Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt first suggested private Social Security Accounts?
Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Program for Social Security ^ | January 17, 1935 | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Posted on 02/05/2005 2:59:47 PM PST by Republican Wildcat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: hoosiermama

The most irritating dolts are the ones who don't know they're stupid.


21 posted on 02/05/2005 4:36:29 PM PST by Lady Jag (All I want is a kind word, a warm bed, and unlimited power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
Thanks for the Ping J

Bookmarked

22 posted on 02/05/2005 4:37:20 PM PST by Fiddlstix (This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

I agree. We have been brainwashed by politicians from both parties. We are lead to believe that a reduction in a planned spending increase (say a 3% increase rather than 5%) is actually a spending cut. This is BS and anybody with any sense knows it. If my family is short on money, we spend less -- almost every family in America has done this, but this idea is foreign to Washington.


23 posted on 02/05/2005 4:37:44 PM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

In the documentary, "Dawn of the Dead", they discussed the hind brain and I plan to perform further research on the theory that it can be trained and managed. If this is possible, we may be able to build a more viable Democrat Party.


24 posted on 02/05/2005 4:39:49 PM PST by Lady Jag (All I want is a kind word, a warm bed, and unlimited power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: add925

Had to look at that twice before I realized you'd photoshoped it.....Is that the GI JOE doll?


25 posted on 02/05/2005 4:41:42 PM PST by hoosiermama (It's more than an election...It's a change of heart....an enlightenment....life is important)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
haha! Yeah.


26 posted on 02/05/2005 4:41:55 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NewLand
To my statement "Richard Nixon, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Bush have been the biggest increasers of Marxism since LBJ" . . .

You responded "I would say that statement is a wee bit of an exaggeration."

No sir! No exaggeration at all. Too many conservatives have impressions in their minds that do not mesh with FACT.

Go to the OMB website and get the data yourself from the 2005 Historical Tables. Calculate out the percentage increase in the "HR" superfunction, Section 3, "Federal Outlays by Function".

Or more simply, just look at the chart above.

27 posted on 02/05/2005 4:42:38 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (John Kerry--three fake Purple Hearts. George Bush--one real heart of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
Great Society
War on Poverty
Economic Opportunity Act
Social Security Act of 1965
28 posted on 02/05/2005 4:42:55 PM PST by NewLand (Faith in The Lord trumps all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
Richard Nixon, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Bush have been the biggest increasers of Marxism since LBJ. Only Ronald Reagan reversed course since LBJ.

I see you're taking some flak for this, so let me say that I think you are spot on.

ML/NJ

29 posted on 02/05/2005 4:45:57 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

The truth is coming out and these communist RATS will have a rough time with this because we won't let them forget this. I have the minumim forty quarters for Social Security but I've been involved with Ohio Public Employee Retirement system for almost twenty seven years now. It is the sixteenth best retirement system in the world. Even the Enron debacle only felt like a mosquito bite to it. Social Security needs to be privatized because Americans deserve what it will do for all of us.


30 posted on 02/05/2005 4:47:49 PM PST by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

Glad to see somebody else researches and knows the true facts. Kudos to you!

Check out the chart in my post #27. It proves we are both correct.


31 posted on 02/05/2005 4:49:01 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (John Kerry--three fake Purple Hearts. George Bush--one real heart of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP
Watched the SOTU with my dad and we got watching and cheering on Cheney's smirk every time the dems did something "stupid"....My dad (quite a history buff himself) kept saying just wait, .....The next day when the dem's went to the memorial and FOX came out with the FDR quote we both hooted and hollered.......our poker playing P and VP we're just waiting to call...... They were holding a full house and Cheney could hardly contain himself.
32 posted on 02/05/2005 4:49:45 PM PST by hoosiermama (It's more than an election...It's a change of heart....an enlightenment....life is important)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
If this quote is accurate
 
...third voluntary contributory annuities individual initiative can increase annual amounts received old age proposed federal government assume one half cost old age pension plan ought ultimately supplanted self supporting annuity plans...
 
It is accurate
http://tinyurl.com/5duar

33 posted on 02/05/2005 4:51:05 PM PST by Wolverine (A Concerned Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
The interesting thing about your chart is that FDR's contribution is obviously masked by WWII. LBJ's contribution (and maybe Nixon's too) would probably appear much worse if the chart only considered the proportion of non-wage payments to individuals to non-mlitary spending.

ML/NJ

34 posted on 02/05/2005 4:51:42 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Bush-Cheney are a great team. I take poker over chess any day. :^D

35 posted on 02/05/2005 4:57:21 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
From the Washington Times -

Bill Clinton's Social Security options

In a recent editorial, The Washington Times reminded its readers that then-President Clinton, in a major policy speech delivered in February 1998 at Georgetown University, warned about "the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security" that "affects every generation." Today, congressional Democrats are downplaying Mr. Clinton's "looming fiscal crisis" in an effort to sabotage any reform effort that might include individual (or personal) retirement accounts.

Mr. Clinton had good reason to be worried about Social Security's long-term future. When he delivered his Georgetown speech, he had been in office for more than five years, during which time he labored over the federal budget and the long-term consequences of fiscal policy. In addition, before the 1998 speech, three national panels had already been commissioned during the Clinton administration to review Social Security reform options: the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform (1993-1995); the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security; and the 1997-1998 National Commission on Retirement Policy.

All three panels offered long-term reform plans that included individual accounts. Moreover, a policy paper presented in June 2001 and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research the following September revealed that the Clinton administration itself intensively analyzed such accounts as part of a long-term solution to "the looming fiscal crisis." Indeed, within days of Mr. Clinton's Georgetown speech, "the administration launched a systematic process to develop a Social Security reform plan," according to the very revealing 2001 paper — "Fiscal Policy and Social Security Policy During the 1990s" — delivered at a Harvard conference. The paper was written by three former senior Clinton administration policy-makers: Douglas Elmendorf (deputy assistant secretary of the treasury), Jeffrey Liebman (special assistant to the president for economic policy) and David Wilcox (assistant secretary of the treasury).

The authors respectfully noted that "[t]he administration's economic team was also aware of a significant group within the Democratic Party that downplayed the need for Social Security reform." Then, they proceeded to demolish the Democratic group's arguments, which today are being repeated by pro-status quo Democrats.

While the administration's high-level working group was reviewing the options, the rapidly growing economy and the soaring stock market were on the verge of turning longtime budget deficits into budget surpluses, which were soon to be projected for years into the future. Admittedly, the imminence of these surpluses stoked the president's interest in exploiting the superior returns offered by stock and bond investments. At the same time, however, "the president also made clear that all reform options other than an increase in the payroll tax should be on the table." To this end, "much of the effort ultimately was directed toward devising ways of bridging the gap between the defenders of the current defined-benefit system and advocates of individual accounts."

Focusing on (1) administrative feasibility and costs, (2) portfolio market risk, (3) political interference in markets and corporate governance and (4) redistribution, the working group rigorously studied the option of investments in private financial assets. It concluded that "such a system could be run at an annual cost of $20 to $30 per account." The economic team also "did not think that market risk was a sufficiently important concern to rule out plans that involved equities." Concerns about redistribution and political interference "under a system of individual accounts" could also be adequately addressed, the working group concluded.

Having resolved its primary concerns, the working group "believed that there was more potential for substantive consensus on Social Security reform than the heated rhetoric on the topic suggested." Optimistically, the authors report that "on two of the most disputed issues — whether investment in private securities should be handled collectively or individually, and whether individual accounts should be created as part of Social Security — there was nearly a continuum of options; and proposals from the left and right seemed to be moving toward each other."

Approvingly noting that even "some of the Republican proposals involved redistributive funding of individual accounts," the authors reported: "Thus, by late 1998" — this timing will be seen to be crucial — "there appeared to be the possibility for convergence around using non-Social Security funds to make redistributive contributions to individual accounts, contributions that might or might not bear any direct mechanical relationship to the traditional Social Security system." There were three "reform plans that occupied the 'policy space' defined by this possible convergence of views." The first would have implemented add-on individual accounts financed either by surplus general revenues, which would compensate for cuts in traditional benefits, or by additional mandatory contributions. The second option, based on a plan developed by former Reagan Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Martin Feldstein and introduced in Congress by Republican Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, would also use surplus revenues to finance individual accounts. The third option was a "hybrid" plan that "included both trust fund investments in equities and the establishment of small individual accounts."

While the budget surplus clearly played a major role in the individual accounts countenanced by the working group, it must also be acknowledged that any of the three "policy space" options would have represented an opening bid by the Clinton administration, subject to negotiation with and revision by the Republican Congress. "In the end," however, "President Clinton decided to pursue Social Security reform based on bolstering the Social Security trust fund rather than on creating individual accounts," the authors recalled. Cryptically, Messrs. Elmendorf, Liebman and Wilcox concluded: "This decision may have been influenced by the changing political dynamic in late 1998, as the possibility that the president would be impeached came clearly into view. Whether the president would have pursued a different approach in the absence of impeachment will never be known." In other words, the grossly irresponsible president's decisions to engage in sexual relations with a White House intern and then to repeatedly lie about it forced him to embrace his liberal Democratic base (and their aversion to individual retirement accounts). In the end, it probably cost Mr. Clinton what the authors call "the Rooseveltian legacy," which would have "come from putting Social Security on secure ground for the coming century."

36 posted on 02/05/2005 5:04:00 PM PST by Libloather (The left is dead! Long live their impeached *King and *Queen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
I don't dispute the numbers, but I do dispute that Nixon-Bush-Bush are Marxists...44 years of RAT controlled Congress and all the entitlements that have long term guarantees have influenced that chart more (not exclusively) than any President could...it was RR who stated repeatedly that The President 'can't spend a dime'.

There is a lot more to fulfilling the dreams of Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, et al, than just social spending in a representative republic.

Don't get me wrong, I thing all of that is big bloat, big waste, and leaves us one tick away from socialism.

37 posted on 02/05/2005 5:07:07 PM PST by NewLand (Faith in The Lord trumps all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Special Ops Cody....at your service....


38 posted on 02/05/2005 5:08:17 PM PST by add925 (The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The data shows % of total spending dedicated to that Superfunction (mostly welfare). Because the U.S. went so heavy into debt and this money was poured into the military, the percent of total spending that went into social welfare shows that big drop for FDR.

In fact, it was gigantic--from over 40% to 2%!

But we can say the same thing about Reagan. Did the percent spent on social welfare drop because the % spent on military went up? What about George Bush? He is spending more on the military, yet the percent spent on social welfare continues to rise!

Many excuses can be made, but the data is clear. The % spent of every dollar for social welfare rose dramatically under LBJ, Nixon, George Hernert Walker Bush and George Bush.

Only Reagan showed any meaningful decline, and FDR's gigantic decline was, in lare part, due to the massive increase in total spending which made the outlays for social welfare spending as a % of this total drop.

Still, facts are facts. The BEST way to look at a budget, especially in comparing one president to another, is to use % of total spending dedicated to various parts. Why? Simply because that allows fair comparisons from one era to another era. It gives you a built-in inflation adjustment.

It is impossible to compare raw dollars spent to raw dollars spent. The percentage spent in each category of total is the only fair way to compare one period to another.

39 posted on 02/05/2005 5:09:51 PM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (John Kerry--three fake Purple Hearts. George Bush--one real heart of gold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: add925

R O T F L M A O


40 posted on 02/05/2005 5:10:07 PM PST by international american (Tagline wanted.......must be fireproof.........will pay cash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson