Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Democrat's Social Security Scam
Hal Lindsey - Commentary ^ | Hal Lindsey

Posted on 06/01/2003 9:07:07 PM PDT by David Noles

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month (only to find that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to “put away for us”), you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?

A: That's right; immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.

Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around with a straight face and tell Americans, “The Republicans want to take your Social Security.”

And the worst part about it is – most people believe them!

Social Security Compared to the Congressional Retirement Plan

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congress men & women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. After all, it’s really hard work spending all those tax dollars of ours. They felt they should reward themselves with a special plan for such intensive labor. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

Now here is an amazing thing for congress: In all the years that have followed, no congressperson has felt the need to change anything about the plan. Which verifies that it must be an exceptionally good plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds—our tax dollars at work!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us . . . then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congress; hallindsey; socialsecurity

1 posted on 06/01/2003 9:07:07 PM PDT by David Noles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: David Noles
By God I think he's got it!!
2 posted on 06/01/2003 9:11:24 PM PDT by Atchafalaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atchafalaya
No, congress would just explain that Social Security is intended for workers, . . . not them! :)
3 posted on 06/01/2003 9:19:00 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: David Noles

Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Real answer: It never was in an independant fund in reality.

HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

 

Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax

Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes

Nothing has changed todate inspite of all the political rhertoric about "lock boxes" and "Trust Funds" for SS/Medicare funds, the tax that is supposed to be levied for SS/Medicare is indistinguishable in operation from what we normally refer to as the Income Tax, and is paid into general revenues in just the same manner.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND FRAUD

CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:

"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."

"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "

"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government. When an individual buys a government bond, he or she has established a claim against the government. When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against some other entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another. It certainly establishes legal claims against the government for the Social Security system (i.e., it is a legal form of indebtedness of the government and does count as part of the federal debt; see Table 3 on the next page), but the system is part of the government. Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government, and taking Social Security "off budget" did not change this. "

What Social Security Trust Fund

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fleming v. Nestor (1960), 363 US 603; that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated at any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."


4 posted on 06/01/2003 9:22:39 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Social Security
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
5 posted on 06/01/2003 10:05:30 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I was always given the impression, that people in congress do in fact pay social security, and that saying otherwise was in fact an old urban legend.
6 posted on 06/01/2003 10:11:16 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
I was under the impression that Congress never had "earned" income on which it pay FICA myself :O|
7 posted on 06/02/2003 9:36:11 AM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: David Noles
When Social Seurity was implemented the average life expectancy of the American man was under 60, one could not draw Social Security until age 65. The Government kept the money paid in by anyone who died proir to reaching 65.

Which party designed the original scam?

The Democrats, of course, led by FDR.

8 posted on 06/02/2003 9:52:30 AM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I was under the impression that Congress never had "earned" income on which it pay FICA myself

Congress really doesn't earn money, they sort of take it.lol

I'm trying to find out if they do pay social security or not. I was told years ago that the story of them not paying social security was just an urban legend.

9 posted on 06/02/2003 12:38:49 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
According to the way the tax law reads Congress Critters do pay the SS/Mediscare tax.

This is backed up by Snopes Urban Legend archive:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/pensions.htm


10 posted on 06/02/2003 4:03:08 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
I knew it. Thanks.
11 posted on 06/02/2003 4:09:22 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
One thing to remember about statutes & tax law, and any other law for that matter.

The label on a tax or program does not necessarily have anything to do with intent or content of the actual law.

In the case of so called "SS/Mediscare" taxes, they are just second tax on wage income paying directly into general revenues. Any relation to do with the Social Security program is purely co-incidental.

If the entire Social Security Act were to be repealed tomorrow, the tax as described in The Internal Revenue Code would remain untouched.

They are totally independent of each other. Nasty little secret there.

12 posted on 06/02/2003 4:11:49 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
OOPs! see my P.S. above.
13 posted on 06/02/2003 4:12:29 PM PDT by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: David Noles
Crap, that right there is the BEST motivation for running for office.
14 posted on 06/02/2003 4:43:48 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson