Straight Up with Sherri

Thursday, February 03, 2005

INTEGRITY!!!!!!


US Congress shows solidarity with Iraq Posted by Hello



President George W Bush Posted by Hello

In last night's State of the Union Address, George W Bush was strong, bold, and impressive. His speech covered many issues that are vital to the future of our nation. Today we are going to cover one of the hottest issues on the table, Social Security.

I have to be honest. Listening to the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle had me a little confused. Sometimes the banter can just leave one not knowing WHAT to believe. Thank God for the information age; I decided to do some homework on this issue, and was appalled by what I found.

Listening to one side tell us how imperative changes to the Social Security program are, and the other side tell us this is not a huge concern leaves one to ask, "Who's telling the truth." What I learned has me convinced that trusting Democrats on this issue would be one of the worst things we could ever do to our children.

The history of Social Security is absolutely disgraceful. What our elected officials have done to the original intent of The New Deal, by President F D Roosevelt, has been butchered and abused beyond belief. I found
this page on the intranet, and decided to take the challenge:



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 year.
  • 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 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 U.S.
  • Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
    immigrants?
  • A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic 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!




I don't want the Democratic Party getting their grubby, greedy little paws anywhere NEAR control over money. The history here shows them to be incompetent and irresponsible with OUR money. I had no idea what I was going to find when I started on my journey of research, but below are a few links.

The first two links should be very helpful to ANYONE who would like to try and disprove the above assertions . I will warn you, I looked, I tried(for HOURS) and became even more and more disgusted as I labored over it.

I am thoroughly convinced~~~~~~

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED:



Integrity................ Posted by Hello

22 Comments:

  • Sherri -- great post on SS! Are you going to join us on Saturday???? Would love to meet you in person!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:20 PM  

  • Very good layout. Easy to read, great references and valuable information. You are doing quite well.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:53 PM  

  • I heard the thing on saturday was cancelled. Seems like some folks were nervous that IF had thrown down on so many people saying where it was and for folks to come find him, the bald guy in the PTCruiser. I mean everyone reads these blogs IF coulda done this all by email much smarter...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:15 PM  

  • Who is a bald buy in a PT Cruiser? Who are you talking about and where is that picture?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:52 PM  

  • RWNJ

    I WANT PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT THEM!!!! I WANT THEM!!!! I WANT THEM!!!!!!!!!!and yes.......... I am VERY JEALOUS!!!!!!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 5:19 PM  

  • If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars. All of that money would be the worker's upon retirement. But guaranteed benefits over the worker's lifetime would be reduced by approximately $78,700 -- the amount the worker would have contributed to Social Security but instead contributed to his private account, plus 3 percent interest above inflation. The remainder, $21,100, would be the increase in benefit the worker would receive over his lifetime above the level he would have received if he stayed in the traditional system. The difference is that previously they'd written that the government would just "keep" the $78,700, when in fact they're just reducing your guaranteed benefits. It's not entirely an issue of semantics, but the upshot for most people will be identical.

    From the Washington Post

    By Blogger Sue123, at 6:06 PM  

  • Rep. Jim McCrey (R) of Louisiana, chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, may be looking over the paperwork to join the Conscience Caucus. The AP says McCrery is now outlining "ideas similar to those supported by many Democrats and said he wants to discuss them with the Bush administration."

    Maybe the president needs to put in a stop down in Lousiana too.

    From today's LA Times top story, referenced in the Note, an anonymous white house source said:
    "White House officials say they are confident that congressional skepticism will dissipate once the president persuades a majority of the public that action is needed to extend the life of the retirement program, a process Bush was scheduled to begin today by taking his Social Security message on the road."
    a couple paragraphs later:
    "In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems — a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
    A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems."

    Bush states, "there is a huge crisis and our 'solution' will 'do nothing to solve' it."

    If this is the same White House source that briefed every other reporter yesterday it is Dan Bartlett.

    By Blogger Sue123, at 6:08 PM  

  • In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems -- a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
    A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.

    That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

    "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

    L.A. Times

    By Blogger Sue123, at 6:09 PM  

  • In a significant shift in his rationale for the accounts, Bush dropped his claim that they would help solve Social Security's fiscal problems -- a link he sometimes made during last year's presidential campaign. Instead, he said the individual accounts were desirable because they would be "a better deal," providing workers what he said would be a higher rate of return and "greater security in retirement."
    A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.

    That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

    "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

    L.A. Times

    By Blogger Sue123, at 6:14 PM  

  • Sue123

    Welcome to Straight Up.

    I am thrilled with your posts!

    I will ABSOLUTLEY disagree with ANYTHING that would claim that reform for Social Security is unnecessary, or that claims that Bush's plan is not better than the present system. However, I do believe that if you tune in tomorrow- you will be pleased.

    This issue can be picked apart by ANYONE. Tomorrow will shed some light on a few things for ALL of us. BTW- I have to admit- I put the credability of LA TIMES right up there with Baghdad Bob.

    While the info COULD be correct, the source leaves me giggling.

    That being said, tomorrow will clear some things up......

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 6:25 PM  

  • I'm a stockbroker so I'm really looking forward to getting that SS money into my pocket!

    Thank God for President Bush > that Austin Martin or a new Rolls is going to look great in my driveway!!!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:53 PM  

  • Hi...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:03 PM  

  • "stockbroker"

    FANTASTIC!!!!!!! I am so glad that you have the gift of helping people invest wisely so that they may enjoy a great retirement after working so hard towards their GOLDEN YEARS! What a blessing and a treasure it must be to know that your hard work and schooling is able to help so many others better their lives! You worked hard to gain your knowledge of the market- and you deserve to profit form it-- ISN'T AMERICA AND CAPITALISM GREAT!!!!!?????

    Just goes to show how awesome our country is....

    Hard work and dediacation can bring success. The best part is that reaping in that Rolls was done by helping other hard working Americans prepare a better future!!!!!!!!!

    GOD BLESS YOU

    (yes, I know the "stockbroker" was being sarcastic-- BUT I AM NOT!)

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 7:04 PM  

  • I see from the early comments that people find this hard to believe. And it is astonishing -- but completely true. The policy wonks call this the "clawback" provision -- the government 'claws back' most of what you make to fund the system. In fact, they claw back the principal plus the assumed 3% annual gain EVEN FOR A WORKER WHO EARNED LESS THAN 3%, so you could earn 2% a year and lose $$$ on the deal! As for why they do it: because if they didn't, they would basically have to wipe out the guaranteed benefit entirely to make the numbers add up.
    Warning: next administration lie will be: "No, no, you can keep all of your account -- it's the guaranteed benefit that is reduced." Technically true but a canard, because the benefit reduction is based entirely on how much you put in your account. And the 'clawback' terminology tells you exactly what this is about -- taking back the private account earnings. (But you can see the political genius of this design: it will appear to people that they got a lot of $$$ from their private account but almost nothing from the "old SS system," destroying public support for the system.)

    And BTW, this is all IN ADDITION to the cuts in guaranteed benefits Bush is expected to make for all retirees, regardless of whether you choose to put $$ into an account.

    This is Alice in Wonderland-level stuff, no doubt.

    By Blogger Sue123, at 7:17 PM  

  • Hi, stockbroker here...

    Well, actually, I just churn people's accounts to make money > its cool though, they just think its the economy tanking rather than my commission take.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:37 PM  

  • Oh--- so you're not a stockbroker--- You're a crook???

    OH__ OKAY!

    You wouldn't happen to also hold an elected office in Massachusetts would you??

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 10:47 PM  

  • No way!
    MA is too coldI'm down in FL and part of the GOP money machine - we do a lot of cool stuff like buy Dibold voting machines and disenfranchise minorities. Its hard work, but somebody has to keep those liberals from getting any power.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:18 AM  

  • Big Bri!!!

    THANK YOU!!

    I am so glad you found that! I was wondering if anyone would find that page-- You can find it by surfing the first two links on the bottom. I realized this yesterday AFTER I posted --- and had been working on post to clear this up-- kinda like a retraction thing. Anyway-- THANKS! I will be posting another post on this topic with a link to the page that debunks the original content of my post.

    I am not interested in furthering lies. While I totally disagree with you on the impotant facts about Bush's plan for privitizing SOcial Security-- I am NOT IN FAVOR OF FURHTERING LIES!

    I hope will return and help keep the integrity here.

    I mean this sincerely!

    I am all for open discussion (ON TOPIC!) as long as we don't use foul langueage and participate in name-calling.

    You are very much appreciated!!!!!!!!!!

    Thanks!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 3:59 PM  

  • Amen- Hunter

    This is exactly the point. Why are they against it for us, but yet it is perfect for them. When the Social Security plan was first implemented- government employees did not participate, because they already had a plan. It smells more and more like the REAL plan is SOCIALISM. That being said, I honestly don't believe that the majority of Democrats are um-American and want to progress into a Socialist state. I do believe that the average Democrat is sincerely interested in helping people. THey are just not aware of how the kind of help the kook fringe, ANSWER, and the Democratic Leaders promote are actually going to hurt more than help. I will be posting more on this later----

    Need to take a day to do some HOUSEWORK!

    AAAAAAARRRG!

    I realize that housework never killed anyone, but I'm not taking any chances.......

    LOL!

    By Blogger Straight Up with Sherri, at 11:14 AM  

  • Nice rhetoric but where’s the plan for Social Security?

    Haven’t we seen enough of this administration’s “actions” without specifics > you know like the withdrawal plan from Iraq?

    Let’s see the menu, and then we’ll make up our minds.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:09 PM  

  • Why does the Bush Administration hate us? ....Because we want democracy.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:14 PM  

  • I had no idea the Democratic Party had so much responsibility for the problems with SS. It is funny, how some of us automatically think republicans are at fault when a federal programs are taken away, or altered, not for the benefit of the public. Your posting was not only enlightening, but shocking.

    Thank you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home