i just have to send this on to my freinds here
now what
Wow, what a bunch of crap? How can Americans make an informed choice when people spread messages like this. Check out these so called facts and you will see that many of them are misleading and a large percentage are outright lies. When you use Fox New’s, Anne Coulter, Hannity and Colmes as sources, what do you expect? Messages like these make me ashamed to admit I was ever a Republican.
I just received a message re: Social Security and did some research. I’m going to paste my response below.
I just received the following message and thought I’d forward it along with the corrections that need to be made. These can be found at Snopes.com
I received the following message so decided to do some research. What I found is the majority of the message is full of outright lies. Since the intent of the letter is to place blame on the Democrats, it must have been written by the republicans. How is it possible for anyone to make an informed decision when crap like this is floating around. I would ask anyone that is sincere in American Politics to throw this types of messages away or at least research them for the truth. Then I would ask you all to disconnect Fox News or at least stop listening to it. Try to find an unbiased source for your news, such as PBS. Even NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are a little more unbiased that Fox although I believe CBS may be quite liberal. Now if you people really want to make a difference in American politics, let’s do away with all political parties, do away with primaries and caucuses, do away with the electoral college, and vote for whomever we believe the best person for the job is. The person with the most vote wins. Now wouldn’t that be a novel idea, rather than letting private organizations like the Democratic and Republican parties pick your leaders. BTW, Did you know that the Democratic and Republican parties are private organizations and can do anything they want, make their own rules, over ride the choice of the people? Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves. How many of you can send this correct version to the people that have the incorrect one? 
Bob
> Whether you consider yourself Republican or Democrat, this is still
> worth reading!
>
> Your Social Security
>>
> 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 kids. They need a little history lesson on
> what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of
> Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
>
> 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,
[B]Correct version:
There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision)
for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym
for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social
Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by
Social Security “shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of
the tax from the wages as and when paid.”
It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to “workers in commerce and
industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii,
and on American vessels,” and thus those who worked in fields not designated as
“commerce and industry” (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither
paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it.
Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out.[/B]
>
> 2.) That the participants would only have to pay
> 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
> Incomes into the Program,
[B]Correct version: Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:
- With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.
These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program).[/B]
>
> 3.) That the money the participants elected to put
> into the Program would be deductible from
> their income for tax purposes each year,
>
Correct version: The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions:
For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages.
Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since.
> 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,
>
[B]Correct and confusing version: The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the “general operating fund.”
However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be “independent” is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government “pays back” this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won’t have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report:
In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.
A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here.
. . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income
It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.
[/B]
.
> 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
> would never be taxed as income.
>
True version with explanation: It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.
> 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.
>[B]
Correct explanation: As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been “put into the general fund.” The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund’s inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself:
Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a “unified” budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals.
Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones.
In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes.
This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990.[/B]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
> deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
>
> A: The Democratic Party.
>
Correct version: As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
> Security annuities?
> A: The Democratic Party,
[B]Correct version: Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds.
Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received “Yea” votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.[/B]
>Q: Which political party increased the taxes on 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.
[B]Correct version: In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds.
This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding “Yea” vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat).[/B]
>
> 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!
>
Correct version: No one ? whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien ? is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) ? the latter is a federal welfare program “designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income” by providing “cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.” Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican).
> -------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
> But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
>
> Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
>
>
> AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
>
>
> A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> enough to take everything you have.
> -Thomas
> Jefferson
>
>
[
>
> A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
> enough to take everything you have.
> -Thomas
> Jefferson
>
>[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that info, there was some there i didn’t realize. The last paragraph is so true it’s not funny. We keep electing these yahoos but the polititions we elect are going to run this country to benefit themselves and particular affiliations ONLY…and then laugh under their breath when we complain or want actual results “you guys elected us ha-ha”. I need to move to canada or australia if this gets much worst.
Movin’??
[QUOTE=Benny The Mule;
>[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that info, there was some there i didn’t realize. The last paragraph is so true it’s not funny. We keep electing these yahoos but the polititions we elect are going to run this country to benefit themselves and particular affiliations ONLY…and then laugh under their breath when we complain or want actual results “you guys elected us ha-ha”. I need to move to canada or australia if this gets much worst.[/QUOTE]
Hey Harry, better check the gas prices over there before renting the u-haul.
I’m afraid it may get worse before better. Our voting has generally gone to the “most convincing liar” for a long time now and I really don’t see any real changes in the near future.
Take care my friend, hope you see you around soon.
-----JIM-----
fuel cost has just about wiped me out
455 a gallon now
i cant even go to watch the races anymore or out in the boat
nothing
im afraid to spend anything or do anything that cost money
i got final notices out the wazo and no steady income
im up against the ropes
if one of those turkeys had to go threw the hell im facing right now
they would have a different tune
ya think
I know exactly where you are coming from. I don’t go racing or do anything extra either. I was trying to go 1 or 2 time a month but not sure I can do that now. My water pump quit on me Saturday and I’ve got to borrow money to fix that. I didn’t know this was what they meant when they coined the phrase “living on the edge.” It sure is frustrating.
yep the vete has been broke for months now it needs a fuel pump
and now the insurance got cancled