History Lesson On Your Social Security Card.
History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure to show it to your family members
and friends. They need a little history lesson on 'what's what', and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Facts are facts.
Social Security Cards, up until the 1980s, expressly stated the number and
card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway, and the
message 'NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION' was removed.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary.
No longer voluntary!
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program.
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000.
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year.
No longer tax deductible!
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund', rather than into the
general operating fund, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program; but,
Under President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the money was moved to
the general operating fund and spent on whatever programs the government wished!
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.
Under the Clinton-Gore administration, the law was changed so that
up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed!
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years, and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month, we are
now 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 President Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat-
controlled House and Senate!
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democrat party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democrat 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?
(AND THIS IS MY FAVORITE)
A: That's right!
President Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democrat 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 that uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted; and maybe changes will
evolve!
It's worth a try! How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickersHi there Oly. Nice to see you.
Some times I wonder if folks read and verify any of the garbage they cut and paste on the forums? Take the quote above for example which you called your “FAVORITE”. You would think everyone knows by now all workers need to have worked AND paid into the Social Security system before they are eligible for retirement benefits. To learn that only spouses and dependants of U.S. citizens or documented immigrants can collect benefits without ever paying a dime into the program, all you need do is go to the Social Security web site:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers … 424/kw/424 to learn:
“Everyone born in 1929 or later needs 40 Social Security credits (sometimes referred to as a quarter of coverage) to be eligible for retirement benefits. You can earn up to four credits per year, so you will need to work in at least 10 years to become eligible for retirement benefits… If you become disabled or die before age 62, the number of credits needed depends on your age at the time you die or become disabled. A minimum of six is required regardless of your age.”
Or read http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/494 that clearly states, “Can I buy credits if I do not have enough?
You cannot buy credits towards the 40 credits required for Social Security retirement. To earn credits, you must earn wages in a job covered by Social Security or have net income from self-employment.”
As for illegal immigrants, see
http://loyalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/do- … ocial.html
“Do Illegal Aliens Receive Social Security Benefits?
Many people believe that illegal immigrants or undocumented workers receive social security benefits. That is false. Talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage not only seem to be part of spreading the untrue piece of information, it also leads to the message being passed around by word of mouth, via emails and online petitions.
Illegal immigrants apparently get in on the Social Security’s administrative system and receive benefits. Not true. Undocumented workers will never be entitled to claim social security benefits. Illegal immigrants are known to provide false social security numbers in order to prove they are documented workers, thus giving them to chance to start working. In October 2005, the earnings on which workers contribute towards Social Security racked up $520 billion.
However, some people still seem to believe that illegal immigrants are entitled to Social Security benefits. One fact that probably pushed the rumour is the vote in 2006 for an amendment to immigration reform laws. Even though the amendment was passed by Senate with a 50-49 vote, the bill died and there ended the amendment. Therefore, the truth is that illegal immigrants will only have a right to Social Security once they are granted amnesty, and when that does happen, they will have a right to Social Security benefits for prior work done in the country.
Undocumented workers also contribute towards Social Security taxes - the figure stands at a surprising $6 billion annually. The National Immigration Law Center says the money is directed towards the Earnings Suspense File, which is a repository for Social Security taxes which are paid by illegal immigrants who have either used false identities, forged document or incorrect Social Security numbers.”
Thanks again, Oly, for your post. I always learn a lot by verifying the information you post. I recommend it.So out of everything the man posted two minor mistakes eliminate the other 10? Can you deny the rest is correct? Did every president he posted do what was stated? Did the Democrats add the tax to SS benefits? Did a democratic president move the funds out of the fund? Which Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?Hello Danny. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. I only pointed out that the OP identified one accusation as being his “FAVORITE”, (OP’s caps), and it turns out the statement is false. Now what does that mean? Well, it suggests one of two possibilities: 1) the OP DID NOT verify the contents before hitting the submit-button, or 2) the OP DID verify the contents, knew this point was an error, and posted it anyway. In either case, the OP has to shoulder the responsibility for propagating a lie. That, Danny, is the only point I made.
Danny, your question speaks volumes about your tolerance for lies, distortions, and half-truths in this forum so long as the message supports your own notions about political reality. I think most readers here prefer verifiable facts.
I have not researched every claim, so I can not confirm or deny the rest. Did you verify every claim before posting? Your questions are my questions too. “Did every president he posted do what was stated? Did the Democrats add the tax to SS benefits? Did a democratic president move the funds out of the fund? Which Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?” Since you posted questions and not links, should I conclude you didn’t look for these answers either?
I have no desire to declare anyone guilty by association. I don’t blame all Democrats because one president signed a law with which I disagree. Nor do I accuse all Republicans of putting business before people just because President Bush rescinded existing regulations that would reduce arsenic in the drinking water of thousands of Americans suffering from industrial pollution.
You see, Danny, I respect Oly’s opinions as I do yours. I believe you both have good reasons for thinking the way you do. But, I value truth and accuracy more highly than historical arrows we can sling at each other.Minor mistakes? As an immigrant they don't strike *me* as minor.
If two are wrong why should I assume the rest are right? And if I have to check all the facts myself why not just read an accurate source and ignore this rubbish entirely.So if you have 10 questions and 8 are correct the two that are wrong, and wrong because of misconception, makes everything useless and rubbish?
News flash: Probably everything that is written today has misconceptions and lies or personal belief. So only what You believe to be true is not rubbish as you say?
I did not check the accuracy of the post but just the attitude of the opposite side looking to dismiss everything because one or two things could have been misconstrued.
A lot of things today are made to confuse.A person who will post 2 totally false statements as if they are true is by definition inexpert and unreliable.
On that basis I have no idea whatsoever whether the other 8 statements are true or false. That makes their content value to me exactly zero (rubbish).
Quill,
THere is one thing you posted incorrectly. the credits you talk of is correct, however, it is not based on any 10 years, it is based on your LAST 10 years. I know this first hand. I was denied because I took off a short time to take cars of my parents. Then went back to work. I was 2 credits shorts over the last 10 years and was denied benifits. I get a woping $60 from SSI. I paid in more than most people make and cannot get one penny of it. Wait till people who are out of work now, go back to work and go to retire and find out they will not get benifits. THis is a story that will hit the fan in the future.
Oly, did you know the SS contribution is actually over 15% worker pays half, business pays half
Here is where you got confused
Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.
The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972.Thanks, AV, for the correction. I really appreciate your input.
I went back to http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/c … 4-0110.htm to revisit the credit requirements (QC) and here is what I found:
“(2) You are fully insured for old-age insurance benefits if you have one QC (whenever acquired) for each calendar year elapsing after 1950 or, if later, after the year In which you became age 21, and before the year you reach retirement age, that is, before…etc”
Now I don’t interpret this to mean “based on your LAST 10 years” as you stated. I read one needs to acquire 40 QC over any number of consecutive years having at least one QC (whenever acquired) in each calendar year. So I can see where a full calendar year without contributing might scuttle your eligibility. I was not aware of this until now. That is a tough break for you.
Thanks again for sharing your first hand experience.Quill,
Thanks for the response. I understand exactly what you are saying. That was the argument my attorney made at my appeal hearing. But they stuck to there guns saying that the change came when Bill clinton revised SS. We later found out that was the purpose behind the change was to make people earn it ,not just work here, work there and over 30 years only pay in a little and want alot out. It makes sense but there must be a better way to address the problem. To many good people are going to suffer because of the rule.
Some Truth for you to Consider Oly
MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2
Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves a series of questions about the history of the Social Security system.
One Common Form of the Questions:
Q1: Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Q3: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Q4: Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
Q5: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS
Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Q2: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A2: There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.
Q3. Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A3. The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.
The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.
The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).
Q4. Which political party increased the taxes on Social Security annuities?
A4. In 1993, legislation was enacted which had the effect of increasing the tax put in place under the 1983 law. It raised from 50% to 85% the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation; but the increased percentage only applied to "higher income" beneficiaries. Beneficiaries of modest incomes might still be subject to the 50% rate, or to no taxation at all, depending on their overall taxable income.
This change in the tax rate was one provision in a massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) passed that year. The OBRA 1993 legislation was deadlocked in the Senate on a tie vote of 50-50 and Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding vote in favor of passage. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.
(You can find a brief historical summary of the development of taxation of Social Security benefits on the Social Security website.)
Q5. Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A5. Neither immigrants nor anyone else is able to collect Social Security benefits without someone paying Social Security payroll taxes into the system. The conditions under which Social Security benefits are payable, and to whom, can be found in the pamphlets available on our website.
Source(s):
The question confuses the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program with Social Security. SSI is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility. Under certain conditions, immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits. The SSI program was an initiative of the Nixon Administration and was signed into law by President Nixon on October 30, 1972.
An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website.Ya know, at this point, I am all confused about Social Security.
This has all happened in the last 2 1/2 years.
There is too much BS going around to try to keep up with.
I know the YOUNG PEOPLE are getting beat up and will not get there's, I THINK, really not sure.
First, us OLD TIMERS have it till 2036 then 2014 and so on, then the next thing we hear is, we are broke.
So, as far as an answer or knowledge on Social Security, today I am in a tailspin.
That is why when I find things that just dont look right, I get them out in hopes of finding somebody in the know.
OLYOly
It is confusing because there is so many false stories that get put out there in order for people to push there point of view. Its no wonder us citizens have no ideaI understand this much, SO, what's an OLD TIMER to do.
When you tell me that WE may not get OUR check next month, NOW, YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION.
As a rule, I do not Panic, BUT, I am just a tad upset now, and don't know what to do.
I have called Social Security, THEY NO NOTHING ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING.
The ODD thing is, Everybody else knows something about Social Security, EXCEPT, Social Security.
Now, what's wrong with this picture??????????
OLY
How is social security administration suppose to know what the congress is going to do?
Real good question, Thats why I think Bush was right, privatize it and Congress cannot no loger interfere, a President cannot threaten to not make payments
Well, OK. While I was studying your reply, I called Social Security, again.
There answer was,
CHECKS WILL GO OUT NEXT MONTH....................
This is all they knew up to this point.
So, it looks like us, OLD TIMERS, can pay our bills next month.
After that, ????????????????????????
OLY
So you don't mind depending on Wall Street for
your social security. Good luck with that.Can't imagine myself, that either congress or Obama is going to stop social security. That would provoke such a ruckus that they would have
to give up all pretense of democracy. It is all
about shifting as much of the cost of the empire
as possible on to the poor and off of the rich.I have one eye on Wall Street, also, I am expecting a big drop in the near future.
OLYOly, does not matter what wall street does and here si why they told you the checks will go out:
President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.
Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades. It must be one or the other.
Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees. If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:
“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”
Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget. What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions. “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud. The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”
Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?AV, everything you have explained, all your figures, and your explanations, are the same track I was on.
Ever since this, Social Security Issue cam up, I have been saying, Take Social Security OFF THE TABLE.
Your figures match mine.
Now, if that is right, then, YOU and I are either, RIGHT or Wrong.
WE, say we are RIGHT.
THEY, say we are wrong.
Now how are we suppose to think,
I am with you, BUT??????????????????????
OLYOly,
Obama is banking on the fact people will not check it out so he can threaten and believe he can get away with it. Thing is, some will blindly follow him. I do not know why. I take noones word on anything, I research it and look for the proper answer. Thats all I try to do, not take sides, just point out the facts. Take care
Related Discussions
- 18
A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card.
by OLYHOOCH 11 years ago
A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card1934 - 1980With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans want to take away the old people's Social Security. Just in...
- 36
Social Security. The senior voting bloc. 2024 general elections.
by Tim Mitchell 6 months ago
Serendipity?Watching the news while having some knowledge of the foreseen Government shutdown it hit me like a brick falling out of the sky. On No! If that happens no Social Security check for me on the 3rd of Oct. Serendipity? Quickly doing a search it turns out they will go out. There is a FAQ on...
- 47
Who wishes they could opt out of social security?
by N. Ramius 14 years ago
I wouldn't pay in and wouldn't collect in retirement. I wish they'd let me do that.
- 6
US - Do you think social security should be cut?
by alexandriaruthk 11 years ago
US - Do you think social security should be cut?This is needed for the budget to be done. Agree or disagree that they should even touch the social security benefits?
- 292
What should be done about Social Security?
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...
- 98
The Democrat Party Change of Heart On Illigal Immigrants
by ga anderson 5 weeks ago
Then:Now:The point is not about Pres. Biden or which party's immigration goals are better. Or which president would be better on immigration? The point is about the change in the party's core values.GA