Social Security - history

[2ndAmendment]

This has been making its way aroung the Internet. It is too bad that most senior citizens are Internet challenged.

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!

 

[Aimhigh2000]

Agreed

I actually would prefer managing my own retirement account. If I am stupid and end up being broke, well that is on me then. I think it should be a choice.

 

[jlabsher]

Wow, the Dems did all that, well they get my vote then!

 

[Christy]

Wow, the Dems did all that, well they get my vote then!

Shocker.

 

[ylexot]

When did it go from voluntary to forced?

 

[soul4sale]

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.

Yeah, and several million members of the "Greatest Generation," popping out Baby Boomer brats by the truckload, who never met a temporary government program they could be weened off.

Hope you "conservative" Boomer twits enjoy your retirement, cuz we're footing the bill. Why don't you re-elect Dubya and throw a few more billion at Iraq while you're at it? Might as well use the credit card while you still can, cuz we sure as hell cannot wait to "privatize" your burgeoning health care costs the same way you're gleefully privatizing the military and prisions.

Hoo baby. Just wait till you're too old to get to the polls...

 

[jlabsher]

I don't see why you hate SS. Let's look at the numbers. Say I earn $2M lifetime, now SS is around 6.5% (it used to be less but we'll keep the calculations simple). OK 6.5% of $2M is $130K. SS will pay me $15K a year starting @ age 62. So, in less than 9 years I will have made back everything I put into it. After I die, my wife keeps getting it.

If I choke on a chicken wing tomorrow, my wife & kids will get $30K a year for at least 15 years (longer if the kids stay in school) and then my wife will get $15K @ year until she dies. Pretty good investment?

Of course other people benefit, like my mom who is drawing my dad's, people I know - like the lady who worked at Ben Franklin's for life and always treated little kids good because she had none. She also didn't have a retirement plan, boom social security. The lady I know whose hubby died driving a semi & left her with 3 kids - boom social security. The lady whose hubby died in a coal mine accident leaving her with a family - boom social security.

Not too bad of a deal for an amount less than sales tax in most states. I know you republicans don't like taking care of anybody but yourself, but I don't mind 6 cents on every $ going to take care of myself & others. Kind of a Christian thing to do, isn't it 2A?

Now the republicans and your president want to give us the option of paying in to SS or not, perhaps they don't remember Enron, MCI, USAir or any of the other scandals where markets shares have plummeted and retirement funds were lost, or they think a bank account paying 1.5% will allow me to retire safely. Doesn't sound like a prudent thing to me.

 

[SamSpade]

I don't see why you hate SS.

I don't. But it is penny-wise and pound foolish. When it was created, it was such a small program it wasn't likely to go broke. Now we have a situation where many people depend on SS FOR their retirement, and it cannot be sustained indefinitely. It WILL go broke, and I am planning my retirement on that theory.

NO politician wants to talk honestly with the public on it. It's a big train wreck, and everyone wants to tell us it will be ok.

Now the republicans and your president want to give us the option of paying in to SS or not, perhaps they don't remember Enron, MCI, USAir or any of the other scandals where markets shares have plummeted and retirement funds were lost, or they think a bank account paying 1.5% will allow me to retire safely. Doesn't sound like a prudent thing to me.

He wants something like what federal workers *already* have - the Thrift Savings Plan - and have had for many years - AND the option to use it. And to phase it in. As you may know - because you probably have TSP or know someone who has - it's a voluntary program where you get to divide your retirement plan into different funds (or bonds). ENRON may screw their own employees with their pension plans, and the stock market might tumble from time to time - but over many years, it is the best place for your money, long-term. And it sure beats the no interest earning system we have now.

You think a bank account earning 1.5% is a pipe dream? Try ZERO. That's how SS works.

You have to admit, it's a damn waste of money to collect billions of dollars and not one plugged nickel ever earns a penny of interest.

It's smart to invest your money and I'm sure you're way ahead of the game in the stock market for yourself. So if all of us have retirement plans where we've invested in the stock market, why does it suddenly become stupid for the government to do the SAME THING? Let me repeat that - you plan for your retirement by planning and earning money in the stock market. Do you ask yourself "oh my - what about Enron, and lost retirement, and recessions?". If you seriously thought your investments were in THAT MUCH DANGER, you'd *never* do it (unless you're just simply crazy).

So if YOU DO IT, why shouldn't the government do it? They already do it for us federal workers. Why not for everyone else?

 

[ylexot]

I don't. But it is penny-wise and pound foolish. When it was created, it was such a small program it wasn't likely to go broke. Now we have a situation where many people depend on SS FOR their retirement, and it cannot be sustained indefinitely. It WILL go broke, and I am planning my retirement on that theory.

Ditto.

He wants something like what federal workers *already* have - the Thrift Savings Plan - and have had for many years - AND the option to use it. And to phase it in. As you may know - because you probably have TSP or know someone who has - it's a voluntary program where you get to divide your retirement plan into different funds (or bonds). ENRON may screw their own employees with their pension plans, and the stock market might tumble from time to time - but over many years, it is the best place for your money, long-term. And it sure beats the no interest earning system we have now.

I like TSP. I've saved $60k+ in six years

The problem with ENRON, etc. was that the people invested solely in the company stock. Any investor will tell you that diversity is key. If your company stocks drop, you lose some, but you're not sunk.

TSP gives you that option too. There are high-risk/high-yield options and low-risk/low-yield options and you can split it any way you want.

 

[UrbanPancake]

Wow, the Dems did all that, well they get my vote then!

ME TOO! If elderly immigrants come over here and collect social security, that inturn helps our economy. We are descendents of immigrants, and they came here not in the search for a social program (if that was the case they would go to Germany or France) they came for the promise of freedom. Anyway they don't get extemely bloated SS checks. It doesn't make them rich. Why shouldn't SS be taxed? It should be. The money is withheld before taxes are taken out, and when the person is ready to withdraw SS they are being taxed at a much lower percentage then when they were working. I think it is also a good idea for young people today to handle their retirement, but not until we have a sound way of providing for todays elderly and the aging baby boomers.

 

[Aimhigh2000]

I agree with Ylexot, If you put all your eggs in one basket, then you have no one to blame for losing it all. I like having control over my savings and retirement.

 

[jlabsher]

But what about companies who have a 401K that only invests in company stock, or stock-options as retirement?

Don't get me wrong I love my TSP, in fact I just put everything into the G fund until after the election is over (just in case the market "hiccups"). I think that letting people invest their own money will mean that a lot of stupid people turn 65 with nothing left to show for it. I know people in their late 50's who continue to put everything into high risk stocks, hoping to get rich quick. Who will take care of them when the market tanks? Us - one way or another. That is why I think SS isn't that bad of a deal, 6% isn't going to kill me.

 

[UrbanPancake]

But what about companies who have a 401K that only invests in company stock, or stock-options as retirement?

Don't get me wrong I love my TSP, in fact I just put everything into the G fund until after the election is over (just in case the market "hiccups"). I think that letting people invest their own money will mean that a lot of stupid people turn 65 with nothing left to show for it. I know people in their late 50's who continue to put everything into high risk stocks, hoping to get rich quick. Who will take care of them when the market tanks? Us - one way or another. That is why I think SS isn't that bad of a deal, 6% isn't going to kill me.

Right ON!!! Republicans are scared that some poor old person is going to be able to buy a few items to help carry them through their golden years. I guess it makes them feel better when they have a little something, and someone else has nothing. It must be an ego thang.

 

[SamSpade]

But what about companies who have a 401K that only invests in company stock, or stock-options as retirement?

Don't get me wrong I love my TSP, in fact I just put everything into the G fund until after the election is over (just in case the market "hiccups"). I think that letting people invest their own money will mean that a lot of stupid people turn 65 with nothing left to show for it. I know people in their late 50's who continue to put everything into high risk stocks, hoping to get rich quick. Who will take care of them when the market tanks? Us - one way or another. That is why I think SS isn't that bad of a deal, 6% isn't going to kill me.

But the Republicans don't intend to change THEIR SS - just those starting at the bottom. Over the short term, say three to five years, people can lose their shirt. Over thirty or forty years, they won't.

Second - it's just a portion of the SS. They won't be able to invest or apportion all of it.

Don't you see how it makes sense to invest the money, rather than send it to Washington and have it get spent? Effectively earning ZERO interest? Heck, in constant dollars it LOSES money. And I don't see why it is bad to establish retirement accounts that EARN money, when people who don't expect SS to survive are doing that, themselves.

If it's smart for YOU to do it, why is it not smart for the government to do it?

 

[SamSpade]

But what about companies who have a 401K that only invests in company stock, or stock-options as retirement?

Forgot to reply to this part.

Irrelevant. We're talking about privatizing part of SS. Yeah, I also have another pension plan from another company I worked for, and a part of it IS company stocks. So? It's a risk I've taken for my retirement.

That has nothing to do with the wisdom in investing SS funds. SS is never going to be - and was never designed to be - someone's sole retirement plan. If it was, I'd never be able to survive on what my projected income is going to be. Never, ever, ever.

 

[sleuth]

But what about companies who have a 401K that only invests in company stock, or stock-options as retirement?

Don't get me wrong I love my TSP, in fact I just put everything into the G fund until after the election is over (just in case the market "hiccups"). I think that letting people invest their own money will mean that a lot of stupid people turn 65 with nothing left to show for it. I know people in their late 50's who continue to put everything into high risk stocks, hoping to get rich quick. Who will take care of them when the market tanks? Us - one way or another. That is why I think SS isn't that bad of a deal, 6% isn't going to kill me.

That's weird.. I just moved 60% of mine *out* of the G-Fund so that I could take advantage of the market jump when Bush wins.

 

[rraley]

2A's original post is a distortion of the facts and downright untrue based on this

 

[BuddyLee]

Correct me if I'm wrong Sam but didn't we take some of the money out of the SS program for other programs when it should have been kept for SS? TIA

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A's original post is a distortion of the facts and downright untrue based on this

:ding: That is a forum just like this one. Here is the result when searching the actual snopes site.

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-...date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0