Another reason to dislike/distrust Democrats...Social Security

MonsterMark

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
Received via email...author unknown.

Subject: Fw: Your Social Security


To all this, I might add that the dems criticized President Bush mightily for wanting to put just 3% of your social security money into a trust fund (where congress wouldn't be able to touch it) so you could voluntarily invest it into the stock market. We were then told it would bankrupt America and would be a terrible folly!

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what.Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program.

He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely Voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4) That the money the participants put into the Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are Now receiving a
Social Security check every month -- And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "Put Away" -- you may be interested in the following:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?


A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and
Senate.
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------


Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social
Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.
--------------------------- -------------------------------------------


Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to
immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, Began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, Even though they never paid a dime into it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -


Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
 
Joeychgo said:
And what have the republicans done for the last 6 years?

-0-
Click to expand...

They were attempting to reform and introduce elements of privatization, but the Democrats in Senate effectively blocked any reform from taking place.
 
Joeychgo said:
And what have the republicans done for the last 6 years?
Click to expand...
They allowed the Dems and the MSM to lie and distort what the Pubs and Bushj were trying to accomplish.

Once again the Dems keep people down, because if they don't keep stepping on the downtrodden, they will lose their power. How sad.

But the sheeple go on merrily chugging the MSM koolaid.
 
Here, rather than just leaving a link, giving the impression that the statements are absurd, here's the complete "Correcting myths and misstatements" article:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.


Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)


Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)
 
TommyB said:
When are you gonna learn to NEVER believe anything you get in an email?
Click to expand...

Well I believe my grandma who was very much alive when this Robinhood program was put into effect. She thinks it was then and is now a total scam. Had she had that money to invest on her own, she figures she would be receiving 4 times the amount she now receives as her monthly S.S. payment.

And what I really LOVE to laugh about is all you 'employed' people vs 'self-employed' folks who don't realize that what is taken out of your check for Social Security (6.2%) is only half of what goes to the fund. The other half comes from your employer or if your self-employed, yourself.

Wouldn't you prefer to have 12.4% of your income really working for you. Or do you really think that $1500/month will be enough when you are 65, factoring in inflation and everything else.

And if you think the rate is going to stay at 12.4%, you are really a sucker. They are going to start hitting and hitting that rate in the next decade as fewer workers pay in and more retirees take out. Just watch and wait.

And as to your comment about posting an email, go right ahead. Debunk what is said. Sure you can parce words here and there but the bulk of it is factually true. Even the S.S. administration has tried to water it down to look more palpable.
 
MonsterMark said:
Well I believe my grandma who was very much alive when this Robinhood program was put into effect. She thinks it was then and is now a total scam. Had she had that money to invest on her own, she figures she would be receiving 4 times the amount she now receives as her monthly S.S. payment.

And what I really LOVE to laugh about is all you 'employed' people vs 'self-employed' folks who don't realize that what is taken out of your check for Social Security (6.2%) is only half of what goes to the fund. The other half comes from your employer or if your self-employed, yourself.

Wouldn't you prefer to have 12.4% of your income really working for you. Or do you really think that $1500/month will be enough when you are 65, factoring in inflation and everything else.

And if you think the rate is going to stay at 12.4%, you are really a sucker. They are going to start hitting and hitting that rate in the next decade as fewer workers pay in and more retirees take out. Just watch and wait.

And as to your comment about posting an email, go right ahead. Debunk what is said. Sure you can parce words here and there but the bulk of it is factually true. Even the S.S. administration has tried to water it down to look more palpable.
Click to expand...

Two words: Ponzi Scheme.
 
Calabrio said:
They were attempting to reform and introduce elements of privatization, but the Democrats in Senate effectively blocked any reform from taking place.
Click to expand...


The repubs had control of the house and senate until 3 months ago. No reason they shouldnt ahve been able to pass anything they wanted. They were too busy rubber stamping GW's war initiatives.

GW is not exactly the brightest light bulb in the room. Now he has made the biggest blunder yet. The dems have him cornered and have completely out manuevered him on Iraq. Now, he's screwed no matter what he does. He will be the bad guy now, no matter what.

BTW - for the record - I think pulling out of Iraq is a mistake. But the political trap Pelozi set was fantastic, and good ol GW stepped right in it. Even the Saudis dissed him today.
 
MonsterMark said:
LMAO. You can thank your buddies in the mainstream press for twisting the facts on this issue too.
Click to expand...


On what issue? The Republicans had control of the House, Senate and President for 6 years. You cant blame the "liberal media" or the democrats for what the republicans didnt accomplish during that 6 years. The republicans could have had anything they wanted for 6 years, had they wanted it bad enough. There are no facts to twist. Only results to measure.
 
Joeychgo said:
The repubs had control of the house and senate until 3 months ago. No reason they shouldnt ahve been able to pass anything they wanted. They were too busy rubber stamping GW's war initiatives.
Click to expand...
And the democrats promised to do great things their first 100 days in power--Nothing yet. :rolleyes: Instead, they're consumed with frivolous non-binding resolutions, pork barrel bribery spending, and passing a frivolous Iraq troop withdrawal timetable. So you tell me which party is worse?

GW is not exactly the brightest light bulb in the room. Now he has made the biggest blunder yet. The dems have him cornered and have completely out manuevered him on Iraq. Now, he's screwed no matter what he does. He will be the bad guy now, no matter what.
Click to expand...
Please...anyone willing to vote for John Kerry is in no position to make comments about President Bush's intelligence or lack thereof.

BTW - for the record - I think pulling out of Iraq is a mistake. But the political trap Pelozi set was fantastic, and good ol GW stepped right in it. Even the Saudis dissed him today.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe the Saudis? Come on Joey, don't be naive. The Saudi government will say anything to appease their critics in order to remain in power.
 
MAC1 said:
And the democrats promised to do great things their first 100 days in power--Nothing yet. :rolleyes: Instead, they're consumed with frivolous non-binding resolutions, pork barrel bribery spending, and passing a frivolous Iraq troop withdrawal timetable. So you tell me which party is worse?
Click to expand...

Oh, and the republicans didnt have pork? Please. Frivolous timetable? It was all politics. They have cornered GW and now he looks like an ass no matter what he does. Eventually a spending bill will go through without the timetable - but GW and the republicans will look very bad in the process and the Dems will look like heros. It was very agressive politics and appears to be working to the Dems significant favor.


MAC1 said:
Please...anyone willing to vote for John Kerry is in no position to make comments about President Bush's intelligence or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

I said it over and over. The last election was like being asked which bullet I wanted to be shot with.
 
Joeychgo said:
Oh, and the republicans didnt have pork? Please. Frivolous timetable? It was all politics. They have cornered GW and now he looks like an ass no matter what he does. Eventually a spending bill will go through without the timetable - but GW and the republicans will look very bad in the process and the Dems will look like heros. It was very agressive politics and appears to be working to the Dems significant favor.




I said it over and over. The last election was like being asked which bullet I wanted to be shot with.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Joey, we get it. You hate Bush. Gee, we've never heard that before from you. Like we care.

Fact is that Bush isn't as dumb as you make him out to be. And another FACT is that the pork being proposed now is much higher than that which the Republicans proposed. The party touting the "culture of corruption" is the biggest hypocrite of them all. The only party looking like an ass right now is the Democrat Party, which OWNS DEFEAT. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
To you - but not to most of the rest of the country. GW just got owned by Pelosi and the Dems. Now GW is stepping in it again over the US Attorney Scandal.

Pork is pork. Listen to yourself. You make it sound like the republicans are better because the republicans pork was less then the democrats? What difference does it make? Its hippocritical of GW to complain about pork in the bill when the repubs do the same thing but with a different amount. Where has GW been for the last 6 years? Personally, I wish they would cut ALL pork out. Make a law - if it doesnt have to do with the topic of the bill, it doesnt get in. Period. But I didnt see the republicans doing that for the last 6 years.

BTW - 2/3 of the country doesnt like Bush anymore either. Hasnt for some time.
 
Joeychgo said:
Pork is pork. Listen to yourself. You make it sound like the republicans are better because the republicans pork was less then the democrats? What difference does it make? Its hippocritical of GW to complain about pork in the bill when the repubs do the same thing but with a different amount. Where has GW been for the last 6 years? Personally, I wish they would cut ALL pork out. Make a law - if it doesnt have to do with the topic of the bill, it doesnt get in. Period. But I didnt see the republicans doing that for the last 6 years.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you on this point. Until now, President Bush didn't know what the word "vito" meant. But let's make one thing clear, the President is no "conservative."

I disagree that all pork is the same, especially within the confines of the current Iraq bill, which President Bush will hopefully have the guts to veto. Did you know the bill is 1.3 billion dollars short of providing much needed funds for the War. In other words, some senators feel that $74 million for peanut growers, $25 million for spinach growers, $252 million for milk subsidies and $3.3 billion for crop and livestock losses are more important than supporting the troops. Yet, Nanci Pelosi insists the extra spending doesn't qualify as pork. I agree--It's bribe money!

So you see, not all pork is the same, especially when it's used to buy votes instead of tending to the needs of our troops, which is what this bill was suppose to do.

By the way, "agribusiness spent $84 million lobbying Congress and contributed $44.1 million to federal campaigns in 2005 and 2006." So the purpose of this bill is to push through a frivolous withdrawal timetable and maintain special interest support for the 2008 election. :rolleyes:
 
so your saying *gasp* the reasons behind this bill were pure politics?! I can't believe it! lol
 
Of course..

See, now nobody can say the dems didnt vote to support the troops. At the same time, nobody can say they voted to continue the war. And no matter what GW does, he's the bad guy. GW will just have to learn to work and play well with dems, now that his rubber stamp no longer has any ink.

:)
 
Joey, you have a lot to learn about Senate procedure. You assert that because the Republicans had a simple majority in both houses, they should have been able to pass anything they wanted. The fact is that they tried to pass drilling in ANWR and SS reform, and did so in the House, but the Dems had filibuster power in the Senate. You have to have a 60 vote majority to overturn a filibuster, and the Republicans only had 55. So the Dems could prevent a vote on anything they wanted as long as they held at least 41 votes.

Now you're going to see the other side, your Dems won't get a thing passed in the Senate for the next 2 years, especially if Lieberman changes sides.

I could use your flawed logic and say that if your moronic Dems can't get anything passed in the next 2 years, it's their own fault. However, I'm being intellectually honest, unlike you.
 
Joeychgo said:
Of course..

See, now nobody can say the dems didnt vote to support the troops. At the same time, nobody can say they voted to continue the war. And no matter what GW does, he's the bad guy. GW will just have to learn to work and play well with dems, now that his rubber stamp no longer has any ink.

:)
Click to expand...
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Do you really think President Bush cares if people look at him as the bad guy? Of all things, I would think you understand that popularity is not the guiding force that motivates GW. Since you're a liberal, however, you obviously think in terms of being one, which means that you tend to believe everyone should formulate policy based on polls.
 
MAC1 said:
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Do you really think President Bush cares if people look at him as the bad guy? Of all things, I would think you understand that popularity is not the guiding force that motivates GW. Since you're a liberal, however, you obviously think in terms of being one, which means that you tend to believe everyone should formulate policy based on polls.
Click to expand...


See, this is the funny part. Im not a liberal. Im not a conservative. Im neither. Each issue has different meanings for me and my opinions are more left on some things and more right on others.

I actually agree with GW in that the troops need to stay and not be limited by any time frame. I do understand that popularity isnt what guides GW, hence his long standing 30% approval rate. Unfortunately for the republican party, GW isnt in a vaccum, and what he does affects other republicans.

My concern right now is that the "occupation" hasnt been managed well from the get go, and I see the same mistakes being repeated. For example, I think the surge should be 100k troops, not 20k.
 
fossten said:
Now you're going to see the other side, your Dems won't get a thing passed in the Senate for the next 2 years, especially if Lieberman changes sides.
Click to expand...


Kinda like the spending bill with the IRAQ timeline didnt pass..... OOPS - I forgot, it did.
 
Joeychgo said:
Kinda like the spending bill with the IRAQ timeline didnt pass..... OOPS - I forgot, it did.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, nice to see that you proudly put the capstone of Democratic achievement where it belongs - DEFEAT. That is the ONE THING the Democrats are really good at - cutting and running.

Figures you'd be proud of that. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 83 (members: 0, guests: 83)
Back
Top