It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Social Security

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 28 2004 @ 07:34 AM

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
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,

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 it?
A: It was 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
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democrat
Party. Immigrants moved into
this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI
Social Security payments! The
Democrat 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!

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 07:49 AM
One thing the gov't can start doing is make politicians pay into it. I've never figured it out, but I wonder what I have paid into social security to date?

Bush came up with a plan to fix SS, but I haven't heard anything about it since.

"The program's trustees say that by 2018, Social Security will be paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. Most experts say fixing the system would require higher taxes, fewer benefits or both."

Read the article.. Bush on SS

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by SupaFly
One thing the gov't can start doing is make politicians pay into it. I've never figured it out, but I wonder what I have paid into social security to date?

I don't know your age or your work record, but I thought everybody got an annual statement from SSA.
If you don't get yours, you can certainly request your earnings record online at:

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by SupaFly
One thing the gov't can start doing is make politicians pay into it. I've never figured it out, but I wonder what I have paid into social security to date?

I don't know your age or your work record, but I thought everybody got an annual statement from SSA.
If you don't get yours, you can certainly request your earnings record online at:

I've never received a statement. Thanks for the link.

[Edited on 28-5-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]

I've never received a statement. Thanks for the link.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 09:27 AM
FICA is a ponzi scheme.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 09:37 AM
You can apply for an exemption from social security for religious reasons. Here's the form for those of you interested.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 10:20 AM
Okay, Bangin, while not paying for religious reasons sounds like a great idea. jst what religions qualify. After reading the standards on page 2 of the pdf file you linked to, I know of no religion I should have joined 30+ years ago.

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 10:41 AM
if you believe that one side or the other in republican or democrat is on your side .....your being wagged in the worst way.....they are controlled by special interest groups which are being controlled by the global elite.....they rule by divide and conquer......and i might say theyve done a real fine job of it...

Theyve got just about everyone believing that one party or another is representing there beliefs...ideas....feelings on is an incredible lie.....theese people dont represent you ....left or right .....they represent the global elite and have decieved the public into believing we still have free elections and that our officials represent us.....

it is always important to remember that they control both sides of the debate so that they may decide the outcome.....

posted on May, 28 2004 @ 01:00 PM
Seems poster is not for Social Security; and would like to see it go its way into the trash bin. He points out all the changes that have been made to the law from the time it was first enacted during the FDR Administration. The changes noted are represented by author in an uncomplimentary way and inappropriate.

The idea of a fixed retirement age is of recent origin, being introduced during the early 19th century in Europe - before then, the absence of pension arrangements meant that most workers had to continue to work until death, or rely on the support of family or friends.

Nowadays most developed nations have systems to provide pensions on retirement in old age, which may be sponsored by employers or the state. In many poorer countries, support for the old is still mainly provided through the family. In fact it should be noted that the USA was the last developed country in the world to enact an old age/pension system.

Society does change and one must think of the impact of doing away with the social security system of retirement. And rather then looking at the impact it would create as a negative economic event for our older citizens who have outlived their usefulness and become a drain on society¡¦s resources lets try and find the investment opportunities it might present.

If such a change were to be made I would make heavy investments into the home building/renovation industries. Life expectancy has increase over 20+ years since the 30¡¦s and continues to improve. As parent age and become infirm people can not care for themselves and must seek placements in Geriatric care facilities. With the end of federal S.S. benefits which currently helps to underwrite such costs today many families would not be able to afford the costs of placement for their parents.

Today, even a low cost facility, when people sleep in ward type settings cost over One thousand dollars a month not including the federal subsidy. A decent extended care facility in say Florida would cost almost $3000 per month.

So it is easy to see families will have to buy bigger homes to accommodate their parents or build additions on existing homes. Therefore, the home renovation business would be a fantastic investment. Other opportunities can expected to be found in the pay-check loan business; private schools teaching basic nursing care; legal services business¡¦s serving divorce lawyers; and I predict there will be a new and budding euthanasia industry where opportunities will abound.

Every change society makes, if one looks carefully into the impact¡K¡K¡Kyou can always make a buck.

N.B. ¡V I must say the information posted by author has been making its rounds so to speak¡K¡K¡K a simple Google search (I stopped counting at 30) turned up the same post. I say this to point out that this is rather old and stale stuff ¡V well crafted sophistry, fersure ¡V but still very aged. ƒº

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 01:18 AM
Oiy not to be rude, but the idea that special interests controlled by "Global Elite" is controlling Social Security policy is pretty ... whacked.

The reality is quite simple. Most of the people that vote, are old people or people on SS in general (not only the old receive benefits).

So touching the SS is a death-trap, which politicians like to call the "Third Rail" in reference to subway tracks.

I doubt the old people are in cahoots with the NWO.

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 02:43 PM
Reply to SupaFly – Social Security

Politicians and other government employees are most often with few exceptions excluded from participating in the Social Security Retirement System. That class of employee is already has a defined retirement plan. If in addition, government employees and politicians were allowed to participate in the Social Security System and then qualify for benefits, it would create an inequity called “double dipping” which would create an additional burden on the American taxpayer; and also provide an additional benefit unavailable to other workers and thereby creating an unfair inequity between the private sector employee and government workers.

This potential problem and inequity was foreseen early in the Plans development and Congress wisely excluded such works from participation.

Information about your Social Security account can be found at:

How to request a detailed report on your account can be found at:

Sample of the report that will be provided to you upon request is at:

The actuarial challenge to the Social Security System has been foreseen for many years and is fast approaching a point where this “pay as you go” system revenue will not cover projected outlays.

An increase in the rate of the Social Security tax enacted several years ago designed to build reserves would have extended the systems on a positive basis well into the mid
2000’s. But the Bush tax cut along with diverting SS tax fund from a reserve to the general revenue account has reduced the years to the system slip to a negative basis.

You say that year is 2018 sounds accurate and is most likely correct.

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 03:14 PM
Reply to Enki -

Is Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ or a Program designed to meet the needs of the economy and provide social stability? It’s answer seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. Below is some data which may lead you to a more informed and expansive answer:

Double Your Money in 90 Days – Charles Ponzi
History of the Ponzi scheme

"Ponzi" Schemes

Pyramid Schemes, Ponzi Schemes, and Related Frauds

Carl Ponzi Returns: The Privatization of Social Security Harkens Back to an Old Scheme – Debate and other related issues

*Mod edit: fixed link*

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by Banshee]

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 03:27 PM
McNulty.... Why did the government and more specifically our representatives decide that they or federal employees should not participate in the program ?

If the federal government had no other retirment plan in place then it would not be double dipping. Everyone would pay the same in SS taxes and would reap the same benefits.

You know what I think ? I think they knew it was a rope thrown to the poor in society and they knew that they couldn't live on it when they retired.

I'm pissed that person's who are not american citizens are drawing these benefits or any benefit that is paid for by our tax dollars for that matter.

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 03:45 PM
You ask:

"Why did the government and more specifically our representatives decide that they or federal employees should not participate in the program?”

As originally (and possibly poorly so) stated 'they have a defined retirement benefit program' already. And consequently, the addition of SS creates the 'double dipping’ problem. I'm not familiar with the contribution rate for the federal employee retirement system or its vesting requirements. (But if we were to bet that the 'pols' have the best, most generous retirement system this side of the Executive Compensation Plans of Big Business, I feel we would have a 'mortal lock' "I'm on my way to the Bank." sure winner!)

The extension of SS benefits to non-citizens I believe is most often a result of reciprocation treaty's with other nations. In most all instances, the benefit flows to American national in foreign countries because of their more generous schedule of payments. The actual cost of this reciprocation to the American taxpayer is quite small and is only offered by SS opponents as a ‘red herring’ designed to inflame the emotions of those who unquestionable buy into the argument.

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 07:20 PM
Who can describe and identify the error of logic employed by the author in offering his argument.

What are the author's motives?

And/Or - as in the parlance of the street - "What makes this statement all phoney baloney?"

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 07:26 PM

Originally posted by gmcnulty
And/Or - as in the parlance of the street - "What makes this statement all phoney baloney?"

Oooh, oooh, I know!!
Because he copy-pasted it from the latest email forwarding myth going around right now?
Only he left out the part at the end about "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."

posted on May, 29 2004 @ 08:13 PM
No. That's not the answer I had in mind but thank you for your thoughtful and humorous reply. Well crafted. : up:

You are free to try again if you wish.

I would encourage it. :-)

HINT: You might find help by doing a Google search using terms "logical fallacy".

There are many fine sites where you might find the answer

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by gmcnulty]

top topics


log in