• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

2004 Issue--Social Security... (be advised, this one will ruffle a few feathers)

AffectionateDan

1st Level Black Feather
Joined
Jan 3, 2002
Messages
8,115
Points
36
2004 Issue--Social Security... (be advised, this one will ruffle a few feathers)

Just a little food for thought...

2004 Issue (Social Security)

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 party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you
the Republicans want to take your Social Security. And the worst part about it is, people believe it!

Pass it on please!

2004 Election Issue This must be an issue in "04." Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth the read. It's short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our
Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for reasons of
their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it.

After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their cost for
this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds-our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into--every payday
until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) --we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000. monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be
planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?



:sowrong: :ranty: :rant: :ignite: :disgust: 😡
 
sounds like Rush Limbaugh "facts"

you know....partial ones designed to mislead and inflame public opinion. 🙄

on immigrants and Social Security:
http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/ff/faq/immigrants.html

The thing to remember is that Social Security isn't a bank. You "pay in" by working for at least 10 years for a contributing company/business and fulfilling the earnings requirements. That's pretty much it. Immigrants, apparently, do this too. (I didn't know anything about immigrants and SS at first, but it took all of two minutes of searching to find the facts on this issue.)

Also, note that today's workforce pays for today's elderly. If the workforce were to shrink drastically (or if tons of people were to start to live long past 65...like now...LOL), SS would be in trouble and/or costs would have to increase in direct proportion. Here's where immigrants actually <i>help</i>--by significantly increasing the size of the (generally) YOUNG workforce, thereby reducing the overall cost of the program.

Well, I'm no expert on any of this, but all the info's out there for the taking. (I should also say that I have no problems believing members of Congress have set pretty cushy deals for themselves, though...just like CEOs of major corporations do. :sowrong:

I am curious about one thing though: Which party rallied public opinion and support for a war behind convenient, bogus evidence then, when an investigation was pending, "discovered" the "error," denied any responsibility for the lie...er...I mean mistake, scapegoated a subordinate, then <i>generously</i> offered to forget the whole thing and tell everyone to just let bygones be bygones? 😡

Not trying to hijack the thread here, just thought that might be something to think about in '04 as well.
 
My mom said to never discuss religion and/or politics.

My mom was a smart lady.

However, I will state that social security is just another example of a well-intentioned (sometimes) government social program that goes out of control just a few years after the votes it bought don't even count any more.

and the cycle will never end.
 
Amen.

And not to flame immigrants, either, but not only was that a valid little factoid, but I discovered much to my chagrin as I was leaving our country's armed forces after 8 years during both peace and wartime, that they're eligible for a $25,000 small business GRANT from good ol' Uncle Sam, whereas men and women who've SERVED this country are inexplicably NOT eligible for that same grant, much less a low-interest loan. Go figure. Welcome to America.
 
Parties? We Don't need no sTinking Parties!

Makes me glad I am an "Independant".

Amazing how the main Political parties in this country do the opposite of what the "Democracy" concept and motto here stands for and is intended to accomplish.
It's like a ship set asail with either nobody or to many, at the helm.

:sowrong: 🙄

TTD
 
Interesting thought, TTD, but I simply cannot imagine a country of 300 million people thinking alike on all the important issues that a society must address (i.e. no stinking parties).

Won't ever happen.
 
2204 Issue

Thanks for the info, Dan. Every well intented cause by Congress always gets distorted in the end. Many Congressman and women have forgotten who they work for. I've started investing my money because you can't trust Social Security to be always be around.
 
Social Security...a once & future Good Idea.

😎
In addition to other facts brought up; consider this:
Social Security was created durring the depths of the Great Depression, in 1936 I believe, as an ADDITION to life savings & not as the end all. In the 30s people were wiped out of their savings..."S.S." was created to assure that'just a little something'was there after a lifetime of work.

The 'In Addition' is the key phrase here, kidz.

On paper it seemed simple enough; the working generation payed into a fund that was drawn upon by the retirees of the time with the guarantee that worker's funds would be solvent & their payments met when their "turn at bat" came upon retiring.

Then history happened to take a turn...War broke out. All those returning soldiers became happily busy w/ their wives, sweethearts & girlfriends and created a baby-boom. Now the story gets interesting because of ALL those EXTRA kids that were eventualy got jobs were paying into the SS fund & creating a fine nest egg; unfortunatly it was adminitered by people who didn't live during the Great Depression..."Hey, The Money will ALWAYS Be There, Right?" So............All those funds of the Social Security became a Great Big Apple on the end of a limb, invitingly waiting to be snatched...OR in this case 'Whittled Down".

So it came to pass that everytime funds were needed, the powers that be just reached into the Social Security Cookie Jar & Presto: ready Ca$h. It's here that one could view our so-called Political Leaders w/ a Jaundiced Eye...This practice in the private sector is called Imbezzelment.:sowrong:

However many wrong turns old Mr. Social Security has taken, you cannot blame him because it is basically a good program & a Great Idea.

NOW.................................Let me give my suggestion on how to FIX Social Security & make it a solvent viable Govnmt. Program again. One simple Solution:
TAKE AWAY CONGRSSIONAL RIGHTS & PENSIONS
The nation (ie: WE, The People) removes the Congressional Pensions & ties their security,(& OURS), in the same bushel basket...no more 7,000,000.00 pensions .....what you guys get is determined on your Social Security Pay-In....just like the rest of US. Maybe even doc them certain payments for days away from their desks in Congress, Missed Votes, ETC...........Hell, Thay may wind up owing us Money.
Now wouldn't that be a HOOT?!!😀
BUG
 
One would think...

...That it'd be super easy to get nearly one hundred percent of the voters behind instituting that, too! Time to remind our "elected officials" (and I use the term "elected" SOOOOOOOO loosely here, but don't get me started, that's a rant for another thread entirely) who they work for!
 
Re: One would think...

AffectionateDan said:
...That it'd be super easy to get nearly one hundred percent of the voters behind instituting that, too! Time to remind our "elected officials" (and I use the term "elected" SOOOOOOOO loosely here, but don't get me started, that's a rant for another thread entirely) who they work for!


OOOOOOOOO man, Dan, I know exactly how you feel here bro. IF it were not too late(I was just passing by before retiring for the night) I would join you in the:ranty: .

Perhaps tomorrow....?😀


TTD🙄

:sowrong:
 
10 years? where did you hear that?

all it takes to qualify for social security, at retirment, is to have worked 5 quaters,at a contributing job, that's 15 months!
even less to get s.s. disability, if you're hurt, and can no longer work.
our system is a mess and needs to be fixed. the problem is the dems keep scaring the old people, who didn't save, and rely solely on s.s.
steve
 
Re: 10 years? where did you hear that?

areenactor said:
all it takes to qualify for social security, at retirment, is to have worked 5 quaters,at a contributing job, that's 15 months!
even less to get s.s. disability, if you're hurt, and can no longer work.
our system is a mess and needs to be fixed. the problem is the dems keep scaring the old people, who didn't save, and rely solely on s.s.
steve

Here's one of the places I "heard" it:
http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/adss/works.html

quote:
<i>You need 10 years of work to qualify for benefits. The size of the monthly check is linked to earnings during your working career. But the complex formulas are arranged to give proportionately more money to low-income workers.</i>

There's plenty of background info on that site as it provides a forum for discussion on the whole SS problem. Again, the facts are out there for the taking.



btw, lightninbug: great post!
 
Re: Re: 10 years? where did you hear that?

MrPartickler said:
Here's one of the places I "heard" it:
http://www.network-democracy.org/social-security/bb/adss/works.html

quote:
<i>You need 10 years of work to qualify for benefits. The size of the monthly check is linked to earnings during your working career. But the complex formulas are arranged to give proportionately more money to low-income workers.</i>

There's plenty of background info on that site as it provides a forum for discussion on the whole SS problem. Again, the facts are out there for the taking.



btw, lightninbug: great post!

Heh. Good one. Just gotta look beyond your personal hole in the sand, eh? Or whichever hole you're using... 😛
 
and i'll stand with what i KNOW!

i read the info at the site you provided, thank you. but those are guide lines, not engraved in stone.
i happen to know 2 retirees that didn't work more than 3 years,one less, and are collecting social security.
so i think i'll go with the old expression, "the proof is in the pudding".
steve
 
What's New

2/27/2025
See some Spam? Report it! We appreciate the help! The report button is on the lower left of the post.
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top