Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[Cleo's Mom 257]

» « prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next »

Of course after making people think they are completing a government census form we get to the REAL reason for the mailer:

SEND US YOUR MONEY. THERE ARE STILL A FEW STRIP/BONDAGE CLUBS WE HAVEN'T VISITED YET. :thumbup:

Edited April 26, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: FINANCIAL REGULATION

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 9 a.m. Monday, April 26, 2010

Two-Thirds Back Financial Reform;

The Question: How Far to Go

Two-thirds of Americans support stricter federal regulation of banks and other financial

institutions, and by a double-digit margin the public trusts President Obama above the

Republicans in Congress to handle the issue – a caution flag for the GOP in an election year.

The public supports reform overall by 65-31 percent, a broad margin that’s been steady since

mid-winter, and favors Obama over the Republicans in trust to handle it by 52-35 percent, a 17-

point advantage for the president in this new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

The issue of trust was brought up on this forum. Looks like the people trust Pres. Obama over the republicans. And they support financial reform of wall street.

So, if the republicans want to stand with wall street (again) on this issue, they do so at their own peril.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

So, this is what some republicans think about women? Why am I not surprised. This is utterly shameful:

Last week a talented, young woman full of promise came to me with a flier her family received in the mail from the Republican Party. As she handed me the mailer, with a sense of disappointment and hurt, she pointed to a line in the flier that read, 'Let's take Betty Sutton out of the House and send her back to the kitchen.'

The young woman, her heart heavy, then said, "I can't believe that this is how some people value women. And, even if they do, I can't believe that they would feel comfortable promoting it in a flier like this." And then, this bright, capable woman, who I know to be ready and able to do great things for our community and nation, said this: "I don't know why I even went to college; if this is how people treat you, what's the point?"

The mailer was supported by funds from a Republican multimillionaire challenger by the name of Tom Ganley who has decided he wants to take my place in Congress. Ganley placed a huge advertisement in the flier to build support for the campaign to - how did they put it - oh, yes, to get me "out of the House and back in the kitchen."

Betty Sutton is a democratic congressman from OH 13th district.

[ariscus99 1]

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social

Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be

Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay

1% of the first $1,400 of their annual

Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%

on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put

into the Program would be deductible from

their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

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, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to

The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore

Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

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 US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start

giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

began to receive Social Security payments! The

Democratic Party gave these payments to them,

even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),

the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

Some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.

[tdslf1 0]

I am still trying to figure out what your point is? That laws get changed for the benefit of the country and Dems do it? Bush did many things with the law and we didn't care for it, but he did it. WIre tapping, etc. What is your point, that just dems do it? I really don't think you understand the history of congress if you think this is all Dems fault.

[BJean 16]

Even our own government officials don't have an "exact" count of the people who live in this country, yet you expect me to come up with one? All anyone can go on is an estimate of how many people live here. It's a round about figure taken from the last census. Always has been, cause that's all we have to go on. Therefore, taking that number and dividing it by how much debt we are in gives the approx. amount each person would owe. When it's about $41,000., who cares if it's off a dollar or two? Get real! The point is this: It's unsustainable!

My answer for stimulating the economy is for the government to do NOTHING!!!! We have been in a down turn before, and they did nothing and the people once again brought themselves out of it. A recession in this country is still far better than a regular day in any other country. Be thankful for what we have. Try living somewhere else and see if living through a recession in America is better. Is there any question as to why people from everywhere in the world want to immigrate into this country?

Spending us into oblivion is not the answer. That only has to paid back, and the interest alone on the loans to get that money is unsustainable for us. Take a look at the list of Government waste that I posted and go through it. That's a start. Start there and eliminate all of that, and then we can start working on the salaries of government employees and their pension plans. Let's move to that next. Corporate welfare, let's get rid of that. Why should the people in this contry have to pay for portions of someone elses business? Then how about all the programs that enable the people to become dependent on the government. Why should I have to give up to $8,000. towards someone elses home purchase? Or towards a car? Why should I have to pay for somebody elses HC or rent? And the list goes on.

Let's get this straight, you want the government to do NOTHING? So you won't have to pay taxes, right?

Tell me a country that doesn't have income taxes - a developed country - and tell me what their standard of living is overall.

How about comparing our country to a country in lets say, South Africa, where no income taxes are paid. How are their roads, their health, their personal safety, and the list goes on, as you like to say.

This country is great because we DO CARE about all of our fellow countrymen. We have the best things because of our government. All the good stuff doesn't just pop up out of thin air.

Tea baggers are downright stupid if they think it is best to have the government do nothing! They think that the country just recovers from corrupt bankers and greed corporations by doing NOTHING. Yeah I'd like to see one example of a country the size of ours where this actually worked. And yes, what we've seen is a resession but what we were facing, without government intervention, was a DEPRESSION. Two very different things. So far the country hasn't recovered from a severe depression without the government getting involved. So as usual, your logic is based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Edited April 27, 2010 by BJean

[loserbob 11]

To begin with, the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks are private institutions operating collectively in a quasi-governmental capacity. When the government spends more than it receives in tax revenue, it experiences a budget deficit. To make up this shortfall, it issues new debt. This takes the form of treasuries that are sold on the open market. When there is not sufficient interest in the open market to buy up the required number of treasuries, the government will turn to the Federal Reserve, otherwise known as the "lender of the last resort".

When the government "borrows" from the Federal Reserve, both the treasuries and the money are literally created out of thin air. These newly acquired government securities increase the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank. This enables it to lend out many times that amount through the fractional reserve banking system. The process, known as "monetizing the debt", is inflationary.

For example, let us assume that the legislated reserve ratio is 10% and the government requires US$10 billion from the Federal Reserve to cover a shortfall. The government creates US$10 billion in government bonds to give to the Federal Reserve who issues US$10 billion in newly created money to the government. Interest payments on these bonds are paid for by tax revenue and/or additional deficit spending. The Federal Reserve may now legally lend out US$100 billion.

This credit expansion as a direct result of the U.S. government borrowing from the Federal Reserve dilutes the value of all outstanding currency. When the value of the dollar goes down, prices go up. In effect, it is theft from everyone who holds U.S. currency because they can now buy less with it today than they could have before. (By Mike Hewitt)

So, you see, everytime the government borrows money to pay for all their wonderful programs and "needs", it increases the cost to the consumer enumerously. Why do you think a jar of Hellman's mayo is $4.49?:mad2:This is how the deficit effects everyone. Not just my every day life.

Good answer, which rep magazine did you copy this from?

[BJean 16]

loserbob I hope you're not just now figuring out that she posts stuff consistently without naming her source. She passes the stuff off as if she thought up the whole rant. I suspect that sometimes she even has posted under a different name. I think, in fact, you may be the one who noticed that first.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

All four of my grandparents were immigrants and they all received social security. So, ariscus99, is your point that immigrants shouldn't receive social security? And 7.65% on the first $90,000 means the rich get off the hook, AGAIN. I mean wouldn't it just be a shame if limbaugh, hannity, beck, colter and palin had to pay 7.65% on everything OVER $90,000 that they earn? Taxing them would go a long way to helping social security remain solvent. Just tax 100% of your wages & earnings.

[loserbob 11]

All four of my grandparents were immigrants and they all received social security. So, ariscus99, is your point that immigrants shouldn't receive social security? And 7.65% on the first $90,000 means the rich get off the hook, AGAIN. I mean wouldn't it just be a shame if limbaugh, hannity, beck, colter and palin had to pay 7.65% on everything OVER $90,000 that they earn? Taxing them would go a long way to helping social security remain solvent. Just tax 100% of your wages & earnings.

I think it was airiscus99 who said he'd be all for everyone paying the same amount towards taxes. He finally finds something he said he would agree with and now he disagrees with it! Typical.

Also, I said one time I thought Airiscus99 and Patty where the same personl.

[ariscus99 1]

I think it was airiscus99 who said he'd be all for everyone paying the same amount towards taxes. He finally finds something he said he would agree with and now he disagrees with it! Typical.

Also, I said one time I thought Airiscus99 and Patty where the same personl.

Where do I disagree with saying that everyone should pay a flat tax? Please enlighten me bobby because I read through that post about 3 more times and can't see anywhere that it says I don't think we should have a flat tax. It only states that we were tax at a specific rate, and promised that rate, and now we are taxed at a higher rate, hurting lower income people more. And as for cleo, did all four of your grandparents pay into social security or did they move here after 65 and start collecting? Because that is clearly the point of the statement in that post.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Where do I disagree with saying that everyone should pay a flat tax? Please enlighten me bobby because I read through that post about 3 more times and can't see anywhere that it says I don't think we should have a flat tax. It only states that we were tax at a specific rate, and promised that rate, and now we are taxed at a higher rate, hurting lower income people more. And as for cleo, did all four of your grandparents pay into social security or did they move here after 65 and start collecting? Because that is clearly the point of the statement in that post.

My grandparents emmigrated here as children and my grandmothers never worked outside the home. People qualify to collect SS when they have contributed to it (except for those early ones who were the first to collect). I am not aware of anyone getting SS who didn't contribute to it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Did some fact checking, ariscus99, and couldn't let your post go unchallenged:

Browse > Home / Ask FactCheck / FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security

FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security

March 24, 2009

Updated: March 27, 2009

Q: Did FDR promise that Social Security would be voluntary? Did Democrats end tax deductions for Social Security withholding?

A: Social Security has never been voluntary and taxes paid to support it have never been deductible from federal income taxes. A widely e-mailed "history lesson" gets nearly all its facts wrong.

FULL QUESTION

Dozens of readers have asked about this one, which has been going around for months in various forms:

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

Just in case some of you

young whippersnappers

(& some older ones too) Weren’t taught or just didn’t know this. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what.

And it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!!

Our Social Security

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, and,

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 in to 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?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!

———————————————————————-

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so. But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT

FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

‘A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.’

-Thomas Jefferson

FULL ANSWER

This elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was "full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse.

FDR Never Promised That

We’ll address the newer claims first, specifically the five "promises" supposedly made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the inception of the Social Security system in 1935. We rely here on no less an authority than the official historian of the Social Security System, Larry DeWitt, who has written up a detailed response to these claims under the heading "Myths and Misinformation About Social Security," which can be found on the Social Security History Web page, along with answers to other frequently asked questions.

1. Not Voluntary. Contrary to the e-mail’s very first claim, FDR never promised that "the program would be completely voluntary." It is supported by taxes and participation has never been voluntary. As historian DeWitt states: "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. "
   
2. Not 1 Percent. Another false claim is that FDR promised participants would pay only "1% of the first $1,400" of income. The law FDR signed taxed income up to $3,000, for one thing. And while the rate was 1 percent for the first few years, the law FDR signed raised it incrementally in 1940, 1943, 1946 and 1949, when it reached 3 percent.
   
3. Not Deductible. Also false is the statement that Social Security contributions "would be deductible from their income for tax purposes." The opposite is true. Section 803 of the law Roosevelt signed specifically says Social Security payroll taxes "shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year." So the claim made later in the e-mail – that Democrats "eliminated the income tax deduction" for payroll taxes – cannot possibly be true. There was never a deduction to eliminate. Update, March 27: An alert reader points out that self-employed persons must pay "self-employment tax," which is a Social Security and Medicare tax similar to the taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners. Half of the SE tax is indeed deductible when figuring adjusted gross income for federal income tax purposes. However, the SE tax deduction has not been eliminated, not by "the Democratic party" or by anybody else.
   
   
4. Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here 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." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [social Security] Trust Fund itself."
   
5. Taxation of benefits. The e-mail also gets it wrong when it claims that Roosevelt promised that "annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income." It’s true that Social Security benefits weren’t taxed at first, but DeWitt writes that this was the result of a series of administrative rulings by the Treasury Department, not the result of Roosevelt’s law or anything he did or promised. And contrary to a false claim made later in the e-mail, it was not Democrats alone who "started taxing Social Security annuities." Congress authorized taxation of Social Security benefits in 1983, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and the measure was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The measure was part of a bipartisan compromise to shore up the finances of the system, which were then on the verge of collapse.
   

Nixon’s Gift to Immigrants

Another huge whopper in this e-mail is the claim that President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party "decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants … even though they never paid a dime into it." In truth, no illegal immigrant is allowed to get a penny of Social Security retirement benefits, as this message implies. (We address more false claims on that theme in another Ask FactCheck.) And any immigrant who has become a citizen or legal resident can qualify only to the extent that they have worked and paid into the system for years, on the same basis as everybody else.

The earlier version of this e-mail made this claim only about the SSI program – the Supplemental Security Income program for the blind, disabled or elderly and destitute. But the truth is, that program was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1972. Under Nixon’s SSI law, legal immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start. It is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all – citizens and legal residents alike – regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.

Edited April 27, 2010 by Cleo's Mom