PDA

View Full Version : Social Security



MOP
04-30-2005, 10:28 AM
This was sent by a friend to this old guy, good reading so I am passing it on!

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill

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!

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

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

You want to fix Social Security make Congress give up their retirement plan and fall under Social Security, it would be fixed over night.

DonziDave
04-30-2005, 08:01 PM
Excellent....!!! Good read. What's amazing is the number of people who are uninformed, allow GovCo to continue to screw them, and just don't get it...!!
It's time for another revolution.

Lenny
04-30-2005, 08:37 PM
Neat info Phil. :yes:

Now, back to my carb, which way does it go on ? http://www.donzi.net/ubb/graemlins/cistinebiggrinA.gif

Formula Jr
04-30-2005, 08:58 PM
Seriously, how do you get to Winston Churchhill on this?
" We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill"

Was he ever a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself?
Churchill was born into a latent aristocracy afforded by the British constitution.
Why quote him?

This is a serious question.

gcarter
04-30-2005, 09:23 PM
OK, I'll try.
First, the Britts don't have a constitution, only their Common Law.
Second, Winnie was the last Conservative PM after WW II and led the unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Labour party and their drive to provide socialized medicine, which was "paid for" with crippling taxes on nearly everything.
Simultaneusly, the British populace suffered disasterous rationing on fuel, clothing, food, and nearly all consumables due to the Labour parties bungling of the economy.
But they had "FREE" medical care!

Zudnic
05-03-2005, 11:31 PM
Seriously, how do you get to Winston Churchhill on this?
" We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill"

Was he ever a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself?
Churchill was born into a latent aristocracy afforded by the British constitution.
Why quote him?

This is a serious question.

FDR stole his entire "new deal" from Canada. That country at the time was still directly controled by the British Parliament and therfore the British constitution! FDR before he was President spent so much time in Canada that his namesake son was born a Canadian. FDR and the democrats feared the Republicans and congress would not pass the new deal, included social security, that the backup plan was to annex Canada.

Zudnic
05-03-2005, 11:37 PM
Mr. Carter,

You are correct that England itself does not have a Constitution, they still operate under the Magna Carta! However the British Commonwealths do operate under British designed Constitutions. Thomas Paine when writting on the English Constitution in Common Sense was in fact writting about the Quebec Act, the often forgotten intolerable act that led to the American Revolution.

gcarter
05-04-2005, 06:19 AM
Mr. Carter,

You are correct that England itself does not have a Constitution, they still operate under the Magna Carta! However the British Commonwealths do operate under British designed Constitutions. Thomas Paine when writting on the English Constitution in Common Sense was in fact writting about the Quebec Act, the often forgotten intolerable act that led to the American Revolution.
Thank you Mr Zudnic!
I did not know about the Commonwealth Constitutions and the Quebec Act.

Zudnic
05-04-2005, 12:48 PM
I was working on a book that I'm stuck on, got very complex. Basic premise was that progressive liberals are Canadians! Canada did not exist prior to 1776, the British created it for the Loyalist to the King who did not want to live in America. It was my answer to Moores book: Dude, Whereas My Country? Wanted, to also show that Canada and the U.S. are more closely related, than people on both sides of the border realize. We placed our history focus when the U.S. became more allied with Britain. This increased during the cold war, to fight the communists. I'm not anti-Canada or the Brits, just their systems of government (mostly the tools within that are ignored). Think that we need to be reminded that the Western Democracies only operate under it because of the United States.



I want to ad a new way of thinking within the conservative movement. That is the core should be conservation of our advancement of society to preserve democracy. Today both Canada and the United States have a problem with a lack of independent thought within the political parties. Canada however is thirty years ahead of the U.S. in terms of a one party state! Canada was after-all designed by the British to be one, if Canada loses those tools, she will be a stronger nation! The Commonwealth including Britain needs to shed the tools of tyranny to continue healthy growth, we in America need to stop moving towards creating that environment. I.e.: activist judges legislating from the bench!



In the late 1800's the World experienced a pretty vast recession. The industrial revolution was winding down and the workers started labor movements against the establishment, mixed with liberal reformer's in the British Parliament, the monarchy was threatened. So Britain put the people to work with mega projects and started welfare, social security etcetera. Than the Boer War and WWI occurred; jump starting the sliding industrial machine in England. Rhodes dreamt of bringing American back into the Empire and attempted to start a secret society to reach that goal. Rhodes felt without the imperialist structure America would continue to suffer economic recessions and cause more civil wars. Rhodes felt the ultimate recovery of the United States of America would be as an integral member of the British Empire. a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity. Rhodes was a follower of British author Walter Bagehot, who's works had become very popular within British political science circles and in particular within the halls of Oxford. He created the scholarship in hopes of influencing the brightest minds of America to the greatness of the British System! Woodrow Wilson was also a follower of Bagehot, he openly favored the British parliamentary system over Americas and even lobbied for the British model. One of the reasons America opposed the League of Nations. The dems favor a social security system originally designed to support British parliamentary rule over the people(social credit).They support the UN the predecessor to a world body designed to further the British Empire. I find it just a little ironic that Clinton was a Rhodes scholar!

The dems argument is simple; the people are stupid and cannot manage some of their own money and will lose it all. Kind of hard when most of the private instruments available are federal insured! Second part is they will have less of our money to re-distribute!





The entire social safety net was designed to aid people in times of burden to lesson the impact. The intention was old age security was to be a modest base for you to build upon. Public pensions are not intended to meet all the retirement income needs of the people. It is each person's responsibility to look at their own circumstances to decide what level of income is right for them and develop their own retirement plan. The democrats think it’s up to the government, because all President Bush is doing is putting personnel responsibility back into the system! Even Canada did that, as did Britain. In other words continue our governments; for the people, by the people, not how government can bribe us, to rule over us!

gcarter
05-04-2005, 01:24 PM
Wow!!!!
I'm impressed!!
We have a right thinking historian amongst us!
There's not many of those around.

Formula Jr
05-06-2005, 05:25 PM
I don't think the Dem argument is that simple.
I planed out my "nest egg" as any responsible person should.
I looked and studied and invested in things I knew.. Yet most all of it turned out to be lies. I didn't want the fed to take care of me. But what the hell can you trust any more. I'm not an isolated case here. I've talked to many money managers, and they are in the same place. We don't trust wall street any more. And thats the thing.

Zudnic
05-09-2005, 11:34 AM
Overall though you must admit that your money grows better in the private sector? Even the more "liberal" countries have what President Bush is trying to bring about. Public pensions never intended to meet all the retirement income needs of Americans. The current system is what's killing the big three auto-makers, they and other big bussiness have become the backbone of the current take care of everyone system that is in place! We allow people to grow their money in the private sector in a tax free enviroment our major industry will be greatly freed up to build things again. GM, Ford and Chrysler employ more junior accountants and bookkeepers than they do employee's to build dang cars.

One area that has created misstrust of Wallstreet was not the streets fault at all! Wallstreet's problem is the government is trying via legislation to create a Wallstreet that is for everyone. The greatest push for this came about on the tail end of the Clintoniasta regime! Day trading become popular around 1996, anybody could with an internet access trade stocks free from a brokers advice with automated self directed online trading accounts. In short: with forums catering to day traders and Americans need for instant payoff (no patients in this country) people no longer held onto their stocks as investments, no profit in half a day gone tomorrow and onto the next big thing dot com. The markets along with modern day trading with its 1930's bucket shop enviroment is whats shaken confidence in Wallstreet, very much like 1929, we are lucky that some rules and regulations exist to force stability or we would have seen another depression! Instead of attacking CEO's the new kings of the modern world, for profiting with nothing (companies that make no money) merely cashing in on the stock option shareholders approved. We should limit the ability of the kids to play on the street via TD Waterhouse and ETrade, make them take the sidewalk! Under President Bush's plan we will depend more on having money invested with the fortune 500; bringing long term investing strategies to the market is a good thing. Less likely to see creative accounting to make your "dog with fleas" seem like it's ready to make a run and make managements stock options like Microsoft when it first went public!

Government should not have dictator rule over how we all run our lives and finance. On the same thought we should conserve our move forward with restraint. Progressive liberalism will destroy us, its what our current social security is based on. In order to get ahead of everyone you must cheat. The more cheating to rise above the cream eventually nothing will be left to steal and you will have collapse; aka: the former Soviet Union or Enron!