Social Security (which Party to you believe?)

[rushmc 23]

No, not a poll. Just for discussion.......

Subject: Social Security

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill

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 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,

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?

MY FAVORITE :
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 is, uninformed citizens believe it!


Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tcnelson 1]

i hope all the peeps out there have their own retirement savings plan in operation because SS is just another income tax as far as i'm concerned. maybe when i turn 65 (or whatever the age is now) the govt will hand me a stack of iou's so that i won't need to buy toilet paper anymore.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[Zep 0]

The wonderful world of politics, The only job where you're a whore an a pimp at the same time.

Gone fishing

[quade 4]

I believe both parties when they say it's doomed.

I do not believe the Administration when they say they have the answers to the problem. In fact, I believe that the Administration's "plan" will only serve to fuck it up even more and hasten its collapse.

While this may be "good" for certain people (people already on Social Security and those to young to have contributed much), it is definately NOT good for the vast majority of folks that have contributed for quite some time and still have quite some time until it kicks in; those people in the middle of life, say 30 to 55.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bdog 0]

when social security was first set forth by congress it was to pay benefits at age 65. at the time the average life expectancy was age 67. you do the math.

_________________________________________

---Future Darwin Award recipient-

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I believe both parties when they say it's doomed.

I do not believe the Administration when they say they have the answers to the problem. In fact, I believe that the Administration's "plan" will only serve to fuck it up even more and hasten its collapse.

While this may be "good" for certain people (people already on Social Security and those to young to have contributed much), it is definately NOT good for the vast majority of folks that have contributed for quite some time and still have quite some time until it kicks in; those people in the middle of life, say 30 to 55.

OK, lets hear your proposal.

[quade 4]

Quote

OK, lets hear your proposal.

I doubt you'd like my proposal because it would impose means testing on the wealthy and increase the taxes of the wealthiest 1% of the population as well as corporations.

When the disparity of pay in this country is as high as it is, -something- needs to be done to redistribute the wealth a bit.

Take a look at The Disney Company for example. The average kid that sells hamburgers in the Parks is making minimum wage and the guy sitting in the CEO chair has, over the last 20 years, made more than 1 BILLION dollars. Eisner isn't anything special. Seriously, ANYBODY in his position could have made decisions about as well as he has. He's had hits and misses and some of his missives have been massive. Like hiring a friend (Michael Ovits) to be his #2 man, then finding out he couldn't work with him, then firing him and having to pay off his contract to the tune of (and I'm NOT making this up) 90 MILLION dollars for less than 9 months of work.

To me, there's simply something wrong with the disparity of money in this country. Every day we're widening the gap between the filthy rich and the people that can barely get by from week to week. The middle class is being squeezed and screwed and in general people are NOT better off now financially than their parents where.

What has me absolutely flumuxed is how the filthy rich have manipulated the "feelings" and played the "morality" card to their advantage and actually made the people of this country vote agaisnt their own best interests. When I see a 3rd generation rich boy politician actually holding hands with a leader of the country who's people launched the attacks of September 11th, I simply want to puke.

Looking -far- into the FutureCam, if something doesn't happen soon, there IS going to be a class revolt in this country; possibly a civil uprising. I just don't see when the people are going to wise up to how much they've been screwed over. Perhaps another 20 years -- who knows?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

when social security was first set forth by congress it was to pay benefits at age 65. at the time the average life expectancy was age 67. you do the math.

Have you properly taken into account that the greatest change in life expectancy is due to the big decrease in infant mortality rate, which has no effect whatsoever on social security since infants neither pay into nor receive it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Ahhh.... Karl Marx has indocrinated you well Komrad.

[TheAnvil 0]

You should read Adam Smith vice Marx and Engels.

From Boortz this morning:

The New York Times is reporting with great fanfare that the gap between the rich and the poor is rising. They seem aghast that the top .1 percent of income earners are raking in an average of $3 million a year. Furthermore, That's only about 145,000 taxpayers. So much money in the hands of so few..they must have stolen it!

