President Lyndon Johnson raids the Social Security Trust Fund to wage the Vietnam War President Johnson created the ‘unified budget’ in the late 1960s to disguise the real cost of the Vietnam War.[6] [7] President Johnson did not want to ask for income tax increases to pay for several ambitious government programs of that era (the Vietnam War, the Great Society War on Poverty, the NASA Space Race). Putting surpluses from Social Security overwithholding “on budget” (adding them to the general operating budget of the United States Government) so the overwithholding could be used to pay for other government programs would make the federal budget appear balanced. The resulting debt to Trust Funds would be presented “off budget.” In 1967 President Johnson appointed a Commission on Federal Budget Concepts which in its October 1967 report proposed a unified budget to do this. Johnson submitted the first unified budget to a Democratic Congress for Fiscal Year 1969 scheduled to begin on July 1, 1968. Thus was born the practice of using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses – or “Intra-governmental Holdings of Debt” to hide the size of the overall federal deficit. Who put the limits on those with Social Security to earn $$$? The Clinton/Gore Tax on Social Security benefits In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on Social Security benefits of the elderly and disabled.[9] The final version of the bill passed by the Democratically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%[10] of benefits (or “annuity payments” as they were originally called). Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% income tax rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.[11] In 2009 conservatives attacked the Democrats health care reform program because it reneged on promises made to Medicare beneficiaries. LINK with references: ========================== ADD THIS: AL SHARPTON BLOWS GASKET ON THE AIR AFTER CALLER SLAMS HIM FOR SPREADING LIES ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING Yes, there definitely must be something in the air, as key Democrats seem to be coming apart at the seams lately with a string of rants directed against Republicans. This week alone there has been a kind of explosion of such tirades. Following suit, Rev. Al Sharpton also had his own bona fide meltdown after someone called in to the radio segment on which Sharpton appeared to slam the reverend for allegedly propagating lies about the debt ceiling. The caller, who told Sharpton that he had marched for him and voted for then presidential candidate Barack Obama, told Sharpton that he was “deceiving” people about Social Security. “Social Security has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling,” the caller said. The caller said that Social Security comes out of people’s taxes and is set aside for that purpose, hence, Obama would indeed be able to cover Social Security payments. Sharpton responded by alleging that a government default would make it so that the President might not have enough money to “cover” all his “bills,” Social Security being one of them. The caller then criticized Sharpton for not “clarifying” his stance to the American people and told the reverend that some of what he was saying about Social Security “is false.” That’s when the already agitated Sharpton really started to lose his cool, slamming the caller for “misleading” people with “double talk.” But the caller fought back, scolding Sharpton for “cutting him off,” all the while pressing Sharpton to let the people know “the truth.“ The caller told the reverend he needed to tell people the ”repercussions of raising this debt” and accused the reverend of failing to do so. LINK ========================= WHO actually enhanced BIG Government expansion? Answer: Jimmy Carter As president, Carter created two new cabinet-level departments: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. Throughout his career, Carter strongly emphasized human rights. He took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term. The end of his presidential tenure was marked by the 1979–1981 Iran hostage crisis, the 1979 energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (at the end of 1979), and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. By 1980, Carter’s popularity had eroded. He survived a primary challenge against Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in the 1980 election, but lost the election to Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. On January 20, 1981, minutes after Carter’s term in office ended, the 52 U.S. captives held at the U.S. embassy in Iran were released, ending the 444-day Iran hostage crisis.[3] More with references HERE….. ========================= So WHO actually started the problems with Social Security? WHO is actually responsible for EXPANDING and growing BIG Government? BUT the Republicans and Conservatives are the bad guy in this debate? =========================== H/T Union News ========================= ************************* *************** ********** Share this: StumbleUpon Reddit Twitter16 Facebook152 Pinterest Print Tumblr Digg More Like this: Published in: Blogging News and Politics Politics Uncategorized on July 29, 2011 at 7:15 am Comments (11) Tags: Jimmy Carter expansion of government, Liberal leftists vs. Republicans/Conservatives, Liberal lies to America, Lyndon Johnson started raid on Social Security, Obama digging bigger deficit hole The URI to TrackBack this entry is: romanticpoet.wordpress/2011/07/29/liberal-nightmare-lyndon-johnson-started-the-raid-on-social-security-for-other-government-programs-jimmy-carter-expanded-big-government-obamas-got-the-shovel/trackback/ RSS feed for comments on this post. 11 CommentsLeave a comment On August 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm john H. Riley said: And not the true story, not the twisted drivel. snopes ****************INTERJECTION HERE BY ROMANTICPOET****************** ***JOHN: click this:….>> factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/*** [f]alse claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent……. [t]he Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Romanticpoet Carry on…… ********************** Search Misinformation About Social Security Home > Politics > Social Security > Social Security Social Security Changes Claim: List details changes made to the Social Security system over the years. MIXTURE OF TRUE AND FALSE INFORMATION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2005] SOCIAL SECURITY: Franklin Roosevelt, 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: 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 U.S. Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? MY FAVORITE : A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violation of 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! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election year! Variations: A version of this piece circulated via e-mail in 2005 opened with the following introduction: Dear Friends: Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors, Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on a regular basis. They were a great couple full of laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain. During the years of our friendship we had many, many discussions about his parents (President Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother never intended for the Social Security and Welfare programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott used to say that if his mother returned to earth and saw what the politicians had done to their programs she would have burned all of them in hell. Here is a story I received today regarding the Social Security Program and I immediately thought of Elliott’s comments. Hope you will read this and think about it. Origins: The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded — and even whether it should exist at all — have been the subject of debate for many decades now. In this vein, the above-quoted item seeks to enumerate (and assign blame for) alterations to Social Security that have supposedly betrayed the intent of the system as originally conceived back in the 1930s. Most of the entries contained therein, however, are inaccurate regarding what changes were made and/or who was responsible for making them: . . . participation in the Program would be completely voluntary There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security “shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid.” It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to “workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels,” and thus those who worked in fields not designated as “commerce and industry” (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out. . . . participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years: 1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1 per centum. (2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 1/2 per centum. (3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2 per centum. (4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 1/2 per centum. (5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum. These figures have been adjusted many times over the years. Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, as of 2005 participants pay 6.2% of the first $90,000 of their income (with their employers contributing a like sum) into what is commonly known as OASDI (from an acronym for Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance, the official name of the basic retirement benefits portion of the Social Security program). . . . the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that Social Security payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions: For the purposes of the income tax imposed by Title I of the Revenue Act of 1934 or by any Act of Congress in substitution therefor, the tax imposed by section 801 shall not be allowed as a deduction to the taxpayer in computing his net income for the year in which such tax is deducted from his wages. Social Security payroll taxes have never been deductible from income for tax purposes, either when the program was originally instituted or at any time since. . . . 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 The Social Security Trust Fund was established in 1939 to receive monies collected for Social Security through payroll taxes. The monies in this fund are managed by the Department of the Treasury; they are not, nor have they ever been, put into the “general operating fund.” However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be “independent” is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only “be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government,” such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can “invest” Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government “pays back” this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won’t have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report: In 2005 the Social Security tax income surplus is estimated to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. The combined shortfall is projected to grow each year such that by 2017 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $515 billion, or 2.3 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI [Hospital Insurance] and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by some combination of increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments along with the 75 percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated. A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here. . . . the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983. 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. As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been “put into the general fund.” The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund’s inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself: Beginning in fiscal year 1969, Social Security and other Federal programs that operate through trust funds were counted officially in the budget. This was done administratively by President Johnson. At the time Congress did not have a budget-making process. In 1974 Congress adopted procedures for setting budget goals through passage of annual budget resolutions. Like the budgets prepared by the President, these resolutions were to reflect a “unified” budget that included trust fund programs such as Social Security in the budget totals. Beginning in the late 1970s, Social Security faced financial problems, and over a period of time legislation was enacted to restore the financial health of the program. However, because the Federal budget deficit remained large, interest in reducing Social Security spending continued. This routine consideration of Social Security constraints led to concerns that cuts in Social Security were being proposed for budgetary purposes rather than programmatic ones. In response to this concern, a series of measures were enacted in 1983, 1985, and 1987 making the program a more distinct part of the budget and permitting Congressional floor objections (points of order) to be raised against budget bills containing Social Security changes. This method of accounting for the Social Security Trust Fund in the federal budget was reversed in 1990. Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions. Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party. Prior to 1984, income derived from Social Security benefits was exempt from taxation. Amendments to the Social Security Act passed by Congress in 1983 allowed for 50% of Social Security benefits to be considered taxable income for taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the Greenspan Commission, which had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received “Yea” votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan. Q: Which political party increased the taxes on 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 U.S. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that increased the percentage of Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50% to 85%. As with the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act, this increase applied only to taxpayers whose total income exceeded specified thresholds. This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding “Yea” vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat). 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 SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! No one — whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien — is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) — the latter is a federal welfare program “designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income” by providing “cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.” Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican). (Social Security Administration) Last updated: 24 February 2009 : On January 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm pamela saunders said: Question…I remember Congress voting itself (another) payraise using social security funds. Do you remember which year that was? =================== Pamela: After researching your question, the only information that comes up is that their pay raises are paid by the Treasury. With Tim Geither as its head, who knows where the $$ comes from to pay the Congressional pay increases. ANOTHER question that should be asked is WHERE the $$ comes from for the huge “expense accounts” given to Representatives and Senators. Social Security through payroll taxes are put in Bonds. The bonds do get interest. With the payroll tax cuts currently in place, LESS money goes into Social Security. It has been stated that Lyndon Johnson actually raided Social Security in the beginning to pay for the Vietnam War. After opening “pandora’s box” the Social Security “lockbox” has been raided several times to pay for government expenses. Some say the Social Security lockbox currently is nothing but a box filled with paper IOU’s. Republicans have been trying to say that Social Security should be reformed to STOP the raids and insure monies will be there for those that retire. Do you agree? Romanticpoet ==================================== On March 4, 2012 at 5:56 am les said: Another republican lie to deceive the people.When will people see what the republicans truely are? And what awful things they are trying and want to do to the american people just for their greedy gain.George Bush and his cronies still in office are totally responsible for todays ills.And they want to continue it.Republicans have stolen more from the American then you will ever know. Lying and twisting fact are their way. ================= Les: Can YOU point out one thing that is incorrect in my posting? The Social Security “lockbox” has been raided by most Presidents (Yes both Dems and Republicans). The box is currently filled with IOU’s. YOU need to educate yourself and quit believing the hype the Democrat Party is feeding YOU. Whatever the government giveth……the government can also TAKE AWAY. Our government has grown so largesse that even our creditors have downgraded our capabilities to get out of over 15 TRILLION dollars in debt. Visually: $15,000,000,000,000.00 Go here to LOOK at it in real time usdebtclock.org **LOOK at the debt per taxpayer*** Romanticpoet ============================ On May 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm Kevin said: IF we had not invaded Iraq and fought a 10 year war costing trillions, and Bush hadn’t been asleep at the wheel while Wall Street ran out of control, the lending giants Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae went sub-prime INSANE, and the EPA was gutted so the US car manufacturers could build gas guzzling MONSTERS to put us at the mercy of Bush’s buddies in the Saudi Royal Family? And THEN, yet ANOTHER budget busting war that no one in HISTORY has ever WON in Afghanistan? And you wonder where the money went? Halburton, General Dynamics, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and anyone who can field a rifle that can shoot more than 100 rounds without blowing up! Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the point of a needle in spending compared to the military. ============================ Kevin: The original spigot “turn on” was Lyndon Johnson. Once the government got away with raiding Social Security and there was no outcry over raiding the lock box…..the flood was released. Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the “Great Society” legislation that started a large expenditure for Social programs. Lyndon Johnson was the one that escalated America’s involvement in Vietnam. Why didn’t you think to mention that? WHY isn’t there a FEDERAL BUDGET (Haven’t had one in 3 yrs)….plus Obama added 5 TRILLION to our debt in 3 years FOR WHAT? Millions and Billions for FAILED “green” jobs/corporations. Money to countries that don’t like us like Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. to play “nice-nice”. Recently 1.5 BILLION to Egypt and 1.47 Million to Palestine. Don’t worry, Obama has already made plans to cut military pay, retirement pay and healthcare for our military. The thing that should worry YOU is that Putin was elected as president of Russia for the next six years. Also Greece’s government now has Neo-Nazis. Will Obama support Israel if it is attacked by its surround hostilities including the Muslim Brotherhood that is part of the Syrian uprising? Obama has very close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood within our own White House. Military spending is but ONE of several overspending amounts. P.S. Medicaid is already straining budgets in the individual States. You haven’t seen anything yet about government spending if Obamacare is upheld through the Supreme Court. The real problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING period. We as Americans are unable to spend more than we take in; so why should our government be able to have unending spending ability? Even increased taxing of the 1% will only run our government for a matter of DAYS; then what? Will Obama drop the rate of taxation to those that make $100,000 per year? If that doesn’t work, then what? Romanticpoet =============================== On June 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm Bill Clinton Relives His Surplus Budget Lie » JFiNTeL said: [...] Security was designed during the FDR regime to be a slush fund. Surpluses from the fund were used by Lyndon Johnson to pay for the so-called “Great Society,” [...] On September 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm stan t. said: The result is that current workers pay 2 taxes for the same benefit: payroll taxes for themselves and income taxes to pay back the 40+ year theft. Every politician who participated in this fraud should be in jail. A $2.5 trillion dollar theft. ===================== Stan: Re: Payroll tax: gop.gov/policy-news/11/08/29/the-payroll-tax Income tax paid on income. Wait for your taxes to increase if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. ALSO, just wait for the INCREASED taxes coming January 1 2013 to pay for Obamacare. Read: theblaze/stories/these-are-the-top-5-worst-taxes-obamacare-will-impose-in-2013/ Ask yourself this: WHY is Harry Reid in the Senate holding up 30+ JOBS bills in the Senate? Says they won’t be explored until AFTER the November elections, but I digress. Americans SHOULD worry about what Obama and Harry Reid have planned for the Lame Duck Congress from November 7,2012 until January 18, 2013. Romanticpoet =================================== On February 21, 2013 at 1:19 pm Denis Winkle said: Whither it was a dem. or a repub. stealing from social security to cover their ass, It only tells all of us that Voodoo Economic doesn’t work. The notion that: “Deficits don’t matter in cutting government programs or exploiting them”. As a Philosophy concluded “I’m not worried about the deficit, the deficit well take care of itself”! Seem to be the Philosophy that came to steal from a Self-sustaining fund called social security and pension retirement. As we add to it the out sourcing of our jobs for cheap labor. In the Voodoo Economics of Globalization and a great economic melt down.Through all those loophole and tax breaks that funded the expansion of globalization. As it created a dysfunctional government.Through the signing of the Norquist Tax Pledge. ================================== Denis: The Social Security Act of 1935, originated under FDR as a means for assisting those in poverty during the Great Depression of the 1930′s. The majority of women and minorities were excluded in the beginning from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions, as employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Social Security operates on the basis of a percentage of gross wages is paid into this “Retirement Insurance Fund”. Social Security is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). **WORKERS/taxpayers are the funders of this program. Those that DO NOT work are paid OUT through programs listed below*** Through Progressive expansion of the original Social Security program and through amendments, this once SIMPLE program has exploded into encompassing this: The larger and better known programs under the Social Security Act and amendments are: Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance Unemployment benefits Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare) Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid) State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Posted on: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:15:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015