Your Social Security

[Patti]

Your Social Security

This is 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 and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! (I don’t really care who did it, the fact of the matter is we’ve been had).

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,

No longer Voluntary

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

Now 7.65%
On the first $90,000

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

No longer tax deductible

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, under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent.



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


Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed

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 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!


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.


AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE
TERM!!!
It's Time to give them All the BOOT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[farronwolf]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

[Patti]

Dang it, Farronwolf.

You know I love to bash democrats.

[SelfDefense]

Dang it, Farronwolf.

You know I love to bash democrats.

Actually, snopes has been debunked as it is simply a husband and wife sitting at home. It is most defintitely not an authoritative source.

Here is the Act in its entirety:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html

I particularly like this part:


OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS

(b) In no case shall the monthly rate computed under subsection (a) exceed $85.


I am glad you are still able to bash democrats in this forum.

[peckman28]

They need to phase out Social Security entirely. It is the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever, but it is far worse than a typical one. At least Ponzi and Madoff didn't force anyone into their scam...

[SelfDefense]

They need to phase out Social Security entirely. It is the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever, but it is far worse than a typical one. At least Ponzi and Madoff didn't force anyone into their scam...

I agree completely.

Phasing out social security would help the economy enormously as well as providing people the opportunity to invest in their own future.

[Bumper]

I agree completely.

Phasing out social security would help the economy enormously as well as providing people the opportunity to invest in their own future.

Me too. Give me the money I "invested" with applicable interest and I will go along my merry way. But if they end it without paying people back there will be bloodshed.....

[peckman28]

I think they could phase it out without causing a major disturbance. Just get a cutoff age at which you'll remain in the old system, say 35 years and older. Between 18 and 35 you would have the option of whether to participate or not. Anyone under 18 would be told they will not participate and they will not have to pay into it either. Within a generation or two it could be finished and gone. The shortfalls caused by no longer forcing young people in could be made up by ending the practice of spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money overseas every single year.

[packinnova]

I agree completely.

Phasing out social security would help the economy enormously as well as providing people the opportunity to invest in their own future.

Wow...The stars have aligned... We all agree on something...:rolleyes:

[farronwolf]

Don't worry, social security will never be phased out. There are too many old folks that the politicians want votes from. Anyone recall what happened to the idea of "privatizing" social security when Bush brought it up.

People can invest in their own future any time they like. The problem is that many choose not to because they don't have the discipline to save money, they buy Hummers and flat screen tv's instead.

[peckman28]

Don't worry, social security will never be phased out. There are too many old folks that the politicians want votes from. Anyone recall what happened to the idea of "privatizing" social security when Bush brought it up.

People can invest in their own future any time they like. The problem is that many choose not to because they don't have the discipline to save money, they buy Hummers and flat screen tv's instead.


The changes he proposed were drastic though. I think if they phased it out in such a manner that the old people who were taught to be dependent on it still got paid, while the younger people who know they won't get anything anyway don't have to participate anymore, it could work. I also think there is a lot of agreement in this country that we waste far too much taxpayer money outside of out own borders, and stopping that practice should not be too hard politically. That money could be used to fund those who remain on the old program until they pass on.

[farronwolf]

peckman,

I am not disagreeing with you, but the simple fact is that older voters are a large block in this country and politicians take them seriously. When you start to think about messing with something that many rely heavily on, it will certainly cause them to sit up an notice. The politicians will then drop the issue. It is too much of a hot topic to risk their political futures on.

As far as wasting too many taxpayer dollars outside our borders, well lets just agree that they waste too many taxpayer dollars period. I was looking for a graph that I found once about the number of earmarks in each years budget. The number has gotten totally out of control, and it didn't make any difference which party was in office.

[peckman28]

peckman,

I am not disagreeing with you, but the simple fact is that older voters are a large block in this country and politicians take them seriously. When you start to think about messing with something that many rely heavily on, it will certainly cause them to sit up an notice. The politicians will then drop the issue. It is too much of a hot topic to risk their political futures on.

As far as wasting too many taxpayer dollars outside our borders, well lets just agree that they waste too many taxpayer dollars period. I was looking for a graph that I found once about the number of earmarks in each years budget. The number has gotten totally out of control, and it didn't make any difference which party was in office.


Certainly true. I just think it would be nice if they would solve it before it becomes a necessity as the dollar completely collapses under the weight of all their spending. I think what I outlined is just about the only feasible method of doing it. If enough people started pushing their representatives to address this maybe it could start to happen. I think the biggest problem is that the government no longer has the trust of the public. They can say they'll do just what I outlined, and maybe they would even mean it, but nobody would believe them at this point.

[SelfDefense]

The changes he proposed were drastic though. I think if they phased it out in such a manner that the old people who were taught to be dependent on it still got paid

No one was taught to be dependent on social security. It was a promise (read: contract) by the government. The government is responsible for fulfilling their part of the contract. It has nothing to do with being taught to be dependent.


, while the younger people who know they won't get anything anyway don't have to participate anymore, it could work.

EVERYONE who has contributed to social security should get at least twice as much as they paid into the system. The factor of two comes from the employers contribution. And yes, everyone will get something tghough they may need to live to be eighty to get a pittance.


I also think there is a lot of agreement in this country that we waste far too much taxpayer money outside of out own borders, and stopping that practice should not be too hard politically. That money could be used to fund those who remain on the old program until they pass on.

Our foreign funding is enabled by the People because we are a compassionate nation. It should absolutely be continued.

I suppose you would have preferred we provided no aid to Haiti.

[peckman28]

No one was taught to be dependent on social security. It was a promise (read: contract) by the government. The government is responsible for fulfilling their part of the contract. It has nothing to do with being taught to be dependent.


The effect was to make people dependent upon it. People were told they would get it, and just like plenty of other government contracts (gold certificates, silver certificates) it is going to be violated. The question is whether it is a controlled phasing-out period or the chaos of a government with no capability of fulfilling its promises.



EVERYONE who has contributed to social security should get at least twice as much as they paid into the system. The factor of two comes from the employers contribution. And yes, everyone will get something tghough they may need to live to be eighty to get a pittance.

Ideally everyone would get twice what they put in. Most likely it will be twice what they put it, nominally. After inflation is factored in, they will get far less than that.


Our foreign funding is enabled by the People because we are a compassionate nation. It should absolutely be continued.

I suppose you would have preferred we provided no aid to Haiti.

Absolutely not. Taxes could be lowered dramatically if we stopped doing this through government, and the private charities that are already involved (and doing a much better job than government) could be empowered that much more by the money that is freed up from government use. A compassionate nation has people in it who are willing to donate to help others, it does not need to come by force of government action.

[OMEGA2669]

Absolutely not. Taxes could be lowered dramatically if we stopped doing this through government, and the private charities that are already involved (and doing a much better job than government) could be empowered that much more by the money that is freed up from government use. A compassionate nation has people in it who are willing to donate to help others, it does not need to come by force of government action.

I agree with this to an extent. Our military is in Haiti right now distributing aid. Often times the supplies they distribute are from NGO's. I do not think it is necessary to spend our tax money on supplies to help people in need, but at the same time the military is needed to help with distribution, cleaning up, and of course security for other aid workers... this is done with our tax money... and I think that this part of it is good. Get supplies from charitable donations, deploy our ships with our tax money that you should already have.