Quantcast

HISTORY LESSON ON SOCIAL SECURITY!! THE TRUE FACTS!

Drew~PWCM~JLA~ 2013/01/07 20:57:59
true
lies
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • mountainman 2013/01/26 19:29:49
  • Joe The... mountai... 2013/01/27 20:12:27
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    Moutainman, we vote alike, but like most emails you get the information here mostly myth. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the state of SS. If you think anything here is true, let me know and I will provide links for accurate information.
  • Drew~PW... mountai... 2013/01/28 03:24:53
    Drew~PWCM~JLA~
    I have joind the Libertarian Party myself. Check it out buddy. ;)
  • Magus BN-0 2013/01/25 23:51:35
    lies
    Magus BN-0
    +3
    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, 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,

    ...





    &
    &




































    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,
    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,

    Under Johnson the money was moved to
    The General Fund and Spent
    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.

    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
    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.

    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.
    As mentioned above in point #4, this has a small grain of truth to it, but it's mostly false.

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

    A: The Democratic Party.
    As mentioned above in point #2, there never was an income tax decution for FICA withholding.

    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
    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.

    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!
    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...
    (more)
  • WankerBait 2013/01/25 22:35:31
  • Giantfan 2013/01/25 22:25:29 (edited)
    true
    Giantfan
    +2
    And you're whining again. A trait hard for the right to shake. I say so what. We have SS, we pay taxes, we live in the greatest country the world has ever known, greatness doesn't come cheap. Stop whining already. It's unbecoming of an American.
  • Pay me 4profile 2013/01/25 09:40:29 (edited)
    true
    Pay me 4profile
    +1
    FICA, is a marxsist plan designed to strengthen a over spending goverment.

    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
  • Magus BN-0 Pay me ... 2013/01/25 23:54:07
    Magus BN-0
    Raising the retirement age is what Republicans want to do.

    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.
  • Pay me ... Magus BN-0 2013/01/26 00:43:19
    Pay me 4profile
    +1
    well black white, democrat republican, retirement age should simply be lower to 63, the goverment needs to buy back bonds now, fix the budget were the bonds go up in price then give the higher value of the bonds to retired individual and start shutting down fica. it a maeksist budget and no tax payer deserves to be tax slave were older people vaction.

    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
  • Joe The... Pay me ... 2013/02/11 13:36:03
    Joe The Economist
    The problem here is the voters. The Trustees have warned for years that Social Security was in need of immediate reform. 80% of the public thinks that the system is heading for crisis. Yet, we get to pick between two candidates who say that the system is 'structurally sound'.

    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.
  • Pay me ... Joe The... 2013/02/11 19:50:43
    Pay me 4profile
    this is true whart you say, the fact is there is nothing done for accountabilty and this will end. ted roosevelt origanal conceppt of fica has been completly changed.

    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..
  • TheTailor 2013/01/11 20:15:41
    true
    TheTailor
    +1
    Even if this is true, and of course it is, over 100 million people are on assistance. They will vote to continue getting to get a check no matter what the history or economic truth.
  • joseph digristina 2013/01/10 23:52:15
  • Joe The... joseph ... 2013/01/11 21:40:56
    Joe The Economist
    +2
    The flaw here is that Social Security isn't a safety-net, and only gets people out of poverty by putting someeone else into it.

    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.
  • joseph ... Joe The... 2013/01/11 22:35:03
  • Joe The... joseph ... 2013/01/12 00:44:28
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    You are a walking cliche. In 2012, the solvent date in a good economy is 2033. That assumes of course that future workers are willing to put 12.4% of their wages into a system on the verge of collapse. Oh certainly they will why they will still get 75% of their future benefits. The system has made roughly 23.2 trillion in promises for which it has 2.7 trillion in cash. Future generations will see the value of the system so they will raise the taxes that we won't.

    Ticky tock, ticky tock....
  • joseph ... Joe The... 2013/01/12 01:12:58
  • Joe The... joseph ... 2013/01/12 03:55:53
    Joe The Economist
    +2
    You are ignorant. There is no research that eliminating the cap will fix social security - or even make it solvent. My guess is that you do not know the difference.

    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.
  • joseph ... Joe The... 2013/01/12 09:19:03
  • Joe The... joseph ... 2013/01/12 14:24:23 (edited)
    Joe The Economist
    +2
    The last comment paints you so well. In a response you say you don't respond. Not one fact in anything you say.
  • joseph ... Joe The... 2013/01/12 22:53:46
  • Magus BN-0 Joe The... 2013/01/25 23:57:33
    Magus BN-0
    Yes, FDR rejected that idea. He was in error to do so.
  • Joe The... Magus BN-0 2013/01/26 02:35:15
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    Then when you want to change the program lets change the name with it.
  • Magus BN-0 Joe The... 2013/01/25 23:55:49
    Magus BN-0
    The American people strongly disagree with you, and consider Social Security to be one of the best-run programs in the history of government.
  • Joe The... Magus BN-0 2013/01/26 02:37:01
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    What is your source on that?

    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.
  • Magus BN-0 Joe The... 2013/01/27 04:28:05
    Magus BN-0
    +1
    My source would be every poll ever taken on the issue. 28% isn't just a minority, it's a small minority.
  • Joe The... Magus BN-0 2013/01/27 20:09:32
    Joe The Economist
    You basically have no source.

    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...
  • Magus BN-0 Joe The... 2013/01/28 01:57:05
    Magus BN-0
    As recently as 2 days ago, polling shows that over 60% want Social Security to not be changed at all.
    http://www.newsmax.com/US/pol...
  • Joe The... Magus BN-0 2013/02/11 14:03:21
    Joe The Economist
    Two things you are changing the subject with the article, and the article cites a poll which says something very different from what the article suggests it says. I think you should read the poll to which the article refers.

    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.
  • Dan 2013/01/10 03:55:50
    true
    Dan
    +2
    It seems to be a mixture of both true and false. Some claims are open to interpretation. One fact that is not debatable is that the government has emptied the SS account. That alone is enough to dought any promise made by politicians.


    http://www.snopes.com/politic...

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009...
  • Joe The... Dan 2013/01/10 15:06:19
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    I am curious what you would say is true. The FactCheck piece is pretty accurate, and says the entire email is false.

    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.
  • Magus BN-0 Joe The... 2013/01/25 23:59:54 (edited)
    Magus BN-0
    The part about Social Security payouts originally being untaxed is true. Though the claim that it was Clinton and Gore who changed that is a lie, since it was a bipartisan agreement between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill that made Social Security payments into taxable income. Thus, that point on the e-mail's list is half-true. The rest are just false.
  • Joe The... Magus BN-0 2013/01/26 02:53:14
    Joe The Economist
    "That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."

    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.
  • Joe The... Dan 2013/01/10 15:08:16
    Joe The Economist
    Up until 1983, Social Security was almost entirely a paygo system. In a paygo system there is no SS account to empty. Since 1983, we have built up a small reserve of 2.7 trillion. When I say small it is because there are 23.2 trillion of promises baked into the system. It isn't that the "SS account" was emptied, it is the fact that the system makes promises for which there isn't any money.
  • Dan Joe The... 2013/01/13 18:42:25
    Dan
    +1
    To me, using ss money to fund any government operation or to buy it's own securities is like using a credit card to pay a credit card. In my way of thinking, if I have $500 in cash and a $10,000 credit card debt, I have no money. I have $9,500 in debt. The same goes for a government that says it has 2.7 trillion in an account with a 16 trillion debt. Some may call it over simplifying but our politicians get away with way too many shell games by making the system so complicated you'd have to dedicate your life to figuring it out. In short, I don't have faith in any entity that borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends and then tries to tell me it has money.
  • Joe The... Dan 2013/01/13 19:23:46
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    "Some may call it over simplifying but our politicians get away with way too many shell games by making the system so complicated you'd have to dedicate your life to figuring it out."

    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.
  • Joe The... Dan 2013/01/13 19:28:13
    Joe The Economist
    This is my opinion. DC loves this email. It keeps people distracted, and is easily dismissed. It provides a sense of comfort because it makes people feel as though 2.7 trillion would solve the problem. It keeps them from looking into the subject.

    "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.
  • Joe The... Dan 2013/01/13 19:29:04
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    "In short, I don't have faith in any entity that borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends and then tries to tell me it has money."

    I don't have faith in any entity that prints money and calls it borrowing.
  • Daniel O'Hern 2013/01/09 00:02:32
    true
    Daniel O'Hern
    +1
    Due to the overspending government social security has just become an additional source of tax revenue under the guise that we will actually get something back for it. As yet people still get their social security checks but lets see if it makes it through the debt ceiling and if it does the money is just more robbing from the next generations.
  • Joe The... Daniel ... 2013/01/09 03:22:57
    Joe The Economist
    +1
    Daniel, According to the Social Security Administration, the system has not produced a dime to lend to the government in 3 years. It is projected to never produce a dime to lend ever again. Social Security has massive problems but when you don't take time to research the problem, that problem will only get worse.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/26 01:53:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals