HISTORY LESSON ON SOCIAL SECURITY!! THE TRUE FACTS!
Drew~PWCM~JLA~
2013/01/07 20:57:59
|
|
|||||
|
90 votes
|
|
78% | ||
|
26 votes
|
|
22% | ||
HISTORY LESSON ON SOCIAL SECURITY!!
THE TRUE FACTS!
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check o...ut, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
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.
But it's worth a try.
How many people can YOU send this to
THE TRUE FACTS!
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check o...ut, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
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.
But it's worth a try.
How many people can YOU send this to
Top Opinion
-
keeper 2013/01/07 21:16:06
![FINALLY A CONGRESSMAN [...]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003464009/5326276048_Stockman_large.jpeg "FINALLY A CONGRESSMAN [...]")
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary, False. FICA was mandatory from the day the original Social Security Act of 1935 went into effect.
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program, False again. The original (temporary) rate was 1% of the first $3,000. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided for that to gradually increase to 3% by 1949. Changes since then have been made to account for inflation and the growing population.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year, The opposite is true. The Social Security Act of 1935 specified that the payments into Social Security (which, as stated above, were mandatory, not elective) weren't tax-deductible. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, payments have never been 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,
...
&
&
False again. The original (temporary) rate was 1% of the first $3,000. The Social Security Act of 1935 provided for that to gradually increase to 3% by 1949. Changes since then have been made to account for inflation and the growing population.
The opposite is true. The Social Security Act of 1935 specified that the payments into Social Security (which, as stated above, were mandatory, not elective) weren't tax-deductible. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, payments have never been tax-deductible.
Closer, but not quite. The Social Security Act specifies that money in the trust fund can only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government". Meaning treasury bonds. That allows the government to effectively lend the money to itself and spend it on non-Social Security programs, but only so long as they pay back the money when the bonds mature, just like they're required to do with any other person or group that invests in treasury bonds.
You're finally getting into something that's partially true: originally, Social Security payments were not considered taxable income. But FDR never "promised" this, it's just a judgement that the Treasury Department made after the Social Security program began. And "Clinton & Gore" had nothing to do with changing this. It was Ronald Reagan, in 1983, who signed into law an amendment to the Social Security Act that made Social Security payments into taxable income.
As mentioned above in point #4, this has a small grain of truth to it, but it's mostly false.
As mentioned above in point #2, there never was an income tax decution for FICA withholding.
Again, that's incorrect. As mentioned above, it was Reagan who signed this into law. The bipartisan Greenspan Commission made the recommendation, and it was passed by large bipartisan majorities of both the House and Senate.
This might be your favorite, but it's also quite possibly the biggest whopper in this chain e-mail that you copy-pasted to SH. Illegal immigrants do not receive Social Security payments under any circumstance, and legal immigrants get Social Security payments when they reach retirement age only in proportion to the amount that they paid into the system. Just like native-born Americans.
It's Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability payments, which are not age-based, that can be received without paying into Social Security. That's because SSI is not funded by FICA and is a separate program from Social Security. Also, Carter had nothing to do with it; SSI was enacted by Nixon.
http://www.snopes.com/politic...
http://www.factcheck.org/2009...
http://www.snopes.com/politic...
the larger the fica dept increases the more the goverment grows to communist strength to force the future generation to pay slave taxes.
the mear facts prove older men and now women with their tall dark and hansome president, will hide the problem by again raising the retirement age to 70, then wait for our kids to pay for their vacation package.
the facts are simple, this big brother generation call to action, fiscal responsibilty, and motion to ilminate any targets praying on childrens payroll.
i am this serious, start returning FICA to the people you are collecting from, i sappose al the money is all stored away in a us treasury bank, "RIGHT?"
it is time to buy backs out standing bonds, balance a four year budget, and remove 63 and over of our target hit list of interviews
add to the 27 admendment, all presidents must right a four year budget with in his first 100 days of his administration, then declare federal regulation to protect his budget by the end of the first Wall Street fiscal quarter of the year
Also, presidents already propose budgets to Congress every year, and budgets are always for one year, not four. And it's Congress that's responsible for passing a budget.
bottom line!!!!!!!
congress can not pass a buget when congressional due process is violated by the president. all the president job is to veto yes or no, tho certain buget decision actually are the president job, so your wrong.
pass a four budget, with a quartly review board were they can re asseses the budget every year
that congressional responsibility
Politicians do not care whether Social Security fails only that it not fail on their watch. Raising the age of retirement to 70 isn't about saving Social Security. It is about ensuring that the current politicians will not get blamed for its failure.
The most likely outcome of Social Security is an implosion over a short span of time. CBO has released new projections on the negative cashflow for Social Security. If they are right, the Trustees will lower the capacity of SS from 2033 to 2031. That means that anyone 49 and younger will expect to retire have the Trust Fund is exhausted.
When you hear that the system will pay 75% of scheduled benefits, you should know that it assumes that future workers will pay more in taxes, get less in benefits, while having to increase the support of their own parents. Good luck with that assumption. It is more likely that leprehcans will spit-out gold coins to pay for SS.
well the first step is to fight the current adminstration first, then correct what is neccessary.
the fact is the president agnda of helping imgrants before people who have been here working hard for many years trying to retired is secondary on his list..
Take your head out of the Ron Paul's shrinking, Libertarian ass before it closes tight around your neck and strangles you.
The former Congressman Pete Stark (wealthy even by Congressional standards) will collect vastly more than average Americans who will collect vastly more than people in need. So your "one program" is easily the worst run in the history of government if its job is to 'keep the seniors and the disabled out of poverty'. Not one penny of Social Security benefit is determined by need.
Instead of lecturing people on ideology you might try spending a little quality time at the library.
SS is solvent until 2034 and is one the best run programs in American history. None of your's or Paul's obscure whining will ever change that. Try it and see what becomes of the little that's left of Libertarianism.
Ticky tock, ticky tock....
Problem solved . Nothing is as complicated , or a desperate,as Libertarians want to make it appear to be.
Eliminating the cap rewrites SS as what you would like it to be: a welfare program for the needy. If you are going to change the purpose, funding and terms you really need to change the name of it. FYI FDR rejected your idea from the start.
People like you hate Social Security because it isn't welfare. Here is a fact that you hate : Social Security pays based on past contribution. Let me see you type how Pete Stark a very wealthy ex-Congressman deserves thousands more than the elderly widow collecting the base. That is Social Security. It is a contributory benefits system - and you despise it.
Times have changed. Older Americans were raised by people who thought that, but now children are raised by people who think it is a ponzi scheme. 28% of Americans think the system is a ponzi-scheme. That feeling isn't going to improve as the system delivers lower and lower results.
Here some poll data that says that Social Security isn't best-run or even well run. 81% think that the system is heading for crisis. Here is the source, but these figures are consistent with other tracking polls that I have seen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Barron's cited a 2011 poll in which "only 2% of the respondents were "very confident" they would get Social Security benefits at least equal to today's value."
http://online.barrons.com/art...
http://www.newsmax.com/US/pol...
The article says about what should be cut to deal with the federal budget deficit. You can cut Social Security to zero, and that will not help the federal budget deficit.
As for the population of the poll, you are looking at the majority of the people asked are those who are on the receiving end of benefits as opposed to the people who are paying for the system. If you ask people who are at or near retirement, it shoudn't surprise you that they want to perserve benefits. Ask someone who is 33.
http://www.snopes.com/politic...
http://www.factcheck.org/2009...
The only thing that I would question is this statement : "The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits"
The government can't 'use' Social Security funds. That is factually inaccurate. The money is invested in government security which is very different from 'use'. By the same measure, private pensions buy government securities, but no one says "The government has always been able to use GM's pension Fund." It is simply poor wording that gets repeated, and repeated, until it is believed.
Social Security benefits aren't taxed. The 'tax' collected on the 1040 is a means-tested clawback which is returned to the social security administration.
Others would call it a brilliant observation. It is funny thing; two years ago I started a group to Fix Social Security. I had no idea of the shell games being played. The debate has no boundary of fact, and the media does nothing about it. It is the intent of those in the debate to make the issue needlessly complex that no one delves into it.
Does Social Security add to the deficit? Yes. Then you get the opposite view, which is that by law Social Security is not 'counted' toward the deficit. Soon you are looking at the difference of who holds the debt. Insomnia solved.
"To me, using ss money to fund any government operation "
Things are worse, and few have noticed. The government has not borrowed a penny from Social Security in three years because self-financing is no longer self-financing: payroll taxes do not cover benefits. They are projected to never cover benefits until 2033 when benefits are cut by 25%.
The problem with this email is that projects that politicians are stealing from Social Security, when in fact there is nothing left to steal.
I don't have faith in any entity that prints money and calls it borrowing.