Who Broke the 'Promise' of Social Security?

Human Events Online ^ | January 18, 2005 | Mac Johnson

[ladyjane]

You are so right. Social security never was to and never has been a retirement program. It is a tax on all wage earners to provide a safety net for those who would starve without it. A bunch of money grubbing elderly Democrats want it to be a retirement program. It's not.

[ladyjane]

Actually, Lyndon Johnson broke the promise.

No. Actually the 'promise' of social security was for a safety net. The 'promise' was never retirement income.

[Snoopers-868th]

You are flat incorrect. Social Security's original intent was to provide economic security through taxes paid while working. The House passed it in 1935 in a 372-33 vote. The Senate vote was 77-6. Sounds pretty bipartisan to me. Not the Democratic rip-off I have heard from some.

Furthermore, at the same time and under the same bill the law created the nation's

1) unemployment system,
2) the now abolished Aid to Families with Dependent Children and,
3) an old-age assistance program along with,
4) it authorized grants to states to provode medical care.

I guess we need to eliminate ALL of those also. Wonder how long those collecting unemployment would believe these are solely Democratic programs?

We all partake at the well even those of us who consider ourselves Conservative. Tax credits are only another form of a social program. The ugly words directed to the elderly are totally uncalled for as they are not the fault of the SS crisis.

The facts need to be put on the table. It is the politicians, the robbery of the fund, the rule changes in the SS plan, the exodus of US companies taking jobs and contributing workers, NAFTA, outright government encouragement to limit family size due to population growth, the list goes on and on but it does not point to the elderly.

[rolling_stone]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/law.html

[DManA]

What would you have done with the fund money?

It is the politicians, the robbery of the fund,

[lifacs]

Common man is exactly who caused the system to fail. They Demand MORE FREE stuff. The retirees via AARP is the largest lobbying organization going today. The Congresscritters cave when the Greedy Old Geezers come calling.

I agree.

An example of wanting something for nothing:

This morning on the local news.

FPL (Florida Power & Light) will charge $2.09 extra a month for two years to rebuild their hurricane fund. They spent over 354 million dollars repairing the damages that the hurricanes caused here and they need to restock. The reporter interviewed 5 people. Naturally the reporter exuded the "HOW UNFAIR" attitude. Four of them whined and complained about it being too much. Only one said it was fine to restock the fund, but even he was worried about how long they would try to collect the extra $2.09 a month.

I really hate screaming at my TV this early in the morning, but I am really getting tired of everybody wanting something for nothing! FPL did a great job fixing the electrical system around here. We had two hurricanes come through within three weeks and all they are asking for is $2.09 a month for two years? Come on people!

[lifacs]

There are "conservatives" on this site who defend this Ponzi scheme

Not I. Matter of fact, my early twenties children can't wait until SS is destroyed. They absolutely detest it and are spreading the word. They want their money in an account with their name on it, which they control, like their other accounts. They know that they are paying for seniors right now and not a penny of FICA is being saved for their retirement.

By the way, I can't take any responsibility for their thoughts on SS. They have grandparents that have reinforced their thoughts on this with their actions. I've always taught them to respect their elders, but they are adults now and they are really having a hard time with the Social Security issue. They see this as "greedy seniors" trying to keep Social Security from being privitatized for the young people.

[Protagoras]

Your children are correct, the other FReepers who defend these big government wealth transfer schemes are wrong. I am on another thread right now where the feel good "conservatives" (really liberals) are defending the ADA.

Amazing stuff. Who needs to debate DU liberals when we have a whole contingent right here on FR?

[Jack of all Trades]

mark

[quadrant]

Since I worked for the SSA for three years, I am familiar with the intent of the program.
As originally designed, the OAS program was intended to provide only a basic floor of income - certainly a worthy goal - but was not intended to be a comprehensive retirement or a pension program.
The designers intended that pensions and savings would provide the other sources of income needed to sustain the elderly after their working years.
If politicians chose to morph Social Security into something
else, that speaks for the cupidity of our political class and not for the original design of the system.
Again, if politicians chose to loot the fund - an act that can be traced to LBJ's merging of Social Security and general fund revenues - then that speaks to the cupidity of our political class.
The decline in manufacturing employment is unrelated to the problems of the Social Security system.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I do not believe the common man was at fault for any part of the plan not working. It could have worked if our former presidents and politicians had left it alone. But then they can't leave the Constitution alone either and look what has happened.

Given the opportunity, nothing is as much fun as spending other people's money. This is something most politicians cannot resist. But privatization is a way to have a government sponsored retirement plan (thus keeping the political promise) and forcing politicians to keep their hands off at least the part that is in a private account.

Suggesting tongue in cheek that we should die earlier is certainly a solution, so why is government so intent on banning smoking, it seems we should encourage such risky habbits and drop benefits from medicare.