Comments about ‘Letters: Social Security origins’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, April 21 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Every single thing in this letter is false.

Oakley, UT

The morphing of Social Security can be laid at the feet of successive Democratic administrations. First, the trust fund was abolished and the money put into Treasury Securities so it could be spent as part of the general fund. Then, Medicare came along to be funded by Social Security funds. Aid to Dependent Children was established to be paid from the same pocket and housing provided. Now, even alsiens are entitled to funding regardless of whether/how long they have paid into the plan. Now the Democrats are crying that the Republicans want to destroy what they have built. A "ponzi" scheme that has become "entitlement"...

one old man
Ogden, UT

And how many of those abuses were instituted by such revered figures as Ronald Reagan and others of the GOP?

Reagan raided social security several times. It would be very interesting to be able to find a complete history of social securities abuses and who was responsible for each of them. But Congress and other politicians are very good at hiding their tracks.


Thank our lucky stars for Social Security. No other act has increased the life expectancy as this law. Before Social Security, people worked until they died, or if they were lucky, they moved in with family. Most people did not have the resources to save for retirement. The problem with Social Security is allowing people who should not qualify for it for reasons such as drug dependency and other questionable disabilities. If there is one thing not to complain about, Social Security is that item. Just because Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are anti-Social Security, does not mean it is a great legacy for our country.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The tax rate for Social Security and Disability Insurance is 12.4%. If you are self-employed, you pay the full 12.4% directly to the government. If you are employed, you pay 6.2% directly from your paycheck and your employer pays another 6.2% in lieu of wages. When Medicare is added, the percentage paid is 15.3%.

Salt Lake City, UT

All excellent points!

A similar list of initial limitations and rose projections can be made for virtually every other program started by the Federal government, from Medicare to the Departments of Education/HHS/Defense/etc./etc.

The lesson to be learned, again, is that, once started, it is just about **impossible** to either reign in or, (now we're venturing into the realm of the truly impossible) kill a government program/department/bureaucracy.

We should treat the creation and even the continuation of such things as we would the most noxious of weeds or vermin. Kill them in the bud if you can but **always** try to minimize them.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It is sad that so many Americans are filled with so much hate for their federal government. It’s sort of like the hate you see in a dysfunctional family of one parent for the other, and the children getting caught up in the war of hate.

Oakley, UT

M Kayser.. What planet are you from? I am 83 years old and remember the enactment of SS and what has happened since it first went into effect. It has been "ponzi" scheme since its inception with congress using it as their personal sluch fund to buy votes..




Some people rely on chain e-mails as a source of information.
Many times, these chain e-mails contain information that is entirely false.

I would urge those trying to defend this letter writer's claims to visit Snopes, type in Social Security in the "search" box. Alternatively, one can visit factcheck which had this to say about the chain email containing these claims:

"This elaborate collection of falsehoods is so detailed that we believe it must be an intentional and malicious effort at disinformation. It grafts some new whoppers on top of a list that we debunked in April 2004, in a special report we called "Lies in the E-mail, Part 2." The earlier version, we said, was "full of laughably inaccurate claims," and this one is worse."

Sandy, UT

So Doug S, bless your heart, as long as we have wage earners we will have SS and as long as you and your cohorts don't turn it over to Wall Street as GWB proposed. We have seen what they do because they are basically unregulated. You can complain about it all you want but changing SS now will be the greatest robbery in the history of man because unless we reign them in I guarantee there will be a repeat of 2008. What will you do Doug when millions of seniors, widows including military widows and orphans are homeless and hundreds are walking around Oakley? Slam the door? SS is debt owed to the citizens of the United States and default is not an option because your investments won't be worth the paper your statements are written on.


Deseret News does a grave disservice to its print subscribers when it prints letters containing pantently false information. While on-line readers might read comments rebutting false information, print subscribers are left in the dark. On-line comments should and do have more lee-way, but when editors select letters to print, one would expect a higher standard. Guidelines for our local paper state:

"We review every letter, but some must be rejected because they are too long; contain libelous or obscene statements; are illegible; contain factual inaccuracies or unproven allegations; or the writer neglected to include the necessary contact information of a full name, address and a phone number where he or she can be reached during business hours."

I would expect a church-owned newspaper to have a high standard of truth and adherence to fact as can be reasonably ascertained

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Yes.... Lets go back to the 1920s. Great idea.

Lets base everything on Wall Street. And if your investments fail? Tough luck!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

" I am 83 years old and remember the enactment of SS"

You were 5 when the social security act was passed. Somehow, I doubt you remember it. Again, you were 5. No 5 year old pays attention to politics. You were too busy playing jacks or learning the colors or how to spell. Besides, your age doesn't give any credibility to your erroneous comments and letters. Opinions shouldn't mold your facts but facts should mold and form your opinions. The bottom line is, social security is a fantastic program. A safety net. We should never give it away to corrupt and greedy Wall Street investors or bankers.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Just so we are all clear on the facts. Soc. Sec. was heading into trouble in the 1980s and was "rescued" by Ronald Reagan and TIP O'Neil. There would be surpluses for decades.

If the money was invested at any reasonable return, it would make the program largely self-sustaining. But the funds were never put in a true sovereign wealth fund. Instead, the monies were given to the Treasury. IOUs were written but that means Treasury has to pay back Treasury - so they essentially mean go get more money from future generations.

We could have done better. But the Republicans put their part in tax cuts. The Democrats spent their part on programs.

Both sides created this problem.

Oakley, UT

Yes Maverick, I was 5. I got my SS card when I was 10 and worked in a store for 0.10 per hour. I still feel that had SS not been used for other than the intent of the original plan, and retained in a trust fund for that purpose, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I do not endorse any Wall Street solution, I say that only those who pay into it should receive funds from it. That includes Government officials who exempt themselves..

Far East USA, SC

"Both sides created this problem."

Be careful Twin. That kind of blasphemy will get you labeled a liberal.

Pheonix, AZ

@one old man:
"Reagan raided social security several times."

The fund was not raided and never has been. Excess SS funds were invested to be repaid as needed. And where is the safest investment? Government bonds... SS bonds, which were special bonds, not traded on any exchange. They don't pay much but the 'funds' is safe.

@Twin Lights:
"If the money was invested at any reasonable return, it would make the program largely self-sustaining."

Pray tell, what's a 'reasonable rate of return?' The stock and bond markets can produce such a return... but they can also go south and stay there for some period of time. Not a good place to put SS funds because they may not be there when needed.

"Instead, the monies were given to the Treasury."

The monies were loaned to the government at nominal interest rates to be paid back as needed from tax revenue.

It's not rocket science.

Xenia, OH

How did someone like Obama's illegal alien aunt get on the dole?
Aunt Zeituni, as she has come to be known, first surfaced in the public light in 2008, in the final days of the Presidential election. Then-candidate Obama said that he was not against the possible deportation of his aunt. "If she has violated laws, then those laws have to be obeyed," he told CBS's Katie Couric. "We are a nation of laws." ...(Really, seems he changed his mind!)

Onyango had violated the law, and she knew it.

"I knew I had overstayed" she told WBZ-TV's Jonathan Elias when the two sat down one-on-one. ..Zeituni Onyango Obama's aunt still scamming system
Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango says U.S. obligated to make her citizen
still lives in public housing and collects $700 monthly disability

Pheonix, AZ

"How did someone like Obama's illegal alien aunt get on the dole?"

My gosh, Amber... it's not rocket science. Obama is president. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, the guy that would see her deported, ain't gonna do nothing. Why should anything be different from the millions of illegal Hispanics getting amnesty and eventually dole-ites.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments