The below was sent to me recently (I don't know why because I'm not that political) and was curious if there is any truth to any of it. Anyone care to rebut so I can respond to the sender? ============ 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. =========== Thanks, RR
SSI does not come out of the Social Security Fund. It is a general welfare program for the disabled. It is administered by the social security administration so that perhaps explains your misunderstanding. Also if you go back and look at social security you will find that many a number of Republicans voted against the bill. In the Senate the vote was 60 to 1 in favor by the Democrats; 15 to 5 in favor by the Republicans. http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/cqcgi/@ssa.env?CQ_SESSION_KEY=BQOWJNBZOCXK&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_RESULTS_DOC_TEXT=YES Many more republicans are for privatising social security than democrats. Taxing social security benefits has no effect on the health of the social security system. Any way you cut it Democrats have always been bigger proponents of the social security system than Republicans. D
Democrats are the ones who have raided the fund to pay for their governmental overspending. If you're going to trash the Republicans I have to insist that you be fair about it.
Democrats are the ones who have raided the fund to pay for their governmental overspending. Outside of 1992-1994 (Democratic Pres & Congress), recent government overspending has been a bi-partisan event. In the 80's, Reagan could have vetoed any of those spending bills if he was really against higher gov't spending - he certainly had the political clout to make it stand. Same with Bush in the early 90's. During the Clinton years, the Republican Congress could have killed them had they really disagreed with them. Democrats are more willing to seek out those programs, but Republicans tend to be happy to pass them and reap the benefits while blaming Democrats.
I see your point Major. But the Republicans know that if they veto these bills, then come election time they will be painted as being insensitive to the needs of the people. Not a good way to win an election. It's kind of hard to carry an urban area when interested parties are calling the shots. People who depend on the government to give them a living will never vote for a candidate that will seek to stop that check.
