What's new
By:
Filters

Social Security History Lesson

B

babe

Well-Known Member
My father-in-law sent me the following:

Some really interesting facts about Social Security. I guess this dates me because I still have my original SS card and sure enough it is clearly printed ."Not for identification." We should all be reminded of the history lesson of social security. Is it any wonder that it becomes harder and harder for "we the people" to trust our government!





History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
https://www.flickr.com/photos/49192997@N07/4508529302/
Dick Kantenberger
Gifted Education Writer
Examiner.com
History Lesson on Your Social Security CardJust 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 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.https://blog.kir.com/archives/images/social security.gif
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,

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 $106,000


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?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers
Click to expand...

the progressive proponents of Fabian socialism generally prefer a policy of gradualism in shaping their pipe-dream social order for mankind. . . . you give them an inch today, another tomorrow, and day by day you give them everything they ever imagined. . . .
 
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Social Security deduction on your paycheck is a tax.
 
As an "investment", "Social Security" has the essential character today of a pyramid scheme, promising unrealistic payouts to oldsters derived from the "contributions" of newcomers. . . .
 
babe said:
As an "investment", "Social Security" has the essential character today of a pyramid scheme, promising unrealistic payouts to oldsters derived from the "contributions" of newcomers. . . .
Click to expand...

Man, my uncle retired at 45!!! Talk about a ponzi scheme! And I have to wait for my 65-70 or something like that.
 
Babe, those are all examples of democrats increasing and expanding SS. How is that somehow an argument that republicans aren't the ones trying to reduce or eliminate SS?
 
Gameface said:
Babe, those are all examples of democrats increasing and expanding SS. How is that somehow an argument that republicans aren't the ones trying to reduce or eliminate SS?
Click to expand...

Not all of them increase and expand it. Taxing the payments later is effectively reducing them.
 
green said:
Until the repubs organize and become unified, they don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...

until either the repubs or another party organize on sound principles of limited government powers, we don't stand a chance. "Social Security" in the hands of Federal servants of Walmart and other corporates dependent on slave labor offshore production and a class of conspicuous consumers bankrolled by fiat currency printed and passed out by demogogues is worse than medieval feudalism where the peasants worked the land in the shadows of the castle walls paying large rents to the Lords of the Manor. We are living on the wages of the coming generations and the savings of past, devaluing our dollar-valued assets and paying tax on the inflated "value" of real assets as well as our wages.
 
candrew said:
90% of these e-mails whether they swing left or right are *********.

This one is very old - and mostly untrue.

https://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp
Click to expand...

while I might quibble about the "mostly" in that "mostly untrue" assessment of the email, I found the link to be well worth reading. Obviously the email was partisan, but I well remember many of these changes in Social Security over the years, and can vouch for them being heavily supported by most politicians of both parties in general. "Social Security" has long been the political Holy Cow people have relied on instead of saving on their own account and providing for their own retirement security, all the while the value of people's retirement funds have been decreased by heavy inflation in costs of goods and services essential to life, caused by deficit spending. Putting money in the bank just makes no sense when bank interest is less than the currency devaluation year after year.

I think the Republicans deserve their share of responsibility for going along with this nonsense in the political rhetoric as they do.

Federal "Social Security" is a bad program, a cancer in our society that should be cut out, with a return to limited government power over our lives.
 
Gameface said:
Babe, those are all examples of democrats increasing and expanding SS. How is that somehow an argument that republicans aren't the ones trying to reduce or eliminate SS?
Click to expand...

While some Republicans have dared to cross the sacred line of supporting our Holy Cow, and have indulged in rhetorical arguments towards "reduce or eliminate SS" ideas, the Republicans have never actually been serious about it. During election time, nobody talks about doing that.

Even Democrats, in the inter-campaign lull, know that the SS system needs some kind of fixing, and many in both parties are now well-aware that the payouts have got to be reduced. It is only a contest to see who can best shed responsibility for it to the other party. . . . . and I'm sure the Republicans will take the hit in the major media coverage no matter who is responsible for it.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Not all of them increase and expand it. Taxing the payments later is effectively reducing them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Taxing all federal expenditures will effectively reduce the " deficit spending" by a fraction. Taxing of this sort inflates the size of government budgets and reduces our sensibilities about government spending. It all comes out of our pockets, and costs us to maintain the bureaucracies that handle all the transactions.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Snopes, whatever that is, is obviously a leftist plot to discredit the right.
Click to expand...

well, it is a reasoned response to partisan allegations from the "Republicans", even if it is pretty much going to exhibit some bias from its proprietors, who are responding to the danger that our society will spin right politcally. While I'd like to see someone out there giving a contrary view to the major media socialist propaganda lines, I do prefer to seek out the actual facts as much as possible. . . . And Snopes in this case has some important facts.
 
The way some of these are written is misleading. Particularly the one about immigrants receiving a check. Yes they can under certain conditions. For example:

For retirement: They had to have paid in 10 good years to receive OR be married to some one that has (called an auxillary). Have to have legal residence.

So if an immigrant is paying into the system and are here legally why shouldnt they get monthly checks?

Also as far as the using it for ID goes. You have the right not to give that number out. But as a result they do not have to provide you service. It comes down to practicality for the businesses. They can either:

A) create a brand new database that assigns and guards numbers for each and every individual.

or

B) Borrow one that already exists.
 
babe said:
while I might quibble about the "mostly" in that "mostly untrue" assessment of the email, I found the link to be well worth reading. Obviously the email was partisan, but I well remember many of these changes in Social Security over the years, and can vouch for them being heavily supported by most politicians of both parties in general. "Social Security" has long been the political Holy Cow people have relied on instead of saving on their own account and providing for their own retirement security, all the while the value of people's retirement funds have been decreased by heavy inflation in costs of goods and services essential to life, caused by deficit spending. Putting money in the bank just makes no sense when bank interest is less than the currency devaluation year after year.

I think the Republicans deserve their share of responsibility for going along with this nonsense in the political rhetoric as they do.

Federal "Social Security" is a bad program, a cancer in our society that should be cut out, with a return to limited government power over our lives.
Click to expand...

I disagree but it has been, per the norm, horribly mismanaged by the feds.
 
The Thriller said:
I think we should just give all our money to Wall Street. I'm sure they won't screw up and lose it all.
Click to expand...

They're too big to fail, right. . . . for sure, right?

But just like Vegas, all those big bank buildings are paid for by the losers who go there to play, that's for sure, too.

I don't think gambling with crooks running the tables is "investing". I do think owning your house is a good idea, and maybe some rentals.

banks, cartels, even the government all live off the people. The bigger they get, the littler you get.
 
Stoked said:
I disagree but it has been, per the norm, horribly mismanaged by the feds.
Click to expand...

who would manage a program like that any differently?

Even the LDS Church has disregarded Joseph Smith's statement against the Church becoming the title-holder of productive enterprises. The United Order originally was laid out as an organization of proprietors who held title to their land and shops with the idea of passing title to their kids, and everything that was given to the bishops was supposed to be transferred to people who were short on owning their own economic base. Joseph Smith even threatened the first bishop who had a penchant for wanting to hold title for stuff in the name of the Lord. Ultimately, the LDS Church abandoned the precept because in practice people made a socialist program of it, rather than just using it to enable people to get a start somehow in becoming self-sustaining and eventually prosperous as individuals and families. Today, however, the LDS does promote microbusiness enterprise by individuals in many parts of the world as a way of improving their economic capacity. . . . well, besides being a stakeholder in a lot of corfporate cartels. . . clearly a mixed bag, at least not all bad.
 
Gameface said:
Babe, those are all examples of democrats increasing and expanding SS. How is that somehow an argument that republicans aren't the ones trying to reduce or eliminate SS?
Click to expand...

The Ryan Plan clearly was a shot at protecting those who need it at the expense of the rich who don't. This is the same m.o. Going back to McCains campaign.

This is the reason I can't align with the DP. They say they want to protect the poor, but when it came down to it their true colors showed .. protect theirs while complaining about inequality while refusing to fix what is causing the inequality.

For all his faults, Paul Ryan is right on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top