Social Security payments...

A little history never hurt anyone……
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 message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

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

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, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent


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

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

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. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers


PLEASE DO KEEP THIS ONE ROLLING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. HOPEFULLY IT WILL OPEN A FEW EYES!!!!!!!

SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS!!!!

SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS!

Here we go!!!

JUST REALIZED THAT WITH REQUIRED AUTO DEPOSIT, I NEVER GET TO SEE THE CHECK ....

ALERT EVERYONE YOU KNOW.

THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US.*

*Subject:*

SOCIAL SECURITY becomes FEDERAL BENEFIT CHECK

Have you noticed, the Social Security check is now referred to as a

"Federal Benefit Payment"?

I'll be part of the one percent to forward this. I am forwarding it because it Touches a nerve in me, and I hope it will in you.

Please keep passing it on until everyone in our country has read it.

The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a Federal Benefit Payment.

This isn't a benefit. It is earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.

It totaled 15% of our income before taxes .

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 Invested in Social Security .

If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security( $375/month, including both your and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% Interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!

This is your personal investment

.

Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year , you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month .

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month,according to the Social Security Administration

(Google it - its a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts .

Instead, the folks in Washington pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madoff ever did.

They took our money and used it elsewhere.

They forgot (Knew) that it was OUR money they were taking.

They didn't have a referendum to ask us if we wanted to lend the money to them .

And they didn't pay interest on the debt they assumed .

And recently,they've told us that the money won't support us for very much longer .

But is it our fault they misused our investments?

And now, to add insult to injury, they're calling it a benefit , as if we never worked to earn every penny of it.

Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were a charity !

Let's take a stand .

We have earned our right to Social Security and Medicare.

Demand that our legislators bring some sense into our government .

Find a way to keep Social Security and Medicare going, for the sake of that 92% of our population who need it.

*Then call it what it is: Our Earned Retirement Income. *

99% of people won't forward this.

Will you?

Antidepressants with your vaccine???

Merck Study Pushes Antidepressant Use with Vaccines

Melissa Melton
Infowars.com
February 15, 2013

Sign, sign, everywhere a vaccine sign…

A new study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases actually claims taking antidepressants will increase vaccine effectiveness.
The two-year study compared immune responses in 40 elderly participants with major depressive disorder to 52 control subjects in regard to Merck’s Zostavax, the herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine. According to an Infectious Diseases Society of America press release:

“Depressed patients not being treated with antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) had lower cell-mediated immunity to the varicella-zoster virus—and were less able to respond to the shingles vaccine—compared with patients who were not depressed or who were depressed but were receiving treatment with antidepressants, the researchers found.”

The implications here are much more frightening, as the press release continued:

“The possible connection, however, is potentially significant: If antidepressants increase the efficacy of the shingles vaccine in those who are depressed, such treatment may have a similar effect on the immune response of depressed patients to other important vaccines, such those against influenza.”

So, let’s get this straight: it isn’t the ineffectual vaccines themselves we should be concerned with, it’s the fact that, if we get depressed, we all need to take antidepressant medications in order to make our vaccines work better?
As it stands, America consumes more psychotropic drugs than any other country in the world, a fact surely not missed by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, antidepressants were recently named the nation’s number one prescription for adults aged 18-44.
Big Pharma giant Merck & Co. is currently responsible for the production of nine vaccines, including the ‘live vaccine’ Zostavax for shingles. But what’s more, while the mainstream media is readily reporting that untreated depression is hurting vaccine efficacy in the study’s wake, many forgot to mention that, of the 20 authors listed on this study, four of them work for guess who?
Merck.
How Shingles Became So Prevalent
Adverts on pharmacy signs everywhere urge people to get their shingles shot right away, but this vaccine wasn’t even around until 2006. Why develop such a vaccine? Were incidences of shingles really all that common?
Both chickenpox and shingles are caused by related viruses. New York Times bestselling author and licensed physician and surgeon Dr. Joseph Mercola has written extensively on the connection between the widespread release of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccine and the 90 percent increase in reported shingles cases in the five years following it. As chickenpox is nature’s way of protecting people from contracting shingles, with so many kids walking around with weakened chickenpox strains due to vaccination, adults were no longer receiving the booster immunities the live, wild virus real chickenpox provided.
Dr. Mercola fears a shingles epidemic is now underway in America:

“All evidence points to the fact that we have traded a relatively mild illness (chickenpox), which does NOT involve complications for 99.9 percent of healthy children, for a more serious illness in our elderly (shingles) that has the potential for compromising the health of an entire population.”

The catch? Not only does shingles result in five times more hospitalizations and three times as many deaths as chickenpox, but shingles is much more costly to treat. The shingles vaccine is pricey as well at over $200 a jab. While expensive, according to the National Vaccine Information Center, the shingles shot is only 51 percent effective.
The icing on this high-priced cake?
Both the chickenpox vaccine Varivax that preceded this shingles epidemic and the shingles vaccine Zostavax that was created to accommodate it were developed by none other than guess who?
Merck.
Where’s the Logic in Ineffective Vaccine = Take Antidepressants?
So, one vaccine was created and mass released, a medically expensive and dangerous health epidemic ensued, another (more expensive) vaccine was then developed to fight that, and now we have a study explaining that to make that vaccine effective, we need to take more pharmaceuticals (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors aka SSRIs, specifically)?
Sadly, it was not much of a surprise to learn four of the authors on this new “study” claiming depressed people need to take antidepressants to make their vaccines work came from the same company who manufactured said vaccine. Merck has a history of paying medical journals to advance the company’s agenda.
During a personal injury lawsuit over Merck’s multi-billion-dollar painkiller Vioxx, The New York Times reported a Merck affiliate sponsored eight issues of a medical journal between 2002 and 2005 to reprint favorable Merck articles while hiding under the guise of being an independent, peer-reviewed publication. The Legal Examiner also reported, “An April 2008 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article reveals how Merck compensated ghostwriters, who were not doctors, to create articles for professional journals that have the potential to influence doctors and popularize drugs prescribed to the public.”
Not only does this current journal article state that antidepressants make vaccines more effective, but these people actually claim antidepressants are good for this purpose even if they don’t help the person with their depression!
SSRI drugs come with a barrage of horrible potential side effects, including fatigue, nausea, headaches, erectile dysfunction, decreased sexual desire, diarrhea, confusion, hallucinations, anxiety, agitation, mood swings, impulse-control disorder, paranoia, psychosis and hostility, not to mention the FDA requires a black box warning on antidepressants for possible increased suicidal tendencies.
Now add those side effects to the potential side effects of the shingles vaccine — headache, joint and muscle pain, fever, abnormally swollen glands, a shingles-like rash and hypersensitivity reactions including life-threatening anaphylaxis (shock).
Sounds like fun.
Antidepressant Adjuvants, Anyone?
So what now? Are pharmaceutical companies going to start adding antidepressants to vaccine shots to ensure better efficacy?
Wouldn’t be much of a stretch from what is already being considered. Scientists have recently been discussing other “designer” adjuvants including toxins, bacterial DNA and genetically engineered e. Coli bacteria to boost vaccine effectiveness as well. One such promising candidate is a cholera toxin.
Just last month, Natural News reported that a Freedom of Information Act request brought to light 30 years of secret British government documents showing vaccine schedules to be a totally contrived hoax based on covering up bad data on vaccine ineffectiveness to gain public compliance.
Apparently if you are depressed and your vaccines don’t work, there’s no need to worry; a study with a grand total of 40 elderly people taking antidepressants suggests you should be too.
(In other related news, Merck has just been slammed with a new $39 million lawsuit for consumer fraud and deceptive marketing practices…)

YOU PAY 3.8% SALES TAX ON YOUR HOME SALE AFTER 2012

Another item hidden in the GREAT OBAMACARE Law the we were told to just pass it then READ it-   When is Congress going to pass a Law for ONE item only.

2700 pages is just too many.   Obama's Tax on the Retiree's who also pay taxes on their Social Security payments.

A. Mullis   HOME SALES TAX
I thought you might find this interesting, -- maybe even SICKENING!   The National Association of Realtors is all over this and working to get it repealed, -- before it takes effect.  But, I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners.  How many realtors do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?  That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc.  When did this happen?  It's in the health care bill, -- and it goes into effect in 2013.
Why 2013?  Could it be so that it doesn't come to light until after the 2012 elections?  So, this is 'change you can believe in'?   Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.  This bill is set to screw the retiring generation, -- who often downsize their homes.  Does this make your November, 2012 vote more important?   Oh, you weren't aware
that this was in the ObamaCare bill?  Guess what; you aren't alone!  There are more than a few members of Congress that weren't aware of it either.
You can check this out for yourself at:

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home
I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.

MESSAGE FROM CONGRESSMAN DON YOUNG on ECONOMY...

Monday, April 9, 2012 11:55 AM

Dear Mr. Kroll,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is a complicated issue and I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts.

The current budget situation is critical and the numbers are unfathomable. Over the next several years we will add trillion-dollar deficits to our already growing $14 trillion debt. As a result, we have left ourselves and future generations far too dependent on our creditors; 40 percent of whom are foreign governments. In the coming years, our debt will eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels. On our current path, future generations will see both the Federal government, and the taxes needed to support it, double in size.

Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies – an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus. All of this new government spending was sold to the Congress and the American people as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt. These numbers do not even include the new open-ended health care entitlement program.

As this year's budget process has been complicated, let me first clear up some of the confusion. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the U.S. Government spent $3.5 trillion and collected only $2.2 trillion in revenue, resulting in a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion (8.9 percent of U.S. GDP). On April 15, 2011, the House passed H.Con.Res34, to establish a budgetary framework for FY2012 and outline appropriate budgetary levels for FY2013 through FY2021. I supported this budgetary guide because it takes the U.S.off the path of destruction we are currently following and it puts us on a path to prosperity. One major issue of contention with H.Con.Res.34 is with the Medicare and Medicaid reform provisions.

As it now stands, Medicare is unsustainable; it grows at 7 percent per year. By 2020, the Medicare program will become insolvent and by 2037, in large part due to Medicare and other entitlements, our budget will be 200 percent the size of the U.S.economy. By comparison, Greece's economy collapsed when its budget was 113-150 percent the size of its economy. If we are to keep Medicare running and save this country from crushing debt and economic ruin, some reforms must be considered.

H.Con.Res. 34 proposes to create a plan which uses a "premium support" payment, similar to what Members of Congress and all Federal employees have, to allow people to choose from a variety of health care plans. Under this proposal, no one over the age of 55 will be affected; their benefits are 100 percent preserved and their coverage will not be changed. However, for those under the age of 55, Congress must begin to restructure the program. If Congress does not make changes to Medicare, then by the time my children are ready to start using Medicare and my grandchildren are in their 30's and 40's, there will be no Medicare. New seniors, those under 55, may have to pay a little more for health insurance in 2020. However, if nothing is done, seniors will eventually have to pay for ALL health insurance themselves.

As for Medicaid, this budget converts the Federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets States create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. The budget proposes similar reforms to food stamps, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the program's rolls. Please know that this budget does NOT make these reforms law. It merely outlines a framework through which Medicare could be reformed. As Congress debates the details, I will ensure that Alaskans are not forgotten.

On August 1, 2011, with the debt-ceiling default date just a day away, the House debated S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011. This fiercely-negotiated, bipartisan compromise between the House, Senate, and the President, passed the House by a vote of 261-161, the Senate by a vote of 74-26, and was signed into law on August 2, 2011. Given the extraordinary measures it took to reach this agreement, I believe this was the only bill that could have passed both the House and Senate chambers.

S. 365 was a fair compromise. It contained more spending reductions than debt limit increase and it imposed spending caps that would set clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Additionally, S. 365 created a Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was tasked with producing a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and it required the consideration of a Balanced Budget Amendment by both the House and Senate. This legislation contained no tax increases, provided a means to prevent a future default, and exempted Social Security, Medicaid, veterans, and civil and military pay.

Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue. If you haven't already, I would encourage you to sign up for my e-newsletter at http://donyoung.house.gov/Forms/EmailSignup/ and my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=RepDonYoung. Doing so will allow me to provide you with updates on this and other important issues. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG

Congressman for All Alaska

Uploads by RepDonYoung

By Don Young| 146 video

The picture below is no reflection on Congressman Don Young. I believe he is doing his best. The rest of them are sitting around in old buildings with 10% oxygen air playing solitaire on government computers. A lobotomy is one of the prerequisites to work in government.

SOCIAL SECURITY SCAM

Don’t you remember paying into this with your own money?

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOW BEING CALLED A 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT/ENTITLEMENT! Yes, we're considered welfare recipients. Have you noticed, your Social Security check is now referred to as a “Federal Benefit payment"? ....... Don't you just LOVE politically correct speech -- and how it has enabled them to gradually engineer our thinking over time? Here's to telling it like it REALLY is. I'll be part of the one percent, to forward this, our government gets away with way too much in all areas of our lives, while they live lavishly on their grossly overpaid incomes! KEEP passing THIS AROUND UNTIL EVERYONE HAS READ IT..... SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT... THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THIS CALCULATION IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY COLLECTED THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY!!!! WHERE DID THAT MONEY GO???????? Some of us sacrificed our son’s and daughter’s lives to defend this country. Some of us lost our arms and legs and our lives defending our way of life and they want to destroy it. What’s wrong with those bastards? I am forwarding it because it does touch a nerve in me.

Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too.

It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.

If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!

If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever thought about.

Entitlement my xxx, I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!!

Just because they borrowed the money from the fund - which was promised never to happen - and never paid it back, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Congressional benefits ---- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?

We're "broke" and can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, or the Homeless.

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile , and Turkey.

And now Pakistan .......home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

They Now call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it's time for us to collect, the eseniors, vetrans, welfare, government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was OUR money and we didn't even get interest on the unapproved "loan" they took from us. On top of that we gave our son’s and daughter’s lives to defend this country. Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn't it? 99% of people won't have the guts to forward this. I'm one of the 1% -- I Just Did.