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

37 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  

  • Sherri,

    I really appreciate the research you shared with me regarding the topic of Social Security reform. Keep up the good work.

    By Blogger ordinary_nobody_dreamer, at 1:34 PM  

  • - The Democratic party, or at least the sad Marxist/Socialist version that passes for it these days, is about as far From FDR as Joseph Stalin was from Mother Teressa...

    By Blogger - Hunter, at 1:35 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  

  • I wonder who is scripting these guys. Try this one I found this morning:

    By Michael Tackett
    Tribune senior correspondent
    Published February 3, 2005

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush's plan for a second term became much clearer Wednesday night: Roosevelt, in reverse.

    He offered a dramatic change in course for the country's most venerated domestic policy and urged staying the course in a foreign policy that has set him apart from all his modern-era predecessors.

    Blah, blah, blah, ...
    From the Chicago Tribune
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0502030276feb03,1,5661316.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

    It's the same thing! Amazing how the Socialist Democrats love FDR and adhere to the maxim that every program he had was magic. So why are we in trouble? Why do we even debate the issues?

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:10 PM  

  • And of course there is this: I'VE GOT TICKETS!!!
    Friday morning President George W. Bush will be delivering his detailed plan at a rally in Omaha, Nebraska. I've got the digital camera and I'm ready to roll...

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:14 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  

  • You will be the first, Sherri.

    By Blogger Right Wing Nut Job, at 5:38 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  

  • - The Dems so think about tempering their headlong gushing admiration for FDR's SS plan, given that they seem to hang their major objection to the "privatization" aspect of Bush's basic, albeit as yet detailed plan. Turns out horror of horror if you read the deep details of the FDR plan you find out that he centered the whole bill and package on the part he called "self contributing annuieties". Another name for that. Private investment. D'OH!

    By Blogger - Hunter, at 9:55 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  

  • Thanks so much for doing the research on Social Security, and for presenting it in such a concise format! I've lurked on your blog off and on since we started our own blog, and I really, really like this article.

    By Blogger Beautiful Belgian Babe, at 1:21 AM  

  • 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  

  • Wellllll.... a few things need to be pointed out here before you go dancing around with Talk Radio name calling.

    - I am sure the troops I know and the Iraqi people are pretty insulted by the ink-fingers of our Reps in Washington. They did a lot more to earn those ink-stained fingers then a bunch of fat white men ever did.


    - Break out the Funk and Wgnalls and look up you Liberal, Marxist and Fascist name calling. Then grab a good Poli-Sci class. Don't bandy them about without knowing what they mean. You will end up sounding like Bill O'Reilly (who is fondling my breast at this very moment.)

    - Last time I checked, Massachusetss was a damn fine place to live. Highest ranked colleges, top 5 places to raise kids and top 5 places to start a business. Besides, contrary to popular belief, Masschusetts folks tax burdenis only ranked 40th in the nation (percentage of income used on taxes). Simply put, people in Massachusetts make a lot of money. The tax rate is 5.5% by the wy and there is no tax on food and prescritptions, like in some states I have lived in. There is no sales tax on goods up to $75. Property taxes are half that of New Hampshire which prides itself on it's lack of taxes.

    - As for Social Security. The current system will only be paying 80% of ewhat it pays in 2042. It will not be bankrupt anytime soon. In the next 10 years or so the amount being put in while finally start ot be less then what is going out. (2016 I believe). SS was originally set up to have 40 people pay in for every 1 retiree. Now that is 3 to 1. Simplyput, all those babies people had are now old. That's the problem. Of course SS was never set up to be the sole source of anyone's retirement. It is simply a fall back... 401ks and IRAs exist for this reason.

    To stop the system today would instantly add $2 trillion to our national debt. Not something wise to do considering we have been borrowing money from China to pay off our current debts as they come due... didn't know that did you? Look it up. It's true.

    As for investing in stocks, think about the average return of the stock market over the last 100 years. What is that percentage? Will it work for you?

    Before yo form your opinions, do this homework:

    Will you actually invest? Will most people? What about those who don't? Who pays for that burden on society? Will the drag on the American economy be more detrinental than the pace of keeping the current system?

    By Blogger Big Bri, at 3:45 PM  

  • Oh and by the way... straight from the SSA site (http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html):

    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."

    (For a detailed explanation of how the Trust Fund works, provided by the Social Security Administration's actuaries, see the material available elsewhere on our website.)

    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. (The budget treatment of the Trust Funds is explained in more detail elsewhere on our website.)



    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.

    The details of these provisions can be found on our website.

    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.

    (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.

    An explanation of the basics of Social Security, and the distinction between Social Security and SSI, can be found on the Social Security website.

    By Blogger Big Bri, at 3:48 PM  

  • Also from the SSA site:

    CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

    Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

    Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

    In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

    There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered. (The detailed history of the coverage rules can be found elsewhere on our website.)


    Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

    The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

    (The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

    Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

    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.)


    Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be 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

    The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, 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." (For a detailed explanation of how the Trust Fund works, provided by the Social Security Administration's actuaries, see the material available elsewhere on our website.)

    Most likely this myth 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. (The budget treatment of the Trust Funds is explained in more detail elsewhere on our website.)


    Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

    Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

    In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

    By Blogger Big Bri, at 3:52 PM  

  • 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  

  • - It isn't neccessary to post 47 pages of information. all the average voter needs to do is answer this question. "Why are the Democrats against providing their employers, the American Electorate, the same sort of "personal choice" social security plan as they themselves enjoy in the halls of congress". Answer that and you'll be well on your way to cutting through all the partisan rhetoric.....

    By Blogger - Hunter, at 1:55 AM  

  • 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  

  • It's definately a shame with what has happened with Social Security. But Bush may not be what need either. Why has he waited until his second term to now try and fix this problem....And what about others? Its not just the Democratics fault, it's everybody including those that stood by and let it happen.

    By Blogger SC3814, at 1:54 PM  

  • I do agree with that it is not just the Deomratic fault. The government should be the one's pulling there hair out trying to figure out what to do about social security not us, besides they are the ones who wrote I.O.U's to social security and don't know were to get the money to replace it. If you ask me they need to cut out the programs that are not needed in the budget and take that money and put it in social security and stop trying to point the finger to someone else, cause in realty they are pointing four fingers back at there selves.

    By Blogger MAB8887, at 5:52 PM  

  • President Bush said “It's one thing for a President to say, we've got a problem. A President, in my judgment, also needs to come up with solutions… I believe that younger workers ought to be able to set aside some of their own payroll taxes in what's called a personal retirement account, and let me tell you why… a personal retirement account will earn a greater rate of return than that which your money earns in the Social Security trust… you'll have more money when it comes time to retire.”
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050204-3.html

    When President Franklin Roosevelt launched Social Security during the Depression Social Security was designed to make sure that all Americans could have a basic pension. The results were very good at the beginning. Unfortunately, the way things are the younger generation will not benefit from Social Security as their parents and grandparents did. If Social Security is to be available to future generations, something must be done and soon.

    For more comments on this issue check out my blog.
    http://governmentspending410.blogspot.com/2005/02/social-security.html

    By Blogger DH9769, at 6:31 PM  

  • President Bush said “It's one thing for a President to say, we've got a problem. A President, in my judgment, also needs to come up with solutions… I believe that younger workers ought to be able to set aside some of their own payroll taxes in what's called a personal retirement account, and let me tell you why… a personal retirement account will earn a greater rate of return than that which your money earns in the Social Security trust… you'll have more money when it comes time to retire.”
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050204-3.html

    When President Franklin Roosevelt launched Social Security during the Depression Social Security was designed to make sure that all Americans could have a basic pension. The results were very good at the beginning. Unfortunately, the way things are the younger generation will not benefit from Social Security as their parents and grandparents did. If Social Security is to be available to future generations, something must be done and soon.

    For more comments on this issue check out my blog.
    http://governmentspending410.blogspot.com/2005/02/social-security.html

    By Blogger DH9769, at 6:34 PM  

  • 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 d02035464 CH, at 3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home