Which party has worst Social Security record?

The Sioux City (Iowa) Journal ^ | 8/31/2003 | Orlyn Swartz

[lawdude]

Which party has worst Social Security record?

SIOUX CITY -- Many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- then finding that we are getting taxed on 85 percent of the money we paid the federal government to put away for us. This money was already taxed once when we earned it.

You may be interested in the following:

Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Which party put a tax on Social Security? The Democratic Party.

Which party increased the tax on Social Security? The Democratic Party with Al #(the vote counter) Gore casting the deciding vote. He probably did this while inventing the Internet.

Which party decided to give Social Security money to immigrants? That's right n immigrants move into this country and at age 65 get Social Security benefits. The Democratic Party gave them benefits even though they never paid a dime into the fund.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security. And, the worst part of it is, people believe it. -- Orlyn Swartz

[lawdude]

And the sheeple continue to follow the presstitutes!

[#3Fan]

Which party has worst Social Security record?

The Dems. They came up with it and now look.

[Fraulein]

More on social security:

WHY TRUST GOVERNMENT? WHEN THEY SHOULD BE IN JAIL

[Fraulein]

Social Security Tax

Started: 1935

By whom: President Roosevelt pushed the Social Security Act through Congress.

Why: Roosevelt said Social Security "will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."

What it does: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that can only be sustained as long as working taxpayers vastly outnumber Social Security recipients. It socializes savings, making many elderly Americans dependent on the government. In 1950 there were 16 workers paying taxes to support each retiree. Today, there are 3.3. By 2025, there will be only two. Congress saves not one penny of current surplus Social Security tax. All is spent on current programs. Unless the system is converted into private retirement accounts, the prospect looks bad for younger workers getting any return on the approximately 13% of their income taken by this tax.

Revenue: In 2002, the Social Security tax brought in $565 billion, or 28% of federal revenues.

[meyer]

The most important question is "which party started the mandatory but unsustainable social security system?" I beleive that would also be the democrats.

[vpintheak]

Great Post from my old home town newspaper. Iowa may have voted liberal in many presidential elections, but not in that neck of the woods, they are conservative through and through.

[billbears]

Oh, come now Fraulein, get with the new 'conservative' movement. Our leader has told us FDR was a good guy and we need to accept his 'programs'. So as a new 'conservative' we shouldn't chastise FDR for bringing along such a great program as Social Security. Rather we should embrace it.

Irving's take on conservatism

Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the "American grain." It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies.

The bold should probably read something to the effect of 'we sell your futures down the river to make our socialism more acceptable today'

[MarthaNOStewart]

And who pray tell would be taking care of your parents, if they hadn't have had social security, medicare and the ability to be independent. There are a few programs that have worked over the years, and its too bad that it had to be raped by Dems, but then it was theirs to begin with.

I am not much on social programs, but Social Security helps the economy as those older retirees are the basis of some economies in the United States. If they weren't spending their Social Security to live, their children would be supporting them...both having to do without and the economy suffering. I am republican but I do approve of Social Security and I am glad my parents have that independence in their old age. I don't think this younger generation will do so well with those stock plans in the future economy. Too bad it couldn't have been left alone pre-Lyndon Johnson.
I believe that program was God-ordained for families.
Let's not throw out baby with the bathwater in this case.

[Theodore R.]

Some may not know, but one of the few who opposed Social Security, when it was implemented in 1935, was not a Republican, but the GA Democrat Sen. Eugene Talmadge. Talmadge expressed fear that the program would cause people to expect the government to take care of their aging parents and would therefore undermine the integrity of "extended families." This was the father of popular GA Sen. Herman Talmadge, another Democrat.

[meyer]

And who pray tell would be taking care of your parents, if they hadn't have had social security, medicare and the ability to be independent. There are a few programs that have worked over the years, and its too bad that it had to be raped by Dems, but then it was theirs to begin with.

That anybody should set themselves up to rely on the government for financial security is just plain silly. Like welfare, we've had a couple of generations sold a bill of goods that cannot be paid for. Had there been no silly government program, people would have provided for their own futures just as had been done prior to the 1930's.

