Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Social Security Question
Vanity

Posted on 03/05/2005 7:02:36 AM PST by EllenMarie

I've just received a brochure from Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announcing Town Hall Meetings. This brochure includes the following quote:

"In response to the administration's plan to partially privatize Social Security, I have put together this guide to answer questions about what this privatization plan will mean to you and your retirement. I have serious reservations about this plan..."

Question: Under the Clinton administration, Social Security was taxed. Did Congressman Hoyer for or against this taxation?


TOPICS: US: Maryland; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity

1 posted on 03/05/2005 7:02:36 AM PST by EllenMarie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EllenMarie

While I can't cite you the actual vote to means test social security benefits...he's a Dem, so I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption..


2 posted on 03/05/2005 7:06:43 AM PST by ken5050 (The Dem party is as dead as the NHL..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EllenMarie

Ah yes, Steny from Maryland, where taxpayers are about to fund a new, experimental species of sex education. Students will be instructed on the correct placement of condoms on cucumbers.

A majority of parents support using the seedless variety of cucumber, a minority prefer bananas, gourds were ruled out as too seasonal, although longer lasting.

Most Maryland residents support a higher level of taxation so that all students from ages 3 to 18 can participate. Teachers anticipate that a fully funded program will enable them to achieve optimal dexterity in this vital intellectual pursuit.


3 posted on 03/05/2005 7:20:39 AM PST by sodpoodle (sparrows are underrated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: EllenMarie
Question: Under the Clinton administration, Social Security was taxed. Did Congressman Hoyer for or against this taxation?

The initial tax on 50% of benefits, under certain circumstances, was passed during the Reagan presidency.

In 1993, during the Clinton presidency, the amount of benefits subject to taxation was raised to 85%. In neither case were the conditions that made benefits taxable indexed to inflation. Thus, every year, more and more people are finding their SS benefits taxed.

The 1993 action was on the OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993.

NO REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE OR SENATE VOTED FOR IT.

The vote in the House was:

Roll Call 406 - 8/5/93 - 218 to 216 (AND YES, STENEY HOYER VOTED "AYE")

Vote No.247 - 86/6/93 - 50 to 50 - VP Al Gore broke the tie.

5 posted on 03/05/2005 8:31:40 AM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EllenMarie

C-SPAN telecast one of Hoyer's town hall meetings and it was the most disgusting piece of crap that I've ever seen.

Remembering that nobody is recommending unlimited investment in individual stocks, etc., I found it especially galling when Hoyer answered a particular question.

A woman asked if private accounts would be "risky" and Hoyer shot back "Ever hear of a company called Enron".

I would have liked to slap his smarmy mouth for that one.

And the rest was no better.


6 posted on 03/05/2005 8:35:21 AM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
when there were 14 persons working for every recipient , the tax rate was 2-4% . the problem is not just the low number of workers per retiree, but more so that like a true ponzi scheme, the current and prior recipient did not pay enough FICA . The original Fica was 2%. in 1952 it became 4% and has gradually climbed. the system was never actuarilly sound , but had the effect of creating single issue voting elderly intent on gain a free lunch far and away more than they put in.
How many people realize that current workers are paying a lot more than their parents and grandparents paid?
How many people realize that the elderly are getting more than they put in?
How many people realize tho current workers are paying more than they will ever see?>
How is it right that effete libs want to increase the already inequitable taxes on todays workers?
Would not it be more fair to limit the current benefits to what was paid in and means test it after the payback? actually Kerry did mention this early in his campaign
7 posted on 03/05/2005 9:41:07 AM PST by avitot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: avitot
"How many people realize that the elderly are getting more than they put in?"

Do you realize how many people get SS and never put a dime into this system?

I just turned 65 and I would love to get back the money I paid into the ponzi scheme.



The only thing wrong about the new SS scheme to allow people to have control of some of their money is they should have started this in the 1980 s.
8 posted on 03/05/2005 9:54:50 AM PST by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Rush agrees with me 98.5% of the time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Roll Call 406 - 8/5/93 - 218 to 216 (AND YES, STENEY HOYER VOTED "AYE")

Thanks. I knew the answer to the question. I just needed some specifics.

9 posted on 03/05/2005 10:28:56 AM PST by EllenMarie (God bless Vietnam Heroes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran

totally agree.
how did non contributing immigrants become able to partake?


10 posted on 03/05/2005 12:19:21 PM PST by avitot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson