History Lesson of 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 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.







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.
But it's worth a try.






How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers

 

A good but depressing read. Thanks for posting

 

Nice post Jim...and you wonder why I hate democrats...lying asses....

 

Remember this on November 6th, 2012.

 

I don't read the political section. And now it has crept out of that section into the "general" area. It maybe that this is 100% true, but move this crap over there where it belongs.

James

 

And now they want to run our health care. ARG!

 

It's not just politics, James. It's your Social Security.

 

I agree.
The following forum description does not include this kind of topic. The word hate has been used here and hate is what caused the act ten years ago that we remember today.
Hate is a bad choice of words to use about your fellow countrymen, particularly today.
General (5 Viewing)
This section is for anything that is not related to the Crossfire or other cars. It can be about sports, movies etc..

 

It is politics, it is pobably a conservative bashing the liberals. Can't you read between the lines or should I say the lines themselves?

So sorry, but I did not pay into SS. SO IT IS NOT MINE to have a say.

 

James if you have a S S # then you will receive a S S check once you reach 62 ,,,if you don't defer it to 68, even immigrants who arrived last week and never paid in a dime will get their S S check thanks to Jimmy Carter. I don't consider this politics,, I consider it , fraud. jim

 

You have no clue what you are talking about. I have a SS number and will get nothing, at any age. You really should know what you are talking about before you type such garbage.

I do consider your post again POLITICAL, you just thru in another democrat to bash with your reply.

 

Like James I have a SS# but don't pay into it and will not collect from it.

 

This is a right wing forwarded email. It is a mess o' lies. And it's as political as it gets. It doesn't exist to inform. It exists to paint Democrats in a dim, yet misinformed light. As such, it should be moved to the politics section. Though it should really be put in the trash bin where it belongs.

Browse > Home / Ask FactCheck / FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security
FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security



March 24, 2009
Updated: March 27, 2009



Q: Did FDR promise that Social Security would be voluntary? Did Democrats end tax deductions for Social Security withholding?
A: Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong.
FULL QUESTION
Dozens of readers have asked about this one, which has been going around for months in various forms:
FULL ANSWER
This elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was "full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse.
We’ll address the newer claims first, specifically the five "promises" supposedly made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the inception of the Social Security system in 1935. We rely here on no less an authority than the official historian of the Social Security System, Larry DeWitt, who has written up a detailed response to these claims under the heading "Myths and Misinformation About Social Security," which can be found on the Social Security History Web page, along with answers to other frequently asked questions.

1. Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. "
2. Not 1 Percent. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only "1% of the first $1,400" of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent.
3. Not Deductible. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions "would be deductible from their income for tax purposes." The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes "shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year." So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats "eliminated the income tax deduction" for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate. Update, March 27: An alert reader points out that self-employed persons must pay "self-employment tax," which is a Social Security and Medicare tax similar to the taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners. Half of the SE tax is indeed deductible when figuring adjusted gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, the SE tax deduction has not been eliminated, not by "the Democratic party" or by anybody else.
4. Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself."
5. Taxation of benefits. The e-mail also gets it wrong when it claims that Roosevelt promised that "annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income." It’s true that Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but DeWitt writes that this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department, not the result of Roosevelt’s law or anything he did or promised. And contrary to a false claim made later in the e-mail, it was not Democrats alone who "started taxing Social Security annuities." Congress authorized taxation of Social Security benefits in 1983, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and the measure was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The measure was part of a bipartisan compromise to shore up the finances of the system, which were then on the verge of collapse.

Another huge whopper in this e-mail is the claim that President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party "decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants … even though they never paid a dime into it." In truth, no illegal immigrant is allowed to get a penny of Social Security retirement benefits, as this message implies. (We address more false claims on that theme in another Ask FactCheck.) And any immigrant who has become a citizen or legal resident can qualify only to the extent that they have worked and paid into the system for years, on the same basis as everybody else.
The earlier version of this e-mail made this claim only about the SSI program – the Supplemental Security Income program for the blind, disabled or elderly and destitute. But the truth is, that program was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1972. Under Nixon’s SSI law, legal immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start. It is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all – citizens and legal residents alike – regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.
The e-mail signs off with a quote that supposedly comes from Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." But Jefferson never said that.
According to Monticello researchers and Jefferson scholars who maintain the online Jefferson Encyclopedia: "We have never found such a statement in Jefferson’s writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with [Republican President] Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974."
The author of this urges others to send this message on, smugly suggesting,"If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted." Hardly. What’s really being spread are seeds of ignorance – and a pack of clumsy lies.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources

DeWitt, Larry, "FAQs; Debunking Some Internet Myths; MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY" Social Security Administration undated Web page accessed 24 March 2009.
"Legislative History; Social Security Act of 1935" Sections 801 & 803." Social Security Administration undated Web page accessed 24 March 2009.
DeWitt, Larry, "Agency History; Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historian’s Office; /research Note #12: Taxation of Social Security Benefits" Social Security Administration Web page dated Feb 2001, accessed 24 March 2009.
Jackson, Brooks "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2" FactCheck.org Special Report 14 April 2004.
Jefferson Encyclopedia "Government big enough to supply you . . . (Quotation)" Web site article dated 6 March 2009, accessed 24 March 2009.
Posted by Brooks Jackson on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Filed under Ask FactCheck · Tagged with chain e-mail, FDR, President Roosevelt, Social Security

 

thanks Rush, what ever info is correct we know SS will run out of money soon, so everyone that ia not over 50 should not rely on SS and should have their own retirement set up . good look everyone as we need it. jim

 

I agree with many here. This is most definitely a "political" item. It should be removed from this thread.
I will reserve my comments until it is.


Moderators, please?

roadster with a stick

 

an interesting sidebit to this is that many of the original plans for SS were in fact more largely fixed, but each succeeding Congress kept changing them and increasing in scope. in fact, Southern democrats successfully and specifically excluded blacks and women to assure that they didn't work as they didn't want to upset the racial characterization of the region, yet later admins changed that, which of course was a good thing. the program exponentially increased. In an ad of 1936 it said that we would never tax you more than 3 cents, 6 cents for both employer and employee and that you'll never pay more than 3000 into this. But by 1945 that had already been changed and now the taxes are roughly triple that and benefits increased enormously.

It is not as cut and dried as some would have some believe. The fact is that we had dem basically controlled presidency's as well as congresses from 1935 through 1968, and that's whe the biggest changes occurred. By 2023 at this point there is estimated to be insolvency.

it isn't a strict ponzi scheme but close to it, where the difference remains that the fed doesn't have to rely on new entrants to pay for it, it can merely print more money to pay for it, which is what they've been doing all along.

And as far as this being in the general, I agree, move it to politics because it belongs there. But for our brother James who calls it "crap", i beg to differ as it is extremely important stuff to even attemot to understand.

 

I agree it is political and needs to be moved. I also don't pay into SS on my primary job but do on my part time and other previous jobs. I am in a group of people ( Firefighters, railroad, etc) in which My SS benefits that I do get will be lowered by up to a large pecentage because of some windfall thing started a few years ago.

 

It is important, I am sure. But as with most all other "political posts, articles, & issues", no matter which side you are on, you can 'SPIN' it to your liking and justify your opinion.

And it is beyond me why someone would want to come to an "auto" forum to spout political views. I come here to gain/share info about our car. If I wanted lessons on history or politics, I would go to that appropriate forum.

Maybe in my spare time, I will go to a political forum and try to enlighten them about our Crossfires! Now wouldn't that be exciting.

James

 

well, to help you understand james, it would be a weak forum indeed to some's idea to just chat about cars. Not to yours it seems and that's ok, but for some it's a community. And you're correct, no matter what side you're on the spin can always be put there. But that's what makes it fun, especially for those that like that sort of give and take. but it's also understood that others don't, which is fine too.

 

James let me know when you do and to which forum so i can join too and help you troll them