Social Security????

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.

Social Security????
Title 22 of the United States Code by law is to keep a complete


listing of all trust funds maintained by the Federal Government.





Just try to find the Social Security trust fund listed in Title 22.





You won't find it.








Because there is none all money collect for Social Security taxes/FICA,


are deposited into the general fund and is spent by Congress.





In the history of the United States of America, there is probably no


more dramatic demonstration of deliberately designed misinformation


than the literature put out by the Social Security Administration.





One need go no further than three (3) decisions handed down by the


U.S. Supreme Court (two in 1937 the year after the Social Security


Act became law and one in 1960,) to realize what blatant deception


the current Social Security literature contains.





These cases are: STEWARD MACHINE CO. v. DAVIS, 301 US 548 (1937);


HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 US 619 (1937); and FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US


603 (1960). These cases clearly enunciate the position of the Supreme


Court on the Social Security Act and the actual legal position of


those who expect to receive benefits from it. Highlights of these


cases are as follows:





1. The payroll deductions of workers do NOT go into a pool or trust


fund, but:


"The proceeds of both (the employee and the employer) taxes


are to be paid into the treasury like other internal revenue


generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way." HELVERING v. DAVIS, US


619, 635 (1937)





2. The Court points out that payroll deductions of American workers


are NOT payments on premiums for insurance of any kind, but are


simply income taxes:


"...eligibility for benefits... (does) not in any true sense


depend on contribution through the payment of taxes." FLEMMING v.


NESTOR, 363 US 603, 609 (1960).





3. Furthermore, payments made by employers for each of their


employees are NOT matching to be credited to the account of the


employee, but constitute an EXCISE TAX on the employer's right to do


business. Consequently, his so called "contributions" go directly


into the general fund of the treasury and,





4. People participating in Social Security payroll deductions do NOT


acquire property rights or contractual rights through their payments,


as they would if they were paying on an insurance policy or


contributing to an annuity plan. Simply put, there are no guarantees!


The Congress does have power to deny benefits to citizens even though


they had paid S.S. taxes. Also, the amount of benefits granted are at


the option of Congress. FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US 603, 610 (1960).





5. Benefits granted under Social Security are therefore NOT


considered earned by the worker, but simply constitute a gratuity or


gesture of charity. As the Court states:


"Congress included in the original act, and has since


retained a claim expressly reserving to it the right to alter, amend,


or repeal any provision of the act". FLEMMING v. NESTOR, 363 US 603,


610-11 (1960).





In effect, Social Security benefits are unlike pensions to be given


or withheld at the discretion of Congress.





6. Payroll deductions which a worker pays (a special kind


of "employment/income tax") do nothing more than qualify him for


consideration as a recipient of a charitable gift. His payments do


not guarantee him anything. They do not guarantee the amount to be


received, nor the duration of the gift. The Congress can alter or


abolish the entire process at any time.





Justice Hugo L. Black, dissenting in the Nestor case, stated that the


whole Social Security thesis, as expounded by the majority of the


court, is that the government is giving the participating


citizen "something for nothing and Congress can stop doing so when it


pleases." He further stated:





"I cannot believe that any private insurance in America would


be permitted to repudiate it's matured contracts with its policy-


holders who have regularly paid all the premiums in reliance upon the


good faith of the company." Flemming v. Nestor, supra, Justice Black


dissenting.





It was only a short time after the Supreme Court had revealed that


Social Security funds are:


"paid into the Treasury like other internal revenue


generally, and are NOT earmarked in any way....", and that the Social


Security Administration went right ahead publishing literature


fraudulently proclaiming that payroll deductions:


"are strictly accounted for and kept separate from the


general funds of the U.S. Treasury."





Quoted by Warren Shore, SOCIAL SECURITY: THE FRAUD IN YOUR FUTURE,


The Macmillan Co., New York, 1975 pg. 23.
Reply:There are many half-truths here. Right away I see a Jimmy Carter error. He did approve legal immigrants receiving SSI not social security. Taxing annuities-obviously it was close vote, including many Republicans-or their would be no "tie-breaking vote". The 1983 amendments to the SSA, resulting from the 1982 report of the Greenspan Commission(Greenspan was appointed by Reagan) empaneled to investigate the long-run solvency of Social Security, taxed Social Security benefits for the first time:





Under the 1983 Amendments to Social Security, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a previously enacted increase in the payroll tax rate was accelerated, additional employees were added to the system, the full benefit retirement age was slowly increased, and up to one-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was made potentially taxable income.





As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large (short run) surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. government bonds held by the Social Security trust fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security trust fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.





There was no Trust fund-the government borrows-transfers it to the General Fund and replaces it with Bonds-Govt IOUs.





I could go on....but trust me-both parties are to blame for not fixing SS.
Reply:Stop listening to "Rush (the drug addict) %26amp; Fox News
Reply:I think you are sadly informed about social security, or you are making it all up.
Reply:And who, over the last 6 years has not gotten rid of any of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the US today. Our great leader, G W Bush.
Reply:you know a good debate on any subject is healthy but you leave me no answers,,so i guess the debate is over?????
Reply:Which Political party purged all real conservatives an replaced them with brownshited Facist thugs?





The Republican Party





The Republican Party of today has nothing to do with the Republican Party of ten years ago
Reply:Liberals don't care to read the truth.