From: Paul_E_Wog on
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

Their conclusion: "A mixture of true and false".

And that "mixture" has far more "false" than true: 7 false, one "mixed",
and one true.


On 8/8/2010 1:59 PM, wong fu 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!

From: tom ronson on
Paul_E_Wog wrote:

> And that "mixture" has far more "false" than true: 7 false, one "mixed",
> and one true.

wow --- you mean that I wasted my time reading that? whoda thunk it. lol

--
�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: tom ronson on
Kurt Ullman wrote:

> He goes just back to the time of the original "agreements" and how
> they have been changed.

but Kurt -- 7 of his points are "false". You sure he only wants to go
back to the "agreement"? lol

--
�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: Las Vegas Don on
> And the worst part about it is the uninformed citizens believe it! Duh!

FUNG PI!! She she, tsi chen. :)

Don
From: Kurt Ullman on
In article <i3ncfq$igp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
tom ronson <theavlv.ronson(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> j
>
> According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President
> Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his
> Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to
> the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in
> Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August
> 2003. *That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation*.
>
>
That is another bipartisan idiocy that means nothing anyway. The
president carries the White House with him where ever he goes. Clinton
spent a lot of time away, LBJ was good at this (must be something about
the Texans wanting to get to there ranches). There is little that they
can't do at other areas.
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 want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist