# Social Security / Political Prostitution



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wish I could take credit for this, but I must admit it is simply copy and post. Although humorous it is also factually correct, and I offer it for your perusal. I hope this hasn't been posted before.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM

IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, PLEASE READ !!!

SOCIAL SECURITY:

anklin 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
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!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted
and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Oh Plainsman you're never going to get it. I'm not sure where along the road of life you lost your virtues, but i sincerely hope that I am able to avoid said area.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey MT, it has nothing to do with me, but it looks like the democrats have been hoodwinking us for some time doesn't it?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You should know that the republicans have been the kings of the empty promise since the first Bush. This is of course not to argue any of said points of "hoodwinking" listed below, as they can all be explained in context.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:


> This is of course not to argue any of said points of "hoodwinking" listed below, as they can all be explained in context.


It can? I thought they were straight forward, but I'm listening.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You have really had your eyes closed this whole time? Thats quite a feat, I would give you a medal if I had one.

"Read my lips, no new taxes" -We got taxed.

"I will not use our troops for nation building" -Troops used in Iraq, Afghanistan for nation building.

These two stand out the most to me, there are dozens if not more but my internet is acting the fool right now. I'll find some more tomorrow.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You have really had your eyes closed this whole time? Thats quite a feat, I would give you a medal if I had one.
> 
> "Read my lips, no new taxes" -We got taxed.
> 
> ...


So just what does this have to do with the content of Plainsman's original post that was clearly referring to the problems in the social security system, problems that were created by the Democratic Party.

AAhh forget it, I can answer that myself. Just more of your usual smoke, mirrors and misdirection. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hunt1

That was my question too. MT stated "This is of course not to argue any of said points of "hoodwinking" listed below, as they can all be explained in context."

So MT explain in context the statements in my original post. This is what you said, now do it. This isn't simply a challenge, if you know something I don't I would like to know also. Nothing personal rip it apart if you can.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Some of the things are just common sense, such as supposedly only having to pay 1% on the first 1400. This seems like a big issue but in reality most programs dont end up running exactly as they were proposed, though we have had to pay more it has also been a very successful system. As well this number hasn't accounted for inflation.

As to immigrants getting it at age 65, what exactly do you propose that we do, let them eat cat food and live in a cardboard house? You know your family immigrated here at one point or another too.

My quotes were a rebuttal to Plainsmans statement that the democrats have been hoodwinking us, I simply pointed out who the real hoodwinkers have been and are.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You know your family immigrated here at one point or another too.


You are absolutely correct. However, my family went to work and paid into the program before they drew funds from it. After all that is what this is supposed to be, is it not, a program that supplies supplemental funding to workers who have retired. Workers who have paid in to the program for the privilage of drawing the funds. Not freeloaders who come and refuse to get a job, but expect the rest of us to support them.

And yes, if they do not want to get a job, even a minimum wage job digging ditches, then they can eat dog food and live in a cardboard box. Hell, that's probably better than what they had where ever it was that they came from, or they never would have left.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

huntin1 said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > You know your family immigrated here at one point or another too.
> ...


My God you're a heartless one aren't you. Would you have been happy if some guy said that your parents couldn't draw from the SS fund because they didn't pay into it for as many years as he did? I doubt you would be very happy at that prospect. As to refusing to get a job, where exactly did you get this from? The statement was immigrants, not lazy immigrants could draw from it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Oh Plainsman you're never going to get it. I'm not sure where along the road of life you lost your virtues, but i sincerely hope that I am able to avoid said area.


MT I wrote the first three sentences, please explain to me how that means I have no virtue.

Also, you made the statement that you could within context explain all the points of that post. Can you stick to the subject just this once and do that?

Keep in mind this isn't personal like you have been making it. I don't mind how much you rip up the post, but why do you insist I have lost my virtue. Who is it that continually insults people?

Explain why it was ok to promise not to tax annuities, then do it?
Why was it ok for Johnson and the Democrats to take the social security from the trust fund to be spent?
There are many more you stated they could be explained in context. Now put up or shut up.

You talk about credibility, I think yours is riding on the line on this one. It's up to you to save it by good explanations or retract the statement.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

M-T yeah, I guess in your eyes I am a heartless SOB, so be it.



> 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!


If you read the last nine words in the sentence quoted above I think maybe you will get it. You see, in order to have paid into the system you must have had a job. So it would follow that if they had not paid into the system, they had not been working, at least not as a legal immigrant.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Why have you lost your virtues? Because you would rather see an immigrant family or a senior citizen starve than paying out a few dollars more on your taxes.

Why are these things OK? Well they aren't, it would be great if we lived in a world where all things were proposed as they would really be executed and everyone was candid. We do not live in this world, and its probably for the best that we do not, I doubt much would get done. Even though it has not been executed as it was originally proposed, it has been a highly successful program and has helped to keep us out of depression since its creation.

Why have I made so many personal insults in the past? Because I am constantly rode by you and others simply because I still have my youth. You can hardly be called the defender if you take a swing and step back then can you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's odd I didn't see anywhere in this thread where I insulted you. Every new thread gives us all a new begining. Also, no one gets on you because of your youth, they get on you because of your ideas and insults. Just look at this thread and the one about Jane Fonda.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

You named the topic "Political Prostitution" Haliburton!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It was in following with the original authors question of the oldest profession. Haliburton???????? They aren't politicians, so I don't understand the connection. Also, I think that could apply to all politicians. This one just happens to apply to democrats. Are you not the fellow that calls himself a republicrat?


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

All MT is trying to steer you in the wrong direction a lot of democrats do it you have to watch out and if MT wants my view on this then i will gladly give it. But I ask permission now because I want MT to be prepared for a real post that has to do WITH the topic


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Some observations on the original post; I agree the democrats have fumbled many of the original intents of Social Security. For those of us old enough to remember, until the early 1970's, Social Security (SS) deductions were listed on paychecks as OAB (old age benefit). My mother (who was around when SS deductions started), held the belief that if the government kept their hands off of the SS Trust fund and kept the deductions for OAB seperate from all the other items that SS system now funds (e.g. disability, survivor benefits, immigrant ), we would not now be having this discussion. Based on what I have seen in the research, this is a true statement. 
Even though the democrats, at the time, passed legislation as described in the original post, there were more than enough Republicans who also voted for the same legislation and many of those votes were reported at the time as to how the Republicans were saving SS in a bipartisan effort with the Democrats, following the recommendations of the unending numbers of "bipartisan" commissions over the years.

What I cannot understand is why the Republicans, in the majority the past few years, have not proposed bills to reverse previous legislation? I have not seen any movement by the Republicans with their majority indicating they want to reverse any of the legislation (e.g. taxing benefits, etc.)

Neither party seems to want to keep their hand out of the trust fund, but once again, both parties, both now and in the past, have borrowed from the Trust Fund to fund government services in the absence of revenue from taxes.

Until the people decide what government services they wish to keep and what priorities they wish to fund, and come up with a method to pay for those services, the same old problems will continue. If you cut taxes, you must cut services at some point. If you raise taxes, for any purpose, there should be a clearly defined benefit from the tax.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As you say, back to the subject. I was hoping this would make it's own point. When I read the content of the original text that I posted my first thought was: why are the democrats crying about what Bush wants to do with social security? A few percent investment would have a minimum impact. So why do they oppose it so vigorously? Here are some possibilities, perhaps none right.

1 They don't want any of the money to get where they can't spend it.

2 They don't want to loose a political weapon "the republicans want to steel your social security"

3 They know it is a good idea, but to oppose it serves to further incite class warfare for political gain.

4 ad infinitum

I belong to AARP and the ad they support on television where they must tear down the house because the drain is plugged is ludicrous. I don't understand my fellow senior citizens. Are they simply envious at a better system their children will enjoy? Or do they fear that their children will pay in less and they will in turn get less? I doubt that. They never called me to see how I feel. I guess members don't have a voice, they have never called, they simply state to the public that they represent me. Fat chance.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Indsport

You must type faster than me. My post was entered then yours came on after. I agree with your historical perspective. I am sure some republicans were in on that. Don't know if many, but no doubt some. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the vote wouldn't it.

Your also right they should reverse some of those decisions. Once they do something reversal is near impossible. Democrat or republican they like to get their hands on the money.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

MT said: 
"My God you're a heartless one aren't you. Would you have been happy if some guy said that your parents couldn't draw from the SS fund because they didn't pay into it for as many years as he did? I doubt you would be very happy at that prospect. As to refusing to get a job, where exactly did you get this from? The statement was immigrants, not lazy immigrants could draw from it."

Again, twisting the words of writers. Not once did he say "Would you have been happy if some guy said that your parents couldn't draw from the SS fund because they didn't pay into it for as many years as he did." He said if you don't pay into the system at all, you shouldn't receive benefits. I can't imagine you would disagree with that? He didn't say that if I pay in more then you don't get anything like you said.

You are right, our families were immigrants but they did work for a living and they deserve SS. Now the people who come over here and choose not to work AT ALL, they don't deserve a dime.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Again, twisting the words of writers. Not once did he say "Would you have been happy if some guy said that your parents couldn't draw from the SS fund because they didn't pay into it for as many years as he did." He said if you don't pay into the system at all, you shouldn't receive benefits. I can't imagine you would disagree with that? He didn't say that if I pay in more then you don't get anything like you said.


He said that immigrants will begin drawing SS at age 65, no where did he specify that they had not paid into the system. You too are twisting the words, you are simply twisting them towards your side.


----------



## duketter (Nov 24, 2004)

Here you go MT:

huntin1 said: You are absolutely correct..* After all that is what this is supposed to be, is it not, a program that supplies supplemental funding to workers who have retired. Workers who have paid in to the program for the privilage of drawing the funds. Not freeloade However, my family went to work and paid into the program before they drew funds from itrs who come and refuse to get a job, but expect the rest of us to support them.*

And yes, if they do not want to get a job, even a minimum wage job digging ditches, then they can eat dog food and live in a cardboard box. Hell, that's probably better than what they had where ever it was that they came from, or they never would have left.

I am all for debating...but you can't twist the words...he clearly said workers who pay into the system get SS...if you are too lazy to get a job or do anything you shouldn't get SS.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I speak of the original post, what huntin1 said has to bearing on that.

In the original post it says



> 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!


It was not stated how they split it up. Does everyone get it, regarless of if they have paid into it or not? Do only those with a certain amount of time working get it? These are the questions which need to be asked, but the writer assumes that none of the immigrants who will recieve this will have worked, which is bunk.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT,

It clearly states they had not paid into the SS fund. What does that tell you. Is plan english too hard for you to understand without any double talk? If you don't pay in you shouldn't get anything out. How much more simple can it be stated?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> 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!


If they had worked they would have paid in right? So although he didn't say it outright a lightweight cerebral exercise gives you the answer. He is talking about those who contributed nothing. No one is twisting words, your simply choosing not to understand. 
Judge each of these things on their own merit, not if they are presented by a liberal or a conservative. That is what is wrong in Washington today, people vote according to their political party, not what is best. How can we blame them when a kid in Michigan can't bring himself above the partisanship?
I don't know what the are eligible for, but I understand what hunt1 said.


----------

