So Paul Ryan Wants to Take Your Social Security?
August 18, 2012 4:07pm CST
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card 1934 – 1980 With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans want to take away the old people's 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, issued in 1934, and up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and that 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. When 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. Under Johnson, another Democrat, 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, Democrats, 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' for us -- 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 Democrat Party. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democrat 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 Democrat Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democrat 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!
2 people like this
• United States
21 Aug 12
Debra, Any discussion on SS is really a moot point since SS in it's present form cannot survive. Like a former commenter said SS is and always has been a gigantic ponzi scheme and unless huge changes take place it will go the way of every ponzi scheme and that is collapse. There are good ways to save SS such as individual accounts, that are untouchable by congress but I don't see congress changing anything since this type of change would leave them powerless to control the money and they wouldn't be able to blame someone for trying to take your SS away.
• United States
19 Aug 12
That's very interesting and so is Andy's information. I knew a lot of this already but I'm not the typical citizen. I don't really care which party did what except that there is such hypocrisy and an effort to blame others for their own missteps and downright theft. I was thinking the other day, what would be so bad about SS going away and what are people so afraid of? What did we do before SS? We took care of our parents and grandparents, often with multiple generations in the same house. There wasn't much privacy and there were some problems but we were responsible for our parents, for Aunt Jenny or cousin Tom, and past generations considered it part of life to take care of each other. I'm not being idealistic, I know there would be problems and stress but if SS went away we could deal with it. There would be a small number of people who would refuse to let their parents live with them but eventually it would work out. On the other hand, we have lost 40% of our wealth in the last 3.5 years so I'm not sure anyone could afford it! I'm just rambling and I know none of this is possible anymore on a massive scale but wouldn't it be nice if it was? I do think that Congress should be legally forced to replenish SS since they and their predecessors are the ones who raided it--maybe Warren Buffet could help since he bemoans the fact that he doesn't pay enough taxes?
• United States
19 Aug 12
I've read everything so far and agree with much of it. One needs to remember one of the main points of the original post which is that Paul Ryan's plan is not to take social security away. Also, it should be pointed out that his plan does not affect anyone who is currently 55 or older. There is something that no one has mentioned and that is that Social Security is and has always been in effect a Ponzi scheme. The main reason that it has worked so far is because of the Baby Boomer generation. Now that the generations following the Baby Boomer generation are not as large, there is not enough money coming in to keep the scheme going. I just recently started on Social Security and I can look at the amount of money that I paid in and what I am getting from it now and compare it to my own investments and what I am getting from them and I would be doing far better if I had been able to invest that money I had to pay the government rather giving it too them.
• United States
19 Aug 12
I am 55, and quite concerned about this issue. I've listened to Cong. Ryan's plan and am very optimistic. You are correct that the main cause of this problem is that the baby boomer generation far exceeds the current generation paying in. Can we admit that abortion might have something to do with that? I have seen no studies, but it is a reasonable theory. One other cause that Cong. Ryan brought up was a longer life span. When the program was started, life expectancy was right at or about age 65. (the gov. knew this, so they figured you'd pay in and then only draw on it a year or two at best, nice huh?)So, Ryan's plan to set the age higher also makes sense, when people are living into their 80-90s at a higher rate. You might find this speech interesting, Reagan on social security back in '64. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwepMzBpOhE