Social Security memo

[Edbert1]

I got this sent to me today, figured it was good food for the O'Club.
____________________________

Our Social Security
Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.

During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about Elliott's parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his parents returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs they would have burned all of them in hell.

Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott's comments. I hope you will read this and think about it.

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, 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 US.

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 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 violating 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!

[Mickey1992]

Mostly false.  Snopes is your friend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

[Edbert1]

Ya know...I almost snoped it before I posted it...oh well.

Just read 99% of the snopes page, they (snopes) are better served refuting urban legends than political essays. The only part Snopes truly refuted was the bit about FICA paymenst being deductible, the email was clearly wrong on that issue. All other issues are debatable and/or semantic in nature. Much of it they verified, like the 1% initial rate, and the raiding of the trust fund for use by the general fund, or the raising of taxes on the payments etc.

So I take issue with you saying "mostly false", only that one point was false.

[Shuckins]

The monies for Social Security were taken out of the trust fund and placed in the general fund in 1974...and squandered on pork-barrel projects sponsored by our Congressmen.

The system hit the skids and has been sliding ever since.  Only a matter of time before it careens over the cliff.

[lazs2]

The worst presidents we have ever had were...

Lincoln
FDR
LBJ

Lincoln destroyed the constitution and states rights..... FDR ushered in big goverment and socialism and LBJ drove a bunch of nails into the coffin of what was left of the constitution and individual rights and furthered entitlements and socialism to allmost a your-0-peeean scale

the best were....

Jefferson
TR
Reagan

Reagan barely squeaked by but in comparisson to modern presidents he stands very tall.

lazs

[Mini D]

Most of it was false, and snopes did a good job explaining it.

Items 1, 2, and 3 were clearly shown to be wrong. The 4th item is seemingly wrong on the "never be taxed as income" part in that there was no provision for it.

Of the Q and A, the first two were clearly shown to be wrong, the third is inaccurate since they didn't "start" taxing SS there, only bumped up how much of it would be taxed, and the fourth is also mostly wrong in that it asserts people who did not pay into SS are receiving benifits from it.

Really... how is that not "mostly false".

The only telling part was that when the house and senate passed the increase from 50% of SS being taxable to 85% of SS being taxable, not a single republican voted in favor of it.

[Mickey1992]

Originally posted by Edbert1
The only part Snopes truly refuted was the bit about FICA paymenst being deductible, the email was clearly wrong on that issue. All other issues are debatable and/or semantic in nature. Much of it they verified, like the 1% initial rate.....

Yeah, but your post does not call it an "initial" rate, for example.  Your post conveniently leaves out details so that it can be vague enough to almost be sort of partialy in a round about way kind of not false.  Did you gloss over the details regarding income tax deductions and immigrant benefits?

Don't get me wrong, what Congress has done to SS is criminal, but I think these chain emails do nothing more than spread misinformation.

[Dos Equis]

See Rule #4

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Dos Equis
See Rule #4

That maybe so... However, no matter how big a strawman you build it will never make Lincoln, FDR or LBJ worth a shyte...

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Mini D
Most of it was false, and snopes did a good job explaining it.

Items 1, 2, and 3 were clearly shown to be wrong. The 4th item is seemingly wrong on the "never be taxed as income" part in that there was no provision for it.

Of the Q and A, the first two were clearly shown to be wrong, the third is inaccurate since they didn't "start" taxing SS there, only bumped up how much of it would be taxed, and the fourth is also mostly wrong in that it asserts people who did not pay into SS are receiving benifits from it.

Really... how is that not "mostly false".

The only telling part was that when the house and senate passed the increase from 50% of SS being taxable to 85% of SS being taxable, not a single republican voted in favor of it.

Only #3 was "clearly wrong".

#1, I know I've read where the plan was initially proposed as a voluntary plan, but I'm too lazy to try and find it now.But since that was not part of FDR's law when it passed I'll give you that one...FALSE

#2, when it was implemented the rate was 1% of the first $1,400...TRUE

#4, I guess if you are willing to redefine "trust fund" then you can call that inaccurate too. But the fact is that the congress has been spending current SSI receipts on pet-projects for quite some time...TRUE

Q&A #1, thats nothing more than semantics, while SSI has never been officially put "into the general fund" the "trust fund" or lock box is untrusted and unlocked. Fact is is has been raided every day since LBJ...TRUE

Q&A #2, we already talked about that one, no argument...FALSE

Q&A #3, you are saying it is untrue since they didn't "start" taxing it then? The article never said they "started" taxing benefits in 1993, it said they rasied the tax rate in 1993 with not one single republican voting for it and AlGore having to cast the tie breaking vot...TRUE

Q&A #4, there are people who are receiving SSI benefits that never paid into the system, some of those folks are immigrants (small percentage no doubt) and there are members of congress whoare currently trying to extend these same benefits to illegal immigrants today...TRUE

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Mickey1992
I think these chain emails do nothing more than spread misinformation.

I agree to a large extent, I do wish I had snoped it first. I would not have posted it had I done so, although it is good O'Club fodder.

The article is poorly worded, I like your term "almost be sort of partialy in a round about way kind of not false" too.

But I don't think it should be dismissed entirely, the entire scheme of SSI is criminal in it's inception not just in it's implementation and manipulation, this atricle (email) brings up valid points that only get watered down by poor wording and erroneous statements.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Edbert1
Only #3 was "clearly wrong".

#1, I know I've read where the plan was initially proposed as a voluntary plan, but I'm too lazy to try and find it now.But since that was not part of FDR's law when it passed I'll give you that one...FALSE

OK.. you're not completely ignorant.

#2, when it was implemented the rate was 1% of the first $1,400...TRUE

1% of 3000 is not the same as 1% of 1400. You're definition of "true" is definately a bit skewed.

#4, I guess if you are willing to redefine "trust fund" then you can call that inaccurate too. But the fact is that the congress has been spending current SSI receipts on pet-projects for quite some time...TRUE

Kudos on trying to make it true. They are funded differently. Don't let reality get in the way of your oppinion.

Q&A #1, thats nothing more than semantics, while SSI has never been officially put "into the general fund" the "trust fund" or lock box is untrusted and unlocked. Fact is is has been raided every day since LBJ...TRUE

You're confusing "semantics" with "false".

Q&A #2, we already talked about that one, no argument...FALSE

OK... common sense kicks in for 2 out of 6... not bad.

Q&A #3, you are saying it is untrue since they didn't "start" taxing it then? The article never said they "started" taxing benefits in 1993, it said they rasied the tax rate in 1993 with not one single republican voting for it and AlGore having to cast the tie breaking vot...TRUE

You're quoting snopes, not what you posted. Let me refresh the "q&a" blockage you have going on: Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?. Tell me how that's actually true again?

Q&A #4, there are people who are receiving SSI benefits that never paid into the system, some of those folks are immigrants (small percentage no doubt) and there are members of congress whoare currently trying to extend these same benefits to illegal immigrants today...TRUE

Notice how you're having to change the content of the statement to make it true? Do you know what that means? It means it was FALSE.

Jeez dude

[BigGun]

Some of the stuff in snopes doesn't seem totally accurate. I am pretty sure that in 2005, it wasn't 6.2% on first $90,000. Just from my recollection which has been wrong before.

Just looked...and i was mistaken, forgot a portion of the tax is medicare which doesn't cap out.

[BigGun]

wow...just figured number, in 1935 when started..if you paid at the high end of the bracked...most you paid was $30...2005 top end was $5,580

an INCREASE of 18,500% (un-annualized and not taking into account inflation)

That is huge!!! What a waste.