1
   

Social Security - which party did what? What's the truth?

 
 
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 04:55 pm
Anybody know if the following statements are true or not?

All of this can be proven correct.
Now when they blow, you will know!!
==============================
Non believers, Check it out...It's 100 percent true.....

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 at 65 and 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 and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.

And the worst part about it is, you believe it!

c.i.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,619 • Replies: 48
No top replies

 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:12 pm
CI, do you have cites to back up what you just wrote?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:28 pm
jes - i think c.i. is asking for help with determining if the statements are true
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:32 pm
ehBeth, Precisely! I'm asking for help on this one. I just received it from a friend in my email box today, and I have no way to determine whether the statements are true or not. A2K'rs are a knowledgeable bunch, and I'm sure somebody has the right answer. c.i.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:52 pm
Oops, sorry CI. Lemme see what I can dig up.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:54 pm
I have doubts about this one,

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

unless 'increase' is narrowly applied to the actual rate, and excludes raising the ceiling to which the rate is applied.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 05:58 pm
CI, it's all nonsense. See: http://www.snopes.com/news/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000003

If, for any reason, that link doesn't work, go to www.snopes.com and put social security into the search box, and look at the first link that comes back.

Edit: The one about Gore and the deciding vote is true. Here's the quote from snopes:

Quote:
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

TRUE

Since the statement does not mention any specific bill that Al Gore cast the deciding vote, it led to an exhaustive search. As a Vice President, he could have exercised his constitutional powers to break a tie vote in the Senate.

I did find as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, the VP did cast a vote in the Senate to break a tie. This Act was a huge bill that covered everything from agricultural commodities, licensing of radio spectrum, luxury automobile taxes, fuels, banking, medicare, etc., etc. The bill passed in the House by a vote of 218-216 and in the Senate by 51-50.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR02264:|TOM:/bss/d103query.html|
H.R. 2264 Latest Major Action: 8/10/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-66.
This is section 13215:

SEC. 13215. SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

(a) ADDITIONAL INCLUSION FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 86 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT- In the case of a taxpayer with respect to whom the amount determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) exceeds the adjusted base amount, the amount included in gross income under this section shall be equal to the lesser of--

`(A) the sum of--

`(i) 85 percent of such excess, plus

`(ii) the lesser of the amount determined under paragraph (1) or an amount equal to one-half of the difference between the adjusted base amount and the base amount of the taxpayer, or

`(B) 85 percent of the social security benefits received during the taxable year.'

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Subsection (a) of section 86 is amended-

(A) by striking `Gross' and inserting:

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), gross', and

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.

(b) ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- Section 86(c) (defining base amount) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) BASE AMOUNT AND ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- For purposes of this section--

`(1) BASE AMOUNT- The term `base amount' means
`(A) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, $25,000,

`(B) $32,000 in the case of a joint return, and

`(C) zero in the case of a taxpayer who--

`(i) is married as of the close of the taxable year (within the meaning of section 7703) but does not file a joint return for such year, and

`(ii) does not live apart from his spouse at all times during the taxable year.

`(2) ADJUSTED BASE AMOUNT- The term `adjusted base amount' means--

`(A) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, $34,000,

`(B) $44,000 in the case of a joint return, and

`(C) zero in the case of a taxpayer described in paragraph (1)(C).'

(c) TRANSFERS TO THE HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND-

(1) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 92-21) is amended by--

(A) striking `There' and inserting:

`(A) There';

(B) inserting `(i)' immediately following `amounts equivalent to'; and

(C) striking the period and inserting the following: `, less (ii) the amounts equivalent to the aggregate increase in tax liabilities under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is attributable to the amendments to section 86 of such Code made by section 13215 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

`(B) There are hereby appropriated to the hospital insurance trust fund amounts equal to the increase in tax liabilities described in subparagraph (A)(ii). Such appropriated amounts shall be transferred from the general fund of the Treasury on the basis of estimates of such tax liabilities made by the Secretary of the Treasury. Transfers shall be made pursuant to a schedule made by the Secretary of the Treasury that takes into account estimated timing of collection of such liabilities.'

(2) DEFINITION- Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:

`(B) HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND- The term `hospital insurance trust fund' means the fund established pursuant to section 1817 of the Social Security Act.'.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended in the first sentence by striking `paragraph (1)' and inserting `paragraph (1)(A)'.

(4) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS- Paragraph (1)(A) of section 121(e) of such Act, as redesignated and amended by paragraph (1), is amended by striking `1954' and inserting `1986'.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 06:19 pm
The Trust fund (FICA tax) was and is separate from the general revenue (income tax) - Ronald Reagan was the first president to tap into the trust funds to meet the federal debt, 1981 amendments.

The Republican party 1983 amendments - Ronald Reagan signed the bill for taxing Social Security benefits. Had to be done to replace money used to pay the national debt.

In the 1993 amendments, the Omnibus tax bill, Public Law No: 103-66, taxed SSA benefits for those with other income over $20,000 a year. It had to be done as the funds were going broke because of being used to fund the national debt.

Public Law 92-603, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) the 1972 amendments signed by Richard M. Nixon.

American citizens can get SSI without ever having paid a dime into Social Security, FICA tax, SSI is welfare administered by the federal government through the SSA. Elibility is based on age, over 65, blindness, and disability, and financial need.




A Brief History of SSA and Amendments
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 06:43 pm
Thanks for posting that, Joanne.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 07:49 pm
jespah, The "snopes" link works okay. I sent it to my friend, and asked him to share it with everybody he sent that email to. You're an angel, and I owe you one! Thanks, c.i.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Dec, 2002 08:54 pm
jespah, joanne - great work, I know who to depend on in a time of need - rah, rah, rah!
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 10:31 am
Hey, no prob! But mah halo's tarnished, and it's tilting. :wink:

What was that Mae West film, "I'm no Angel"?
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 11:01 am
Why do the Republicans dole out this sort of misinformation? Is it just me or do they really think they'll fool somebody? I suppose someone will say that the Dems must do it, too, but what I've seen are deliberate lies and half-facts from the Rupublicans. It certainly doesn't make them any less reprehensible if somebody else does it, too.

It is ugly and should be prosecuted harshly. How can anybody call themselves part of the Moral Majority when the truth doesn't mean anything to them?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 11:17 am
Piffka, I'm not a democrat or a republican, but trust me on this one: both parties are guilty of 'misinformation.' That's the reason I'm skeptical of any political information I receive. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 11:21 am
c.i.- Agree. IMO political parties, not matter what their place on the political spectrum, are guilty of misinformation, spin, and oftimes, outright lying. That is precisely why I like to get my news from a host of sources. Sometimes, in the morass of media bullshit, I am heartened to find what MAY be a kernel of truth!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 11:32 am
Phoenix, Being of like-mind on this issue, I guess it will be "somewhat" our responsibility to keep it straight and narrow on A2K where it concerns "political spins." Wink c.i.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 11:33 am
I'd never had the idea that political parties give any information worth the paper on which it is printed.
This especially in times of (pre-) elections.

A political party has, IMHO, another purpose than distributing infos.
(That's what was done in the former Warshaw pact by the communist parties.)
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 12:58 pm
Piffka wrote:
However, I have never received blatant political lies such as this in my email except from the most conservative part of the spectrum. What was the last nasty lie you heard from a dem? Republicans do it to themselves, as well. Witness the viciousness with which John McCain was put out of the running during the last presidential race.


You must have been totally ignoring the political threads on Abuzz. lol It was (and probably still is..) a daily thing. I seem to recall a specific list of "prominent" Repubs and Dems listing their military service which totally ignored the real numbers and only selected Dems that had military service and Repubs that didn't.

As I recall Bill Bradley got beat up pretty badly by his opponenets in the last Presidential race as well.

but, these types of thinsg get passed around by all sides and many of them aren't even directly pro or con either political party. There was one about a "Congressional Exemption" to Social Security that must have been posted on Abuzz 15 times and every time I posted the link to the Snopes article debunking it but people would just post it over and over again. People seem to want to believe what they already believe.

Quote:
Over here we had a R state rep wanna-be whose political mailings to independents such as myself included news that she had voted for a popular issue... well, technically she had voted for it since it was part of a huge package, but the very next day she voted against funding it. I'd call her a liar, yet she drapes herself in the mantle of Christianity and utmost morality. I don't know how anyone with a conscience could do that.


Sounds similar to the stink Sen. Diane Feinstein raised when Bush approved the go ahead to start building facilities at Ft. Greely in AK and she claimed that he was violating the law beacuse Congress had never approved the construction. She got awful quite about it right after it was pointed out that not only had Congress approved it but she had voted to approve it and sat on the very Committee that released the bill onto the Senate floor with the recommendation that it be approved.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 01:17 pm
fishin' wrote:
Piffka wrote:

.

People seem to want to believe what they already believe.

.


I view this phenomenon somewhat akin to religious belief. It's almost impossible to make somebody with what they believe in to be erroneous or wrong. The human psyche has an amazing ability to rationalize many falsehoods as true and visa-versa. Whether this can be viewed as a 'weakness' in humans is another subject for debate. c.i.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2002 03:49 pm
Just as an interesting follow-up - one of the items listed in the items C.I. posted was "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."

The Snopes site states this claim is false but I question that. I think there is some "creative interpretation" going on but I think Snopes mis-read what was actually being said here and found documentation for something else in their de-bunking.

As the statement stands it IS technically TRUE, although still misleading.

Prior to the 1968 Federal Budget Bill Social Security taxes collected were deposited and managed through the Federal Old Age and Retirement Benefit Fund which was created specifically by the original legislation that created our Social Security System and which the Congress could not touch. It was dedicated to Social Security much like the recent "lock box" proposals.

With the 1968 Federal Budget the Social Security Trust Fund was shifted to buy General Obligation bonds from the General Fund and the monies from the sale of those bonds went into the General Fund (as the articles on the Snopes site indicates..). Once the monies were in the General Fund they could be spent by the Congress any way they chose and the 1968 Federal Budget was the 1st to include all $24.5 Billion collected in FICA taxes along with $606 million that had previously been outside the control of Congress in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. (prior to that FICA and Unemployment Insurance tax revenues never appeared in the Annual Federal Budget).

This was all done as a bit of Presidential and Congressional slight of hand to hide the costs of the Vietnam war. (In government finance terms the Social Security taxes were moved from "off-budget" to "on-budget" and this has all been tinkered with several more times since 1968.)

So, the original statement is true to the effect that the Social Security tax money was moved from the Federal Old Age and Retirement Benefit Fund to the Social Security Trust Fund and from there to the General Fund under President Johnson but the wording of the statement is easily misleading. Most people reading it would presume (as I initially did and the Snopes investigator apparently did) that the "Independent Fund" mentioned is the Social Security Trust Fund but it isn't.

I think we should start our own A2K "de-bunking" thread! lol


Edited to correct the year referenced. I mistaken wrote "1969" and it should be "1968".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Social Security - which party did what? What's the truth?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 03:14:34