Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I'm hoping the this very knowledgeable and self educated audience here could provide an answer that even Grok could not provide.
1 posted on 08/14/2025 3:15:31 PM PDT by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: Nateman

I’m sure he expected it to be from here to eternity.


2 posted on 08/14/2025 3:17:43 PM PDT by gloryblaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

I’m still getting my Social Security check and FDR has been dead a long time. Government programs don’t die easily. :-)


3 posted on 08/14/2025 3:19:03 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Since he was a socialist I would presume it was going to cure all ills forever.


4 posted on 08/14/2025 3:19:10 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Claude.ai:

Searched for “FDR Franklin Roosevelt Social Security duration expectations how long last”

Let me fetch more specific information about FDR’s statements on Social Security’s duration.

Fetched: Presidential Statements

Based on the comprehensive record of FDR’s statements on Social Security, there’s no evidence that Roosevelt expected Social Security to last for only a specific limited duration. In fact, the historical record shows quite the opposite.

FDR described Social Security as “a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete” when he signed the act in 1935. He viewed it as a permanent foundation that would be built upon over time.

Roosevelt insisted that Social Security “should be funded by payroll taxes rather than from the general fund” [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) to ensure its long-term sustainability. This design choice reflects his intention for the program to be self-sustaining and permanent.

Throughout his presidency, FDR consistently spoke of Social Security as an evolving, expanding program. In his 1939 message to Congress, he stated: “We shall make the most orderly progress if we look upon social security as a development toward a goal rather than a finished product” - language that suggests permanence and growth, not temporary duration.

Rather than setting an expiration date, Roosevelt repeatedly advocated for expanding Social Security coverage. He pushed for including more occupations and extending benefits, viewing the program as foundational to America’s economic security infrastructure.

The historical evidence suggests FDR envisioned Social Security as a permanent cornerstone of American social policy that would grow and adapt over time, not as a temporary program with a predetermined end date.

Citations:
- [Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt)

More sources:
- [FDR’s Statements on Social Security](https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html)
- [Why Did Franklin Roosevelt Create Social Security? | Free the Facts](https://www.freefacts.org/resources/why-did-franklin-roosevelt-create-social-security)
- [Social Security History](https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html)
- [Why Social Security Was the Cornerstone of FDR’s New Deal](https://www.history.com/articles/social-security-history-fdr-new-deal)
- [Social Welfare History Project FDR’s Statement on Signing the Social Security Act](https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/social-security/social-security-an-introduction/)
- [Social Security Act - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act)
- [Historical Thinking Matters: Social Security](https://historicalthinkingmatters.org/socialsecurity/1/sources/35/fulltext/)
- [FDR Signing 1935 Social Security Act](https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrsign.html)
- [Franklin D. Roosevelt Signs the Social Security Act - White House Historical Association](https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/franklin-d-roosevelt-signs-the-social-security-act)


6 posted on 08/14/2025 3:20:46 PM PDT by Gman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Problems
FDR relied on in house “Economists”
Government always cooks the books

Planned Parenthood took off


7 posted on 08/14/2025 3:22:44 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Problems
FDR relied on in house “Economists”
Government always cooks the books

Planned Parenthood took off


8 posted on 08/14/2025 3:24:32 PM PDT by Steven Tyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

In 1940, the average life expectancy at birth in the United States was approximately 65 years.

Today, the average life expectancy at birth in the United States is approximately 80 years.

So there you go. FDR didn’t read things wrong. He just didn’t anticipate the advances in medicine and health care.

———

Disclaimer: Those life expectancy numbers vary all over the place depending on the source. But I think the point is made regardless.


10 posted on 08/14/2025 3:27:36 PM PDT by Leaning Right (It's morning in America. Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Read the book: FDR’s Folly.


13 posted on 08/14/2025 3:30:02 PM PDT by SkyDancer ( ~ Am Yisrael Chai ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman
How 'bout this: "Roosevelt later explained how the payroll taxes would help ensure Social Security’s long-term viability. 'Those taxes were never a matter of economics,' he said, according to [Jean Edward] Smith’s biography ["FDR," Random House, 2007]. 'They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.' " (I added the boldface. This block of text came from this substack post.
15 posted on 08/14/2025 3:30:53 PM PDT by Blurb2350 (posted from my 1500-watt blow dryer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Not worthy of what you need but here is a brief article.

Social Security differed from other New Deal programs in that it wasn’t a short-term solution to the Great Depression. It was a long-term investment.

https://www.history.com/articles/social-security-history-fdr-new-deal


22 posted on 08/14/2025 3:49:45 PM PDT by frank ballenger (There's a battle outside and it's raging. It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

The Social Security and Medicare funding crisis will be solved by the implementation of a European-style value added tax (VAT). Neither party will allow 70 million seniors to take a 25% cut in benefits. Most Freepers receive S/S benefits btw (and Medicare). Like everyone else, they will hold their nose and let it pass. Any bets??


23 posted on 08/14/2025 3:50:40 PM PDT by rexthecat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

This has a Fireside Chat and other pronouncements. Maybe will help.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html


24 posted on 08/14/2025 3:51:46 PM PDT by frank ballenger (There's a battle outside and it's raging. It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

When SS was birthed the life expectancy for a man was 65.5 years. Neither FDR nor Congress envisioned SS lasting more than a couple of years tops. Families took care of senior members so SS was supposed to help with their expenses. Plus it was never envisioned to be more than a basic supplement to personal savings. The notion of SS as a full income is a LBJ invention


27 posted on 08/14/2025 3:58:34 PM PDT by Repulican Donkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

I really doubt that FDR considered the effect of FEMINISM on Social Security.


28 posted on 08/14/2025 3:59:54 PM PDT by BobL (If you're over 50 and still eat carbs, expect to become diabetic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

The program would be flush with cash if invested. Instead the pols spend it and throw an IOU in there at 3% or so.

Probably so much it could oay off the national debt.


30 posted on 08/14/2025 4:04:52 PM PDT by Fledermaus ("It turns out all we really needed was a new President!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Just throw illegal aliens, not undocumented migrants or illegal migrants
migrants or newcomers, off Social Security and Medicaid and they would
last for a much longer time. To me the Demoncrats ...I mean Democrats ploy
is to let those 10+ millions of illegal aliens in, give them free stuff,
let them vote and they will then seize control of the US forever.


35 posted on 08/14/2025 4:16:14 PM PDT by antidemoncrat (In a way ge is right as)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

You can find his statements here:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-social-security-act-0

and here:

https://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html

I doubt he made any predictions on how long it would last.

In those days, people married, had large families, and didn’t live long, so the prospects would have seemed good for Social Security. Different generations lived together under one roof, so Social Security would be a supplement to savings and to what younger family members earned.

There would have been no reason why FDR would think that the system would collapse at some point. Social Security did a lot to break up the very social and economic conditions that made it seem like a good bet at the time, but few foresaw that in the Thirties.


36 posted on 08/14/2025 4:21:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

It was presented as a permanent arrangement. Part of a new deal you might say.


39 posted on 08/14/2025 4:42:14 PM PDT by Salman (It's not a slippery slope if it was part of the program all along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

From an old article from 1964...

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssa/usa1964-2.html

“Self-Supporting

The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government. Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”

From a different article, you were supposed to retire at 62, but the average life span was 57 years meaning very little would be paid out.
Then came penicillin.


42 posted on 08/14/2025 5:13:38 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Nateman

Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.

If Americans had not made the unfortunate decision to eat right, stay active, and treat their personal health as a primary concern, then maybe the life expectancy would not have risen so far, and people today would not be in the third or fourth decade of their retirements collecting from Social Security. Average life expectancy in 1935 was LESS than 65 years of age.

Very few of the original applicants for Social Security payments lived long enough to collect back much more than they had put in to begin with.


45 posted on 08/14/2025 5:50:53 PM PDT by alloysteel (Try to understand, God is not finished with me yet. Still lots of room for improvement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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