Another interesting statistic...households with a net worth of $10 million or more, that group has grown more than 400% since 1980. So there you have it...the rich are getting richer! OH .. And if you read the Times story you'll come away with the distinct impression that the main reason these people are getting so rich is because of the Bush tax cuts. In other words, they're getting richer because they're being allowed to keep more of the money they earn -- instead of having that money taken from them and redistributed to the poor, poor pitiful poor.

This is bad news? If rich people are getting richer, that means they're producing more profit or earning more money. We'll call them the achievers. But this isn't how the class warlords on the left see it. To them, the entire economy is a certain-sized pie. If a rich person is getting richer, that means they have gotten wealthy because they have stolen that money from poor people. Their piece of the pie is just too big, and only government can step in and make things right .. but cutting a smaller slice for the rich, and a larger slice for the poor. Somehow it just doesn't occur to them that everyone can have a bit more if you just bake a bigger pie! For those of you who went to government schools, you bake a bigger pie by growing the economy!

While the New York Times was focusing on the rich, here's what you weren't told. Home ownership is at an all-time high in the United States. Not just an all-time high for the evil rich, but an all-time high for all income categories. Also, family net worth is at an all-time high. Again .. not just for rich families, but for every income quintile. I guess the Times believes that if you include this information in the story you somehow take away from the "rich as evil" theme. It's also hard to paint the Bush tax cuts in an unfavorable light when all boats seem to be rising on the tide.

Poverty is a mental disease at worst and a behavioral disorder at best. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Everyone is where they are in life as a direct result of the decisions they have made to put them there. If they've worked hard, they can be rich. If not, then they won't be rich. Unless, of course, you're a Kennedy and get rich by default.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Unless, of course, you're a Kennedy and get rich by default.

Or a Bush and inherit Nazi money.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ltdiver 3]

One of my favorite quotes hangs on my refrigerator and has been there for years...during some -really- hard times and now during some better times.

It reads: "Choice, Not Chance, Determines Destiny" -- Bill Keresoma

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I doubt you'd like my proposal because it would impose means testing on the wealthy and increase the taxes of the wealthiest 1% of the population as well as corporations.

Wouldn't this violate the original SS agreement? Or is it OK as long as it's people who worked hard, sacrificed and educated themselves, who are getting screwed?

Quote

When the disparity of pay in this country is as high as it is, -something- needs to be done to redistribute the wealth a bit.

See above comment.

Quote

Take a look at The Disney Company for example. The average kid that sells hamburgers in the Parks is making minimum wage and the guy sitting in the CEO chair has, over the last 20 years, made more than 1 BILLION dollars. Eisner isn't anything special. Seriously, ANYBODY in his position could have made decisions about as well as he has. He's had hits and misses and some of his missives have been massive. Like hiring a friend (Michael Ovits) to be his #2 man, then finding out he couldn't work with him, then firing him and having to pay off his contract to the tune of (and I'm NOT making this up) 90 MILLION dollars for less than 9 months of work.

Apparently the stockholders have a different opinion than you. Is it OK that they make the decisions on how much their CEO gets paid, or are you calling for the govt. to step in and regulate CEO Salaries and Incentives?

Quote

To me, there's simply something wrong with the disparity of money in this country. Every day we're widening the gap between the filthy rich and the people that can barely get by from week to week. The middle class is being squeezed and screwed and in general people are NOT better off now financially than their parents where.

So you think it's unfair that people who worked hard, sacrificed and educated themselves are doing better than those who didn't? Is this your opinion, or do you have some facts? Most people I associate with (ie. Rich Republican Bastards ) are doing much better than their parents ever dreamed. There are more Millionaires in this country than ever before. In fact I believe there are more Millionaires per capita in the US than anywhere else in the world.

Quote

What has me absolutely flumuxed is how the filthy rich have manipulated the "feelings" and played the "morality" card to their advantage and actually made the people of this country vote agaisnt their own best interests.

They "made" them vote against their own interests? Pray tell how? You mean like the Mafia used to do?Wouldn't that be illegal?

Quote

When I see a 3rd generation rich boy politician actually holding hands with a leader of the country who's people launched the attacks of September 11th, I simply want to puke.