The SS system was never sustainable. What started as a couple of percent wage contribution (by force, not voluntary) is now around 13% of most American's wages. Investing that same 13% could yield a considerably better return even in the most conservative investments when compared with giving the money to the government to distribute. Plus, if the individual invested the money himself, he could will the remainder to his or her own offspring.

[dalereed]

I don't know who this Irving clown is but FDR was the most dispicable piece of flesh (I refuse to call him human) to ever occupy the WH!

SS is a socialist, unconstitutional, abomination that should never have been started and should be ended immediatly!

[Knightsofswing]

As it is written " thou shalt not steal".......



The goverment hates the compatation.
Social Securtiy is a scam aginst all Americans. And that Commie lover fdr knew it, but pushed it anyway. May he rot where ever he is!

[ClaireSolt]

First, social security contributions do NOT add up to a retirement income. If you follow the reform discussions, the contributions really only pay for disability insurance. They system was not set up to pay retirement benefits for everyone, just prevent dire poverty in elderly and assumed most would die before 65.

I found out when I applied for and won disability. Contributions to Social Security over 30 years were barely enough to pay two years of benefits. Yet I will probably collect 30 years of benefits. Furthermore, I would be a lot better off if my children were not paying confiscatory taxes. They could probably do better than the $700/mo from Social Security.

I don't know what the administrative costs are, but they are probably enormous. May outweigh the benefits.

The fact that the undecided, independendent voters are the new middle class and demogogic politicians think that they must buy their votes with middle class entitlements to programs that were designed for destitute people may well bankrupt this country.

[billbears]

I don't know who this Irving clown is

He's the leading speaker of the neoconservative movement and his views are accepted as the standard by the kinder and gentler Republican party of late. His son was the one that established the PNAC of which it seems most of this administration came from. His son is also a talking head on Fox News. Nice to see where 'conservatives' are taking us of late isn't it?

[dalereed]

"and his views are accepted as the standard by the kinder and gentler Republican party of late"

That's the biggest problem with thr Republican party today. I've been an ultra conservative Republican for the last 65 years (ever since I was indoctrinated in a high chair) and won't change from an in your face and don't give a hoot whether anyone likes me or my opinion or not. In fact i've always been of the opinion that if at least half the people don't hate my guts i'm doing something wrong.

[CyberAnt]

We must always remember - the liberals want the ISSUE - they never want to solve it ..!!

[Nam Vet]

A big bump from a fellow life-long true Conservative!

Nam Vet

[Andy from Beaverton]

Headline correction: It's not Social Security, it's Socialist Security.

[monkeyshine]

This is good stuff.

The Republicans have a terrible marketing machine.

[Lancey Howard]

Which party has worst Social Security record?

I dunno.... Which party came up with the disastrous idea?

[PeterPrinciple]

"I am not much on social programs, but Social Security helps the economy as those older retirees are the basis of some economies in the United States. If they weren't spending their Social Security to live, their children would be supporting them"

There are always unintended consequences of any social program. One of the thoughts that crossed my mind is how many people's inheritances will be quite a bit larger because of their parents receiving ss (these are the ones who didn't need it and would have survived without it). It does add up to quite a few dollars.

In my case, there will be a farm to inherit because of SS, so I receive my benefits earlier than age 66 for what I paid into the systerm????

BUT IT IS STILL A PONZIE SCHEME AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED!

[meyer]

First, social security contributions do NOT add up to a retirement income. If you follow the reform discussions, the contributions really only pay for disability insurance. They system was not set up to pay retirement benefits for everyone, just prevent dire poverty in elderly and assumed most would die before 65.

The original intention, of course, was not for SS to be a retirement plan as you say. But, the monster grew as expected. One cannot give out free lunches without attracting an audience. Of course those of us that pay into the scheme are not interested in its original purpose - we are interested in getting our money back.

I do find it interesting that a program which had the original intent of helping those in dire need doesn't include certain professions in its ranks. I beleive that most government employees don't participate in SS, nor do railroad workers and teachers - they each have their own "plan".

The fact that the undecided, independendent voters are the new middle class and demogogic politicians think that they must buy their votes with middle class entitlements to programs that were designed for destitute people may well bankrupt this country.

We're way down that road already - My grandparents enjoyed the benefits of SS while there were several workers for each beneficiary. My parents are enjoying the income from the same program. I get cute little notices each year indicating what I "might" get from SS if I continue paying into the program at the present rate and if the rules don't change. This is a monster that needs taming. I want my money back.

[MarthaNOStewart]

Thank you, I did not know that...and appreciate your input.

[MarthaNOStewart]

So does this mean you have no intention of collecting your social security benefits? And what about the disabled, do you want to cancel theirs too, especially the ones who have no family, or anyone to take care of them!
As for families that took care of their own prior to SS, that was at time when two parents did NOT have to work, and someone was at home to take care of the elderly...and people had four or five children to work the farm and help with grandparents.
Just what would you do with that Alzheimer parent while you and your wife are both working to exist in today's world? Go and spew your BS, as we both know if you had to change diapers every two hours, and spoon feed both parents while one has cancer and the other is Alzheimers, you would be dead before they would, and then who would take care of them. My husband and I have done it and it about killed him. When your parents are in their nineties and you are in your sixties or seventies, try that one, you wouldn't last two weeks.

[ClaireSolt]

You have missed the biggest part of my point. You are not entitled to get anything back. Because what you have really paid for is disability insurance, you are not entitled to a refund anymore than you are entitled to claim a refund of the money you have paid for automobile insurance throughout your life when you stop driving.

[meyer]

You have missed the biggest part of my point. You are not entitled to get anything back. Because what you have really paid for is disability insurance, you are not entitled to a refund anymore than you are entitled to claim a refund of the money you have paid for automobile insurance throughout your life when you stop driving.

When did social security become a disability program as opposed to a retirement supplemental income program? It serves both purposes now, but was primarily meant as income for those without other retirement provisions at its inception. Regardless of its intention, its an overpriced socialist redistribution program.

As for the comparison to car insurance, I have a choice as to whether I have car insurance or not - there is no such choice with SS. They steal your money essentially at gunpoint and redistribute it.

One other thing - I have in my hand a piece of paper that says "at your current earnings rate, if you continue working until your full retirement age, your payment will be about $XXXX". That sounds like a retirement program to me.

[meyer]

So does this mean you have no intention of collecting your social security benefits?

To the contrary, I want my money back with interest.

And what about the disabled, do you want to cancel theirs too, especially the ones who have no family, or anyone to take care of them!

Is it really up to the general taxpaying population (excluding most government workers and teachers) to carry their load? I think not.

As for families that took care of their own prior to SS, that was at time when two parents did NOT have to work, and someone was at home to take care of the elderly...and people had four or five children to work the farm and help with grandparents.

And people didn't live in 2000+ square foot houses, and didn't have 2+ cars and didn't buy cars for their kids at 16 years of age. Sorry, but you need to talk to someone who actually lived through the depression.

Just what would you do with that Alzheimer parent while you and your wife are both working to exist in today's world? Go and spew your BS, as we both know if you had to change diapers every two hours, and spoon feed both parents while one has cancer and the other is Alzheimers, you would be dead before they would, and then who would take care of them. My husband and I have done it and it about killed him. When your parents are in their nineties and you are in your sixties or seventies, try that one, you wouldn't last two weeks.

Awwww, tug on the heartstrings a little, why don't you. I'll tell you what - you can stay with the program, but don't expect me to carry your weight by participating. You're a socialist - you expect others (except certain government employees and teachers, of course) to pay for your situation. Face it - SS is going bankrupt and those of us that will never see a penny of it want out now. Thief!

[MarthaNOStewart]

ROFL, (excluding most governemnt employees and teachers) now that sounds very interesting, but doesn't make any sense.
I worked 40 years, so much for your swiss cheese theories, and I paid my taxes, I do not regret anyone collecting them who needed them. Praise God for those who aren't selfish, and even the "early church had everything in common", that isn't socialist,,,just sharing. I also wish well those who are capitalist; and can make millions, more power to them, that is what makes America GREAT!

Your comments are those of a selfish person who would probably not help their parents anyway, social security or not; or they would have to live very poorly under your thumb. CONTROL, that is what you are about, controlling what everyone else does, eats, wears, drives, etc. Complain, Complain, Complain.

The Israelites never entered the promise land for 40 yrs because of their complaining and whining. Too sad.

[meyer]

First, you ought to look a little more closely at the SS system - most civil service government employees, including teachers do not pay into SS.

Second, I find it rather interesting that you would call someone else selfish while you greedily use the force of government to steal their hard-earned cash to benefit your own family. That is selfish.

Third, this has absolutely nothing to do with the church, which is where charity belongs. Donating to help those in need is charity - taking from others under the guise of helping the needy is theft. There's a huge difference.

Fourth, I find it rather ironic that you would try to hang the label "control" on someone while the complete opposite is true; I have no wish to control others, but see a rather controlling personality in yourself. What else would make you think that you have any right at all to the hard-earned cash of others?

Finally, what the heck does this have to do with Israel?

[ClaireSolt]

No. Social Security at its inception was devised because there was 25% poverty among elderly adults in America. Thanks to grasping and greedy people who insist on getting back what they paid in, there is still 20% poverty among elderly women in America. In other words, Social Security has been diverted from its original goal of preventing elderly poverty in order to pay every worker something.

Come meet a 70 year old woman who is still working the night shift at the Dunkin Donuts because her social Security check is only $450/mo. She worked all her life from the age of 16 and is still working. In my view no one's check should be $450/mo and there are lots of affluent people who don't need and should not get a check at all. There is no reason at all why the people who are currently working should be paying their country club dues.

[meyer]

No. Social Security at its inception was devised because there was 25% poverty among elderly adults in America. Thanks to grasping and greedy people who insist on getting back what they paid in, there is still 20% poverty among elderly women in America. In other words, Social Security has been diverted from its original goal of preventing elderly poverty in order to pay every worker something.

I ask again who's greedy - the person who wants to keep what they earned, or the leeches of society that want someone else's hard-earned cash?

I take it you agree with the statement "from each according to his ability, to each according to their needs" because that is exactly what you are advocating with your interpretation of social security as a welfare scheme.

Come meet a 70 year old woman who is still working the night shift at the Dunkin Donuts because her social Security check is only $450/mo. She worked all her life from the age of 16 and is still working. In my view no one's check should be $450/mo and there are lots of affluent people who don't need and should not get a check at all. There is no reason at all why the people who are currently working should be paying their country club dues.

And what has that 70 year old done all her life to prepare for the future? And why should others be punished for her failure to prepare? Social security should be based on what you put into it, not what you can steal from others. I don't care how much money Bill Gates has - he has prepared for his retirement and I will prepare for mine. This old lady should have prepared for her own, rather than hope to leech from other working adults to pay her way in life. She sounds rather greedy to me.

[MarthaNOStewart]

Thanks for info, and if you don't understand what it has to do with Israel then no explanation can enlighten you.
Have a nice day.

[dirtboy]

CONTROL, that is what you are about, controlling what everyone else does, eats, wears, drives, etc.

Say what? How does not wanting to participate in Social Security equate to wanting to control others? If anything, the opposite is true. He would be responsible for himself and others would be free to take care of themselves.

You need some serious help when it comes to logic and reasoning.

[MarthaNOStewart]

no comment, it wasn't addressed to you.

[dirtboy]

no comment, it wasn't addressed to you.

So you can't defend your position, eh?

[MarthaNOStewart]

You wouldn't comprehend the reply, so I'm not wasting the time. Have a nice day.

[dirtboy]

You wouldn't comprehend the reply, so I'm not wasting the time. Have a nice day.

True enough, what you consider to be logic is beyond rational comprehension.