How Liberals Destroyed Social Security...

I have been doing some soul-searching about this issue. I, for one, believe in a private accounts and for the life of me, can't understand why liberal democrats don't believe in "choice" where to put YOUR tax paid money! Face it...they like to have a choice if a baby lives or dies, but when it comes to YOUR own tax payed money, these people want NOTHING of the sort. Choice is only good for democrats if it suits them.

Let's see if a pattern has emerged from these bleeding hearts since social security started:

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" (Al Gore's "Lock box") 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 some here in the forum 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?

A: Right again! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.


FYI: 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 doing all this lying and thieving and violating of the original contract (FICA), the liberal Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!?!

The worst part about all this is that uninformed (government schooled people with a 6th grade reading level) citizens believe it!

As much as democrats celebrated how they blocked all of Bush's legislative ideas on social security, the problem (like illegal immigration) is not going away...but getting worse!

You can thank a liberal democrat for this mess...

 

Grrr... it makes me sick. But you need to note that Republicans have never done much to fix or abolish the SS system(notice how that ties in with Hitler!).

Craig

 

Soul searching huh? Interesting choice of words for a heartless conservative. The Democrats created the social safty net and now it's their fault it is in danger of going broke. I can tell anyone that reads Midas' post that he has less than no idea of what he is talking about. If I needed to find out more about the Social Security system, I'd definitely would go to a more objective source than you.

 

Heartless conservative??? Well Mr. Socialist Moen, it may interest you to know that around 60 years ago, we didn't have Social Security, and people got along just fine. Then along came the @#$@%@ democrats and started pouring our stolen money(most of our taxes is stolen, btw) down the drain into a bottomless pit. The governments' job is too protect the country, not give out the citizens' money to every :stooge: that comes along. If you want your money to be spent that way, fine! Do that, but don't take my hard earned money. No wonder 9/11 and OKC and the Twin Towers bombing in '93 and the bombings in Beirut and everywhere else happen, when the intel agencies never have any money because it's being wasted by our worthless leaders who are off in the Bahamas much of the time. Yes, Democrats are the ones who make most of the bad laws, but the Reps go along with it or don't do anything about it, so they aren't much better.

Disgusted,
Craig

 

I laid out my facts...instead of blasting me, tell me where my facts are wrong.

I am a big fan of history for if you don't learn from it, you are sure to repeat it. Since most liberal democrats are teaching our children (government schools), I guess they will not be taught about failed socialist programs of the past and present.

Keep what works and scrap the programs that have failed...gee, what a concept. What's your solution? Throw more money at it?

 

My mom gets a pretty good check from SS, and it is solvent for the next 50 years. Midas you are an idiot the problem is with Medicare.

 

You aren't "wrong" but there are reasons why things are the way they are. Some people believe that social security is a mistake to begin with. But before the system went into effect, poverty among the elderly was so widespread that it was a national disgrace. And I'm not talking about today's definition of poverty where the "poor" person weighs 250 pounds and has two TVs. I'm talking about starving to death or freezing to death poverty. Maybe there was a better way to deal with it, but at the time it was the chosen course of action.

Regarding personal savings accounts, it becomes a case of simple math. I presume you are fairly young. But anyone over the age of, say, 50, stands to lose a lot of benefits from the conversion. The math becomes fuzzy here because both sides lie, but someone like me just doesn't have enough working years left to make the math work regardless of my political affiliation. There is also the little question of political philosophy -- is it really "conservative" to save what the government tells you to save, invest it in government approved investment vehicles, and spend it when the government tells you it's okay to have your own money back? Collectivism is still collectivism even when cloaked as investment. You can bet that Wall St is drooling all over themselves at the prospect of earning hefty fees for "managing" what will likely to turn out to be a giant trillion dollar index fund that could be run by a third grader with two days of training.

I count myself among the true conservatives [not the neocon types], but I don't have an answer to the problem. The hole is too deep now to climb out of, and I fear there is no solution. Calling it a liberal or conservative problem/issue will only ensure that the ultimate collapse is worse than it needs to be if everyone worked together honestly and diligently on the problem [which they won't]. I advise you to just protect yourself and your family as best you can from the coming financial storms when my generation tries to cash in on their promised benefits, and they aren't there.

 

I would like to have the CHOICE of either staying with the same losing program...OR...to put my money into something like US T-Bills. Shoot, even throwing this money into a long term saving accounts (CD's) would yield more than how S.S. is perfroming.

Since the government is confinscating just over 15% of our paycheck (half from our employer, half from us) and continuing to put this money into this failing socialist program, call me crazy...but I would like the choice to either participate in funds I like or stay with the status quo.

Why is a choice for where MY and YOUR social security contributions are allocated to a bad idea? Why is it that a choice where I allocate my tax dollars for school choice a bad idea as well??

Why is it that liberals think they know what is best with OUR tax dollars. Doesn't individualisn matter anymore?

My intention of this thread was that initial wishes by FDR when S.S. was introduced has been destroyed by future demcratic policies. Like immigration, neither republicans nor democrats have any guts to make these hard choices. So if you are under 50, we will just pay into a system that is failing where liberals democrats will cry out if any serious reform is enacted by those evil conservatives like me.

 

The problem is one of demographics. Not something the Democrats did or didn't do. It is the same problem facing many other countries and to a far worse extent is many cases. The Japanese are especially screwed with their closed aging society. If you don't understand this aspect of the problem, you haven't got a clue as to fault, responsibilty, or solution. Your post is a waste of band width.

 

Midas,

Okay, now you just aren't paying attention to what people are saying. You're on your soapbox with your liberal/conservative battle gear on preaching but ignoring your audience. You have been answered but you dare not admit it. Your idea of conservative is wacked, to put it bluntly. It isn't being "conservative" to be able to choose which government approved savings plan you want. Conservative is not having the government make investment decisions for you, either where or how much. Many "new" conservatives like yourself have been hoodwinked into becomming liberals without even knowing it. You've already accepted the idea that the government has the fundamental right to invest for you; and you are just negotiating the details with them. From what I can tell, you know nothing about conservative political philosophy except what you see on television. Sorry to be blunt, but you don't seem to get the message, liberal.

Also keep in mind that all of you who see politics as some sort of grand battle between liberals and conservatives are destroying our nation. This isn't good vs evil, dispite what our "C" student president tells you. Don't let him dumb you down to his level. The president substitutes belief for his lack of knowledge. Don't follow that example. Think for yourself. Examine the facts. Know that things got the way they are for a reason. Don't become another part of the problem.

 

Government investment? Well that's an contridiction in terms. You are right...having a government approved savings plan is non-conservative indeed. Since taxes are so hard to reduce or even repeal, I am just looking for anything that would allow me a choice or where my tax dollars go.

Shoot...if we had the ability to take that 15% FICA money and invest (i.e., 401-K plan) it in a way that we couldn't touch that money until we get to 62, 65 or whatever age, we would unleash the free market forces and the country would have unprecedented growth. So I am with you, I would love to have that 15% FICA and throw it into a mandatory 401-K type plan of my choice, but hell will freeze over until liberals let go of any of OUR tax dollars. Remember...that is their key to political power which is redistributing tax revenues to their voters.

Face it...the more a person is dependent on the government for EVERYTHING, that person will vote (or has to vote) for the political party that promises to either continue these social subsidizes and/or increase these payments through more income tax transfer. Hence, the foundation of liberal politicians.

There are very few taxs that get reduced, much less eliminated. My suggestion is just a small step for some type of control by the individual of these United States instead of the government knowing what's best in spending our hard earned dollars.

Even if we had the choice to control 3.5% of our FICA contributions whereas the government could waste the remaining contributions on whatever failing programs they want, it still would be better than nothing...and it would do wonders for people who have to pay into this system and are not ready to retire.

For people over the age of 55, this is NOT for you. You will be taken care of. You can keep the plan as is, but people less than 55, just imagine if you had a choice!

 

You do have many choices (Roth IRA, IRA, 401 K)

 

How many choices do you have for the money the government is taking from you? Can you invest that money in the programs you listed above. If so, when did that happen? If not, then your statement is pretty much non-applicable.

 

A government investment is not a contradiction of terms. You yourself indicated that you would like to be able to invest in T-bills. People can debate whether this is a good or bad investment, but that is another story.

More importantly, the fact that you would "love to have that 15% FICA" thrown into a "mandatory 401-K type plan" is a very very liberal viewpoint. There is nothing "free market" about it.

It is frequently said that the country has moved to the right over the years. I disagree. The nation has moved far to the left. People now routinely accept collectivism as the right way to operate a society without even thinking twice about it. It is instinctive and automatic. Conservatism is basically dead. All we are doing now is hammering out the details of what sort of liberal/collectivist model we want for society. To the extent that the government can make large numbers of people believe that they are conservative without actually having any conservative beliefs, so much the better for them. It is good to have an opposition viewpoint that doesn't really oppose anything.

Anyway, this will be my last post in this thread. I recognize from experience that nothing I write will change anyone's opinion, or open any eyes. But it's there for anyone who cares to think about it.

Midas, thanks for playing the straight man.

 

It has opened my eyes. I hadn't really noticed all the collectivistic people have been doing. Thanks for the info!:thumb:

 

The notion is absurd. I can think of 100 ways they could pull an S&L off the top of my head. IT IS A SET UP FOR A SCAM.

 

You obviously do not remember the S&L scandal

 

I think there is a few misconceptions in this thread. One, to think that Democrats, or liberals, are to blame for the Social Security mess, single handedly, is absurd. Midas, what you point out is some of the legislation, but you have not pointed out which administrations attacked it, financially.

Can you blame murders on the people that made it legal for people to carry guns? The logic does not follow.

Second, Social Security (as it stands now) will not benefit from being privatized. Point blank, it exists because people, by and large, are not good at saving money. People, by and large, are not good at investment choices - a fool and his money is soon parted, and that doesn't change just because there are a million+ fools in the pool. The current system is a fail safe for everyone. If it were privatized, who is going to help those who invested poorly, when they are in their 65+ years? Midas - are you going to say 'too bad for you! I guess you starve in your old age!'. Truth be told, it isn't going to happen that way Midas, as much as you may glee over the idea, you will end up doing your part to cover the loss of those who failed. If you failed, we would have to do our part to cover for you... why?

Even still, it is not a dead program - it is still financially sound, if changes are made today. The current administration cannot be held unaccountable, and say 'the body was dead when I found it, your honor'. It isn't. It doesn't have to be... The AARP has spelled out a lot of facts about the system -

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/money/Articles/myths_and_truths_about_social_security.html

 

Cloud - I found your comments pretty insightful.

I have to point out, however, that when you are dealing with retired elderly, you need a collectivist program, because you need something that covers 100%, that is independent of those it covers. Without it, you have defeated the purpose, because you have introduced decentralized risk factors for a program that exists under the idea of a failproof safety net.

I don't necessarily think that is a liberal or conservative perception. It is collectivist, as you have said, but only because it has to be by nature of the problem it was intended to solve.

 

I don't disagree with you. I have no better solution to suggest to the problem under present circumstances.