*Democrats Raid Social Security*

Sorry bout that,


1. Just a reminder who's screwing up SS.


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 $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 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. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.


2. This should open up lots of sleepy eyes.:lol::clap2:



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Some things you've got wrong.

Johnson did add social security in to the general fund, BUT there was no Social Security SURPLUS at the time and none of social security funds were used to fund the general government...social security was Pay as you go, at the time....it was not until Reagan DOUBLED our social security taxes in 1983, the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class, in our History as a country....did we have Surplus social security funds for Congress to use in our general budget for things other than Social Security....

So you should be thanking REAGAN for THAT one.

Johnson added SS to the general treasury funds, to MASK the cost of Defense spending on the Vietnam war....not to use Social security funds, there were no extra funds to use....but to be able to say we were spending a much smaller percentage of our budget on the war .....by having what we spent on SS in the budget as well, it made the percentage of the budget on Defense spending appear to be less than it was....
 
the SS surpluses do exist, and the federal gvt OWES SS its money....there is no getting around it....SS will get back every single dime of surplus that was loaned.

To say it won;t, is simply NOT TRUE. The Books can not be changed on this...
 
the SS surpluses do exist, and the federal gvt OWES SS its money....there is no getting around it....SS will get back every single dime of surplus that was loaned.

To say it won;t, is simply NOT TRUE. The Books can not be changed on this...

And why is that? The government can change anything it wants. At some point the SS system is going to completely fall on its ass. At that time you had better believe that the funds will be written off. The simple fact of the matter is that we will NOT be getting SS benefits unless the system is fixed today. The worst part is that it will not be fixed because the time horizon is outside of the next election cycle and none of politicians will pay the price today for a long term gain.
 
the SS surpluses do exist, and the federal gvt OWES SS its money....there is no getting around it....SS will get back every single dime of surplus that was loaned.

To say it won;t, is simply NOT TRUE. The Books can not be changed on this...

And why is that? The government can change anything it wants. At some point the SS system is going to completely fall on its ass. At that time you had better believe that the funds will be written off. The simple fact of the matter is that we will NOT be getting SS benefits unless the system is fixed today. The worst part is that it will not be fixed because the time horizon is outside of the next election cycle and none of politicians will pay the price today for a long term gain.

we will not default on the treasuries, it would be complete suicide for the usa....

yes, it needs reform, but if no reform is done...nothing, nada, zilch is done....40 plus years from now, SS will be taking in enough money to pay 75% of all it has promised....it never goes belly up bankrupt.
 
the SS surpluses do exist, and the federal gvt OWES SS its money....there is no getting around it....SS will get back every single dime of surplus that was loaned.

To say it won;t, is simply NOT TRUE. The Books can not be changed on this...

And why is that? The government can change anything it wants. At some point the SS system is going to completely fall on its ass. At that time you had better believe that the funds will be written off. The simple fact of the matter is that we will NOT be getting SS benefits unless the system is fixed today. The worst part is that it will not be fixed because the time horizon is outside of the next election cycle and none of politicians will pay the price today for a long term gain.

we will not default on the treasuries, it would be complete suicide for the usa....

yes, it needs reform, but if no reform is done...nothing, nada, zilch is done....40 plus years from now, SS will be taking in enough money to pay 75% of all it has promised....it never goes belly up bankrupt.

True, it will not be 100% broke but it will decline to a state that is useless. BTW: 75% means they are DEFAULTING on 25%. IAW if these figures are fully accounting for changes like life expectancy, unemployment, future wages and the like. The government NEVER accurately describes expenditures.
 
Well I just read that SS is solvent through 2037. Not sure what happens after that.

As for the lockbox. LBJ with his super majority House and Senate was the first to actually raid it. Every prez thereafter has done the same.

Anyone really believe that the Fed is going to pay it all back??

How could there be an excess to SS?? That money was payed in by Americans to aide with retirement so how could there be a excess amount of money??
 
the SS surpluses do exist, and the federal gvt OWES SS its money....there is no getting around it....SS will get back every single dime of surplus that was loaned.

To say it won;t, is simply NOT TRUE. The Books can not be changed on this...

And why is that? The government can change anything it wants. At some point the SS system is going to completely fall on its ass. At that time you had better believe that the funds will be written off. The simple fact of the matter is that we will NOT be getting SS benefits unless the system is fixed today. The worst part is that it will not be fixed because the time horizon is outside of the next election cycle and none of politicians will pay the price today for a long term gain.

we will not default on the treasuries, it would be complete suicide for the usa....

yes, it needs reform, but if no reform is done...nothing, nada, zilch is done....40 plus years from now, SS will be taking in enough money to pay 75% of all it has promised....it never goes belly up bankrupt.

The treasuries held in the SS trust fund are not standard-issue US treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They are a special-issue treasury designed specifically so that the intergovernmental debt can be canceled without impacting the government's credit standing with outside purchasers.

Any attempt to restrain SS spending - raising the retirement age, means testing, reducing benefits etc...will involve a decision by congress not to honor the debt owed on at least a portion of those special treasuries.
 
Sorry bout that,


1. Whats really funny!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:
2. Is how some people in a sinking ship can still throw stones at the others pointing out the location of said leak.
3. And we all know who is worng in this.
4. The *libtards*.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

No it isn't the libtards, you just want to believe that. It is the politards and the teatards and the electoratards who elect repubs and dens to office.

But I would like to see some factual info about which party raised the FICA rate from about 1% in the 40's to 15.3% today.

15.3% is a HUGE tax. Who is responsible for that increase?

I believe that Ronald Reagan oversaw the highest increase in SS in american history.

That happened the same year he was touting all those tax breaks he gave to the more affluent Americans.

In his defence had he NOT done that, thanks to COLAs (and runaway inflation) social security would have gone belly up.
 
Sorry bout that,


1. So Reagan didn't raid SS, he increased the amount that everyone had to contribute.
2. Anyone have any proof?
3. Is making people pay more actually raiding SS?
4. Can this country fix this problem, or is it like illegal immigration, no one knows the answers?
5. Giving up shouldn't be an option, Americans have been known to roll up thier sleeves and fix shit, not afraid to get thier hands dirty.:clap2:
6. I hope we are not collectively getting soft.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 
Sorry bout that,


1. So Reagan didn't raid SS, he increased the amount that everyone had to contribute.

if by "raid", you mean "sell the excess to the general fund" then yes - he "raided" social security.
2. Anyone have any proof?

Reagan followed the recommendations of the Greenspan commission, reducing benefits and almost doubling the tax.

4. Can this country fix this problem, or is it like illegal immigration, no one knows the answers?

if you acknowledge the current treasuries held by the fund, the "problem" is actually not very large at all - you could solve the "problem" by raising the age a year or two, increasing the cap on income levels taxed, or reducing the growth in future benefits.
 
And why is that? The government can change anything it wants. At some point the SS system is going to completely fall on its ass. At that time you had better believe that the funds will be written off. The simple fact of the matter is that we will NOT be getting SS benefits unless the system is fixed today. The worst part is that it will not be fixed because the time horizon is outside of the next election cycle and none of politicians will pay the price today for a long term gain.

we will not default on the treasuries, it would be complete suicide for the usa....

yes, it needs reform, but if no reform is done...nothing, nada, zilch is done....40 plus years from now, SS will be taking in enough money to pay 75% of all it has promised....it never goes belly up bankrupt.

The treasuries held in the SS trust fund are not standard-issue US treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They are a special-issue treasury designed specifically so that the intergovernmental debt can be canceled without impacting the government's credit standing with outside purchasers.

Any attempt to restrain SS spending - raising the retirement age, means testing, reducing benefits etc...will involve a decision by congress not to honor the debt owed on at least a portion of those special treasuries.

got a link for that, so i can better understand what you are saying???

the gvt has NEVER defaulted on treasuries of any kind, as far as i am aware, and IF they ever did, then our downfall as a country....imo.
 
we will not default on the treasuries, it would be complete suicide for the usa....

yes, it needs reform, but if no reform is done...nothing, nada, zilch is done....40 plus years from now, SS will be taking in enough money to pay 75% of all it has promised....it never goes belly up bankrupt.

The treasuries held in the SS trust fund are not standard-issue US treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They are a special-issue treasury designed specifically so that the intergovernmental debt can be canceled without impacting the government's credit standing with outside purchasers.

Any attempt to restrain SS spending - raising the retirement age, means testing, reducing benefits etc...will involve a decision by congress not to honor the debt owed on at least a portion of those special treasuries.
got a link for that, so i can better understand what you are saying???

the gvt has NEVER defaulted on treasuries of any kind, as far as i am aware, and IF they ever did, then our downfall as a country....imo.

Well, here's a bit about the mechanics of the special-issue securities involved.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Because the federal government is both the lender and the lendee, it can cancel its obligation to pay itself - it's as if you have a checking account and a savings account. You lend the checking account $500 from savings and tell yourself you'll pay it back next January.

Next January rolls around and you don't have the $500. You can either raise the $500 from outside sources (taxes), you can take the $500 from some other expense line (cutting government spending to pay the SS fund back) or you can decide that you don't really care to pay the $500 back at all (revoking the treasuries). Since you are both the lender and the lendee, there is no harmed party so your credit is not impacted.

at some point in the past, OASI special-issue securities were marketable. That is no longer the case (I think that change was part of the Reagan reform, but I'm not certain of that.)
 
Last edited:
The treasuries held in the SS trust fund are not standard-issue US treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They are a special-issue treasury designed specifically so that the intergovernmental debt can be canceled without impacting the government's credit standing with outside purchasers.

Any attempt to restrain SS spending - raising the retirement age, means testing, reducing benefits etc...will involve a decision by congress not to honor the debt owed on at least a portion of those special treasuries.
got a link for that, so i can better understand what you are saying???

the gvt has NEVER defaulted on treasuries of any kind, as far as i am aware, and IF they ever did, then our downfall as a country....imo.

Well, here's a bit about the mechanics of the special-issue securities involved.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Because the federal government is both the lender and the lendee, it can cancel its obligation to pay itself - it's as if you have a checking account and a savings account. You lend the checking account $500 from savings and tell yourself you'll pay it back next January.

Next January rolls around and you don't have the $500. You can either raise the $500 from outside sources (taxes), you can take the $500 from some other expense line (cutting government spending to pay the SS fund back) or you can decide that you don't really care to pay the $500 back at all (revoking the treasuries). Since you are both the lender and the lendee, there is no harmed party so your credit is not impacted.

haven't read the link yet, but they ARE SEPARATE funds, the SS money is in trust....If they break that trust, then all other treasuries will be worthless....our credit rating falls to an F....our interest rates on all our debt goes through the roof....

they will not EVER do such....

now let me go read your article! ;)
 
got a link for that, so i can better understand what you are saying???

the gvt has NEVER defaulted on treasuries of any kind, as far as i am aware, and IF they ever did, then our downfall as a country....imo.

Well, here's a bit about the mechanics of the special-issue securities involved.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Because the federal government is both the lender and the lendee, it can cancel its obligation to pay itself - it's as if you have a checking account and a savings account. You lend the checking account $500 from savings and tell yourself you'll pay it back next January.

Next January rolls around and you don't have the $500. You can either raise the $500 from outside sources (taxes), you can take the $500 from some other expense line (cutting government spending to pay the SS fund back) or you can decide that you don't really care to pay the $500 back at all (revoking the treasuries). Since you are both the lender and the lendee, there is no harmed party so your credit is not impacted.

haven't read the link yet, but they ARE SEPARATE funds, the SS money is in trust....If they break that trust, then all other treasuries will be worthless....our credit rating falls to an F....our interest rates on all our debt goes through the roof....

they will not EVER do such....

now let me go read your article! ;)

They are different accounting columns. Any attempt by Congress to restrain SS spending is the same thing as "breaking the trust".

For example, let's say that the Republicans win in overwhelming fashion and decide to abolish SS in 2015. By doing so, they would remove the obligation of the general fund to pay the debt owed to the trust fund.

And it would create no harm to our credit because at this point the fund has no marketable securities.
 
While it's true that money was 'borrowed' while there were dem presidents, it is also just as true the same thing happened under republican presidents.

Regan got some
Bush I got some
Bush II got some

I've read Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935. Nowhere did I see anything about it being voluntary. That's just silly to say. If it were voluntary then there would be no need for the lawsuits. Tell me, which political party has been trying to destroy Social Security almost since the day it was created? Republicans started trying to destroy it in 1937. Lookup Helvering v. Davis. Which party has been trying to privatize it? Who says it's a ponzi scheme?

Oh, BTW, the president cannot 'borrow' one cent from the trust fund. Congress does it.

The trust fund has over $2.6 Trillion in it now. Some in the form of treasury bonds.

When I was 18 years old the repubs were telling the same lies they are telling now. Well, it's there for me and it will be there for everybody else unless people fall for the BS the repubs keep telling.

The 2011 tax rate is 4.2 percent for employees, 6.2 percent for employers, and 10.4 percent for self-employed people. I'm looking at a checkstub for Aug 2011. Funny, I see FICA deductions there.

You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.

Beginning in 1984, includes in taxable income up to one-half of Social Security (and railroad retirement tier 1) benefits received by taxpayers whose incomes exceed certain base amounts. Gee, all this time I thought Reagan was president in 1984. Guess I'll have to study my history some more.

It takes a minimum of 40 credits to be eligible for OASI. You can earn a maximum of 4 credits per year so, if it's not too much trouble, could you supply some documentation that immigrants that never paid into Social Security are receiving it now? Honestly, that's just plain false.

All of this information is freely available at the Social Security web site. It took me a total of about 10 minutes to find this. Please, do yourself a favor and get yourself educated in the facts on OASI, DI, FICA. Please.

Neither is guilt free here but you can at the very least be honest about it.

Of course I can't post the web address but it's easy to find. Look for Social Security with your search engine.
 
BibleWonderland09-Zombies-300x265.jpg

Check the date before posting... This topic is VERY old
 
Sorry bout that,




Well I just read that SS is solvent through 2037. Not sure what happens after that.

As for the lockbox. LBJ with his super majority House and Senate was the first to actually raid it. Every prez thereafter has done the same.

Anyone really believe that the Fed is going to pay it all back??

How could there be an excess to SS?? That money was payed in by Americans to aide with retirement so how could there be a excess amount of money??




1. Most people die off before they get anything, thats how.
2. Without dependents your estate gets zero from SS.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
 

Forum List

Back
Top