Another email passed along the road that is interesting, but not fact checked to be sure. Please if anyone finds error in this post comment. i don't have the time nor the historic interest to look it up.

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and 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 kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what.

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,

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 it 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?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right, it was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party authorized these payments for them, even though they never paid a dime into the Program!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! Even more, they blame the Republicans for taking the Program down the road to bankruptcy.

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.

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers!!!

Every major city in the world would like the opportunity to host the Olympic games. The competition to host the event begins years in advance and is of itself fiercely competitive. The venue select years in advance gives the host city and country the opportunity to show the world their best side. They also must open their doors to the world. No matter how closed the government or society, for a period of time the doors and windows are open to the world. Little can be hidden when the world press is gathered together in one place.

In fact, I will make a prediction right here right and now that there will be as much as if not more coverage on life and times in China as there will be on the games themselves. Every investigative reporter from every country will be in China either on assignment or on vacation trying to right the story of a lifetime or the next ground breaking novel and it will have little to do with the athletes or the games themselves. This is exactly what we as citizens of the free world should be excited about and encouraging. This is, in my mind, the real purpose of the modern games. To bring the world together on common ground and have a great big party around one thing that we can all agree upon, regardless of nationality, religion or government. We can all compete in the games.

Instead, this year as in years past there are protest. We want to condemn the country and city that is going to act as the host. We protest the traditional flame traveling from Greece to China. We protest and try to stop the flame when it is being carried by our own athletes. The athletes who have worked so hard and are going to represent our country on the world stage. There are calls for dignitaries to boycott the opening ceremonies. In my opinion this is not a slight to the host country but a slight to the athletes of all countries. The ceremony will go on. The flame will be in China. Our failure to recognize the efforts of our athletes does little to damage Chinas image.

I am an avid supporter of the Olympics and the US Olympic team. I think the idea of the Olympics is near the top of the list as far as things we can do to bring about world peace.Every city that would host the games has some issue that others throughout the world might object to. The Olympics is a time to set those things aside and focus on coming together.

China will be forced to open their doors, and it will be difficult for them to hide the oppression of their people and human rights violations with the worlds eyes watching, for 2 weeks this year they will be forced to be an open society.

Once again the media has not covered well both sides of the issue. Here is a story about counter protesters. Didn't see that in the mass media reports. There are many who talk about how damaging the protest are becoming in Tibet. Many reports are emerging about rioters damaging businesses and homes. I can't image that these are the nonviolent protest called on by the Dali Lama or being reported by the world press.

I wish that we could just enjoy the peaceful spirit of the Olympic Games and bring the world together for a couple weeks without the intrusiveness of politics, religion, and government. Let China open their doors for a couple weeks and the reporters can then show the world what China has been up to. In the mean time lets support those that represent us and show them that we appreciate their efforts. One of the saddest times of my formative years was the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 games. For me it took away the achievements of the games and left a distaste for the leaders that decided to take that action.

GO USA Olympic team. I'll be watching!

I was fortunate enough today to run across an article by ABIGAIL HAUSLOHNER/BAGHDAD. The article is titled "A Baghdad View of the US Election". I have to say it was an interesting read and I wish there was more of it. Personally, I agree with Osama Hazim al-Shimari, a Baghdad street merchant, when he says "John McCain will be better for Iraq because he's the only one who has a logical view..." and "I support McCain not because he'll bring good things to Iraq, but at least what he says about withdrawing troops is honest."

While there is not a candidate in the running that represents all of my views and there probably never will be (because I'm not dumb enough to run), I would like to have a president that is going to tell me their honest view of situations and intended policies. Whether or not I agree I respect them for their honesty. Both Democratic candidates currently spout off about bringing the troops home as soon as possible. Well duh, but why make it sound like it is going to be sooner than later. It would be unconscionable to abandon Iraq in their time of critical need. I think most intelligent people realize this, including those in Iraq that do not care for America. They are not yet in a position to be able to take care of their own business so why make it sound like it is something that can be resolved quickly.

I am constantly hearing in the media about the violence and deaths occurring and rarely hear about the improvements being made. Yet, when I talk with or hear conversations from troops returning from Iraq, they speak mostly about building schools and establishing community services like electrical power, fire departments, hospitals, and schools. The network media outlets make it sound like we have 100,000 soldiers over there just waiting to be blown up or to blow up something. How about telling us less about the occasional violence taking place and more about the good works our troops are performing.

I know the first person to jump on here is going to scream "OCCASIONAL VIOLENCE" are you nuts. Uh, no, well maybe, 4,000 American soldiers in 5 years. How many Americans were murdered in the US during those 5 years? How many American troops died in the 5 years previous to the start of the Iraq war? How many cops are killed in the US in a 5 year period of time. No, I haven't look it up thats why I'm asking you. The point is that while it is more dangerous than the norm it is not unusual for American soldiers or law enforcement to sacrifice their lives to preserve the freedoms we have and enjoy. I also think it is pretty sad for candidates to use them to sway American public against helping Iraq.

I think the Iraqi opinion was in my mind pretty much summed up in the words of Sana Abdul Rahman, a middle school teacher, "Republican, Democrat, black, female; any person who comes to Iraq and makes it stable, I swear to God, I will die for him, give him a big kiss in front of millions and thank him. To the Americans, I say: Please keep your promises to us. We are very tired."

Lets keep our promises America! However long or hard it might be to do.