- 10-12-2004, 07:19 PM
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
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
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
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?
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
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during
this 2004 election year!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe good changes
How many people can YOU send this to?
Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!!
- 10-12-2004, 08:11 PM
Guys I hate to say this but this is a Body Building board.. not the local meeting house for young republicans...
- 10-12-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally Posted by Matthew D
As for your post, VG, the Democrats are right. They simply don't say that Republicans will replace it with a more free market oriented system that will in its own way be just as corrupt and bankrupt within a few decades, but superficially offer citizens more control and better returns, at least at first. As for the Dems, they're mostly honest about the fact that they intend to tax the hell out of people to pay for these welfare programs they love so much. What's the Republican answer to this? Oh yeah, I get to invest a whole 2% of my FICA at my discretion, if I recall correctly, while they misuse the remaining 98% as they've always done right along with the Dems. Whoop-dee-doo...
Republicans would have gone back on all those promises just as eagerly and easily, they just would have used different excuses.
10-12-2004, 10:46 PM
Republican, Democrat, They are all lieing theives. Doesnt really matter which one gets into office because the american public is going to get screwed anyway. Cant you feel the apathy set in. Feels kind of pointless to even vote!
10-12-2004, 10:48 PM
Personally, I have thought there have been too many post either way... so enough already..
I understand that the election is coming up but at the same time, not all of us would like to be bombarded with political stuff all the time. And that is what it is seeming to be happening..
10-12-2004, 10:53 PM
I agree that the number of political threads is getting a bit tiresome in this section so how about a forum dedicated to politics?
For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
10-12-2004, 11:11 PM
10-12-2004, 11:32 PM
Good idea. Discussion will probably die down right after the election and pick up right before the ban goes into effect, but it's likely to see some pretty consistent traffic.Originally Posted by Bobo
10-13-2004, 12:35 AM
Second that. But the politics will probably die soon as stated...well, unless it's a close race--which it most likely will be. Then, we'll probably see lawsuits again....Originally Posted by CDB
10-13-2004, 12:41 AM
10-13-2004, 02:41 PM
I would get rid of SS all together. You have people who paid in for 40 years who barely get enough to live on. Banks could offer accounts that have a higher interest rate but you can't touch for a long time. I agree with you the republican plan to invest 2 % is not a good one. We should privatize the whole thing or leave it.As for your post, VG, the Democrats are right. They simply don't say that Republicans will replace it with a more free market oriented system that will in its own way be just as corrupt and bankrupt within a few decades, but superficially offer citizens more control and better returns, at least at first. As for the Dems, they're mostly honest about the fact that they intend to tax the hell out of people to pay for these welfare programs they love so much. What's the Republican answer to this? Oh yeah, I get to invest a whole 2% of my FICA at my discretion, if I recall correctly, while they misuse the remaining 98% as they've always done right along with the Dems. Whoop-dee-doo...
As for Dems .IMO they are not honest about taxing the hell out of people. Look at Kerry he is going to give everyone health care and cut the deficit by just raising taxes on people who make over two hundred thousand a year. Sorry but that's not going to work. Clinton promised middle class tax cuts and gave us one the largest tax increase in the history of the country. In fact, I have never seen a democrat step up and say I believe in socialism and will take more of your money to spend on government programs. Instead they pretend they are moderate in a regular election or if they need the nomination they use buzz words like health care, social security, and lets not forget that they care about children but they never say anything about raising taxes.
10-13-2004, 03:03 PM
I agree. Practically though that's never gonna happen, at least not until the whole thing collapses and even then it probably won't happen.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
You see, I put this on the level of Dems claiming Bush lied about WMDs. He got bad intelligence but didn't lie and he didn't really have a reason to doubt the intelligence. The Dems don't realize that they can't tax the rich much beyond what they're willing to accept. They're being honest in that their approach will be what they say, they just don't understand the consequences. The rich will avoid paying the taxes or will simple stop working once they're comfortable, the poor have no money to pay them, so the middle class picks up the tab.As for Dems .IMO they are not honest about taxing the hell out of people. Look at Kerry he is going to give everyone health care and cut the deficit by just raising taxes on people who make over two hundred thousand a year. Sorry but that's not going to work.
Warren Beaty ran on this very platform.In fact, I have never seen a democrat step up and say I believe in socialism and will take more of your money to spend on government programs.
10-13-2004, 03:27 PM
oldie but a goodieOriginally Posted by CDB
How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
10-13-2004, 03:29 PM
A Democrat will never get up there and say I am for higher taxes and for bigger government. They use nice sounding buzz words and frequently say they will cut taxes or not raise taxes on the middle class, then they do and of coarse get a pass on it. In presidential elections they have to go to the far left to get the nomination then pretend they are a moderate and once again get a pass.The Dems don't realize that they can't tax the rich much beyond what they're willing to accept. They're being honest in that their approach will be what they say, they just don't understand the consequences. The rich will avoid paying the taxes or will simple stop working once they're comfortable, the poor have no money to pay them, so the middle class picks up the tab.
Did Warren Beatty get elected?Warren Beaty ran on this very platform.
10-13-2004, 03:33 PM
I agree with you nothing is going to happen until it crashes. Unfortunately when that happens the solution is going to be to take even more money.I agree. Practically though that's never gonna happen, at least not until the whole thing collapses and even then it probably won't happen.
10-13-2004, 03:34 PM
10-13-2004, 05:13 PM
No, but he ran and he was honest about it.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Yup. I have this theory that all political/social systems tend towards collapse with no hope of anything else. They just keep sucking off the populace until enough people get pissed off to do something about it. Then there's a revolt of some kind, a new system gets established, and the cycle starts all over again.I agree with you nothing is going to happen until it crashes. Unfortunately when that happens the solution is going to be to take even more money.
10-13-2004, 05:26 PM
Didnt SS already crash before, they needed to recapitalize the whole damn thing. Unfortunately we have too many people who are happy making 20K/year that will depend on SS when they retire. I've had a 401k and an IRA for quite some time now, my goal is to retire at 55 and not to need SS but when I get old enough Im taking every damn penny. I dont know about you guys but I'm tired of seeing a big part of my paycheck go to pay for someone else's brats or go to someone who plays the system because they dont want to work or even some old bastard who didnt save any money during thier working years because they felt getting drunk and smoking was a better investment because the government will take care of them. Social Security just pisses me off, give me that money back and let me put it into my own IRA and I can actually see it going towards my retirement.
10-13-2004, 05:46 PM
So in order to get elected democrats have to lie,mislead, change definitions of words, or be from CA.No, but he ran and he was honest about it.
10-13-2004, 07:55 PM
anyone my age who is counting on ss will be in poverty. Its just going to be playing money for me. I'm expecting it to be gone, but if its there then I'll play with that amount. maybe keep the board sponsers rich.
10-13-2004, 11:20 PM
Yup. While the left may be more brazen about it because of their upbringing, and they see nothing wrong or contradictory in their double talk, the right does it just as much, just not as well because there's still some sanity left in their heads, however inewffective it might be at this point.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Similar Forum Threads
- By Alpha Dog in forum SupplementsReplies: 10Last Post: 06-03-2012, 05:16 AM
- By PoolMan in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 07-03-2003, 11:58 AM
- By Nicolai in forum General ChatReplies: 21Last Post: 05-24-2003, 07:12 PM
- By bellx1 in forum General ChatReplies: 5Last Post: 04-20-2003, 12:58 PM
- By YellowJacket in forum AnabolicsReplies: 1Last Post: 01-18-2003, 12:37 PM