What happened to your Social Security?
in [Las Vegas]
|
From: Walt on 8 Aug 2010 21:23 In article <yMOdncCgfa-d0sLRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually spending summers in DC is a relatively new occurance. DC > was built on a swamp and the summers are brutally humid. It wasn't > terribly unusual for Presidents (heck pretty everybody who could) to > decamp for less sultry climes during the summer. > In the early days, DC was actually viewed as a hardship posting > for diplomats because of the horrid conditions. I would gladly pay (well, not me personally) the salaries of all Congresspeople if they'd stay away from Washington 365 days a year.
From: Foxieohe on 8 Aug 2010 21:55 On Aug 8, 9:23 pm, Walt <n...(a)none.void> wrote: > In article <yMOdncCgfa-d0sLRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdn...(a)earthlink.com>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Actually spending summers in DC is a relatively new occurance. DC > > was built on a swamp and the summers are brutally humid. It wasn't > > terribly unusual for Presidents (heck pretty everybody who could) to > > decamp for less sultry climes during the summer. > > In the early days, DC was actually viewed as a hardship posting > > for diplomats because of the horrid conditions. > > I would gladly pay (well, not me personally) the salaries of all Congresspeople if > they'd stay away from Washington 365 days a year. The goverment spends tax money looking for intelegent life in outer space.This dog here will buy 100 Whoppers for anyone who finds inteligent life in Washington DC! Foxie Emerson.
From: tom ronson on 8 Aug 2010 22:31 Kurt Ullman wrote: > That is another bipartisan idiocy that means nothing anyway. take it up with "Olin" --- but since he brought it up I thought I'd drive the truck through. > In the early days, DC was actually viewed as a hardship posting > for diplomats because of the horrid conditions. this is something we need to revisit. -- �We wanted them (the media) to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it reported.� -- NV senatorial candidate, Sharon Angle. --tr
From: Kurt Ullman on 9 Aug 2010 08:21 In article <i3np9e$lrm$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, tom ronson <theavlv.ronson(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Kurt Ullman wrote: > > > That is another bipartisan idiocy that means nothing anyway. > > take it up with "Olin" --- but since he brought it up I thought I'd > drive the truck through. I said "bipartisan" didn't I? Thus my reply wouldn't have been cogent before your reply (grin)> > > > In the early days, DC was actually viewed as a hardship posting > > for diplomats because of the horrid conditions. > > this is something we need to revisit. I wonder what leaving DC during the summer (and turning off all the A/C) would do to our carbon footprint????? Hmmmmm! -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: DocDice on 9 Aug 2010 17:41
On Aug 8, 1:59 pm, wong fu <f...(a)eggroll.com> wrote: > Social Security Cards up until the 1980's 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 has the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message on > it > . > 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. > -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. > Many of us have paid into FICA for years and some 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? > A: 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 the uninformed citizens believe it! Duh! What happened to our Social Security? Every president since Ike happened. DD |