Everyone who has paid into SS need to PO about this dumb renaming idea..
No good can come of it..

A woman dies at age 65 before collecting one benefit check. She and her employer paid into the system for almost 50 years and she collected NOTHING. Keep in mind all the working people that die every year who were paying into the system and got nothing.

And these governmental morons mismanaged the money and stole from the system, so that it's now going broke.
BEAUTIFUL! And they have the audacity to call today's seniors "vultures" in an attempt to cover their ineptitude. DISGRACEFUL!

The real reason for renaming our Social Security payments is so the government can claim that all those social security recipients are receiving entitlements thus putting them in the same category as welfare, and food stamp recipients.
THIS IS WORTH THE FEW MINUTES IT TAKES TO READ AND DIGEST!
F.Y.I. By changing the name of SS contributions, it gives them a means to refute this program in the future. It's free money for the government to spend under this guise.
The Social Security check is now (or soon will be) 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 is NOT a benefit. It is OUR money , paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too ! It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.(This should be enough for you to forward this message, If not read on.)

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 you 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 – it's 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 (or Lyndon Johnson).
They took our money and used it elsewhere. They "forgot"(oh yes, they 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. (Isn't it funny that they NEVER say this about welfare payments?)
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. This is stealing!
Just because they borrowed the money, doesn't mean that our investments were for 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 the 92% of our population who need it.

Then call it what it is:
Our Earned Retirement Income .
90% of people won't forward this.
PLEASE! Will you?

Dude, if you actually believe this then I'm sorry. You are trapped in the 50's. School boards do NOT select curriculum. Who cares who owns the school or who runs the finances. The curriculum comes from one place nationally and that constitutes a monopoly in my book - a closed system. Common core - ever hear of it? And why are our test scores, SATs, and national IQ continuing to plummet each year? Because public schools are our future?! "Wake up grandpa! Welcome to the 21st century!"

Many people receive disability payments under the Social Security umbrella, children receive school benefits, etc, all before the age of 62 or 65. Some claim the system is r****t because B****s have a shorter life expectancy. Furthermore, If you were to invest that same amount of money you would receive more per month upon retirement. But the socialists want a bigger government so they can control more of our life and our money. They already tried to take over healthcare with more of it to come. Wake up America!

School boards certainly do set the curriculum.. If you have a b***h go to a school board meeting and let them know..

I have personally done so, and with a lot of others gotten the changes we wanted at the local school while my boys were attending..

Minnesota did not accept all of common core.. Having looked at a number of postings about the "foolish" methods, I found that the example was not what the poster maintained it was about..

IE, an example posted as a math lesson was actually about introduction to higher math, not simple math as was posited..

So I will extend a question to you..

Do you want schools to teach math, science , reading and writing... Or an ideology??

Your other question about test scores is a good one and I do not have an answer for it..

Could it be the rest of the world rising in accomplishment while we remain at mostly the same level for years??? I truly do no know..

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the t***sactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the t***sactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the t***sactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.