Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

How FDR got Social Security to pass


Trigger Mike

Recommended Posts

On PBS they did a story of the Blue Ridge Parkway and said a congressman from NC was on the house ways and means comm. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON was opposed to social security as it would make people too dependent on the government and not willing to plan for their own retirement. FDR needed a short term fix to get reelected, so he got with Doughton and told him if he would make sure social security passed FDR would make sure the Blue Ridge Pkwy (another short term solution of creating jobs for road work for a hwy not really needed for anything other than tourism) FDR would make sure the entire length of the PKWY would be built in North Carolina, though it eventually did go into VA. Interestingly the parkway starts in Doughton's district, near his home. Doughton got his pkwy and jobs for his district and FDR got his social security and reelection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done in true Democratic fashion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughton's agreement kept the BRP out of Tennessee. It was always planned to extend north into Virginia.

Remember two things about these guys:

1. Politics comes from two words: poly (meaning many) and tics (blodd-sucking critters)

2. There are very, very few elected officials that can stay clean. They are expeced to look out for their constituents AND the overall best for the nation at the same time. We have to ask ourselves 'what would we do in the same situation, based on what they knew at the time of the decision.'

 

Social security has many problems (unsustainable finances due to changes in lifespans, influence people to rely on the gov't for their livelihood in retirement), but what other plan functions in a time when family scatter and do not take care of their older relatives? It is easy to fnd fault in the program; it is very difficult to propose a realistic and effective alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but what other plan functions in a time when family scatter and do not take care of their older relatives? It is easy to fnd fault in the program; it is very difficult to propose a realistic and effective alternative.

 

The solution is not difficult, unrealistic, nor ineffective. It is called taking away the government welfare and people will re-learn how to take care of themselves, their families, and their communities.

 

Take away the welfare and parents start harping on their unwed kids about not having children because they don't want to get stuck raising them. And unwed kids think twice because they know there is no monthly check waiting to fund the baby's diapers.

 

Take away the welfare and parents stop funding their kids' as they "pursue their dreams" and instead press them to learn a skill that has value in the job market. If "dreams" and "skills" coincide, so much the better, but the latter must come first.

 

Take away the welfare and families re-orient their priorities to take care of each other, and people plan and save for their own retirement instead of counting on "the gubm't" to do it.

 

Take away the welfare and people learn what thousands of generations have known before, that it really is possible to take care of yourself.

 

And the truly neediest, those who are struck by tragedy or infirmity through no fault of their own, will be cared for the way they have for thousands of years, through community-based charities run by people with the heart to care for the needy, the courage to kick out the lazy, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.... Somehow I got logged in as "Anonymous SASS Shooter" when typing the previous post. I'm a firm believer in being accountable for what you say, even on the internet, so here I am as Charlie Harley, #14153.

 

And for the record, I consider Social Security to be a government program that is one of the biggest frauds pressed onto a group of people in the history of the world. It was a vote-buying scheme from the beginning and never intended to be an "investment" , "savings plan", or "retirement program" of any type.

 

I believe there are ways of fixing Social Security and weaning society from it, but they are complex and not suitable for discussions in this forum.

 

And now back to our regular programming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that SS is not a great investment and we could all do better on our own BUT will we?? That is the question. We would wind up paying for those who don't save for retirement in the form of new and improved TAXES!!! Yikes! Maybe SS is not so bad. I'm on the fence about it. :unsure: Rye

 

 

BTW I get a SS check every month :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but what other plan functions in a time when family scatter and do not take care of their older relatives? It is easy to fnd fault in the program; it is very difficult to propose a realistic and effective alternative.

 

The solution is not difficult, unrealistic, nor ineffective. It is called taking away the government welfare and people will re-learn how to take care of themselves, their families, and their communities.

 

Take away the welfare and parents start harping on their unwed kids about not having children because they don't want to get stuck raising them. And unwed kids think twice because they know there is no monthly check waiting to fund the baby's diapers.

 

Take away the welfare and parents stop funding their kids' as they "pursue their dreams" and instead press them to learn a skill that has value in the job market. If "dreams" and "skills" coincide, so much the better, but the latter must come first.

 

Take away the welfare and families re-orient their priorities to take care of each other, and people plan and save for their own retirement instead of counting on "the gubm't" to do it.

 

Take away the welfare and people learn what thousands of generations have known before, that it really is possible to take care of yourself.

 

And the truly neediest, those who are struck by tragedy or infirmity through no fault of their own, will be cared for the way they have for thousands of years, through community-based charities run by people with the heart to care for the needy, the courage to kick out the lazy, and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.... Somehow I got logged in as "Anonymous SASS Shooter" when typing the previous post. I'm a firm believer in being accountable for what you say, even on the internet, so here I am as Charlie Harley, #14153.

 

And for the record, I consider Social Security to be a government program that is one of the biggest frauds pressed onto a group of people in the history of the world. It was a vote-buying scheme from the beginning and never intended to be an "investment" , "savings plan", or "retirement program" of any type.

 

I believe there are ways of fixing Social Security and weaning society from it, but they are complex and not suitable for discussions in this forum.

 

And now back to our regular programming.

 

And given the dependence our society has on it, would take decades to bring about, even if started now.

 

Puts me in mind of one of the stories I came across when perusing at random "Born In Slavery, Slave Narratives From the Federal Writers Project." The old gentleman who was being interviewed complained that the federals just turned them out to sink or swim on their own, most with few or no useful skills. He said, somewhat ironically in my opinion, that they needed to have some white people to teach them salable job skills and how to live free in society. We are at that point now with SS, we would need, as a society, a transition period and training how to get by without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doughton's agreement kept the BRP out of Tennessee. It was always planned to extend north into Virginia.

Remember two things about these guys:

1. Politics comes from two words: poly (meaning many) and tics (blodd-sucking critters)

2. There are very, very few elected officials that can stay clean. They are expeced to look out for their constituents AND the overall best for the nation at the same time. We have to ask ourselves 'what would we do in the same situation, based on what they knew at the time of the decision.'

 

Social security has many problems (unsustainable finances due to changes in lifespans, influence people to rely on the gov't for their livelihood in retirement), but what other plan functions in a time when family scatter and do not take care of their older relatives? It is easy to fnd fault in the program; it is very difficult to propose a realistic and effective alternative.

 

Social Security would be solvent if the gov't had not taken moneys out of the fund to make themselves look good for re-election. If those moneys were repaid with interest, the fund would be in good shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider Social Security a welfare program. I will have paid MY money into it for over 50 years by the time I can collect. They owe it to me. I paid for it and I won't feel bad at all cashing the monthly check.

 

Now if they want to write me a check with interest for all the money they forced me to pay into it, I'll all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security when initially conceptualized, was a good idea. It has morphed into another welfare state for the undeserved and the rest of us are stuck funding the largest Ponzi Scheme known to man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security has multiple parts.

 

The part most of us think of is retirement income. This is the part we pay for with a percentage of wages. It is an "income redistribution" program in that people at the bottom get more than they paid in and people at the top get less. It was never intended that it be the sole source of retirement income. Individuals were still expected to save for their own retirement. I don't know enough about the history of private pension plans to comment on them. But at the end of a working life if a person had been responsible and owned a home or apartment then the SS retirement benefit would provide until they died.

 

In those days, of course, fewer people lived to be 65 and fewer still survived very long after retirement.

 

This is a benefit I PAID FOR and is as important to me as my IRA or any other component of my retirement income. Mess with it at YOUR peril!!!!! ;)

 

There is, however, an entire other aspect to SS and that's the disability program. Frankly, I'm not sure how this is funded. I have a lot more "heartburn" about this part of the program.

 

People on the Right seem to forget that it's not 1890 anymore. Just like folks on the Left forget that it's not 1934 anymore. Both groups need to get "unstuck" from the "morass of history" way of thinking.

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS is neither a welfare program nor a Ponzi scheme, although it's going to need some reforms so it doesn't become the latter.

 

I've paid into SS at mostly the maximum rate for nigh on 40 years. So has my employer (ie, also myself). I expect to draw it at 66 at the earliest.

 

It's a public pension scheme, and if it is financed properly, there's nothing wrong with such a plan. If you want to see the beneficial effects of SS retirement over pre-SS retirement, well, all you had to do was watch a lot of old folks over the last 50 years.

 

Unless you are truly wealthy, you will to some extent be reliant on SS, even with good personal retirement planning. It has always been part of the "three-legged stool"; for example, SS, savings/investment; perhaps another pension or investment, and you have a good retirement.

 

We have planned well for retirement, but you can be sure that SS is a component. Any $25-40K income stream (counting spousal benefit) is important, obviously.

 

So it doesn't affect self-reliance, unless you don't care about a quite spare retirement. Anyway, any politician who says it should go is toast as far as I'm concerned. If he says fix it for the future, that's good.

 

One of FDR's better moves, actually, besides a war-winning program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS was well intended ...but sadly it does have strong elements of Ponzi written all over it. A classic evolution of all government programs that over time become unsustainable.

 

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

 

GG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what those who feel they earned social security by paying into it is they would have stll paid the same in taxes if the program did not exist. It is not their money to begin with. Money is a note from the government, it is theirs. The taxes we pay is just giving the government back some of what is already their's. I for one did not mind that I am paying into social security but will not likely get to partake of it. I am trying to plan a life without it. I may not even apply for it even if it is still there. The probems with social security is it is based on the same math a paramyd scheme works, which does work if everyone in the world participates and pays into it, but the problem is there are more retired now than working as the baby boomers retire. These retirees are drawing more by the hundreds of thousands in profit over what they paid into it. They paid into it based on wages long ago and draw based on current cost of living. The 900 per day children that planned parenthood is killing could well be used to help pay for it had they been allowed to live. As it is you can't put less into the bank than you draw out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember what happened to Social Security. LBJ's Great Society, they came up with Housing, Education and Welfare. The money for these programs came from Social Security. I can remember people talking about the current situation as the future.

 

BW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get a dollar in any form it's mine. I may owe the govt. some of it but what I don't owe is mine.

 

The assertion that SS is a "Ponzi scheme" is either a political statement or a demonstration of ignorance.

 

Right now we are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar the feds spend. I don't want a pay raise in either my military or SS pension if the money has to be borrowed. The spending reductions needed to get on a sound financial footing will be Draconian. We'd best get used to that.

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I get a dollar in any form it's mine. I may owe the govt. some of it but what I don't owe is mine.

 

The assertion that SS is a "Ponzi scheme" is either a political statement or a demonstration of ignorance.

 

Right now we are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar the feds spend. I don't want a pay raise in either my military or SS pension if the money has to be borrowed. The spending reductions needed to get on a sound financial footing will be Draconian. We'd best get used to that.

 

SQQ

[/quote

 

 

Here's the definition of Ponzi Scheme: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

 

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.

 

The scheme is named after Charles Ponzi,[1] who became notorious for using the technique in 1920.[2] Ponzi did not invent the scheme (for example, Charles Dickens's 1844 novel The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit described such a scheme),[3] but his operation took in so much money that it was the first to become known throughout the United States. Ponzi's original scheme was based on the arbitrage of international reply coupons for postage stamps; however, he soon diverted investors' money to make payments to earlier investors and himself.

 

 

Sure sounds like how SS is managed to me.... So based on my reading of this, I aint ignorant as you so eloquently assert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Ponzi scheme is a fraud because the investor is deceived into believing that his returns are from investments; he does not know that they are direct from new investors.

 

SS benefits until very recently were paid out of SS tax revenues only. Now it is necessary to go into the general fund to some degree. This is what needs to be fixed. SS never paid out "investment earnings" and never claimed to do so.

 

So you could call it a Ponzi scheme, but basically just as a political/rhetorical device. It needs to be managed so that it never depends on general fund revenues as opposed to SS tax revenues. This can be done, but it is going to cost in various ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FUBAR is more of a combat thing....SNAFU......now that's more like it. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

 

 

It's combat dealing with the government ...so FUBAR says I :P

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.