======================
Make sure to watch video at the end of this post
=================================
Social Security: The main talking points today.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s proposal for an overwithholding slush fund
The Social Security Act was drafted by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt‘s committee on economic security, under Edwin E. Witte, and passed during FDR’s first term which provided for workers who reach the age of 65 a pension of $8 a week at most. The plan had to be pushed through against FDR’s procrastination until finally in the 1934 congressional elections the Republicans denounced him for his tardiness. When FDR finally consented to a bill, it contained a plan for building a huge reserve fund that would extract billions from the workers’ payrolls without any adequate return. Over the protest of the President, the Congress finally took that provision proposed by Roosevelt out of the law. [5]
President Lyndon Johnson raids the Social Security Trust Fund to wage the Vietnam War
President Johnson created the ‘unified budget’ in the late 1960s to disguise the real cost of the Vietnam War.[6] [7] President Johnson did not want to ask for income tax increases to pay for several ambitious government programs of that era (the Vietnam War, the Great Society War on Poverty, the NASA Space Race). Putting surpluses from Social Security overwithholding “on budget” (adding them to the general operating budget of the United States Government) so the overwithholding could be used to pay for other government programs would make the federal budget appear balanced. The resulting debt to Trust Funds would be presented “off budget.”
In 1967 President Johnson appointed a Commission on Federal Budget Concepts which in its October 1967 report proposed a unified budget to do this. Johnson submitted the first unified budget to a Democratic Congress for Fiscal Year 1969 scheduled to begin on July 1, 1968. Thus was born the practice of using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses – or “Intra-governmental Holdings of Debt” to hide the size of the overall federal deficit.
Who put the limits on those with Social Security to earn $$$?
The Clinton/Gore Tax on Social Security benefits
In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on Social Security benefits of the elderly and disabled.[9] The final version of the bill passed by the Democratically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%[10] of benefits (or “annuity payments” as they were originally called). Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law.
The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% income tax rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.[11]
In 2009 conservatives attacked the Democrats health care reform program because it reneged on promises made to Medicare beneficiaries.
LINK with references:
==========================
ADD THIS:
AL SHARPTON BLOWS GASKET ON THE AIR AFTER CALLER SLAMS HIM FOR SPREADING LIES ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING
Yes, there definitely must be something in the air, as key Democrats seem to be coming apart at the seams lately with a string of rants directed against Republicans. This week alone there has been a kind of explosion of such tirades. Following suit, Rev. Al Sharpton also had his own bona fide meltdown after someone called in to the radio segment on which Sharpton appeared to slam the reverend for allegedly propagating lies about the debt ceiling.
The caller, who told Sharpton that he had marched for him and voted for then presidential candidate Barack Obama, told Sharpton that he was “deceiving” people about Social Security.
“Social Security has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling,” the caller said. The caller said that Social Security comes out of people’s taxes and is set aside for that purpose, hence, Obama would indeed be able to cover Social Security payments.
Sharpton responded by alleging that a government default would make it so that the President might not have enough money to “cover” all his “bills,” Social Security being one of them. The caller then criticized Sharpton for not “clarifying” his stance to the American people and told the reverend that some of what he was saying about Social Security “is false.”
That’s when the already agitated Sharpton really started to lose his cool, slamming the caller for “misleading” people with “double talk.”
But the caller fought back, scolding Sharpton for “cutting him off,” all the while pressing Sharpton to let the people know “the truth.“ The caller told the reverend he needed to tell people the ”repercussions of raising this debt” and accused the reverend of failing to do so.
LINK
=========================
WHO actually enhanced BIG Government expansion?
Answer: Jimmy Carter
As president, Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama.
Throughout his career, Carter strongly emphasized human rights. He took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term. The end of his presidential tenure was marked by the 1979–1981 Iran hostage crisis, the 1979 energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (at the end of 1979), and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.
By 1980, Carter’s popularity had eroded. He survived a primary challenge against Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in the 1980 election, but lost the election to Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. On January 20, 1981, minutes after Carter’s term in office ended, the 52 U.S. captives held at the U.S. embassy in Iran were released, ending the 444-day Iran hostage crisis.[3]
More with references HERE…..
=========================
So WHO actually started the problems with Social Security?
WHO is actually responsible for EXPANDING and growing BIG Government?
BUT the Republicans and Conservatives are the bad guy in this debate?
===========================
Romanticpoet's Weblog 
And not the true story, not the twisted drivel.
snopes.com
****************INTERJECTION HERE BY ROMANTICPOET******************
***JOHN: click this:….>> http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/***
[f]alse claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent…….
[t]he Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.
Romanticpoet
Carry on……
**********************
Search
Misinformation About Social Security
Home > Politics > Social Security > Social Security
Social Security Changes
Claim: List details changes made to the Social Security system over the years.
MIXTURE OF TRUE AND FALSE INFORMATION
Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2005]
SOCIAL SECURITY:
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,
5.) 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 U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI 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 violation 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!
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year!
Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction:
Dear Friends:
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 his 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 mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she 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. Hope you will read this and think about it.
Origins: The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded — and even whether it should exist at all — have been the subject of debate for many decades now. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them:
. . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary
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.
. . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program
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:
1) 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).
. . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year
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.
. . . 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
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.
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.
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.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
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).
(Social Security Administration)
Last updated: 24 February 2009
:
Question…I remember Congress voting itself (another) payraise using social security funds. Do you remember which year that was?
===================
Pamela:
After researching your question, the only information that comes up is that their pay raises are paid by the Treasury. With Tim Geither as its head, who knows where the $$ comes from to pay the Congressional pay increases. ANOTHER question that should be asked is WHERE the $$ comes from for the huge “expense accounts” given to Representatives and Senators.
Social Security through payroll taxes are put in Bonds. The bonds do get interest.
With the payroll tax cuts currently in place, LESS money goes into Social Security.
It has been stated that Lyndon Johnson actually raided Social Security in the beginning to pay for the Vietnam War. After opening “pandora’s box” the Social Security “lockbox” has been raided several times to pay for government expenses.
Some say the Social Security lockbox currently is nothing but a box filled with paper IOU’s.
Republicans have been trying to say that Social Security should be reformed to STOP the raids and insure monies will be there for those that retire. Do you agree?
Romanticpoet
====================================
Another republican lie to deceive the people.When will people see what the republicans truely are? And what awful things they are trying and want to do to the american people just for their greedy gain.George Bush and his cronies still in office are totally responsible for todays ills.And they want to continue it.Republicans have stolen more from the American then you will ever know. Lying and twisting fact are their way.
=================
Les:
Can YOU point out one thing that is incorrect in my posting?
The Social Security “lockbox” has been raided by most Presidents (Yes both Dems and Republicans). The box is currently filled with IOU’s.
YOU need to educate yourself and quit believing the hype the Democrat Party is feeding YOU.
Whatever the government giveth……the government can also TAKE AWAY. Our government has grown so largesse that even our creditors have downgraded our capabilities to get out of over 15 TRILLION dollars in debt.
Visually: $15,000,000,000,000.00
Go here to LOOK at it in real time http://www.usdebtclock.org
**LOOK at the debt per taxpayer***
Romanticpoet
============================
IF we had not invaded Iraq and fought a 10 year war costing trillions, and Bush hadn’t been asleep at the wheel while Wall Street ran out of control, the lending giants Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae went sub-prime INSANE, and the EPA was gutted so the US car manufacturers could build gas guzzling MONSTERS to put us at the mercy of Bush’s buddies in the Saudi Royal Family? And THEN, yet ANOTHER budget busting war that no one in HISTORY has ever WON in Afghanistan? And you wonder where the money went? Halburton, General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and anyone who can field a rifle that can shoot more than 100 rounds without blowing up! Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the point of a needle in spending compared to the military.
============================
Kevin:
The original spigot “turn on” was Lyndon Johnson. Once the government got away with raiding Social Security and there was no outcry over raiding the lock box…..the flood was released.
Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the “Great Society” legislation that started a large expenditure for Social programs.
Lyndon Johnson was the one that escalated America’s involvement in Vietnam. Why didn’t you think to mention that?
WHY isn’t there a FEDERAL BUDGET (Haven’t had one in 3 yrs)….plus Obama added 5 TRILLION to our debt in 3 years FOR WHAT? Millions and Billions for FAILED “green” jobs/corporations.
Money to countries that don’t like us like Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. to play “nice-nice”. Recently 1.5 BILLION to Egypt and 1.47 Million to Palestine.
Don’t worry, Obama has already made plans to cut military pay, retirement pay and healthcare for our military.
The thing that should worry YOU is that Putin was elected as president of Russia for the next six years.
Also Greece’s government now has Neo-Nazis.
Will Obama support Israel if it is attacked by its surround hostilities including the Muslim Brotherhood that is part of the Syrian uprising? Obama has very close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood within our own White House.
Military spending is but ONE of several overspending amounts.
P.S. Medicaid is already straining budgets in the individual States. You haven’t seen anything yet about government spending if Obamacare is upheld through the Supreme Court.
The real problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING period.
We as Americans are unable to spend more than we take in; so why should our government be able to have unending spending ability?
Even increased taxing of the 1% will only run our government for a matter of DAYS; then what? Will Obama drop the rate of taxation to those that make $100,000 per year? If that doesn’t work, then what?
Romanticpoet
===============================
[…] Security was designed during the FDR regime to be a slush fund. Surpluses from the fund were used by Lyndon Johnson to pay for the so-called “Great Society,” […]
The result is that current workers pay 2 taxes for the same benefit: payroll taxes for themselves and income taxes to pay back the 40+ year theft. Every politician who participated in this fraud should be in jail. A $2.5 trillion dollar theft.
=====================
Stan:
Re: Payroll tax: http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/08/29/the-payroll-tax
Income tax paid on income. Wait for your taxes to increase if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.
ALSO, just wait for the INCREASED taxes coming January 1 2013 to pay for Obamacare. Read: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-top-5-worst-taxes-obamacare-will-impose-in-2013/
Ask yourself this: WHY is Harry Reid in the Senate holding up 30+ JOBS bills in the Senate? Says they won’t be explored until AFTER the November elections, but I digress.
Americans SHOULD worry about what Obama and Harry Reid have planned for the Lame Duck Congress from November 7,2012 until January 18, 2013.
Romanticpoet
===================================
Whither it was a dem. or a repub. stealing from social security to cover their ass, It only tells all of us that Voodoo Economic doesn’t work. The notion that: “Deficits don’t matter in cutting government programs or exploiting them”. As a Philosophy concluded “I’m not worried about the deficit, the deficit well take care of itself”! Seem to be the Philosophy that came to steal from a Self-sustaining fund called social security and pension retirement. As we add to it the out sourcing of our jobs for cheap labor. In the Voodoo Economics of Globalization and a great economic melt down.Through all those loophole and tax breaks that funded the expansion of globalization. As it created a dysfunctional government.Through the signing of the Norquist Tax Pledge.
==================================
Denis:
The Social Security Act of 1935, originated under FDR as a means for assisting those in poverty during the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
The majority of women and minorities were excluded in the beginning from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions, as employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.
Social Security operates on the basis of a percentage of gross wages is paid into this “Retirement Insurance Fund”. Social Security is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). **WORKERS/taxpayers are the funders of this program. Those that DO NOT work are paid OUT through programs listed below***
Through Progressive expansion of the original Social Security program and through amendments, this once SIMPLE program has exploded into encompassing this:
The larger and better known programs under the Social Security Act and amendments are:
Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance
Unemployment benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act <<<Also known as OBAMACARE.
Wages not subject to tax
Workers are not required to pay Social Security taxes on wages from certain types of work:[65]
Wages received by certain state or local government workers participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
Net annual earnings from self-employment of less than $400.
Wages received for service as an election worker, if less than $1,400 a year (in 2008).
Wages received for working as a household employee, if less than $1,700 per year (in 2009–2010).
Wages received by college students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers. Eliminated starting January 2011.
Earnings received for serving as a minister (or for similar religious service) if the person has a conscientious objection to public insurance because of personal religious considerations/
Trust fund
Social Security taxes are paid into the Social Security Trust Fund maintained by the U.S. Treasury (technically, the “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund”, as established by 42 U.S.C. § 401(a)). Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they did between 1983 and 2009,[33] the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. Government bonds, thus the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government’s general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.[34] The Trust Fund is regarded by some as an accounting construct which holds no economic significance. Others argue that it has specific legal significance because the Treasury securities it holds are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government, which has an obligation to repay its debt.
The Social Security Administration’s authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security’s ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government’s ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. As with any other federal obligation, the federal government’s ability to repay Social Security is based on its power to tax and borrow and the commitment of Congress to meet its obligations.
In 2009 the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculated an unfunded obligation of $15.1 trillion for the Social Security program. The unfunded obligation is the difference between the future cost of Social Security (based on several demographic assumptions such as mortality, work force participation, immigration, and age expectancy) and total assets in the Trust Fund given the expected contribution rate through the current scheduled payroll tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Trust_fund
************************
Through GOVERNMENT intrusion by inserting IOU’s into the Social Security “Lock Box” to fund other government programs, including Obamacare, the amount of funds in the “Credit” column is dwindling.
The Obama administration now has a “New and Improved” way of saying…..”Give me a portion of your paycheck and I will hold it for you”. It is called the Government Retirement Accounts.
A New Obama Plan? Government Grab of Retirement Accounts a Matter of ‘Social Justice’ **PLUS** Union involvement in Banking Institutions https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-new-obama-plan-government-grab-of-retirement-accounts-a-matter-of-‘social-justice’-plus-union-involvement-in-banking-institutions/
Excerpt:
Uncle Sam wants your retirement money.
The Obama administration has just solicited public comment on their proposal to take money from Americans’ private 401(k) retirement accounts and convert it into government-backed annuities. In other words, they want to take your money now to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, then pay you a monthly sum later after you’ve retired.
Although this proposal is being initially portrayed as a voluntary choice, Americans already have the ability to purchase Treasury bonds with their retirement money. Moreover, the Obama administration is considering making these annuities the default option. And as analyst Karl Denninger noted, “‘choices’ have a funny way of turning into mandates.” Nor is his concern unjustified.
In 2008, Professor Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research testified before Congress proposing a similar scheme to convert private 401(k) accounts into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts” that would pay a 3% return. And in 2008, the Argentinian government attempted to nationalize private retirement funds to help cover its runaway deficit.
As the U.S. Social Security system moves ever closer to bankruptcy, the billions of dollars Americans have saved in their private retirement accounts will become an increasingly tempting target for our politicians.
A government raid on private retirement funds wouldn’t necessarily take the form of outright confiscation. It could take the form of mandatory conversion into government accounts, where the government would determine how much money retirees could receive. Or it could take the form of, for example, a 40% surtax on disbursements from 401(k) balances over $1 million — on the grounds that it would only harm wealthy “millionaires.”
But regardless of the precise method employed, the basic principle would be the same: Your money would no longer be your money. Instead, the government would claim the right to redistribute your wealth to pay for others’ retirement on the grounds that they needed it more. In essence, the government would be implementing the Marxist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
=================
So, Denis, the government thinks it knows what is best for you. They believe YOU are too stupid to think for yourself or maintain a Savings Account on your own, so they force you to save under Social Security taxes taken out of your paycheck; BUT they don’t tell YOU it may NOT be there when you need it.
AND because the government quietly admits it will run out of Social Security funds by paying for “social programs” NOT originally intended under FDR, they are NOW eyeing 401k and IRA accounts.
“That government is best which governs least.”
Thomas Paine
Romanticpoet
============================
=======================================
So when you idiots want to bash obama he started with a deficit from bush of over 1 trillion a year.. so even if he didnt spend a penny more that debt would still grow 4.1 TRILLION dollars.. 1 trill x 4 years.. + interest on the debt.. = 4.1 trillion in the hole FROM the bush years for the first 4 years under Obama..
======================
Ken:
First off Ken, Pres.Bush double our debt for a cost of 5 Trillion in 8 YEARS.
Obama has increased our debt 6 Trillion dollars in 4 years.
Debt is debt no matter WHO is at the helm.
I wasn’t a fan of GW Bush either. However, the housing bubble is the main culprit of this current economic downturn.
Started by the Community Reinvestment Program
The real story started years ago. In 1977, Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) into law. But this law had no teeth, no way to require lenders to lower their standards and to make subprime loans. Enter Bill Clinton. In 1994, President Clinton directed 10 agencies to issue an ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. This ultimatum was signed by HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other agencies. Mr. Clinton also ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy these mortgages from the banks.
The ultimatum was then codified into a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994. You can Google this if you’re interested in reading it. Among other things, the policy says “HUD is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand or settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory lending practices” and “Applying different lending standards to applicants who are members of a protected class is permissible” and “in addition, providing different treatment to applicants to address past discrimination would be permissible.”
To make sure banks complied, the policy was (and still is) enforced by bank auditors who kept close tabs on how many subprime loans banks were making and constantly threatened them if they weren’t making enough. The policy and the enforcement was meant to intimidate lenders to make the very subprime loans they had previously refused to make. The American Bankers Association issued a “fair lending tool kit” to its members. Today, banks have employees whose job titles are “Community Reinvestment Act Analyst” and whose job is to ensure that the banks are in compliance with the CRA. The Obama administration is being even more aggressive in enforcing compliance.
When George W. Bush took office, members of his administration and GOP members of Congress continually tried to get the Democratic members of Congress to order Fannie and Freddie to cut back on their subprime portfolio, but the response was that the GOP was trying to fix something that wasn’t broken.
Read more at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204464404577117091015102330.html
This is from 2004
============================
All the Presidents either Democrat or Republican has been raiding Social Security for other Federal Programs.
What are your thoughts on the Crony Capitalism under this Administration? The “Green Stimulus” money sent to Donors and groups that supported Obama in 2008 that are now bankrupt…Solyndra, ABC battery, Tonopah, etc.
The government waste programs: Shrimp on treadmills, $500 Million spent to study Goldfish to see if they live in a Democracy, etc.
Sending Billions/Millions to countries that don’t have our interest at heart….Libya, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, etc.
The “No new taxes” pledge of GHW Bush AND Obama. Anyone working has seen their paychecks shrink lately due to the payroll tax hike. It WILL get worse for those working in America. New taxes that are now in place to fund Obamacare. Love the Real Estate tax snuck into Obamacare. Sell your house? Pay taxes to Obamacare. What does Real Estate have to do with Healthcare?
Read: Real Estate Sales Tax in Healthcare Bill? Surprise!~~….. https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/real-estate-sales-tax-in-healthcare-bill-surprise/
The “new” idea in Washington, D.C. is to TAKE retirement Savings in 401k’s and IRA’s and convert them into Government Retirement Accounts (GRA’s). Think about that. Taking American’s savings from them and putting them into a government program. We have seen how well government programs work, right? What is your opinion of the government possibly FORCING you to safe 3% of your paycheck to go into the GRA? What if those that don’t work are allowed to “share” in your GRA?
Read: A New Obama Plan? Government Grab of Retirement Accounts a Matter of ‘Social Justice’ **PLUS** Union involvement in Banking Institutions https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-new-obama-plan-government-grab-of-retirement-accounts-a-matter-of-‘social-justice’-plus-union-involvement-in-banking-institutions/
These are just my thoughts/opinion.
We do have the right to disagree; speak our minds…it is called the First Amendment.
Romanticpoet
Some side reading for you: https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/while-our-military-is-downsized-a-russiachina-alliance-builds-are-our-freedoms-at-risk-the-45-steps-to-communism/
===================================
Bin Laden = Dead
American Car industry = Alive
Wall Street = Brought back from the dead
Jobs = Recovering from the depths
You republicans rant on and on about Obama won’t admit to this or that, Yet NONE of you will give him a single once of credit for anything that is going correctly either.. YOU loud mouth moronic hypocrites!
=======================
Ken:
**As a disclaimer: I WAS a Democrat for 35+ years until 2008. I observed that the “Democrat Party” I originally was a part of (Reagan Democrat) had been usurped by Progressive Marxists/Socialists. I didn’t buy Obama’s “Hope and Change”…I am now an Independent Center-right voter.**
Okay, let’s take this step by step.
1. Bin Laden = Dead. After following advice by Valerie Jarrett THREE TIMES not to give order…somehow the order did come to get Bin Laden. By the way, the Navy Seals risked their lives to get Bin Laden; and actually were the ones that did the deed….not President Obama. We could have gotten Bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001, but Susan Rice (UN ambassador), in 1996, advised President Clinton NOT to accept the offer from Sudan (classified terrorist country then) to NOT look bad.http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2380
Hence, we had nearly 3,000 deaths from 9-11-01.
We ALSO got the USS Cole disaster. Dept. of Social Justice strikes again: USS Cole bombing prosecution “shelved”. **Updated October 12, 2012** https://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/?s=Susan+Rice+Clinton+bin+Laden&submit=Search
===================
2. American Car industry = Alive. IF the car industry were “Alive”, why is Detroit is such bad shape? Car manufacturers have gone overseas to China and across the border into Mexico. GM still has not paid back its government bailout loan. FORD did NOT take a gov’t loan and is doing quite well. The “Green Stimulus” loans for the eco-friendly cars is a JOKE. Loss of mileage before you have to recharge AND you have to use the “BAD Electricity” to charge them.
Price of gasoline skyrocketing; Obama against Keystone pipeline and oil shale.
========================
3.Wall Street = Brought back from the dead. Wall Street is doing better due to QE1,2 and 3. The Federal Reserve is printing “play” money and pumping it into the economy (NO gold standard to back the paper). Our dollar is 37% owned by FOREIGN banks (China, Japan, etc.).
You need to read this timeline of the Great Depression. Is history repeating itself?
TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
Excerpt:
1924
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent – the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.
1928
>>>NOTE HERE: Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks will rise 40 percent. The boom is largely artificial.<<<
1929
Herbert Hoover becomes President.
Annual per-capita income is $750. More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum subsistence level.
Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the year before.
Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and personal income at 5 percent.
Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29 Black Tuesday. Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an astronomical sum in those days.
1930
By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate real estate… values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people'.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe.
Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how negligible.
The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
More at the timeline link above.
================================
4. Jobs = Recovering from the depths. Unemployment rate still around 7.8% (same as when Obama took office in 2008). With increased taxation and Obamacare regulations, employers are either laying off or lowering the hours of their employees.
IF numbers were added, as they should be, to the reported unemployment numbers, the true Unemployed would be closer or above 14%.
So HOW does this equate to jobs recovery?
=======================================
So there is my response.
Romanticpoet.
===========================================================
Q; What is your opinion of the government possibly FORCING you to safe 3% of your paycheck to go into the Government Retirement Accounts? What if those that don’t work are allowed to “share” in your GRA?
Op; Whither it is a Dem or Rep. It will be nothing more than a revenue to exploit. It will pay for other thing in the on-going Saga. Just like the other self-sustaining programs. AS the honesty of Reagan exposed the Philosophy of a new world order. “I’m not worried about the deficit, the deficit well take care of itself” As Reagan expound “Deficits don’t matter in cutting government programs”! I prefer the words “too exploit”. I’ve come to perceive this Philosophy has nothing to with the up-right heart of conservative and liberal values. Both only want the best for everyone. Carried into, the distraction of the blame game. Through the Corporate Fascism: of deformation and demonizing. ALEC and its’ tea party what nothing to do with the up-right heart of conservative and liberal values.
It’s not a problem with entitlements. Not even with government. It’s a serious problem with the Integrity and Philosophy laid against you and me. “We the People” It is everything we are talking about on the one hand. While over the past twenty years enters the great corporate tax holiday. As we see the constitutional oath is side-stepped through the signing of a pledge. As many corporation today have no tax liability whatsoever. And have off shore tax havens and are still being subsidized. The tax holiday is all about the voodoo economic given for Globalization, and the outsourcing of our jobs!
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue [down]
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%
Individual income and payroll taxes as a percent of GDP [up] 1955 . . . 9.3%
2010 . . . 12.2%
Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP [down]
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%
Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5% [up]
GE paid no taxes; The GAO reported in 2008 that “two out of every three United States corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.” Companies have become all too astute at paying for loopholes which allow them to shift profits abroad, or move their gains (on paper) to foreign low-tax/no-tax nations.
In some cases corporations may realize tax benefits for past years through rebates, or may win disputes with the IRS for previous tax periods, thereby accruing tax benefits not recorded in earlier financial reports.
In some cases corporations may realize tax benefits for past years through rebates, or may win disputes with the IRS for previous tax periods, thereby accruing tax benefits not recorded in earlier financial reports. Of the companies receiving what the report terms “tax subsidies” – the difference between what they would have paid for their profits at the 35 percent rate and what they actually paid during the 2008-10 period – the largest subsidies went to Wells Fargo ($17.960 billion); AT&T ($14.491 billion); Verizon ($12.332 billion); General Electric ($8.398 billion); IBM ($8.265 billion); Exxon Mobil ($4.096 billion); Boeing ($3.585 billion); PNC Financial Services ($3.354 billion); Goldman Sachs ($3.178 billion); and Procter & Gamble ($3.158 billion). More than half (56 percent) of tax subsidies were gained by four industries: Financial; utilities; telecommunications; and oil, gas & pipelines. About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006. As we see what corporate tax cut have done to our economy from 1955 as it exploded into a great economic melt down. The out sourcing of jobs. Including everything we have been discussing. Laid upon the common good and honest law biding tax payer. In the redefining of Human Rights. What is going on through out the several state. The right to choose, the right to bargain. The right to vote. And it has nothing to do with the up-right heart of conservative and liberal values. All of us want the best for one another. As the setting of corporate fascism stares all of us right in the face. In the spoliations and devaluation of governing. As it all become a heads up in the words “Government isn’t the solution, government is the problem! As it all came about in the signing of a pledge. And the shunning of a Constitutional Oath.
There have been ,lie after lie, that the Republicans started, this robbery.