Then apparently you need to study a little more about Saudi Culture. Did it make you sick when Arafat kissed Clinton on the cheek?

Quote

Looking -far- into the FutureCam, if something doesn't happen soon, there IS going to be a class revolt in this country; possibly a civil uprising. I just don't see when the people are going to wise up to how much they've been screwed over. Perhaps another 20 years -- who knows?

Maybe they don't have the same opinion of their plight as you do. Why does you prediction sound so much like the Communist Manifesto or the Unibombers Manifesto?

[Zenister 0]

i already want my money back.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[quade 4]

You asked what my plan was to fix it -- that was it.

Dude -- I -told- you that you weren't going to like my answer.

I don't need to read the reasons -- I already know.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Me too!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

You asked what my plan was to fix it -- that was it.

Dude -- I -told- you that you weren't going to like my answer.

I don't need to read the reasons -- I already know.

Sorry, I thought you believed you had a plan that would work. My mistake.

[quade 4]

It would work -- absolutely work. It just wouldn't go over well and so would never be allowed the chance.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

***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?

MY FAVORITE :
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!

Quote

Anyone know if all this is true?

If so its VERY funny that the Dems have done this.( Except the last one...I think that is very Democratic)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

• Quote

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

It would work -- absolutely work. It just wouldn't go over well and so would never be allowed the chance.

I think they have the system already in place in most socialist countries and all communist ones.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[quade 4]

Quote

I think they have the system already in place in most socialist countries and all communist ones.

And in some of those places it -absolutely- works. Yes, it does. In fact, some of those countries consider us to be quite backward when it comes to social services including universal healthcare and the care of the elderly.

What I meant to say was, "It just wouldn't go over well in this country and so would never be allowed the chance", since we were talking about the U.S. system.

While the U.S. is a great country, it's not perfect. It's the height of hubris to think our system is the "best" and we can't learn, adapt and adopt from others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I think they have the system already in place in most socialist countries and all communist ones.

And in some of those places it -absolutely- works. Yes, it does. In fact, some of those countries consider us to be quite backward when it comes to social services including universal healthcare and the care of the elderly.

What I meant to say was, "It just wouldn't go over well in this country and so would never be allowed the chance", since we were talking about the U.S. system.

While the U.S. is a great country, it's not perfect. It's the height of hubris to think our system is the "best" and we can't learn, adapt and adopt from others.

Which countries are you referring to?

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

And in some of those places it -absolutely- works. Yes, it does. In fact, some of those countries consider us to be quite backward when it comes to social services including universal healthcare and the care of the elderly.

Yes, you are correct. I does work. Remember the people I hung around with at the start of my skydiving career. Even though communism is not in power (overtly at least) in their country anymore, they still believe that if it had reached its true potential it would have been great!

However, these same people are no longer living in their country. They came over here, tasted what they call 'the good life' and stayed. They applied (legally) and are now living and earning a much better life than they ever dreamed of before. They -now- send money back to their parents and support -them-.

There is a saying in a socialist country I know....I was taught it by a very good friend of mine who lives there. "Tall poppies will be cut down". Its called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome". In other words, if you work hard and find yourself successful, the other people will work hard to bring you down to their level. They hate other people's success...and want you back with them.

Even though we work hard, and this is the way that people find worth in themselves, I would never give up the way this country was founded. To give each and every one of us the chance to make what we would with ourselves. And damn to those who would try and bring us down.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[billvon 2,989]

>Even though we work hard, and this is the way that people find worth
>in themselves, I would never give up the way this country was founded.

I agree, but also realize that the reason this country does work is that we took the best of all other systems of government and made a hybrid of them. We have democratic elections and _some_ limited true democracy (ballot measures.) But most of our governing happens via representatives in a republic. We have a limited monarchy (a president with war powers and ever-growing legislative powers) socialism (roads, ATC, the CDC, the police etc) and even communism (national parks.) It works because they all balance each other.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

I agree, but also realize that the reason this country does work is that we took the best of all other systems of government and made a hybrid of them.

That's called working smart.
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon