Your Social Security

Angelo Campanella · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 19

By Anonomous:

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones)
didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be
sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on
what's what .and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of
Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security Program

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 US

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating 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 changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE
TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Archived from group: soc>retirement

Angelo Campanella · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 19

mg wrote:

> On Feb 4, 12:39 pm, Angelo Campanella wrote:
>
>>By Anonomous:
>>
>> Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones)
>>didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be
>>sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on
>>what's what .and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of
>>Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
>>
>>Our Social Security Program
>>
>>Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
>>Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

>>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 US
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
>>Annuity payments to immigrants?
>>
>>AND MY FAVORITE:
>>
>>A: That's right!
>>
>>Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
>>Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
>>Began to receive Social Security payments! The
>>Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
>>Even though they never paid a dime into it!
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Then, after violating 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 changes will
>>Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
>>sure of what isn't so.
>>
>>But it's worth a try. How many people can
>>YOU send this to?
>>
>>Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
>>
>> AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE
>>TERM!!!
>>
>>A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
>>enough to take everything you have.
>> -Thomas Jefferson
>
>
> Your post is mostly just a collection of urban legends that have been
> circulating by email since 2005. Check out the following website, for
> example: > http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/sschanges.asp

I. glad you ointed this out.
:et's take the first item, to wit:
/////////////////quote\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>>1.) That participation in the Program would be
>>Completely voluntary.
\\\\\\\\\unquote/////////////////

Your snope article response:

////////////quote\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to
"workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the
continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels,"
and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and
industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers)
neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from
it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\unquote////////////////////

Now consider yoursef to be a red blooded worker of a pay category where
contribution was not required in 1935. Do you really think, based on the
statements of the 1935 President and his congressional supporters, that
you would have anticipoated that your children and grandchidren would
have any other status to expect than yours of 1935?

That's where we are today.

I do beieve that the entire Social Security Scheme with all its warts
as we now see them is a 99%+ political-Democratic product.

Caveat emptor you say?

There's a lot of caveating going on today.

And the rest of the quoted facts I reproduced have the same twist.
Angelo Campanella.

Jerry Okamura · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

"Ron Peterson" wrote in message @q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 4, 6:53 pm, Angelo Campanella wrote:

> I do beieve that the entire Social Security Scheme with all its warts
> as we now see them is a 99%+ political-Democratic product.

It doesn't matter, any politician who advocates doing away with SS
won't be elected.

That is why candidates WILL NEVER discuss ANY controversial subject matter,
other than to use it to bash the other person on the head, for what they
actually never said or proposed. But I do not think that should be the
issue. When we go to the polling booth to cast our vote, we should know
what the candidates are going to do about ANY and ALL of these hot button
issues, we say we are concerned about. It would just seem to me that "if"
we really believed that an election is a test of their character, a great
test of their character would be if they WERE willing to tackle the
difficult problems we are all aware of, and what they would do about solving
the problem. But of course, we do not know, and therefore, for all
practical purposes, when we step into that polling booth, we are basically
buying a pig in the poke, "hoping: that they will do the right thing if
elected. Which to me is an absolutely lousy way to make a decision on who
to vote for.

Angelo Campanella · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 19

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Ron Peterson" wrote in message
> @q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 6:53 pm, Angelo Campanella wrote:
>
>> I do beieve that the entire Social Security Scheme with all its warts
>> as we now see them is a 99%+ political-Democratic product.
>
> > That is why candidates WILL NEVER discuss ANY controversial subject
> matter, other than to use it to bash the other person on the head, for
> what they actually never said or proposed.

I think the SS issue is a changing thing. When FDR promoted it in the
1930's it was a no-brainer that it could run for many years before any
issues arose. Which means that the first unction to change it would have
come in, say, the 1950's. I know that in those years, FICA was a trivial
thing... I never thought twice about paying it then, especially since it
cut off well below my salary of the '50's. I was not until the mid
1970's that I noticed some excesses. Many retirees I observed (retired
coal miners in Penna) were living just about entirely on SS. At that
particular time, the notion did evolve that this was what SS had meant
to be; like a stock investment that hit a home run.
The disenchantment with SS that we know today evolved after the 1980's
when it became clear that inflation due to too much deficit spending by
our congress, much of it being spent on social welfare of all sorts; the
godchild of the "War on poverty", discounted the true value of SS
retirement checks.
Despite COL increases, our Congress could no longer deliver the SS
value that was come to be known in the halcyon 1970's. We all have
witnessed the economical gymnastics - a sore sight to behold - performed
by our endeared DC Congress; it's like sending a boy to do a man's job.
Every candidate that runs for public office that will not discuss SS
prospects in public reveals the yellow stripe that is down the center of
his back.

> But I do not think that
> should be the issue. When we go to the polling booth to cast our vote,
> we should know what the candidates are going to do about ANY and ALL of
> these hot button issues, we say we are concerned about. It would just
> seem to me that "if" we really believed that an election is a test of
> their character, a great test of their character would be if they WERE
> willing to tackle the difficult problems we are all aware of, and what
> they would do about solving the problem. But of course, we do not know,
> and therefore, for all practical purposes, when we step into that
> polling booth, we are basically buying a pig in the poke, "hoping: that
> they will do the right thing if elected. Which to me is an absolutely
> lousy way to make a decision on who to vote for.

The only way to get any insight into a candidate's thinking is to
observe extremely closely their remarks on TV. We know they will not
expose themselves unduly. But their every word, gesture and tick must be
observed. Thus I could tell when Bill Clinton was stretching the truth
to the brink of lying when he raised his eyebrows, making horizontal
forehead lines. Hillary has picked up this very tick. When they now try
to conceal even this signal, the residual open-eye stare will
demonstrate it in its suppressed state.

With Obama, the oratories he utters are indeed impressive. Only after
you tape and replay his statements do you perceive that what he did NOT
say (what was left out) are the things he can and likely will do given
the chance.

Angelo Campanella

Robbing Gator · Joined: 06 Feb 2008 Posts: 1

"Angelo Campanella" wrote in message $kj1.276595@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> "Ron Peterson" wrote in message
>> @q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 4, 6:53 pm, Angelo Campanella wrote:
>>
>
> The only way to get any insight into a candidate's thinking is to observe
> extremely closely their remarks on TV. We know they will not expose
> themselves unduly. But their every word, gesture and tick must be
> observed. Thus I could tell when Bill Clinton was stretching the truth to
> the brink of lying when he raised his eyebrows, making horizontal forehead
> lines. Hillary has picked up this very tick. When they now try to conceal
> even this signal, the residual open-eye stare will demonstrate it in its
> suppressed state.
>
> With Obama, the oratories he utters are indeed impressive. Only after you
> tape and replay his statements do you perceive that what he did NOT say
> (what was left out) are the things he can and likely will do given the
> chance.
>
> Angelo Campanella
>

damn, a lot harder than that bush bitch eh gomer ?

with him it's easy to tell when he's lying, whenever his lips are moving

Jerry Okamura · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 9

"Angelo Campanella" wrote in message $kj1.276595@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
>> But I do not think that should be the issue. When we go to the polling
>> booth to cast our vote, we should know what the candidates are going to
>> do about ANY and ALL of these hot button issues, we say we are concerned
>> about. It would just seem to me that "if" we really believed that an
>> election is a test of their character, a great test of their character
>> would be if they WERE willing to tackle the difficult problems we are all
>> aware of, and what they would do about solving the problem. But of
>> course, we do not know, and therefore, for all practical purposes, when
>> we step into that polling booth, we are basically buying a pig in the
>> poke, "hoping: that they will do the right thing if elected. Which to me
>> is an absolutely lousy way to make a decision on who to vote for.
>
> The only way to get any insight into a candidate's thinking is to observe
> extremely closely their remarks on TV. We know they will not expose
> themselves unduly. But their every word, gesture and tick must be
> observed. Thus I could tell when Bill Clinton was stretching the truth to
> the brink of lying when he raised his eyebrows, making horizontal forehead
> lines. Hillary has picked up this very tick. When they now try to conceal
> even this signal, the residual open-eye stare will demonstrate it in its
> suppressed state.
>
My reply is you don't know if you can succeed, if you do not try to succeed
in the first place. And the answer is, we are not trying to succeed. We
start our of the starting gate, "assuming" we wil fail, so we don't demand
the answers to the question we should have to be able to make a better
decision on who we should vote for. It is after all one of the most
important responsibilities we have as citizens.