Dems ruin Social Security

  • Follow Letters

Over the past several months on editorial pages – as well as in Republican debates having to do with the party’s nominee for president – we have seen the strong injection of Social Security policy changes. First, let’s be honest and clear: The president of the United States has very little ability to actually change the laws of the land. He or she may hold a professional or personal opinion, but the chief executive merely is a vessel to uphold and defend the laws of this country.

This brings us to another important point: Why is Social Security coming up so much in the primaries and, ultimately, the presidential election?

Simply put, the media, for the most part, are and will continue to be on the side of President Obama’s re-election. Several Northeastern races were decided in Democrats’ favor by using Social Security changes as a scare tactic with seniors. It will be the same game plan to tip the playing field in favor of Obama in November 2012.

The fact is that Social Security has been changed several times in ways that do not benefit seniors. Every time, these changes were spearheaded and accomplished with Democrats in control of the bodies that have the authority to change such policies.

President Lyndon Johnson, with the Democratically-controlled Congress, took Social Security out of trust fund status and put the funds into the general fund for use. Under President Clinton, with a Democratically-controlled House and Senate at his back, made sure that 85 percent of Social Security payments could be taxed. The Democratic Party also ended the income tax withholding deduction for Social Security payments.

Al Gore, as vice president, was able to actually cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to make sure that Social Security annuities would be taxed. It also was the Democrats, controlling Congress, that sent a bill to Jimmy Carter, which he signed into law, that ensured immigrants who never paid into the Social Security system would receive Social Security benefits.

If this was a world based on truth and facts, the Democrats would fear the utter idea of any discussion concerning Social Security policy. Instead, they believe such a discussion will help them in the coming elections because of willing and supportive accomplices in the media, and short memories or a lack of policy knowledge on the part of the people of this country.

Will Tinney

Aiken, S.C.

Comments (21) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Counselor1
0
Points
Counselor1 12/22/11 - 01:12 am
0
0
This is false and ridiculous.

This is false and ridiculous. See the entry "Changes to Social Security" on the myth busting site Snopes.com http://tinyurl.com/d89fzv

Why would Democrats, the party that CREATED Social Security, want to ruin it. IF you want to see what would ruin S.S. see the Wall Street Journal's article on private accounts, 401K's : http://tinyurl.com/8xtujxa

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 12/22/11 - 03:42 am
0
0
Every dime paid out in SS

Every dime paid out in SS benefits during the year comes from the general fund of that year from redeemed securities, interest on securities or direct funding. The securities are purchased/issued daily as SS taxes come in. There is no surplus in the general fund to cover the SS securities and the accumalating interest.

Techfan
6462
Points
Techfan 12/22/11 - 05:37 am
0
0
Will, Will, Will.

Will, Will, Will. Recirculating a chain email in the form of a letter. You didn't even bother switching the order around. Try research instead of just believing what you get on those emails. Chain email wording listed below:

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?

bubbasauce
24316
Points
bubbasauce 12/22/11 - 09:24 am
0
0
You are right Techfan, this

You are right Techfan, this is an old e-mail that has been circulating for some time now.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/22/11 - 09:45 am
0
0
All politicians have ruined

All politicians have ruined social security. And now we have an entire generation of elderly set to retire - who have failed to plan & save and who are burdened with debt.

This, along with defense spending, welfare & a host of other things will bankrupt our nation.

Little Lamb
49260
Points
Little Lamb 12/22/11 - 09:49 am
0
0
I am concerned about the

I am concerned about the "reduction" in the so-called "payroll taxes" that workers are enjoying now. It was first proposed by socialist economist Robert Reich (former advisor to Bill Clinton) early in the recession, then the Obama regime picked up on it last year. So the workers get a tax reduction in their Social Security contribution and their Medicare contribution. I'm sure they like the $50 or $60 dollars extra in their paycheck.

But what about the future? The less you put into Social Security, the less benefit you get later. This sounds like the beginning of a technique to change Social Security over from an earned benefit to more of a welfare scheme. That's what the Democrats have wanted for several years.

The current wrangling between the Senate and the House over this payroll tax reduction shows the folly of passing "temporary" tax cuts. It's the devil to ever get them re-instated. Deficits R Us is the new motto of the United States.

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/22/11 - 10:00 am
0
0
Bang, zoom, right out of the

Bang, zoom, right out of the gate at Thursday, Dec. 22 1:12 AM – Myth Busted!

Counselor1: One

Will Tinney: ZERO!

itsanotherday
0
Points
itsanotherday 12/22/11 - 10:12 am
0
0
I'm amazed at the number of
Unpublished

I'm amazed at the number of emails I get asserting one outrage or another that people happily forward on without checking. I ALWAYS check veracity of them, and just send the myth busted link back to them, replying to "all". Some people have deleted me from their email because of it, but that is OK too.

The latest BTW is that SNOPES is not a valid site; they are funded by George Soros and are dishonest in their analysis of anything critical of liberals. Pretty disingenuous since they can't bust a myth against them.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/22/11 - 10:27 am
0
0
Barbara and David Mikkelson

Barbara and David Mikkelson run snopes. Barbara is Canadian (socialist) and David is an "independent". They live in the most liberal/socialist state in the United States - California.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 12/22/11 - 10:39 am
0
0
I think that both parties are

I think that both parties are responsible for the state SS is in. It should have been left alone as the trust fund that it was. I also think that you should only be able to take out what you put in plus the interest at the going rate. It was never meant to be the only retirement that a person had but was designed to be a supplement to a persons savings.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 12/22/11 - 10:43 am
0
0
Also, since social security

Also, since social security is a tax, for all intents and purposes, the proceeds coming back to the individual should not be taxed.

genbartow
0
Points
genbartow 12/22/11 - 10:54 am
0
0
It doesn't matter how old it

It doesn't matter how old it is, techfan. It is still true.

KSL
144844
Points
KSL 12/22/11 - 11:25 am
0
0
Both parties have stolen from

Both parties have stolen from the Social Security trust fund. Counselor, I don't put any trust in snopes. If I'm looking for unbiased answers, it ain't going to be from them. Unbiased does NOT define them.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/22/11 - 11:27 am
0
0
Interesting article for the

Interesting article for the big govt loving socialists to read. Seems fitting to mention it here on a social security letter.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32221.html

Here is an few lines from it.

"If we do not educate the American people about how deathly ill the U.S. economy has become, then they will just keep falling for the same old lies that our politicians keep telling them. Just "tweaking" things here and there is not going to fix this economy. We truly do need a fundamental change in direction. America is consuming far more wealth than it is producing and our debt is absolutely exploding. If we stay on this current path, an economic collapse is inevitable."

"Of course the heart of our economic problems is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, it has almost completely destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and it has an absolutely nightmarish track record of incompetence."

The article gives you 50 economic numbers from 2011 that are quite scary.

Keep on fighting the democrat vs republican and nothing will change. We need REAL reform. Soon.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 12/22/11 - 12:26 pm
0
0
Social Security is only

Social Security is only "social" in that everyone is forced to pay in nor does it provide any real "security" as it was not designed to and what with the S.S. funds now going into the bottomless political bucket called the "General Fund", never will.
S.S. was set up by socialists, fascist, Marxists leaning politicians for their own agenda. Many knew those same various socialist, Neo~Nazis and Marxists in American politics at the time (and up to now) would try to use S.S. as a "Big Brother" form of National I.D. so they had the S.S. law include a provision it never be used as a form of I.D. and even had it printed on the S.S. card itself (my old S.S. card still has it printed on it) but those same socialists, fascist, Marxists leaning political wolves today in Democrat/Republican sheep's clothing have managed to removed the protections and have opened wide the gates for them to plunder the taxpayers S.S. funds AND for use of the card as a Big Brother National I.D.!

I never give my S.S. card number to anyone but the S.S. Office but of course that causes problems these days and although the Drivers License office gave me my license "without" my S.S. number (that says NOT to be used as I.D.) it took some doing and they ended by telling me "to never come back as they didn't need "troublemakers".

The tide may be turning as the politicians and their press appear to be very upset that not ALL citizens are brainwashed yet and are catching on to what the "establishment" and its Un-American "Homeland Security" and its jack booted thugs are doing in greater numbers and candidates like Ron Paul are managing to get a bit of the truth out despite establishment censorship, attacks and roadblocks.

A police State is already being set up folks, just open your eyes and look around you!

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/22/11 - 01:35 pm
0
0
TK3 says "A police State is

TK3 says "A police State is already being set up folks, just open your eyes and look around you!"

You got that right. All one needs to do is look at the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act. United States citizens can now be arrested by the US military at the Presidents authorization with no judge, no trial and no jury.

Oh, for now it sounds peachy - we'll just go out there and round up those muslim terrorists. It will make us SAFE!

However, think about what it can lead to. You are a hunter and you find a great deal on ammo and stock up on 10,000 rounds. Suddenly, but unknown to you, you find yourself on a terrorist "watch list". Post a few online comments about what you think of the current administration, get yourself a carry permit and before you know it, you are sitting in Gitmo. Your family back home wondering where in the heck you've disappeared off to.

This is what America has turned in to. And about 20% of our citizenry are cheering it. Just wait until the administration in charge is opposed to them. I'll bet they change their tune real fast.

Where is the US Media on this issue? THIS should be front page news. It is an outrage.

Wake up American Sheeple! Baaa Baaa Baaa!

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/22/11 - 02:34 pm
0
0
“Snopes receives more

“Snopes receives more complaints of liberal than conservative bias, but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political urban legends. FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases. FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican. ‘You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people,’ David Mikkelson told them.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com#Reception

Wait; don’t tell me, I know what the response is. Wikipedia and FactCheck are in on the great conspiracy too, all somehow connected to the grand liberal cabal and the Lizard people from planet Zod coming to take our water….blah, blah, blah…parallel dimension and tachyons…

Step 1) Step away from the keyboard.
Step 2) Loosen your tinfoil hat.
Step 3) Take some pain medication for that ringing in your brain.
Step 4) Lie down and take a nap.

TK3
562
Points
TK3 12/22/11 - 03:16 pm
0
0
Fred, I'm a old government

Fred, I'm a old government whistle blower who paid the (heavy) price (and still do) and I will never give in to them, do what they will. I just wish more would stand up to Big Brother and corruption.

KSL
144844
Points
KSL 12/22/11 - 03:53 pm
0
0
Snopes is a private

Snopes is a private enterprise. They don't have to open up their books (who funds them),,,, yet. And the most transparent president ever has covered up his birth certificate and college records. I just love the bright sunshine we have these days.

KSL
144844
Points
KSL 12/22/11 - 03:55 pm
0
0
TK3, I totally respect you!!

TK3, I totally respect you!! Whistle blowers pay the supreme price to do the right thing.

RogerDavis
11
Points
RogerDavis 12/22/11 - 04:14 pm
0
0
"There is no money in the

"There is no money in the Social Security trust fund, and there never was. Money is a government IOU. Government can't create a trust fund by saving it's own IOU's any more than I could create a trust fund by writing"I get a chunk of cash when I turn twenty-one" on a piece of paper. Social Security is just such a piece of paper, except it says 'I get a chunk of cash when I turn sixty-five, the government promises'. Consult American Indians for a fuller discussion of government promises".
P.J.O'Rourke..
Brilliantly stated sir...

RogerDavis
11
Points
RogerDavis 12/22/11 - 04:43 pm
0
0
Thanks Fred, I assume you're

Thanks Fred, I assume you're talking about the shows Ed Turner, me and the gang do every year. Look forward to March for the Humane Society fundraiser and the August shows for the Child Enrichment Center..Merry Christmas....

bjphysics
36
Points
bjphysics 12/22/11 - 05:24 pm
0
0
Young Fred: “Snopes seems to

Young Fred: “Snopes seems to fail in that guarding on occasion. But hey, I guess we all do. To be honest, I use Snopes on a fairly regular basis, with the salt shaker close by of course.”

The first sentence quoted implies snopes has a liberal bias “on occasion”; the second implies mostly trusted use by you, while the last clause implies you view the material with a skeptical eye.

Nothing wrong with that but the “on occasion” is a vague statement given fact assessment is true, false, or incomplete true/false by omission.

How many claims have been debunked by snopes? Given that number, how many claims were correctly and incorrectly debunked? With this number we can get an accuracy rating.

If you disagree with the contents of a snopes link, cite your countervailing evidence.

RogerDavis
11
Points
RogerDavis 12/22/11 - 05:42 pm
0
0
The chatter about snopes is

The chatter about snopes is one of the reasons I so rarely post links and such. I read EVERYTHING I can get my hands on, listen to Boortz as well as NPR. Watch Fox as well as MSNBC. Newsweek as well as Newsmax. THEN make up my mind. As attorneys say, " A preponderance of the evidence".Of course you can't believe everything you read see or read, but if you have any intellect whatsoever, you can usually spot the BS from the truth. Even if you disagree with it.

toldyaso
595
Points
toldyaso 12/23/11 - 10:23 am
0
0
@ Chillen-- Your comments are

@ Chillen-- Your comments are spot on. But, don't expect the sheep to listen. People are more and more depending on "the government" to see to their needs.

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs