Social Security

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Cutter, May 26, 2010.

  1. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 have paid into FICA for years and are
    now receiving a Social Security check every month --
    and then finding that they are getting taxed on 85% of
    the money they 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, withAl Gorecasting the
    'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
    Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

    ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

    Q: Which Political Part y decided to start
    giving annuity payments to immigrants?

    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!
     
  2. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    A 5-year-old email that is a mix of truth and falsehoods. CLICK HERE
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
  4. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said this before and I will say it again. I would gladly make this offer to the government if they would accept it:

    1. Let me opt out of Social Security NOW.
    2. You can keep ALL of what I have paid into it thus far--no strings attached.

    The fact that the government would never accept such an offer for free money shows just how much of a ponzi scheme the current Social Security system really is.
     
  5. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the link, MP. I took it on face value and did not do my usual snopes check.
     
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no comment about Social Security in relation to the two parties, as I have zero respect for either. In general, when Social Security was started, (which it should have never been) we were told is was a supplement to retirement, not a retirement check to maintain a full living. It is everyone's responsibility to provide for their retirement, not the government's.

    The fact is not a lot of people listened. They spent every penny they made on nonsense, then retirement is here. There is no one to blame but the individual. It is an unfair system anyhow. Why should my mom, who died at 54, and paid 30+ years into the system not see a cent, and someone who has just barely paid in ten years get multiples of what they put in?
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    FDR died in office before most of you were born. He can't be held responsible for what Congress has done after he died.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >It is an unfair system anyhow. Why should my mom, who died at 54, and paid 30+ years into the system not see a cent, and someone who has just barely paid in ten years get multiples of what they put in?

    If you were one of my kids you would have been told 100 times, "Nothing in this life is 'fair'; get over it."
     
  9. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you just "get over" unfair working conditions, wages, or hours?

    Or do you do something to make them better?

    Your "get over it" statement doesn't exactly jive with your union upbringing, eh?
     
  10. Mississippi John

    Mississippi John
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bet he get's over the fact that the suits make 1000 times what he makes.

    rbell you rub me wrong. Why do you have it out for some folks around here ?
     
  11. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,130
    Likes Received:
    221
    Does that theory also go for George Bush now that he is no longe in office?
     
  12. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I was one of your kids, I would probably be on some kind of subsidized government program.
     
  13. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, yes...wealth envy. I'd recognize it anywhere.


    Sorry you feel that way. Chronic smart-aleck disorder, maybe? I've never been officially checked, but I'm usually pretty accurate at diagnosing my illnesses.. :eek: :D
     
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Does that theory also go for George Bush now that he is no longe in office?

    Yes, for laws changed after he left office.

    >Do you just "get over" unfair working conditions, wages, or hours?

    >Or do you do something to make them better?

    Yes, join the appropriate labor union.

    >If I was one of your kids, I would probably be on some kind of subsidized government program.

    If you were my kid you would know how to hustle a job. I've never been out of work for more than a month and neither have any of my 5 kids.
     
  15. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad you modeled for them, and taught to them, the value of self-sufficiency. More of that would certainly improve our lot as a country.
     
  16. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    SN- If I was one of your kids, I would probably be on some kind of subsidized government program.

    That was really below the belt. Just because you and your children have been blessed with work on a steady basis, does not mean that others haven't, because of a lack of effort. Not all circumstances and situations are the same, especially in job hunting. Although I cannot speak for SN, I believe, however that he, with an eyeroll, was referring to your liberal socialist leanings in Government matters.
     
  17. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    keep in mind, billwald, this one thing: your union involvement may have caused other folks to be out of work, because of the jobs unions tend to kill.
     
  18. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bingo. :thumbsup:
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aresman put forth his idea on SS. Towards that end, let me do my annual rehash of how I'd fix SS:

    My plan to fix SS:
    1. SS only for citizens. Foreign nationals: forget it.
    2. Allow for an opt-out without C/Os. You can never receive benefits, EVER, but you still pay a small base percentage tax and you receive a yearly tax credit if you choose to forfeit any and all prior earnings. (Great incentive for younger workers). The money the worker keeps he is free to invest as he wishes, just as he does with his present employer's plan or his own IRA. This capitalizes the system without adding earners to suck out of the system. I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd gladly pay a flat tax based on AGI of, say 3 or 4 % and let my money STAY my money.
    3. Eliminate the limit on Roth IRA contributions. The Govt is getting the tax money anyway. But, as a trade off, clip the "withdrawl of contribution" provision outside a five year window. IOW, make the 5 yr window apply to all contributions. (Little of the nanny state thing, but oh well)
    4. Raise the limit on Traditional IRA contributions annually, and substantially raise the limit on Traditional IRA contributors. Forcing people into Roths is not Constitutional, IMHO. This incentivises saving for retirement.
    Or, in a perfect world, eliminate the tax on retirement accounts altogether. Individual contributions to a retirment account would be tax-free on both ends, but employer contributions could still be taxed on the front-end. It's still free money to the individual. Not likely though.
     
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >keep in mind, billwald, this one thing: your union involvement may have caused other folks to be out of work, because of the jobs unions tend to kill.

    Agree, but I'm not a communist who believes that every person has a right to a living wage. According to Libertarian economics and capitalism the purpose of a business is to make profits, not to create jobs. If Ford can make more profit assembling trucks in Turkey, then Ford is obligated to send jobs off shore.

    The unions should concentrate on organizing jobs that are labor intensive and can't be sent off shore. Maybe that is why teaching, police&fire, and such jobs are so well organized and the SEIU seems to be growing.

    When the farm workers started organizing is when food production started going offshore for produce that is labor intensive. Isn't food independence a national defense issue as much as energy independence is?

    Dopers, winos, and self-medicated crazies don't have a right to a living wage if they can't turn a profit for their employer. (Neither do teenagers who don't know how to do any useful work.) But neither do I want them living on my streets and sleeping in junker cars in my neighborhood.

    This country is rich enough so that minimum shelter and healthy food can be provided those who can't turn a profit for an employer. My gripe is that the bums and winos infest the most expensive commercial real estate in every county. My bigger gripe is to see county employees mowing the grass in welfare housing projects.

    I propose that we at least return to the system of county work farms away from the cities and on cheap land that isn't good for anything else.

    Why should taxpayers in Washington State build subsidized housing here while there are square blocks of livable empty houses in Detriot? People who will never hold a job don't want to live in Detroit even for free? Breaks my heart. Let THEM starve and freeze in Seattle.

    MY GRIPE against subsidized housing for the working poor? It permits fast food chains and whatever to pay sub standard wages, the housing is paid for by the working middle class, and the rich get richer. THAT is why I support a higher minimum wage.
     

Share This Page

Loading...