Social Security

Weisse Luft said:

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 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, 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 U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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 violation of 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, uninformed citizens believe it!

Might be worth resurrecting this Thread. Not particularly for the history, but for what the American public think that they should receive as regards a safety net. With high unemployment on the horizon, things will only get worse.

Weisse Luft said:

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 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, 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 U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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 violation of 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, uninformed citizens believe it!

Hmm... Social Security is not being taken away, the fund is so underfunded it would be insolvent if it were a private sector enterprise. Why? There is a huge mismatch between its contributions and the benefits paid out. Although the system currently has net inflows, the dependency ratio is increasing, putting pressure on the fund. The _only_ solution is for a mixture of higher contributions and lower benefits.

It is obvious that a 1% savings rate is nowhere near enough: you think saving 1% for 40 years of working life will support 15 years in retirement?

The equation is pretty simple: the household sector doesn't save enough + the government sector doesn't save enough = problems down the road when all the workers retire and put their hands out for pensions. It's easy - they've already spent it!

Then, the retirees will complain how unfair it all is, when they should have put more away whilst they could. Anyone espousing higher taxes were thrown out years ago - what is this, Europe?

Plus, the retirees will expect to be treated if they get sick - this is the real budget killer... the US public health system (such as it is) is in more long-term financial strife than social security! Oh well, reap what you sow I suppose...

Ritch

FredC said:

Might be worth resurrecting this Thread. Not particularly for the history, but for what the American public think that they should receive as regards a safety net. With high unemployment on the horizon, things will only get worse.

Please tell us of your soothsaying powers. Like the lottery numbers for instance.

SS is a Ponzi scheme but only worse. It was based on a constantly expanding population, something which hasen't been reality. Had all funds been invested and only paid to contributors, it would have been better but still doomed for failure.

Weisse Luft said:

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 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, 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 U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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 violation of 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, uninformed citizens believe it!

this has really led me to the conclusion that all political parties suck. all.

Weisse Luft said:

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 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, 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 U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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 violation of 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, uninformed citizens believe it!

.The unemployment rate has gone up durring the bush adm., we have lost 3 million jobs in the last four years

.Long term unemployment has more the dobled

.The number of private sector jobs have not gone down this much in 50 years [private bussines's are not empolying]

.The economic gorwth is weaker than it has been than in 50 years

.corporate scandals [enron] investors have lost 6 trillion, the stock market has gone down

This has all happened durring the bush adm. not to metion we are in a war! how much dept has that got us in? I know it's in the billions. And the worst part is that we dont need to be in iraq, and bush is there for he oil [nim and his budy's are the one making the millions. Where would bush be if he didn't convince half the american people that "theres alot of good people orkin hard" and that we are "liberating" this country
And are your whining about what?

ryan_velo said:

.The unemployment rate has gone up durring the bush adm., we have lost 3 million jobs in the last four years

.Long term unemployment has more the dobled

.The number of private sector jobs have not gone down this much in 50 years [private bussines's are not empolying]

.The economic gorwth is weaker than it has been than in 50 years

.corporate scandals [enron] investors have lost 6 trillion, the stock market has gone down

This has all happened durring the bush adm. not to metion we are in a war! how much dept has that got us in? I know it's in the billions. And the worst part is that we dont need to be in iraq, and bush is there for he oil [nim and his budy's are the one making the millions. Where would bush be if he didn't
convince half the american people that "theres alot of good people orkin hard" and that we are "liberating" this country
And are your whining about what?

Well maybe I could have read over my post before I submited, but you get the point.

ryan_velo said:

Well maybe I could have read over my post before I submited, but you get the point.

Well read my bush or no regarding plastic debt.

Is it true or a myth that at one time congress voted on limiting taxes to 10% of income but it failed becaues they were afraid it would get that high if they set the limit that high?

LottomagicZ4941 said:

Is it true or a myth that at one time congress voted on limiting taxes to 10% of income but it failed becaues they were afraid it would get that high if they set the limit that high?

Over here we think that you are all dense. Why don't you vote for people who will give you a good and fair deal. Your system is all wrong, and rotten to the core. You're just lost little lambs following the slaughterman.

Not that I agree with everything we do but we are still a superpower so perhaps our system is not all bad?

"I don't believe in social security I want my money now" Ted Nugent from Walking Tall.

So what system do you like better? Dictatorship? As I think you did post something about bring Adolf back.

LottomagicZ4941 said:

Not that I agree with everything we do but we are still a superpower so perhaps our system is not all bad?

"I don't believe in social security I want my money now" Ted Nugent from Walking Tall.

So what system do you like better? Dictatorship? As I think you did post something about bring Adolf back.

You've a ready got a Dictatorship. You've made the same mistake as countless others. You thought by disposing of Sadaam's regime that the grateful population would come onside with you. All you have managed is to wreck the place and alienate the people who you mistakenly thought would follow. They were better off under Sadaams rule, at least they knew the score, and had somewhere to live and bring up their families.

FredC. I never thought Iraq would be greatfull. I was mislead by the WMD retoric however for a time. I was annoyed at France and Germany for trying to stop us from defending ourselves. And for you calling me the "c" word I can't help but wonder if it was/is projection as you are Fred C🙂

LottomagicZ4941 said:

FredC. I never thought Iraq would be greatfull. I was mislead by the WMD retoric however for a time. I was annoyed at France and Germany for trying to stop us from defending ourselves. And for you calling me the "c" word I can't help but wonder if it was/is projection as you are Fred C🙂

Which faction(s) of Iraq are you talking about? Sunni, Shia, or Kurds. I agree that we all got a dose of the WMD theory. What baffled me about this was that spy satellites can read a vehicle number from outer space, and Iraq has been overflown many times a day for 10+ years with planes equipped with cameras, and all you could do was guess. Where was the ground intelligence.CIA.? You ain't that smart then.
What were France and Germany doing to stop you defending yourselves? Defending yourself from what I ask? Not only are you ignorant but you are an embarassment to the 'Superman Superpower' self opinionated, self righteous, bible thumping world concept that is wrong.
We have the solution here, and that is the United Countries of Europe, and led by Lions, and not by Halliburton Bonesmen Donkeys supplied by your Chief [censored].
Social Security . Yep, discussed it with a recently retired couple from Hoboken. NJ whom we met met at the Tower of London. Spent two hours in the cafe chatting about being retired, care, pensions, medicare, and they decided that here in the UK we were much better cared for in all aspects. I was astounded that the USA were so far behind in looking after the people who had built the country, and threw them on the scrapheap so readily. A great country should think of this, therefore your country is not great, nor grateful at all. Look inside at your Vets from Vietnam service, and their care and problems. Bush has single handedly pulled you lot into the gutter and down the drains, yet you can't see it. Just proves that what we've said all along. YOU'RE ALL THICK.

FredC said:

Social Security . Yep, discussed it with a recently retired couple from Hoboken. NJ whom we met met at the Tower of London. Spent two hours in the cafe chatting about being retired, care, pensions, medicare, and they decided that here in the UK we were much better cared for in all aspects. I was astounded that the USA were so far behind in looking after the people who had built the country, and threw them on the scrapheap so readily.

Yeah? Well, we have a much better dental plan!

You have to admit, like every bussiness dubya has owned or been apart of, he has run it to the ground. Just like he did our economy!😄

It is one of the wonders of the recent election that 51% of voting Merkins
appeared to be happy with Bush and his voodoo economics.

Let's be clear here - the dollar value is dropping, the trade deficits (imports over exports) are growing, the budget deficit (borrowings) are all growing.
The dollar is going to hit 1.50 by June 2005 (as I predicted in October 2004, when the dollar was at 1.15 to the Euro).

I and others warned that this was the case for months.

Just because people voted for Bush out of religious issues does not mean that they suport his econnomics.

I know quite a few people who voted for him who are not exactly happy with the man. I am very gald that I voted libertarian.

What is sad is that the democrats can't come up with someone decient.

And as long as the democrats disrespect those of us with religious beliefs we will continue to be the largest special intrest group.

And I can't understand why more people are not prolabor. You may be right about us Americans being dence.

I am absoluty horable at grammar and the like but I am good at math.

And my co-workers can't understand how by working 168 hours every 28 days instead of 40 hours a week is actually working more. Just because we have more days off they actually believe that they have more time off. But if you do the math on the hours worked in the year we are getting a raw deal.

Social Security may not be as good as what Eurpoe has but it is better then nothing. Then again with out it people would prepair more.

zapper said:

Yeah? Well, we have a much better dental plan!

Having a few teeth won't help with a triple by-pass, or life in a care home.

LottomagicZ4941 said:

Just because people voted for Bush out of religious issues does not mean that they suport his econnomics.

I know quite a few people who voted for him who are not exactly happy with the man. I am very gald that I voted libertarian.

What is sad is that the democrats can't come up with someone decient.

And as long as the democrats disrespect those of us with religious beliefs we will continue to be the largest special intrest group.

And I can't understand why more people are not prolabor. You may be right about us Americans being dence.

I am absoluty horable at grammar and the like but I am good at math.

And my co-workers can't understand how by working 168 hours every 28 days instead of 40 hours a week is actually working more. Just because we have more days off they actually believe that they have more time off. But if you do the math on the hours worked in the year we are getting a raw deal.

Social Security may not be as good as what Eurpoe has but it is better then nothing. Then again with out it people would prepair more.

Listen I live in a "religious" country : I practice my religion too.

But I don't vote for candidates based on religion or their moral views.
I vote for a politician on the basis of competence, ability to do the job etc.
My vote is never based on religion.
Let me tell you why - because religion has nothing whatsoever got to do with
how well a politician works as a manager, economist or polster.

The Merkins are free to chose whoever they wish as President.
But 2000-2004 should have be indication enough that Bush was incompetent.
Obviously 51% of Merkins were too stupid to realise that Bush is a clown.