any Republican, much less a TEA [Taxed Enough Already] person say, let's take the ceiling off the Social Security tax.

Everyone should have all of their paychecks throughout the year taxed for Social Security /Medicare, YES I agree. I believe DEMS would go with that way before Republicans and TEA folks. Let me know when you hear Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker say such a thing, because THAT would be big news.

EarlGrey, Social Security was NEVER intended to be an investment, so that definition does NOT fit Social Security. It is an insurance plan, like life insurance; you pay your premiums each month and when you die, your family gets to collect the benefits. The only difference between Social Security and Life Insurance plans is with Social Security, you don't have to die to collect, just live past your 66th birthday [for my group], other groups are 66 1/2, 67, etc.

billsmith
Wed, Jan 29, 2014 6:32pm
It was supposed to be insurance. But Congress couldn't keep it's grubby paws off the money. So, instead of investing it, they spent it. And when time comes to pay off, they have to take money from the general fund (tax revenue). To justify this, they start calling Social Security an "entitlement program." I wonder what would happen if a bank or insurance company did this? Oh, wait! They pretty much do.

EarlGrey
Thu, Jan 30, 2014 9:16am
bill: Well said...again.
Looks like we do agree on some things...we may be polar opposites on religion and that's fine.

EarlGrey
Thu, Jan 30, 2014 9:55pm
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Intelligence%20Reports/2014%20WWTA%20%20SFR_SSCI_29_Jan.pdf

For anyone interested in the official U.S. Intelligence Community Worldwide Threat assessment.


Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.
Username:
Password:
Comment:
 










Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach