Franklin Delano Roosevelt first suggested private Social Security Accounts?

Franklin D. Roosevelt: A Program for Social Security ^ | January 17, 1935 | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep. Still nothing posted since either.

Anyway, I'm heading out to a buddies to watch the Super Bowl.

See ya later.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Like Canada, we are now doing the same. Wait until you see how the defense of this nation will be scaled back.

You made great points.

Thx

[tanknetter]

The chart clearly says the data reflects the percent spent on HR as a % of total spending.

Very true. For example the reason why there's a huge dip during the FDR years is probably because spending on the war effort increased at a significantly greater rate than HR spending. Doesn't mean that HR spending actually went down ... it could have gone up.

However, a similar thing could possibly be happening, in the reverse, for Nixon. I don't know the figures but it would be interesting to discover if spending and especially national security spending (wind-down of Vietnam, detante, etc) dropped at enough of a rate to make either flat spending, or moderate increases, in HR look exaggerated by comparison.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Possibly so.

However, that is still no excuse to maintain TOTAL spending at that level.

Without crunching the numbers, let's say that is why Nixon looks so bad on that chart in #27. If miltary spending crashed due to the winding down of the Vietnam War, why didn't he veto any budget that maintained total spending at where it was, thus inflating social welfare programs? Total spending should have been cut, not maintaining total spending and just shifting the excess into social welfare.

The problem is that DOD spending can rise and fall, but once money is spent on social welfare, they constantly create a new baseline for these programs that say spending can only go up from where it was last budgeted.

You make a valid point of explaining how it could have happened, but that was still no excuse for Nixon to let it happen. That is how and why we now have 65 cents of every dollar going toward social welfare. You know and I know that the politicians are relunctant to cut total spending.

Another hypothetical. Let's say that the War in Iraq comes to a dead stop next year. All of a sudden, that is $100 billion that will not be spent. What do you think Bush and Congress will do? Cut the Budget $100 billion? No way! They will just shift this from Iraq to social welfare. That is what happned to Nixon and it is the same thing that all presidents let happen. They refuse to cut spending when a major spending program ends--they shift it to social welfare to buy votes.

[OXENinFLA]

FDR Message to Congress on Social Security (1-17-1935) [wanted private accounts]

[Budge]

But it did not happen, is not happening now, and trends by Bush point to an ever increasing expansion of the social welfare state.

DTOM, is it possible that because of the LSM hatred of "W" and the damage they could do to the Republican Party with their twisting of truth, they (the Republicans) dare not do any more than his proposal, which is an excellent baby step?

I'm not trying to start an argument, far from it, I would just like your opinion.

Let's face it, during the LBJ and Carter administrations the Democrats added many people who are not physically disabled to the system thereby creating even more on the welfare dole.

[Siamese Princess]

You taught us a thing or to on this thread. Thanks.

[Siamese Princess]

Hello, again. The problem is that the more the government does for people the less able and willing they are to do for themselves and others and the less able and willing they are to do for themselves and others the more the government has an excuse to do for them. It's a downward spiral of government spending followed by dependency, followed by even more government spending, etc.

On top of that, more and more people for purely selfish and greedy reasons don't want to pay their own bills (even if they have the money) or take on resonsibilities (even if they are capable). They want to sponge off of their fellow citizens and push off their resonsibilities on taxpayer-funded employees. The American people, collectively, are spoiled rotten.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

It seems that the Republicans have been trying to win the "Miss Popularity Contest" for some time. Even Newt Gingrich got caught up in this soon after the "Great Sweep" of 1994 when the Democrats started calling him "mean spirited".

The Republcians have sacrificed their principles (and thus our nation) going after this popularity contest thing for a long time now. It is not just domestic. It is global also. The more the world hates us, the more we give away billion$ and billion$ trrying to be "popular".

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Agree 100%.

And, isn't that what is happening now with world welfare? The U.N. runs a trumped-up fundraising drive practically every month trying to make America (and some others) feel guilty about not throwing more $$$ to the third world.

Look at what is happening as we speak. The G-7 meeting has the G-7 agreeing to forgive the debt to the tune of about $100 billion. The more we pump into global welfare, the larger the black hole becomes.

You are dead on target, and it is happening globally as well as in the U.S. Our children and grandchildren will inherit a poor nation bordering on third world status the way we are destroying our treasury.

[Siamese Princess]

Yup. One thing that has happened in our society is the idea of personal responsibility towards people in particular has been replaced by impersonal responsibility towards people in general. You can ignore your aged parents, divorce a perfectly good spouse and abandon or abort your children, in the name of the pursuit of happiness. But if you balk at paying more and more to support strangers, even strangers who have brought their problems upon themselves ... well, that's the height of selfishness and lack of compassion. You are a BAD person! Impersonal charity has been expanded from you and I supporting an old lady in Oregon to supporting an old lady in Outer Mongolia. The military is already being starved, as you have pointed out, in order to pay for social welfare schemes. Sooner or later, the well will run dry. Who will help us? No one, I think.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[rushfreedom]

I just researched this and found that the quotes to be taken out of context. We all need to be careful.

The 30 year funding by the federal government would be replaced by the self supporting plans. (Social Security)

Do not fall for this. Do some research first!