Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
This is making it round the net..
Published on July 13, 2004 By Draginol In Republican

Got this in email today...

Subject: Social Security

When 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 tax 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


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 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 county, 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 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 believe it!

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 will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up through the 2004 election!! We need to be heard.!!

on Jul 13, 2004
As far as I'm concerned, take my Social Security away. By the time I'm old enough to use it, it more than likely won't be there for me. By the way, you can stop taking my FICA payments out of my paycheck as well. I'm sure I can find better ways to invest that money for my retirement.

-- B
on Jul 13, 2004
I don't expect Social Security to be around when I retire.
on Jul 13, 2004
I always find it remarkable how well the Democrats twist things around for their propaganda but when faced with the truth they seem to change the subject. I am with Mr_Frog take my SS away. My grandmother doesn't collect SS she recieves her money from the investments that my grandfather set up while they were young. Oh yeah they were farmers who knew what "work" really is. My father farmed until the Liberals pushed for the "Big business industry" (so that the gov't could more easily control) which helped to eliminate the family farm.
on Jul 13, 2004
I'm fairly certain that I will never collect a dime from Social Security.

Yesterday I was in an all-hands meeting for my company. We were given a presentation on sweeping changes to our benefits packages due to a merger from last year. The lady speaking told us there were four contributors to our retirement:

1) 401k
2) Pension Plan
3) Personal Investments
4) Social Security

When she mentioned #4 the entire room broke out in laughter.
on Jul 13, 2004
Thanks for posting this, Brad. It's information that does need to be heard.

It's also interesting to note that the democratic party also stood against most civil rights legislation and integration laws.

And they call Republicans sheep...
on Jul 14, 2004

Trusting that SS will be around when you retire is like paying Russian Roulette.

Another thing I find interesting- My husband's Grandma collects Social Security.  She gets "raises" every year or so (I have no idea what it is based on).  Her husband died over 30 years ago, and she started collecting then.  She has never worked "full time" except when she was in the service 50+ years ago.  She *lives* on SS.  How does she get that much money?  There is absolutely no way, even considering inflation, that her and her husband contributed enough to allow her to pull those kind of checks.  I cringe and half to walk away whenever she starts talking about how it's "not enough" money.  Ack.

I wish I could have what I contribute to FICA to invest myself.  Even putting it under my mattress is more appealing than having the government "handle" it. 

on Jul 14, 2004
Trusting that SS will be around when you retire is like paying Russian Roulette.

Hehe, there's still always an element of chance with Russian roulette. More likely not so with S.S.

The demise of Social Security is apparently likely to happen here in Australia too. I'll expect it will happen the very year I get to retirement age.......

on Jul 14, 2004
Hmm, I think most of the Q&A is wrong. Here is an example, this from the SSA's history at

The 1983 Amendments

In the early 1980s the Social Security program faced a serious short-term financing crisis. President Reagan appointed a blue-ribbon panel, known as the Greenspan Commission, to study the financing issues and make recommendations for legislative changes. The final bill, signed into law in 1983, made numerous changes in the Social Security and Medicare programs, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, the first coverage of Federal employees under Social Security and an increase in the retirement age in the next century. (Summary of the provisions of the '83 Amendments).

So, one assertion proven false.

As far as the system being around in the future, I think the notion that it "won't be there" comes from not thinking too hard about it. What might not be there are the level of benefits, benefits for anyone over a certain income level or after tax income after tax rates go up. If absolutely nothing is done, then when the trust fund is exhausted, benefits will be reduced to match income at that time. I think the estimates from last year are that in 2042 73% of scheduled benefits will be payable, and in 2077 65%. Not the 100% we have now, but not gone either. And that's the worst case scenario, excluding the possiblity of the Federal Government defaulting on its bonds, which I don't think anyone considers likely.

Anyway, the I think the central concern shouldn't be social security, because even without it the problem would that people are living longer past current retirement ages and the number of workers is falling relative to the number of non-workers. Scrapping social security won't change that.
on Jul 14, 2004
But it sure would be nice if it were still opt-in. I would prefer to be the manager of my own retirement income, that way I have no-one to blame but myself if it's not around. This is one government "entitlement" program I'd love to see axed in favour of personal investment. As far as I've seen the government isn't exactly a shining example of budget-conscious money management.

-- B