OT - What's going on in the USA

May 23, 2013 83 Replies

Jeez, Roger. You'll believe just about anything won't you.

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth.

formatting link
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.

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."

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.

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.)

formatting link

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."

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 effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

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 went on to later become the 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.

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. President Clinton signed the bill into law on August 10, 1993.

(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.

Paul K. Dickman

You noticed that, huh?

We're going to have to give Roger a nickname -- maybe "Sucker"? Nah. How about "Seagull"? I like that one better. d8-)

Hosea 4: 6 (KJV) My people perish from a lack of knowledge.

Best Regards Tom.

Just looking at "Myth 1" they say FICA isn't voluntary, so, FICA is no SS at least on my paystub. Then they go on to explain how it wasn't mandatory in all jobs until subsequent laws made it mandatory.

Sounds like the same kind of explanation of how a person killing a pregnant woman can be charged with killing two people but if the woman want's an abortion it's not a person. Same kind of crazy talk, it's a myth because it wasn't completely voluntary and moved to completely mandatory.. basically the same thing, or close to, that the "myth" said.

RogerN

Do you know where the following comes from: " THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH: JEFFERSON AND MADISON It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. "

Jefferson, one of the least religious of our founding fathers, attended church in a government building 2 days after he wrote "wall of separation". Seems Jefferson didn't mean what liberals claim he meant, taking his words out of context, talk about "suckers"!

RogerN

Take another look at your paystub.

You yourself wrote:

and

It seems that FICA is SS at least on your paystub.

Unless you have converted to Roman Catholicism, bearing false witness is just as bad a sin as any other.

Exodus 23:1 Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Paul K. Dickman

Oh good, metal content. I don't know much about refining, but isn't separating the gold as simple as heating the ore in a clay crucible?

On the last paystub I have downloaded, dated 4/26/13, I have:

Tax Deductions Federal Withholding Tax Social Security Tax Medicare Tax Illinois Withholding Tax

As far as everything else I pasted, if something is written that is bad about Liberal Democrats, the liars are going to spin it to tell how they aren't really responsible for what they did.

RogerN

Yes, it's an essary written by James H. Hutson, extracted from Chapter

6 of his book, _Religion and the Founding of the American Republic_.

You should read Hutson's book to see what he said in full -- it's a subtle and nuanced study of the religious positions of the Founders, and, unlike your jump to conclusions above, it explains fully what current scholarship knows about Jefferson's positions.

Since you seem to favor Hutson, here are exerpts from another of his essays, this one about the "wall of separation" letter. Look it up; it's thorough:

formatting link

============================================

"During the Adams administration, Republicans [Jefferson's Party] organized street demonstrations against presidential fast days, ridiculed them in the newspapers and boycotted them. Since Federalists knew that Jefferson would never proclaim a national thanksgiving to praise God for the Treaty of Amiens, they calculated that they could use his dereliction as evidence of his continuing contempt for Christianity, which had spilled out again, in their view, in his invitation to 'Citizen' Thomas Paine to return from France to the United States..."

"In gutting his draft [he had originally included in the Danbury letter some more language that was considered offensive to Christians] was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more..."

"One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, 'contrary to all former practice,' Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists 'a wall of separation between church and state'; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services 'constantly.'

"Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that 'Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm.' In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England...'"

"But it will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed." -- James Hutson, 1998

=============================================

So the "liberal" interpretaion of the letter, as you call it, is much too simplistic. Your interpretation is even more so.

As Hutson makes clear, it was all about politics. Jefferson's Republican Party was accused of being anti-Christian -- even atheist. So he wrote the letter to satisfy his own party, and then attended church to let the New England Federalists know that he couldn't be accused of atheism himself. Both the letter and the church attendance were, first and foremost as Hutson says, a PR job.

In fact, as you may know if you've studied Jefferson at any length, he was brought up Anglican; he was influened by the Deists; and he wound up proclaiming that Unitarianism was the only branch of religion that made sense, and that he expected all Americans would soon be Unitarians.

So your theory is that your paystub does say FICA, therefore you are not paying it and it must be voluntary? Under that theory you are not paying income tax either.

Take a look at your W2. FICA is the Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax combined

formatting link
Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax (pron.: /'fa?k?/) is a United StatesFederal payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed on both employees and employers to fundSocial Security and Medicare[2] -federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits for the elderly.

So you only pasted the truth?

formatting link

97 STAT. 80 PUBLIC LAW 98-21-APR. 20, 1983 PART C-REVENUE PROVISIONS SEC. 121. TAXATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS. (a) GENERAL RULE.-Part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to amounts specifically included in gross income) is amended by redesignating section 86 as section 87 and by inserting after section 85 the following new section: "SEC. 86. SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER 1 RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS. "(a) IN GENERAL.-Gross income for the taxable year of any taxpayer described in subsection Ot)) includes social security benefits in an amount equal to the lesser of- "(1) one-half of the social security benefits received during the taxable year, or "(2) one-half of the excess described in subsection (b)(1).

So, either the Democrats have altered history and made Al Gore vice president in 1983 or you are guilty of spreading falsehoods.

Exodus 23:7

Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

James 1:18-19 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Paul K. Dickman

I found it here

formatting link

Christianity was over Jefferson's head.

Many say religion is bad, what can I say, God agrees with you and forbids false religions. The difference is that many don't know a false religion from the true living God, mostly because you choose not to believe so God lets you be blinded. For example the basics are simple enough for a child to understand but an intellectual like Jefferson, it's over his head. God had the Jewish people acting out symbolically what happened to Jesus for hundreds of years before it happened. Crucifixion was described in the Psalms some 700 years before they had crucifixion. The story of Adam and Eve, and the fall of man describes what Jesus was to accomplish.

In the story of the fall of man, Eve gets her blame because she was tempted by the serpent and she encouraged Adam. So in a way the fall of man is blamed on a woman. Also it doesn't seem fair that all mankind would be fallen because of what one man, Adam did. So how do you redeem that? The deliverance of fallen mankind comes through one man, Jesus, and he came through a woman alone, Mary.

But Jefferson couldn't handle the supernatural, his mind was too limited, he closed his eyes and couldn't see. The Bible authors wrote of people like him having "a form of godliness but denying the power thereof".

RogerN

Yeah, I know where you found it. And then I told you where *they* got it.

Always go to the source if you're going to get into an argument about quotations.

Oh, Jesus. Roger, now you're sounding like an idiot.

How would you know?

You have this on good authority, I presume...

Oh, so he's too smart to understand. So you have to be dumber to understand?

Logic much, do you?

'Want to post a reference for that one? I can't wait.

Very interesting...

Too bad for him, eh?

Sounds like circular logic to me, believing something is true does not make it so in the real world. That argument is a cleverley devised controll technique designed to prevent the flock from asking to many questions the preisthood simply cannot answer because of thier lack of knowledge.

So my question is why did god give his creation intellegence and a thirst for knowledge in the first place if that is a bad thing?

Bad programming of a biological selfaware computer?

BTW i am not an athiest.

Best Regards Tom.

Hey, it's simple, Roger says. Those whom God favors he makes dumb. Those whom he disfavors he makes very smart.

So only the dumb people know a false god from the true One. And, following the same logic, Roger's suggestion that Jefferson favored the Christian religion is false, because Jefferson was too smart to recognize the relgion of the True Living God.

'Nothing to it. A child could understand it...

Those are the Questions that Should Not Be Asked.

Why? The bible says you must have an answer.

1 Peter 3:15 New International Version (NIV)
  1. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Best Regards

Tom.

1 Corinthians 1: 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The Foolish to Shame the Wise

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

You can't understand something if you rule out the truth. For example if someone believes a steel tool bit can't cut steel, then they won't believe what is done every day in machine shops.

Jefferson closed his mind to believing God could do supernatural things and no amount of evidence could convince him of what he closed his mind to. Nearly all Jesus' disciples died because they had seen Jesus after he had risen from the dead. Now atheists embrace evolution because they see it as evidence that one living can evolve to other living things, they don't have much on how no living thing evolved to a living thing.

RogerN

How in flaming hell do you know what Jefferson thought, or "closed his mind to"? What you mean is that after having had a Christian upbringing, he realized that it didn't fit with either the reason nor the experience of his own life.

That's an incredible presumption on your part, Roger, to think you know that Jefferson "closed his mind." He was, in fact, one of the most open-minded, thoughtful people of his age.

WTF Bible do you read? The Bible says nothing about their deaths. There are various writings about them, but they generally don't agree.

What seems to be in general agreement is that most of them died for preaching the word of Jesus. The natives didn't approve.

Of course not. Science hasn't answered that question, and it may never do so.

Regarding your statement about science not having much to say about how the non-living became living, you obviously have not been following the recent scientific progress on this (I can not say I am surprised). It has been more than 10 years since the first completely synthetic virus has been created. It has been 3 years since the first self replicating bacterium using synthetic DNA and parts of a natural bacterium. The same group has said they are on the verge of making a completely synthetic bacterium. Other recent work has shown how the chemistry of thermal vents and hot springs can create RNA, DNA, cell membranes, and other components needed for a cell.

What makes people like you dangerous in so many ways is that you have to gone to great lengths to develop a mindset that allows you to never contemplate the possibility you may be wrong. You share this quality with all the other religious extemists and terrorists in the world.

There is evidence for this in his writings, it appears he liked Jesus philosophy but didn't believe in the miracles. He snipped out the miracles in his cut and paste Jefferson bible.

I'm pretty sure it was you that first told be of Jefferson not believing in the miracles recorded in the Bible.

Most of their deaths aren't recorded in the Bible but other historical writings. I wonder why their deaths weren't written about since liberals claim the NT wasn't written until 200-300 years after it happened? Fox's book of martyrs has the accounts of their deaths.

Saul of Tarsus didn't approve and was going after the infidels, I wonder what changed him from a Christian prosecuter to a person willing to endure beatings and prison for Christ? Paul's writings seem to agree with the story about him written in Acts.

So, since there is at least some evidence for what Christians believe, you agree that atheism is more faith based than Christianity?

RogerN

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required