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.