Posted on 05/22/2006 4:26:39 PM PDT by no dems
I did a google search of that email and found this (it kinda dodges the "which party...." part):
http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
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 affect 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.
(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)
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 is presently serving as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.
President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.
A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website.
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.
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.
As I see it both Democrats and Republicans are essentially getting rid of the middle class. That is, reducing it to the servile class needed to clean their houses, mix their drinks, and take them to/from the country club. After all, the ruling class needs us. Bit by bit that is where we are headed.
I'm on the phone now to all my Republican friends now here in Kansas. Brownbeck's message box is full...surprise? I have called every office in Kansas and Washington. I'll freep him all the way out of office!
These are the people that need to be earmarked for defeat by conservative challengers in future primaries. Specter would have been if Dubya and Rove hadn't campaigned for him.
My apologies to all for voting for him. I, and everyone I know have vowed not to make the same error again. I still can't fathom as how he likes to model himself after McCain, a candidate South Carolina Republicans soundly rejected.
I actually sent a letter to Voinovich, and I haven't lived in Ohio for 5 years. I laid it on him to do the right thing, after reminding him that he was once wise enough to put Cleveland back together after Kucinich ruined the city's credit (OK, I admittedly buttered him up a bit with that issue).
Let this group in particular know that they will not be a Senator much longer if they give this country away. Heck, write the democRATS as well. Might as well give them a piece of our minds as well.
Be patient now,,the next round of "S.S. and Medicare will go broke in 2xxx is almost ready for the evening news". What sh-theads!
Ok, you get a pass.
O - H .......................
Didn't know Specter was once a Democrat. He is a little too friendly with some of those liberal Democrats. That bothers me. I will vote against him next election.
Too bad, he still has probably 4 years to go.
Fred and Mort are both all for amnesty, weak border control, etc. It's pathetic! I stopped watching Brit because of the "all stars" and am now w/Dobbs at 6 p.m. ET.
these idiots are completely insane. there is no US Senate anymore.
Clever tagline & love you homepage -- I think I told you that before, however - :-)
Brownback's voting record may be great but he just torpedoed any hopes of being President with that vote. McCain led him straight over the cliff.
"Wow Brownback is really un-conservative-ing himself"
Ever since Brownback converted to Catholicism, he has taken on the U.S. Catholic church's stance of must be benevolent to the illegal aliens. Now, I know Catholics, of which one half of my family is, will try to make this into an attack on the Church, but it isn't. It is an attack on the liberal, humanist, verging on liberation theology arm of the church that says you must be charitable to these poor people, regardless if they broke the law by illegally entering our country, or that they are draining our welfare, education, and medical coffers to the detriment of the rest of our society.
The socially liberal Catholics are putting the emphasis on the poor "victim", but have identified the wrong "victim". They think it is the collective illegals, when it really is the whole of our society that suffers from broken borders and illegal acts.
The Catholic church should butt out here. It smells of the same activism it practiced years ago when the Sandinista's were at work down in South America, and all of the activist nuns were running around there helping the socialistic cause. It's my biggest problem with the Catholic church. It has become a source of social activism, rather than spiritual activism. The liberal part of the Church, that is. Hopefully the pre-Vatican II mentality will make greater inroads into the Catholic church, and purge it from these liberal activist elements, such as the U.S. Catholic Bishops Council, which is primarily a socialistic organ of the Church.
Except for the few usual liberal repos. on the list, the remainder a from flyover country and don't have a clue what we in San Diego are puting up with.
so disgusting. what are our options? I would run? if I had a few extra million dollars in reserve for campaign... I would vote "RIGHT".
.....And also, when income is reported on a SS#, you can bet the IRS will take note when the real holder of the SS# does not report that income, (since they did not know about it)........
I take all of this to mean that everthing deducted goes directly to the treasury general fund from which neither or tax refund can be recovered.
Also, I guess that since I haven't heard from the IRS for failure to report the W2 wages possibly earned by an illegal but reported on my stolen SS number, my identity is safe.
Phone calls and e-mails in the morning.......not that it will do any good.
Each and every one of those senators, and the Democrats who voted for this as well need to be voted out of office.
Do you know who will be IN CHARGE of the agenda if the Dems control it?
Please don't say things you cannot possibly mean if you love this country.
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.