Posted on 02/05/2005 2:59:47 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
His link looks legit, folks. I'm not sure he's a Troll. Just check it out.
It reads like that, doesn't it?
Yesterday we went back to our audio archives and we have it. January 19th, 1999, president William Jefferson Blythe Clinton delivering his State of the Union address. Here is a portion of what he said.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits, not to raise payroll tax rates, not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security. (Cheers and applause).
RUSH: Hang on. Hang on. We left this applause in for you so you can hear the Democrats applauding something.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Specifically, I propose that we commit 60% of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.
RUSH: And they applauded like mad.
haha! Thanks.Imagine that ..... the 'RATS being hypocritical and playing the Class Warfare card like that.
Applauding when clintoon proposes fixing SS and bi*ching about Dubya proposing similar.
And to think, the idiots went to some FDR Memorial for a photo op to bash this, hahaha!
LBJ is the TRUE father of Marxism.
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.
Disability was introduced in 1950, though at first limited to those at or above the age of 50. That was dropped within a few years. An extra allowance for the dependents of those on disability was also added in the '50s.
It wasn't until Dick Nixon's administration that yearly increases in social security payments were automatic -- originally, they had to be voted on by Congress. Also, Social Security in general expanded from a supplement to a pension program only in the 1970s.
It's safe to say that all kinds of government programs began modestly under FDR but steadily expanded afterwards.
As Harry Hopkins, assistant to FDR (and Soviet agent) once said, "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."
Why perish the thought! < /sarcasm>
Read the article I linked to in #65.
Opting out of SS ended shortly after this happened, under Ronald Reagan.
Many people think RR proposed ending opting out, but it was the 'RAT' controlled House and Senate that proposed ending it, RR didn't have line-item veto to remove that little gem hidden away in legislation and was forced to sign it, thus ending anyone/thing from opting out.
The problem with any form of government-funded old age pensions is that they render children both superfluous and expendable. Thoughout the West, thanks to the welfare state (especially old age pensions), child labor laws and mandatory education laws, children are an expensive luxury.
To use an obvious example, a hundred years ago, if a man walked out on his wife and kids, he walked out on his old-age pension. That's no longer true -- the government will take care of him. The family is no longer the primary provider of health and welfare services (as it was from the beginning of time), so people feel free not to form families or casually leave, because the family is superfluous.
Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Thanks. The problem is that so many modern-day politicians and bureaucrats want to use government programs to foster dependency on the government. That's why they will fight even minimal privatization of Social Security or any other government program. A wise Frenchman said around a hundred years ago that to be dependent on the government is to be a slave of the government. The politicians and bureaucrats want to buy votes and buy obedience.
Thanks for the ping, Meek.
Excellent article, Wildcat! Thanks.
Brit quoted a small portion of FDR's proposal on "The Grapevine" a few days ago and it was interesting to read it in its entirety.
How Galveston Opted Out of Social SecurityOh, yeah. I saw an article about that not long ago here on FR.
Thanks.
That was a very good read. I've heard about it but never knew any of the details. Thanks
Thanks, my pleasure. :^DYou have a great Super Bowl Sunday.
BTTT
Even so, guess what decade reached the LOWEST point of spending on social welfare...........the 1950s. Truman and Eisenhower brought spending down in this area to 28.4 cents of every dollar by 1960.
By 1970, this had risen to 38.5 cents of every dollar, showing LBJ's (and to a minor extent Richard Nixon's) increases. By 1980, it soared to 53.0 cents of eery dollar. The biggest culprit was Richard Nixon in the early 70s and Ford. Reagan showed a decline. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.
Today it is at 65 cents of every dollar.
Too often, people hear what year some program was initiated and end up placing blame on the president or Congress for that year. The warping of that program often takes place later. (The blame placed on FDR is wrongly placed in is the best example of this). The best way to gauge when the Marxism crap takes place is to look at actual spending so we can properly place blame.
As the chart in #27 shows, Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush put some real damage on us in terms of bringing about a rising state of centralized statism/Marxism/socialism, whatever one wants to call it.
We are cutting back on military programs now (like the F-22) since we "can't afford them". The rising centralized socialism we have is the cause. If we can't afford military programs now at 65 cents of every dollar, what will happen when the social weolfare spending reaches 70 cents of every dollar?
Russia and China win. They don't need to beat us in a military war. All they need to do is wait a few years and let America implode from the internal cancer of social welfare spending and global lottery giveaways.
But it did not happen, is not happening now, and trends by Bush point to an ever increasing expansion of the social welfare state. A study of the OMB budget pags proves this. Look at what military programs are being cut due to "cost" and what social welfare programs are being expaned with 50, 100 and even 200% increases, even though inflation is only 3%.
Russia and China win. They don't need to beat us in a military war. All they need to do is wait a few years and let America implode from the internal cancer of social welfare spending and global lottery giveaways.
That has occured to me, as well. More highly socialized nations such as Canada have gutted their military in order to pay for social services.
That is a very strange first post, let alone the only one in a year.
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.