Witness To History

[regent]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

If "Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America," why didn't FDR author an amendment to allow it?

Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.

 

[Foxfyre]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

Fought tooth and nail by Republicans? Where do you get this stuff?

The final vote in 1935:

HOUSE
Yes - Democrats 284 - Republicans 81 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 6
Nay - Democrats 15 - Republicans 15 - Farm Labor 2 - Progressives 1
Not voting - Democrats 20 - Republicans 6

SENATE
Yes - Democrats 60 - Republicans 16 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 0
Nay - Democrats 1 - Republicans 5
Not voting - Democrats 8 - Republicans 4
Social Security History

It is hard to find controversial legislation that is any more bipartisan than that.

You are correct, however, that the dissenters, both Democrat and Republican, did fight it and called it accurately. They had the vision to see ahead how that tiny snowball that was started rolling at that time would become the enormous economically deadly entitlement machine that it has become. And how it was the first serious crack in the foundations of the Constitution that had protected us from government tyranny for well over a century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a glaring fallacy in your post.

Simple put, growing government is akin to the drunk who tries to keep from tipping over by attempting to run faster and faster.



I hate to keep stepping on the clay feet of your political diety (I really don't) but the vaunted FDR did just that with Social Security:

The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary




Wasn't this the economics whiz you suggested was "infallible"?

Social Security was not in the red last year.

Payroll tax collections plus interest earned on the securities held in the Trust Fund exceeded payouts to recipients.

This is one more rightwing myth that rightwingers find too pleasing to abandon.

There is a link.

There is a reason for the link.

There is a date therein.

Yes, ma'am.

And your link says this:

"Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow...."

What did I tell you? Social Security is not currently, nor has it been, for the last 2 years

"in the red".

You are not in the red if you are still taking in more money than you're paying out.

Your link ironically is the same link I repeatedly use to debunk your myth. This time you saved me the trouble of digging it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

If "Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America," why didn't FDR author an amendment to allow it?

Because obviously he didn't need one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Social Security was not in the red last year.

Payroll tax collections plus interest earned on the securities held in the Trust Fund exceeded payouts to recipients.

This is one more rightwing myth that rightwingers find too pleasing to abandon.

There is a link.

There is a reason for the link.

There is a date therein.

Yes, ma'am.

And your link says this:

"Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow...."

What did I tell you? Social Security is not currently, nor has it been, for the last 2 years

"in the red".

You are not in the red if you are still taking in more money than you're paying out.

Your link ironically is the same link I repeatedly use to debunk your myth. This time you saved me the trouble of digging it up.

Then explain this chart that was created in 2011:

Also written in 2011:

President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is “not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are.” That’s correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obama’s own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.” That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesn’t change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the government’s finances. . . .

. . . .Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the “payroll tax holiday” will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the ” tax holiday” and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.
Democrats Deny Social Security?s Red Ink

 

[regent]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

Fought tooth and nail by Republicans? Where do you get this stuff?

The final vote in 1935:

HOUSE
Yes - Democrats 284 - Republicans 81 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 6
Nay - Democrats 15 - Republicans 15 - Farm Labor 2 - Progressives 1
Not voting - Democrats 20 - Republicans 6

SENATE
Yes - Democrats 60 - Republicans 16 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 0
Nay - Democrats 1 - Republicans 5
Not voting - Democrats 8 - Republicans 4
Social Security History

It is hard to find controversial legislation that is any more bipartisan than that.

You are correct, however, that the dissenters, both Democrat and Republican, did fight it and called it accurately. They had the vision to see ahead how that tiny snowball that was started rolling at that time would become the enormous economically deadly entitlement machine that it has become. And how it was the first serious crack in the foundations of the Constitution that had protected us from government tyranny for well over a century.

The Republicans were smart enough to know the people wanted Social Security and the Democrats had the vote, so once it was in the mill the Republicans saw the light.

 

[Foxfyre]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

Fought tooth and nail by Republicans? Where do you get this stuff?

The final vote in 1935:

HOUSE
Yes - Democrats 284 - Republicans 81 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 6
Nay - Democrats 15 - Republicans 15 - Farm Labor 2 - Progressives 1
Not voting - Democrats 20 - Republicans 6

SENATE
Yes - Democrats 60 - Republicans 16 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 0
Nay - Democrats 1 - Republicans 5
Not voting - Democrats 8 - Republicans 4
Social Security History

It is hard to find controversial legislation that is any more bipartisan than that.

You are correct, however, that the dissenters, both Democrat and Republican, did fight it and called it accurately. They had the vision to see ahead how that tiny snowball that was started rolling at that time would become the enormous economically deadly entitlement machine that it has become. And how it was the first serious crack in the foundations of the Constitution that had protected us from government tyranny for well over a century.

The Republicans were smart enough to know the people wanted Social Security and the Democrats had the vote, so once it was in the mill the Republicans saw the light.

Well gee my friend, maybe someday you'll actually pick up a history book on the subject and won't continue to embarrass yourself when you post on this stuff.

If you do check the history, you'll find as many, if not more Democrats, who were vehemently opposed to the legislation than there were Republicans. It was the same 30 years later during the debates on Medicare prior to its passage on a bipartisan vote.

"The political parties were very different in 1965 than they are today," said Donald Ritchie, the historian of the U.S. Senate. "Both had strong conservative and liberal wings, so most votes were bipartisan because the conservatives in the two parties voted against the liberals in each party. You had Republicans like Jacob Javits (N.Y.) who were more liberal than most Democrats, and Democrats like James Eastland (Miss.) who were more conservative than most Republicans. So there were Republicans who supported Medicare and Democrats who opposed it."
PolitiFact | James Clyburn says Republicans sat on sidelines for passage of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is a link.

There is a reason for the link.

There is a date therein.

Yes, ma'am.

And your link says this:

"Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow...."

What did I tell you? Social Security is not currently, nor has it been, for the last 2 years

"in the red".

You are not in the red if you are still taking in more money than you're paying out.

Your link ironically is the same link I repeatedly use to debunk your myth. This time you saved me the trouble of digging it up.

Then explain this chart that was created in 2011:

Also written in 2011:

President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is “not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are.” That’s correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obama’s own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that “Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.” That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesn’t change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the government’s finances. . . .

. . . .Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the “payroll tax holiday” will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the ” tax holiday” and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.
Democrats Deny Social Security?s Red Ink

The Trust Fund consists of payroll taxes paid directly into it, plus the interest accumulated by the return on the investment of the Trust Fund in US securities.

The general fund of the US government has borrowed the Trust Fund money, just as it borrows anywhere else.

The general fund of the US government has to pay back any part of that money, with interest, whenever the Trust Fund might need to draw on it to pay recipients.

It is not the fault of Social Security that the general fund might have to borrow somewhere else to pay its debt to the SS Trust Fund.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fought tooth and nail by Republicans? Where do you get this stuff?

The final vote in 1935:

HOUSE
Yes - Democrats 284 - Republicans 81 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 6
Nay - Democrats 15 - Republicans 15 - Farm Labor 2 - Progressives 1
Not voting - Democrats 20 - Republicans 6

SENATE
Yes - Democrats 60 - Republicans 16 - Farm Labor 1 - Progressives 0
Nay - Democrats 1 - Republicans 5
Not voting - Democrats 8 - Republicans 4
Social Security History

It is hard to find controversial legislation that is any more bipartisan than that.

You are correct, however, that the dissenters, both Democrat and Republican, did fight it and called it accurately. They had the vision to see ahead how that tiny snowball that was started rolling at that time would become the enormous economically deadly entitlement machine that it has become. And how it was the first serious crack in the foundations of the Constitution that had protected us from government tyranny for well over a century.

The Republicans were smart enough to know the people wanted Social Security and the Democrats had the vote, so once it was in the mill the Republicans saw the light.

Well gee my friend, maybe someday you'll actually pick up a history book on the subject and won't continue to embarrass yourself when you post on this stuff.

If you do check the history, you'll find as many, if not more Democrats, who were vehemently opposed to the legislation than there were Republicans. It was the same 30 years later during the debates on Medicare prior to its passage on a bipartisan vote.

"The political parties were very different in 1965 than they are today," said Donald Ritchie, the historian of the U.S. Senate. "Both had strong conservative and liberal wings, so most votes were bipartisan because the conservatives in the two parties voted against the liberals in each party. You had Republicans like Jacob Javits (N.Y.) who were more liberal than most Democrats, and Democrats like James Eastland (Miss.) who were more conservative than most Republicans. So there were Republicans who supported Medicare and Democrats who opposed it."
PolitiFact | James Clyburn says Republicans sat on sidelines for passage of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

Are you implying that Republicans were willing accomplices to FDR's evil imposition of Socialist Security upon us?

 

[regent]

The Republicans were smart enough to know the people wanted Social Security and the Democrats had the vote, so once it was in the mill the Republicans saw the light.

Well gee my friend, maybe someday you'll actually pick up a history book on the subject and won't continue to embarrass yourself when you post on this stuff.

If you do check the history, you'll find as many, if not more Democrats, who were vehemently opposed to the legislation than there were Republicans. It was the same 30 years later during the debates on Medicare prior to its passage on a bipartisan vote.

"The political parties were very different in 1965 than they are today," said Donald Ritchie, the historian of the U.S. Senate. "Both had strong conservative and liberal wings, so most votes were bipartisan because the conservatives in the two parties voted against the liberals in each party. You had Republicans like Jacob Javits (N.Y.) who were more liberal than most Democrats, and Democrats like James Eastland (Miss.) who were more conservative than most Republicans. So there were Republicans who supported Medicare and Democrats who opposed it."
PolitiFact | James Clyburn says Republicans sat on sidelines for passage of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

Are you implying that Republicans were willing accomplices to FDR's evil imposition of Socialist Security upon us?

If Social Security were a bill today and before today's House and Senate would Republicans allow passage of Social Security as they did in 1935 or threaten to shut down the government? While it was different times in 35, I'll bet today's House would fight Social Security just as it fights Obama-care. They cannot stand to see the American people benefit from government as business does.

In 1935 FDR was behind SS as were the people but today Obama-care is iffy with the people and Republicans control the House so it was a different ball game in 1935, but I bet they would vote a and

 

[Foxfyre]

Well gee my friend, maybe someday you'll actually pick up a history book on the subject and won't continue to embarrass yourself when you post on this stuff.

If you do check the history, you'll find as many, if not more Democrats, who were vehemently opposed to the legislation than there were Republicans. It was the same 30 years later during the debates on Medicare prior to its passage on a bipartisan vote.

Are you implying that Republicans were willing accomplices to FDR's evil imposition of Socialist Security upon us?

If Social Security were a bill today and before today's House and Senate would Republicans allow passage of Social Security as they did in 1935 or threaten to shut down the government? While it was different times in 35, I'll bet today's House would fight Social Security just as it fights Obama-care. They cannot stand to see the American people benefit from government as business does.

In 1935 FDR was behind SS as were the people but today Obama-care is iffy with the people and Republicans control the House so it was a different ball game in 1935, but I bet they would vote a and

Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.

I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.

Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.

Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.

 

[regent]

Are you implying that Republicans were willing accomplices to FDR's evil imposition of Socialist Security upon us?

If Social Security were a bill today and before today's House and Senate would Republicans allow passage of Social Security as they did in 1935 or threaten to shut down the government? While it was different times in 35, I'll bet today's House would fight Social Security just as it fights Obama-care. They cannot stand to see the American people benefit from government as business does.

In 1935 FDR was behind SS as were the people but today Obama-care is iffy with the people and Republicans control the House so it was a different ball game in 1935, but I bet they would vote a and

Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.

I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.

Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.

Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.

Speaking of history all those arguments Republicans used to fight Social Security are still in the history books and available for viewing, pretty much the Obama-care arguments.
But a bigger question: is it possible that if Republicans could capture all three branches of government today they would try to kill Social Security? How about Medicare?

 

[Steven_R]

Doubtful, There was a brief discussion during the Bush years. When they tried to talk about even fixing pieces of either program the bluehairs freaked out.

 

[Foxfyre]

If Social Security were a bill today and before today's House and Senate would Republicans allow passage of Social Security as they did in 1935 or threaten to shut down the government? While it was different times in 35, I'll bet today's House would fight Social Security just as it fights Obama-care. They cannot stand to see the American people benefit from government as business does.

In 1935 FDR was behind SS as were the people but today Obama-care is iffy with the people and Republicans control the House so it was a different ball game in 1935, but I bet they would vote a and

Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.

I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.

Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.

Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.

Speaking of history all those arguments Republicans used to fight Social Security are still in the history books and available for viewing, pretty much the Obama-care arguments.
But a bigger question: is it possible that if Republicans could capture all three branches of government today they would try to kill Social Security? How about Medicare?

They didn't try to kill social security less than 10 years ago when they had all three branches of government. The Democrats still controlled the media who had the power to instill terror into the hearts of the people if even the most reasonable reform was suggested. And so the GOP caved rather than jeopardize their majority. Which they lost anyway because they were both irresponsible with the people's money and wimps. And the people who voted them out got a far worse devil in return for rejecting the one they knew.

But yes, given the dismal track record of social security and the huge albatross around our collective necks that it has become, I would hope to God that the Republicans would reject Obamacare with the almost certainty that it will not only big a bigger and more devastating albatross, but it will dismantle one of the world's finest healthcare systems.

If the history books had been honest about the legacy of all the entitlements that have gone on the books since 1935, maybe even the most staunch of the Obama worshippers would have been educated on the folly that we are doing. But with liberals in firm control of the public education system, that hasn't happened. And won't in the foreseeable future.

 

[Bfgrn]

Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.

I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.

Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.

Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.

Speaking of history all those arguments Republicans used to fight Social Security are still in the history books and available for viewing, pretty much the Obama-care arguments.
But a bigger question: is it possible that if Republicans could capture all three branches of government today they would try to kill Social Security? How about Medicare?

They didn't try to kill social security less than 10 years ago when they had all three branches of government. The Democrats still controlled the media who had the power to instill terror into the hearts of the people if even the most reasonable reform was suggested. And so the GOP caved rather than jeopardize their majority. Which they lost anyway because they were both irresponsible with the people's money and wimps. And the people who voted them out got a far worse devil in return for rejecting the one they knew.

But yes, given the dismal track record of social security and the huge albatross around our collective necks that it has become, I would hope to God that the Republicans would reject Obamacare with the almost certainty that it will not only big a bigger and more devastating albatross, but it will dismantle one of the world's finest healthcare systems.

If the history books had been honest about the legacy of all the entitlements that have gone on the books since 1935, maybe even the most staunch of the Obama worshippers would have been educated on the folly that we are doing. But with liberals in firm control of the public education system, that hasn't happened. And won't in the foreseeable future.

Herein lies your problem...

It is a FACT that not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security, and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the Pharmaceutical companies--a problem easily fixed by improved legislation.

After all, the country has been piling up this debt for several decades, and especially over the last decade, but during all this time, Social Security and Medicare have been paying out their benefits from current dedicated payroll taxes and by drawing on the trust funds that had built up because of the years that more was being collected than paid out in benefits.


"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[regent]

Those who opposed social security in 1935 did so because they found no Constitutional authority for Congress to vote such a program. And many had the vision to do the math and see how, like all pyramid schemes, it would eventually begin to collapse under its own weight. Which it has now done and will increasingly do.

I would like to believe we elect to government intelligent and educated people who have a sense of history. And not only would they oppose Obamacare for the same reasons those opposed social security all those decades ago, but they also now have the benefit of experience and history to illustrate and foresee the folly of such entitlement programs.

Of course Obama worshippers and lovers of big government shrug aside such arguments and instead attempt to demonize those who argue via logic and reason rather than a house of cards built on pure emotional appeal.

Far too much of our public education system now exalts that house of cards and refuses to teach the honest history.

Speaking of history all those arguments Republicans used to fight Social Security are still in the history books and available for viewing, pretty much the Obama-care arguments.
But a bigger question: is it possible that if Republicans could capture all three branches of government today they would try to kill Social Security? How about Medicare?

They didn't try to kill social security less than 10 years ago when they had all three branches of government. The Democrats still controlled the media who had the power to instill terror into the hearts of the people if even the most reasonable reform was suggested. And so the GOP caved rather than jeopardize their majority. Which they lost anyway because they were both irresponsible with the people's money and wimps. And the people who voted them out got a far worse devil in return for rejecting the one they knew.

But yes, given the dismal track record of social security and the huge albatross around our collective necks that it has become, I would hope to God that the Republicans would reject Obamacare with the almost certainty that it will not only big a bigger and more devastating albatross, but it will dismantle one of the world's finest healthcare systems.

If the history books had been honest about the legacy of all the entitlements that have gone on the books since 1935, maybe even the most staunch of the Obama worshippers would have been educated on the folly that we are doing. But with liberals in firm control of the public education system, that hasn't happened. And won't in the foreseeable future.

Ah yes, now, thanks to a poster, I remember that Bush wanted to "privatize" or something Social Security but that didn't last long. I guess privatize meant give the program to the boys in the back room or kill it. But after some trial balloons Bush's plan died a quiet death.
But even as silly as Bush's plan was, the Republicans giving the health care plan the name, Obama-care was as dumb. America's health plan will be known by Obama-care for the next 100 years or more, or as long as America lasts, what a legacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In any case, Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America. Of course, it was fought tooth and nail by Republicans, it was socialism, communism and made Americans dependent on government and all the anti Obama-care fear words being used today. As America slid into socialism and communism with Social Security, Medicare was added as was some hospitalization and disability insurance.
As the Tea-Party sign said, "Keep government out of my medicare."

If "Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America," why didn't FDR author an amendment to allow it?

Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.

Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?

 

[regent]

If "Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America," why didn't FDR author an amendment to allow it?

Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.

Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?

FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.

Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?

FDR found it, the Democratic party found it, the Supreme Court found it, and you're having trouble? So, anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article, it's just after the preamble. Let me know when that's found and we'll move on.

None of what you posted is true.

I've always believed that a post filled with falsehoods is the equivalent of admitting that what I've said is true.


"... anyway get a copy of the Constitution and find the first article,..."

And here you are, inadvertently admitting that you are unfamiliar with the Constitution.
Again, verifying my belief.
Peruse article 1, section 8.


After you do so, you will understand why FDR's creation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were equally unconstitutional....and, therefore, the mortgage meltdown must be laid at his feet, as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

If "Social Security is probably one of FDR's greatest contributions to America," why didn't FDR author an amendment to allow it?

Not needed, a stitch in time and all that.

Not needed if one ignores the Constitution.
Can you find it in the enumerated powers?

Exactly. Those, both Democrat and Republican, who opposed Social Security back in 1935 opposed it not because they wanted to deprive old folk of anything or because they thought it was a bad concept. They opposed it because their understanding of the Constitution was that the federal government had no authorization to implement such a program and no authority to tax the people to fund it.

Had Teddy Roosevelt not stood the Constitution on its head 30 or so years before, Social Security would never have even been suggested, much less voted into law. In just 30 years, too many law makers had been conditioned to view the Constitution as he saw it rather than as the Founders intended it. Both Presidents were exceedingly popular and therefore encountered much less resistance than otherwise might have happened.

Now we live with the legacy of that breach in the dam protecting our unalienable rights. The dam quickly collapsed in subsequent decades and now the government has essentially unlimited powers to control every aspect of our lives and retains that power by keeping us dependent on the pittance they return to us in return for tax dollars forcibly confiscated. It is inevitable that all but the very rich will suffer sooner or later if it isn't already happening. It is no accident that the communities in and circling Washington DC, populated by people almost wholly dependent on the federal government, are now the most affluent communities in America. Courtesy of we the tax payers.