Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Your Social Security
Your Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. 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 or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! 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 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?
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!
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
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. 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 or Republican. Facts are Facts!!! 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 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?
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!
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
Labels: crooked politics, government, information on social security, politicians, politics, social security, taxes
Friday, March 14, 2008
SPRINGFIELD, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain charged Friday the Senate was ignoring the will of the people when it rejected a one-year moratorium on earmarks that he co-sponsored. Sen. John McCain of Arizona has long been a vocal critic of earmarks.
The Senate voted 71-29 against the ban late Thursday night.
There's only one place left in America that they don't get it," McCain told a town hall gathering outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, referring to Washington. "Pork-barrel spending is out of control and Americans want it stopped."
He said the result "is an interesting commentary on how the Congress and the Senate [are] disconnected from the American people." Watch more of McCain's comments »
McCain returned to the Senate for the first time in a month to cast his ballot for an issue that is one of his central themes on the campaign trail.
Of the 29 votes in favor of the measure, six were from Democrats, including rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. McCain accused both Democrats of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in earmarks.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Don't Miss
"The first thing they can do if they're against the earmarks is ask that the money that they've gotten, the hundreds of millions they've gotten in pork-barrel projects, not be spent. A lot of that money's not spent," said McCain.
The Arizona senator prides himself on having never requested an earmark for his state.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent.
Approved earmarks are public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can come only from the legislators themselves. Watch the battle over earmark ban »
Clinton received $342 million in earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest in the Senate, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman, Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the Earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
I think this proves that politicians don't care about the taxpayers. They only care about themselves. Remember, we put them in Washington, we can take them out. Come on America, pay attention to what the people you voted for are doing.
The Senate voted 71-29 against the ban late Thursday night.
There's only one place left in America that they don't get it," McCain told a town hall gathering outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, referring to Washington. "Pork-barrel spending is out of control and Americans want it stopped."
He said the result "is an interesting commentary on how the Congress and the Senate [are] disconnected from the American people." Watch more of McCain's comments »
McCain returned to the Senate for the first time in a month to cast his ballot for an issue that is one of his central themes on the campaign trail.
Of the 29 votes in favor of the measure, six were from Democrats, including rivals Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. McCain accused both Democrats of wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in earmarks.
Earmarks are requests for money by a specific legislator, usually for her or his constituency, added onto often unrelated government spending bills.
Don't Miss
"The first thing they can do if they're against the earmarks is ask that the money that they've gotten, the hundreds of millions they've gotten in pork-barrel projects, not be spent. A lot of that money's not spent," said McCain.
The Arizona senator prides himself on having never requested an earmark for his state.
McCain had urged his Democratic rivals to reveal the earmarks they've asked for and turn back the money that hasn't been spent.
Approved earmarks are public record, but information about earmark requests that do not get approved can come only from the legislators themselves. Watch the battle over earmark ban »
Clinton received $342 million in earmarks last year, ranking her 10th highest in the Senate, according to the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. But as of Thursday, the Clinton campaign had not released details on how much she requested for 2007 and what it was for.
The senator "is proud of the investments in New York she has secured," according to her spokesman, Philippe Reines. But she believes the one-year ban "will allow a hard look at how more sunlight and transparency can be brought to this process," Reines added.
Obama in fiscal year 2008 secured $98 million in funding for Illinois projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Information released Thursday by the Obama campaign indicates he requested $311 million in earmarks for the same year.
Also according to information released Thursday by the Obama camp, the Illinois senator had 138 earmark requests for the 2007 fiscal year.
His total requested funding was about $330 million. His average request was about $2.4 million, with the largest request being $62 million intended to modify a Boeing 747 aircraft to capture infrared images of the Earth.
In a statement this week, Obama complained earmarks are doled out based on a lawmaker's seniority, not the merit of a project, and that many of the projects "fail to address the real needs of our country."
Earmark opponents pushed for the ban after watching Congress approve an increasing number of special projects in recent years.
Last year, Congress approved 12,884 earmarks. While the budget watchdog group said that figure is down from an all-time high in 2005, it still represents more than $18 billion in spending.
I think this proves that politicians don't care about the taxpayers. They only care about themselves. Remember, we put them in Washington, we can take them out. Come on America, pay attention to what the people you voted for are doing.
Labels: current eventw, current news, politicians, politics, Washington
Friday, March 07, 2008
America - We're #1
I keep hearing people say, "We're number one." Exactly what are we number one in? Any idea? Let's see; we're number one in crime. We're number one in deaths by gun. we're number one in high school drop outs. We're number one in teen pregnancy. We're number one in broken homes and divorce. We're number one in people in prison. We're number one in obesity. We're quickly becoming number one in corrupt government. We're the number one most hated country in the world. We're number one in all the wrong things.
When we went to war in Iraq I saw a soldier on TV saying, "We're going to bring some western culture to the mideast. Why? Why would anyone want this kind of culture in their country? Why would anybody want to be like us?
All we have left is freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to own a gun. I'd be willing to give it all up just to make the country safe.
In third world countries if you're caught stealing, they cut off your hand. That's why people don't steal in third world countries, at least not more than twice. If you're caught for rape, they cut off your penis. I'm all for that. That's the kind of punishment we need here. We treat prisoners better than we treat homeless people here. I know people who are not homeless who don't get treated as good as prisoners. They have the second best medical insurance in America next to politicians. I can't afford medical. We let people who have sodomised children out of prison to make room for more violent prisoners. Meanwhile, people who were caught smoking pot are getting life sentences. It just doesn't add up. I'm tired of being a civilized country. We certainly weren't civilized when we took the country from the Indians. Why be civilized now?
People aren't safe here anymore. People are getting killed while shopping at the mall. Our kids are getting killed on college campuses and high schools. Drive by shooting are everywhere. No one is safe. When does it stop? How do we stop it? Our government isn't doing anything to stop it. They're too concerned with gays getting married and which athletes took steroids.
It's obvious we need a revolution. We need to take our country back.
When we went to war in Iraq I saw a soldier on TV saying, "We're going to bring some western culture to the mideast. Why? Why would anyone want this kind of culture in their country? Why would anybody want to be like us?
All we have left is freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom to own a gun. I'd be willing to give it all up just to make the country safe.
In third world countries if you're caught stealing, they cut off your hand. That's why people don't steal in third world countries, at least not more than twice. If you're caught for rape, they cut off your penis. I'm all for that. That's the kind of punishment we need here. We treat prisoners better than we treat homeless people here. I know people who are not homeless who don't get treated as good as prisoners. They have the second best medical insurance in America next to politicians. I can't afford medical. We let people who have sodomised children out of prison to make room for more violent prisoners. Meanwhile, people who were caught smoking pot are getting life sentences. It just doesn't add up. I'm tired of being a civilized country. We certainly weren't civilized when we took the country from the Indians. Why be civilized now?
People aren't safe here anymore. People are getting killed while shopping at the mall. Our kids are getting killed on college campuses and high schools. Drive by shooting are everywhere. No one is safe. When does it stop? How do we stop it? Our government isn't doing anything to stop it. They're too concerned with gays getting married and which athletes took steroids.
It's obvious we need a revolution. We need to take our country back.
Labels: current, current news, politics
