TexasJim (@TexasJim2836)
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 les...
Seems to me that the Democratic Party is a cancer to our Constitution. It should be cut out and eliminated.
They'll just reorganize as something else.
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. Up until the 1980's, Social Security cards 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 "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message was removed.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. His promises are in black, with updates in brackets. 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, and 15% on the first $90,000 if you’re self-employed],
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 [Under Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent], and
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
AND MY FAVORITE:
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 Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Now, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
Thank you great post!
I love these feel good stories first thing in the morning on Friday ☕
Makes me want to go fishing...way, way out until I can't see land anymore...
the Democrats & RINOs are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to asserting they care about the right to privacy & personal autonomy, demanding that they track you just so you can get permission to drive on the road without them threatening you for wanting to not participate in the socialist control system
The first 3 numbers are the region you are from and the second 2 are the week or month you wore born. The only personal part is the last 4.
Turns out it's a bit more invovled - apparently the second 2 have no specific meaning other than to help their processing centers:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v45n11/v45n11p29.pdf
They are not telling the full truth, what they do say it's correct,but its not complete.
The second two start with 01 with the first issue when social security started and count up to 99 and start over. If you know when and where someone was born you can figure out the first 5 numbers.
Oooh, gotcha, since the number wasn't really used for ID purposes in the beginning. I found that it was actually 1972 when they removed the "Not for ID" message in the cards. The publication I posted was in 1982, meaning they probably have to cover up the obvious security flaw with some BS. Thanks.
I still have an original,with not for id purposes. The meaning of the two numbers was fairly well known 20+ years ago.
Me too
That doesn't work. My brother and I got our cards at the very same time. Our numbers are totally different, no relationship at all. Cards are only issued at birth today. They were only issued when you personally applied for them originally. I didn't get my card until I was about to get my first job in 1971.
I never applied for a card. My parents applied for it in the 60's.
I had to get one to start working, and my mother sent off my brother's paperwork at the same time, even though he was younger.
It was a different world back then,we never locked our house or took the keys from the car.
The second set of two numbers have zero to do with when I was born.
If only the last four digits were personal, there wouldn't be enough numbers to go around, as millions of possible numbers would be eliminated according to your "rules."
It does look retarded,but its the way they did it.
They changed it all,many years ago.
I didn't get my card when I was born. My number is nothing like the one for my brother who got his at the same time.
My wife and her sister got theirs at the same time. Their numbers are identical, except for one digit at the end. The middle two numbers are the same. Their birthdays aren't even in the same month. So those two numbers have zero to do with when you're born, even though that might be the case today. But it wasn't back in the 1960s when we got our cards.
Numbers were issued by regional areas. IIRC
Hard to remember details from 30 + years ago.
Yes, the first three digits denoted the area, as number starting with "0" were in the northeast. Numbers starting with "2" were further south. "6" was reserved for railroad workers.
SSNs useless at this point. Mine has been in use by others since the early 80s. And last time i checked i was a 40ish female that speaks spanish workin in a Georgia hospital as a nurse. Tracked down numbers of deceased family members still in use and again non english speakers. Decades ago almost got arrested in Dallas for insisting that DPD arrest school district hiring staff for stealing LOCAL CITIZEN SSNs and assigning them to non english speaking illegal alien teachers employed to herd the hoards of illegal alien ESL students taking over the schools. God showed me their fix to all this is the chip (and with AI) i can refuse the chip and they can just insert their version of me with the chip into the game. meh. Prayer is the best offense and defense.
Actually I knew this.
Not a very good history lesson, considering all the mistakes of fact.
Feel free to correct the following examination of the article...
Verdict
Do not repost this as a factual history lesson. It is an old chain-email narrative containing a few real facts wrapped in false dates, invented Roosevelt “promises,” obsolete tax figures, and a completely false immigration claim. The Social Security Administration has a page specifically debunking this exact text.
Partly true, wrong timeline.
The wording appeared on cards from 1946 through 1972—not “until the 1980s.” The original cards issued beginning in 1936 did not contain it. It disappeared with the 1972 card redesign. The claim that it was removed specifically because nearly everyone had a number and institutions were already using it as identification is not established by the SSA record.
False.
For anyone working in employment covered by Social Security, payment was compulsory from the beginning. Roughly half of American jobs were initially outside the program, but that meant those jobs were legally excluded—not that an individual covered worker could opt out.
False.
The original rate was 1% from the employee and 1% from the employer on the first $3,000, with increases already scheduled in the original system. The $1,400 figure never applied.
The post’s “first $90,000” figure exposes how old it is: $90,000 was the Social Security wage ceiling in 2005. In 2026, employees pay 6.2% Social Security tax on earnings up to $184,500, plus 1.45% Medicare tax without that ceiling. The normal self-employment rate is 15.3%, not 15%.
False.
Employee Social Security taxes were never made deductible. Section 803 of the original 1935 law expressly prohibited such a deduction. Today, self-employed people may deduct the employer-equivalent half of their self-employment tax, but that is a separate provision—not fulfillment of an original Roosevelt promise.
Misleading.
Johnson’s administration placed Social Security transactions inside the unified federal budget presentation beginning in 1969. That made federal deficit figures look smaller when Social Security ran a surplus. But the trust funds were not abolished, transferred or legally converted into the general fund.
There is, however, a legitimate criticism underneath the distortion: surplus Social Security cash is invested in Treasury securities, meaning the cash is lent to the federal government and can be spent on other government operations. In return, the trust funds hold interest-bearing obligations of the Treasury. That arrangement existed before Johnson; his change concerned budget accounting, not the fundamental financing mechanism.
Half true, but materially deceptive.
Taxation first began under the 1983 Social Security amendments, signed by President Reagan after overwhelmingly bipartisan congressional approval. That law allowed up to 50% of benefits to become taxable for people exceeding specified income thresholds.
In 1993, the Clinton-era budget law raised the maximum taxable portion from 50% to 85% for higher-income recipients. The Senate was tied 50–50, and Vice President Gore cast the deciding vote. That portion of the post is accurate.
But “85% taxable” does not mean an 85% tax rate. It means up to 85% of the benefit is included in taxable income and then taxed at the person’s ordinary income-tax rate. Many beneficiaries have none of their benefits taxed.
False.
Immigrants do not automatically receive Social Security retirement payments at age 65. Retirement benefits ordinarily require sufficient covered work—generally 40 credits—or eligibility through the covered earnings record of a spouse or parent, just as with American citizens. Someone must have paid Social Security taxes into the system.
The post confuses Social Security with Supplemental Security Income, a means-tested welfare program funded from general Treasury revenues. Certain legally qualified noncitizens can receive SSI under restricted conditions. SSI was enacted in 1972 under President Richard Nixon, not created by Jimmy Carter.
Bottom line
The honest history is less partisan:
FDR and a Democratic Congress created Social Security.
Johnson changed how it appeared in federal budget accounting.
Reagan signed the bipartisan law that first taxed benefits.
Clinton and a Democratic Congress expanded that taxation, with Gore breaking the Senate tie.
Nixon signed the SSI program that the post falsely attributes to Carter.
The strongest legitimate complaints are that Congress has used Social Security surpluses to finance Treasury borrowing and that the benefit-taxation thresholds were never indexed adequately for inflation. But this particular post corrupts those valid criticisms with invented promises and false history.