A history lesson about your Social Security card and benefits *UPDATED*

Danny Lemieux sent me an email regarding Social Security that I reproduce here.  I know that the bit about the “not for identification” is true, because I have in front of me my card, which has that message, and my children’s cards, which don’t.  I do not know if the rest of the email message is true, and trust that, if it’s not, you will correct me.  Snopes, interestingly enough, has no word on this one:

Subject: History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& 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 family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what’s what and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

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 NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION message was removed.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in red.

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, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you're self-employed],

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 [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and Spent], and

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

AND MY FAVORITE:

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!

Now, 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, though. 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.

UPDATE: Please see comment 10, which has some links and extra facts to show that the Republicans are not without sin in the degradation of Social Security.

UPDATE II:  If you just stumbled across this post recently, I hope you enjoyed it.  And if you’re interested in conservative political and social writing, I also suggest checking out my more recent posts, which you can find at my home page.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • thezendude

    I will go home tonight and compare my SS card to my kids.  That part is very interesting.
     
    I was able to find this Snopes article addressing the changes to the program (for what it is worth)
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    And the fascist state draws ever closer, step by step.

  • jj

    I’m old.  My card says “not for identification” in red letters, yet!  Big ones, too!  I bet Oldflyer’s does, too.

  • suek

    jj…
     
    Me too.  Across the face.
     
    I still remember getting mine – and the discussion at the time about everybody becoming “just a number”…which is why the “not for identification” bit was there.  “Oh no…it’ll never be used to identify people” they said.  Yeah…right.
     
    I even remember when the military switched over from military ID numbers to SS ID numbers.

  • Charles Martel

    My yellow-dog Democrat wife worked for Social Security for 30 years. To this day whenever I call it a Ponzi scheme she doesn’t like hearing me say it, but she has no way to refute it.

    I’ve been telling my 25-year-old son since he was 10 to set aside money for his old age. He knows that he absolutely will not receive anything from Social Security (he’ll turn 70 in 2055—18 years after the expected total collapse of the system under even the most optimistic scenarios).

    The irony is that we are all now identified by a number derived from a bankrupt scheme.

  • SADIE

    This article, Book, would make a great full page ad. Think, I’ll print it and hand it out in November.
     
    Of course, you can add my name to the  NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION and my very old kids, too.

  • SADIE

    Charles Martel, be sure to remind your son to save for health care as well.
     
    Don’t bother trying to count up the number of agencies, boards and commissions created under the new health care law. Estimating the number is “impossible,” a recent Congressional Research Service report says, and a true count “unknowable.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40561.html#ixzz0vbXMU3Rp
     




  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Dem traitors are not so much against government intrusion and national identity cards, as they want whatever secret police apparatus exists under their control. Rather than say, in service to the interests of the American people. They can’t have that.

  • Pingback: » Financial News Update – 08/04/10 NoisyRoom.net: The Progressive Hunter()

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    A few extra facts, so that we have the full picture — which is that Republicans have not been entirely without sin in the degradation of Social Security:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

    http://mises.org/daily/1176

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Social_Security_Benefits_become_taxable_under_the_IRS_Income_Tax_Code:

    “In 1981 the National Commission on Social Security Reform (sometimes referred to as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by Congress and President Reagan to work on the financing crisis in Social Security. The result of their study included several amendments that were passed by Congress, signed by President Reagan and made into law in 1983. The specific rule applying to the taxation of Social Security benefits for the first time is copied below:

    “If the taxpayer’s combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer’s combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983.”

  • Mike Devx

    Why is that Republicans only get to SLOW DOWN the wild growth of government ordained by the Democrats…
     
    but the Democrats never only get to slow down the wild reduction in government ordained by the Republicans?
     
    We have surrendered before we’ve even started.  Where’s the reduction message?  The national GOP is silent.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Dog Days Edition()

  • Pingback: The Weekly Watcher Council Nominations Are In | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council has Spoken 081310()

  • Pingback: The Watcher's Council Weekly Winners | Virginia Right!()

  • tjmoffett
  • SADIE

    tjmoffett
    About those links ….
    Never ceases to amaze and annoy me – the audacious commentary while answering a straight forward question.
     

  • Pingback: The Jury & The Adversarial System | RHDefense: The Law Office of Rick Horowitz()

  • alex.hyden

    Here is a great infographic that explains the evolution of Social Security. I found it to be very interesting and it compliments this discussion perfectly. http://bit.ly/SSHistory

  • SADIE

    alex.hyden – thanks for the link.
     
    It prompted a poem:
     
     
    Little Miss Muffet America
     
    sat on her duffet and numerica (it rhymes)
     
    printing out money and  creating debt.
     
    Then along came reality and more fiscal insanity
     
    and the spiders still lack any sense and regret.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Sadie, if we had told the people under FDR how things would go, they would have called us pro-depression and working for the Nazis. The Republicans of the day sealed their lips for rah rah war patriotism. Can’t question the leadership ya hear. The Left took advantage of that. Repubs were playing by the old gentleman’s rules, assuming the other guy was disagreeing but essentially on the same side. Not true. The Left is not on America’s side. The Left doesn’t want to be on America’s side. The Left hates America’s side. But they pretend to be “patriotic”, at least until elected.
    Fast forward to today and not much has changed.
     
     

  • pfcooper

    snopes isn’t silent on this.  They covered it years ago because this has been making the rounds for years with slight changes…
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp 

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • tarheel96