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!


ARE YOU READY TO TURN EVEN MORE PROGRAMS OVER TO OUR GOVERNMENT? I WOULD
SAY TO THE FOLLOWING: "READ AND WEEP?"

Subject:Social Security


NOTE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH __ A VERY SOBERING THOUGHT __ THOMAS JEFFERSON
WAS RIGHT !


Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 Our Social Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of OfficeMarch 4, 1933, to April 12,
1945), 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:



Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961

Insert by Vincent Peter Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year thatCongress voted to
remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for
Congress to spend.

If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
(You do recall correctly)

From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was
so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be
used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.




Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat Term Of Office:November
22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that
Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office:
November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled
House and Senate.



Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction
for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.


William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

So we didn't get as much of a tax break under Clinton as we thought, did
we?

Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question:
Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al
Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20,
2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .




James Earl Carter, Jr(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which
Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter)
(Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) 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!!!




Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1801 to January 20, 1809

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

- Thomas Jefferson

Ken Marino wrote:
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!


ARE YOU READY TO TURN EVEN MORE PROGRAMS OVER TO OUR GOVERNMENT? I WOULD
SAY TO THE FOLLOWING: "READ AND WEEP?"

Subject:Social Security


NOTE THAT LAST PARAGRAPH __ A VERY SOBERING THOUGHT __ THOMAS JEFFERSON
WAS RIGHT !


Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945 Our Social Security

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of OfficeMarch 4, 1933, to April 12,
1945), 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:



Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961

Insert by Vincent Peter Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year thatCongress voted to
remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for
Congress to spend.

If I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress.
(You do recall correctly)
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was
so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be
used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.




Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat Term Of Office:November
22, 1963 to January 20, 1969

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that
Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office:
November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled
House and Senate.



Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction
for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.


William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

So we didn't get as much of a tax break under Clinton as we thought, did
we?
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office:January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 Question:
Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al
Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20,
2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .




James Earl Carter, Jr(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question: Which
Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter)
(Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) 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!!!




Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1801 to January 20, 1809

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

- Thomas Jefferson
You are confusing them with facts. I believe that when I start working
it was called social security insurance. Then the democrats gobbled it
up for general spending.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...

bs snipped

The bottom line... is the country better off now and headed in the right
direction vs. when Clinton was in office. If you believe it is, vote for
McCain/Palin. If you believe it isn't, vote for Obama/Biden. If you're still
unsure vote for Nader and you'll figure it out after January 20th and Bush
is reelected.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...

bs snipped

The bottom line... is the country better off now and headed in the right
direction vs. when Clinton was in office. If you believe it is, vote for
McCain/Palin. If you believe it isn't, vote for Obama/Biden. If you're
still unsure vote for Nader and you'll figure it out after January 20th
and Bush is reelected.

That is such a wrong analogy. The question is who do we trust to correct
it, not who caused the problem. The problems happened with Bush, but were
also caused by liberal policies. McCain is the better man among our
choices. I agree he isn't the best choice, but is miles ahead of Obama
and his socialistic ideas for America.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...

bs snipped

The bottom line... is the country better off now and headed in the right
direction vs. when Clinton was in office. If you believe it is, vote for
McCain/Palin. If you believe it isn't, vote for Obama/Biden. If you're
still unsure vote for Nader and you'll figure it out after January 20th
and Bush is reelected.

That is such a wrong analogy. The question is who do we trust to correct
it, not who caused the problem. The problems happened with Bush, but were
also caused by liberal policies. McCain is the better man among our
choices. I agree he isn't the best choice, but is miles ahead of Obama
and his socialistic ideas for America.


Well, I don't think it's completely wrong, but I understand your point. It's
not just about who caused it. The problems happened under Bush and were
caused by fake conservative policies. McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation, but he wasn't alone either on the
Republican side or on the other side. Certainly, there is a level of
complicity on both sides. The problem is that the Republicans have been in
charge for the last 10 years, and they had plenty of opportunity to assert
true conservative fiscal measures, but they didn't.

You claim that McCain is the better choice, but history shows that his 26
years in Congress doesn't support that notion. He used "poor judgement"
during the Keating affair. He, by his own words, voted 90% with Bush. After
his loss in 2000 to Bush, he wanted to roll back the tax cuts. I thought
that was correct. Now, he's totally against such a roll-back. I certainly
agree he's not the best choice. And, I still don't understand this
"socialist" drumbeat. McCain voted for the crappy bailout and in the same
breath calls gov't intervention a bad thing and socialist. This makes no
sense.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
news:SMKdnVvALfSHc5zUnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

bs snipped

What statement from Ken were you replying to, Jon?


The original one in this thread, since it was just a rehashed rant.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On 24 Oct 2008 18:02:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:30:23 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
news:SMKdnVvALfSHc5zUnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink .com...

bs snipped

What statement from Ken were you replying to, Jon?

What statement from Jon are you so worried about?



It was in the snipped part. Dave wants the full monty when it suits him.
Sorry for the bad pun.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the problem
won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about how to
restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing as a bank
too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are changing
hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk and
projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities for
the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that could
be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get the
undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail" institutions
and into the hands of a large number of smaller players funded by the
capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into a
number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to get
us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could have
been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either abandoned or
ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and greed. McCain
knows all about that, having been involved up to his eyeballs with Keating.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.


Keating have very much to do with the current problem, supported by McCain
who has apparently learned little from his humilation.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com