Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default History Lesson on Social Security

    Got this in an email and thought i would share it



    Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this.
    It's easy to check out, 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 matterwhether 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.

    An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
    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,
    Nw it is 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 startgiving 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!


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New Orleans 7th ward
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red states rule View Post
    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
    Which makes it a partial de-facto regressive income tax on the poor and middle class, cant' see why a righty would oppose this.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Which makes it a partial de-facto regressive income tax on the poor and middle class, cant' see why a righty would oppose this.
    The lefties are the tax and spend culprits, tard...or maybe you're being sarcastic again.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    The lefties are the tax and spend culprits, tard...or maybe you're being sarcastic again.
    It is amazing how the left thinks that tax cuts hurt poor people and those who support them are uncompassionate but at the same time tax and spend liberalsim is responsible for the government taking 30% from the "poors" paychecks


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,939
    Thanks (Given)
    4224
    Thanks (Received)
    4559
    Likes (Given)
    1427
    Likes (Received)
    1079
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanTUba View Post
    Which makes it a partial de-facto regressive income tax on the poor and middle class, cant' see why a righty would oppose this.
    From a tax perspective it's neither partial nor de-facto it is regressive. From a retirement/insurance program it is neither as it provides more to the lower incomes than higher incomes in terms of contributions. It is discriminatory though as it keeps the lower income and those with shorter life expectancies beholden to a government program. SS steals a lifetime of contributions and keeps Americans from building wealth that could be passed on to future generations not to mention raising the cost of labor on the least efficient of workers. There is nothing good about SS in its current form.

    But your "righty" comment is ridiculous as it is everything that libs are for (keeping citizens dependent on government) and nothing that conservatives would be for (encouraging self reliance).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    From a tax perspective it's neither partial nor de-facto it is regressive. From a retirement/insurance program it is neither as it provides more to the lower incomes than higher incomes in terms of contributions. It is discriminatory though as it keeps the lower income and those with shorter life expectancies beholden to a government program. SS steals a lifetime of contributions and keeps Americans from building wealth that could be passed on to future generations not to mention raising the cost of labor on the least efficient of workers. There is nothing good about SS in its current form.

    But your "righty" comment is ridiculous as it is everything that libs are for (keeping citizens dependent on government) and nothing that conservatives would be for (encouraging self reliance).
    That was the intent of SS from the very beginning. To confiscate wealth from the private sector for the benefit of government

    IF you live to collect SS you might get a 2% return on the money you paid in - assuming SS is still aorund when you are ready to collect your pennies on the dollar


    How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

    Ronald Reagan

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums