Social Security was meant to be temporary?

[SHRED]

I have a relative who claims that the Social Security program was intended to be only for a while. Not permanent.

Any truth to this?

[NightWatcher]

1. Why bother. Your relative probably watches Fox, right?

You could come at them all day with facts and it wouldn't matter.

Save your breath.

Oh and I doubt that Social Security was meant to be temporary (no links however).

[SHRED]

6. She claims to be a Libertarian yet...

...works in government.

[NightWatcher]

10. I've got family who claim to hate the government

But they cash paychecks and pension checks from the post office, corps of engineers, and military retirement among others.

[closeupready]

12. +1. Waste of time to banter with most such people, even relatives.

I just let it all go, laugh it off.

[villager]

2. Sort of like building up the military to fight WWII?

[dogman]

3. That would be a Ponzi scheme.

Who would be stuck paying the bill? It could end if it were replaced with a better system, like a guaranteed living wage, which is not likely soon.

[Oilwellian]

4. That's probably what Republicans hoped at the time n/t

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Same people also call SS a ponzi scheme. Now who intentionally sets up a temporary ponzi scheme?

[csziggy]

7. Marginally true - the original budget alloment was temporary

The Social Security Administration (SSA) began life as the Social Security Board (SSB). The SSB was created at the moment President Roosevelt inked his signature on the Social Security Act (August 14, 1935 at 3:30 p.m.). The SSB was an entirely new entity, with no staff, no facilities and no budget. The initial personnel were donated from existing agencies, and a temporary budget was obtained from Harry Hopkins and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/orghist.html

But it was intended to be permanent, the temporary budget was just to get Social Security started:

Q1: When did Social Security start?

A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940.

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.
https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Full text of the 1935 law.: https://www.ssa.gov/history/35actinx.html

[saturnsring]

8. tell him he's wrong and force him to prove it instead of you worrying about disproving it

any "proof" you give will have it's validity denied - your source isn't the right one - or they'' focus on some minor aspect of the story or they'll just flat out dis-believe you or the article. throw it back on them - it isnt and youre wrong unless you can prove otherwise

[The2ndWheel]

9. Nothing human beings come up with is permanent

[Xipe Totec]

11. Well, it only lasts until you die so yes, it's temporary. nt

[HobbesRuls]

13. True... with some caveats

Parts absolutely were, the whole, that depends on what you mean.

The SSB was never intended to fully fund retirement, although some have sold it that way, then reversed themselves. That isn't temporary, although some people see it that way.

The SSB had a 1.TEMPORARY funding component from the general fund to allow payroll deductions to build up in an intrest bearing Trust Account that was designed to fully fund it.

The original 1935 law covered Emergency Aid to the States and a host of other general welfare programs, and everyone involved knew this would be a 2. TEMPORARY arrangement as it would be too broad for a single Agency.

The fighting over the whole thing might have been ideological but really heated up because the initial report to Congress was late, AND didn't include the financial data for the SSB. President Roosevelt had pulled the data...so the Republicans (and several Democrats) who complained actually had good reason.

Pres. Roosevelt also had a good reason to pull it. The data showed funding from both Payroll contributions, and the General Fund all the way out to 1965 which was NOT what was supposed to happen. The idea was a self funded system after 1947(approximately), managed by the Government but with only worker contributions. So he ordered the number crunchers to rework it. They did, and it was submitted. Quite a few in Congress didn't believe the math, specifically the projections for population growth, and mortality.(The origin of the Ponzi comparison) This led to the discussion of how the initial rates for contributions, payout, and retirement age could be adjusted as needed, making them in effect, 3. TEMPORARY.

Those aspects are undisputedly temporary, and might be what they are talking about. Others argue the whole thing was temporary, which traces back to negotiations with the Congessmen who opposed it. It was pointed out that SSB could easily be 4. TEMPORARY, as it was Congressional Law, not a Constitutional Amendment. In other words, "Since it is just as easy for Congress to repeal a law as it is to pass one, Rep. Republican, and given the economic issues we face, we need to pass this now. After all, we can repeal this in a couple of years if it doesn't work out!" You can of course call it "just a negotiation tactic, that no Democrat honestly believed that" but it was part of the conversation.

There are other aspects, and it depends on where you focus. For example, there is no sunset clause. So you could argue that without that initial declaration of it being Temporary, it's permanent. You could also say since it's been a sub agency, a different sub agency, an agency, and had the law re-written at least a half dozen times, as well as hundreds if not thousands of regulatory changes not only WAS it temporary, it has already been replaced multiple times.

[live love laugh]

15. Sounds like refighting the Civil War. There are a million stories but the North won.

Social Security was never intended to fully fund retirement.

This doesn’t mean it’s temporary.

There was temporary funding to allow full funding to accrue.

Temporary funding doesn’t necessarily mean the program itself was temporary.

“Everyone involved knew this would be temporary....”

Total conjecture.

This led to the discussion of how the initial rates could be adjusted making them “temporary” ...

Changing the initial rates doesn’t make the program temporary. The rates change all the time... January 2023 is an example.

Those aspects are undisputedly temporary ...

Not undisputed.

[marble falls]

14. He gets his info from Fox and InfoWars and you got to ask that question? What was supposed ...

... to trigger the end of SSI, ask him.

My FiL insists it's written that once someone got to 65, they only needed to tip waiters 5%. He has a couple of other screwy ideas about SSI, too. From Fox.