If this was 1935, many DUers would be against FDR's Social Security Plan

[zulchzulu]

Watch FDR

Imagine if it was 1935.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was trying to pass and did get to sign (on August 14, 1935) his Social Security program after trying to get it through the House and Senate. Of course, he was called a Communist... a Socialist... an enemy of the State... you name it. He was called "the crackpot in Washington who is ruining the country." FDR was going to wreck the banking system. Social Security was boo-hooed by the Republicans as "the crime of the century." They attacked his wife too.

Employers had to display a sign that read:

“Beginning January 1, 1937, your employer will be compelled by law to deduct a certain amount from your wages every payday. This is in compliance with the terms of the Social Security Act signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This is NOT a voluntary plan.”
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0904s.asp

Today, Roosevelt's Social Security plan would have been considered racist, anti-religious, anti-military, anti-worker, anti-woman and generally would have been shot down quickly if those times were under the same scrutiny as times are today.

Why?

Roosevelt's Social Security plan in 1935 didn't cover the self-employed. Railroad employees? State, federal or local government employees? Nonprofit employees? Agricultural workers, which would have included many Latino workers? Domestic workers, which would have included many African-Americans and immigrants? Disabled and can't work? A member of the clergy? You are a dependent or a survivor from a marriage?

Sorry! You're not covered!

Start panhandling because no coverage for you in this FDR bill. Oh, and no annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security coverage either.

So what would some people say if they were there? Kill the Bill! It's racist! It's not fair! It's... it's... it's...

Of course, thanks to the initial bill getting passed, there were adjustments made and all those not initially covered GOT COVERAGE. Incrementally...

I thought perhaps this would offer some perspective to the historically and/or civics-challenged.





And a note on the UnRecDroids... have a great day!

[impik]

1. The left called FDR a sell-out back then

Nothing is new.

[WI_DEM]

34. It's true! The left wanted to draft Huey Long! and his soak the rich platform.

to run against FDR in '36, of course his assassination (the tin hatters would say that FDR arranged that) put an end to that.

[fascisthunter]

2. could anyone imagine what would have happened if FDR failed

to pass the "New Deal?" More than half the people in power would never have made it that far... more than half!

This Bill isn't even comparable... it's a ridiculous comparison, and I'm not buying it.

[phleshdef]

3. "This is NOT a voluntary plan" = mandate

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. That 'mandate' was on the employers, not the workers. nt

[phleshdef]

37. The mandate was that the WORKERS had earnings withheld. There is no difference.

I know I probably didn't have to qualify that, I sincerely doubt that you are that stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Oh, come on, don't be disingenuous.

Most workers had no pensions then. Everybody tried to save as much as they could because they knew they were on their own as soon as their employment ended. So having (I think it started at) 1.5% of their wages go into a government guaranteed retirement plan was not an onerous mandate - the REAL mandate was the matching funds laid on their employers.

And, the money was NOT going into private banks (as their personal savings, if any, would be) or into stocks or any such thing. Their retirement deduction was NOT going to enrich the private sector.

See the difference?

[phleshdef]

43. No, it was and still IS a mandate that requires those of us with incomes to pay out monthly.

Whether it goes into a private bank or goes into a fund setup by the federal government, as long as the end result service that I am mandated to pay into is delivered to me, I care not.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. So you see no difference between paying taxes to the government

and contributing to a CEO's daughter's Sweet Sixteen party?

The end result is NOT in the paying - the end result is in what you receive for the payment. You collect SS. You help buy someone a new Mercedes. Exactly the same.

:eyes:

[phleshdef]

48. "contributing to a CEO's daughter's Sweet Sixteen party" is a stupid thing to say considering 85%...

...MUST be spent on my healthcare or else they owe me a rebate.

Of course nothing is perfect and money we pay into social security gets misspent too, but don't let reality stop you from foaming at the mouth about nothing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. And you REALLY believe that these people who do NOTHING all day

but move money around are not going to figure out how to not comply with that 85%?

It's what they do.

I'm good at my job. I expect you are good at yours. And they are VERY good at their job. At least the SS Administration's job is to handle the payment of SS money. The health insurance adjuster's job is to NOT pay out any more than they absolutely have to when all other options have been examined. That how private insurance makes a profit.

You really believe that they will limit their profits to comply with 85% payout - meaning their profit will only exist AFTER they've deducted advertising, salaries, bonuses, overhead, miscellaneous expenses from that 15% they are allowed?

Either you don't know who you are talking about, or you WORK for who you are talking about, because it ain't gonna happen.

[phleshdef]

66. You are now reduced to dwelling on "what ifs" and slippery slope BS arguments.

If the people behind our best social legislations and regulatory legislations thought the way that you did, nothing good would have ever gotten passed. Considering your bullshit dismissed, I have no time for it.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. FDR was called a traitor to his class...

Clearly, he was an incrementalist.

[freddie mertz]

5. Are we having a silly argument sale today? Last chance before Xmas?

Very silly.

[napi21]

6. That's quite true. Much the same thing happened with Medicare.

In fact, I'm trying to think of ANY major social bill that was considered GOOD at the time it passed, but was improved later and in many times there were many successive improvements over time.

[Larkspur]

7. Social Security was a new kind of program at the time; whereas, today we should be expanding upon

FDR's legacy. But Obama is more enamored of the myths of Saint Ronnie Reagan than the realities of FDR, who is rated a far greated President than Reagan, and that is why he will continue to feed us policies that favor corporations over the People.

[WCGreen]

8. And many would be listening to Father Coughlin

[havocmom]

9. Juggling apples & oranges?

Hope Santa brings a juicer so you can make something useful from the exercise.

[David Zephyr]

10. The "analogy" is absurd.

FDR did not mandate that Americans purchase "retirement insurance" from private corporations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. BINGO

[EFerrari]

49. LOL. Yes, it is absurd.

[johnaries]

11. Excellent point! FDR's plan clearly does not "go far enough"

according to many standards being applied to HCR. KnR.

[dkf]

12. That is no comparison. The equivalent would be forcing people to invest in the stock market with a

15% commission.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. +50

[LastNaturalist]

13. You're absolutely right.

Now be ready for mindless attacks from Deaniacs.

[LibDemAlways]

14. The Social Security program didn't mandate that people turn over

their earnings to for profit "health care" (and I use the term loosely) corporations. It was a form of forced savings so that people wouldn't be impoverished in their old age and it has worked quite well. My elderly mom gets by on Social Security and a very small pension. What the Dems have cooked up to "reform" health care is something else entirely - mandated re-distribution of wealth to further enrich the coffers of big business. The two are not comparable.

[ShortnFiery]

15. More BUNK ... trying to spin a Sh*t Sandwich into Lobster Thermador. eom

[izquierdista]

21. It's all in the sauce

And Obama has a BIG ladle.

[tekisui]

16. And, they would have been right.

It has come a long way, and is very good that we have it now.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Fail.

Why this fails is that is completely misunderstands the base concept and what was right with social security and what is wrong with the health insurance bill. (can't call it health care since no part of it is about CARE).

Social Security established a new concept.. the idea that the larger group could pool their resources to help take care of many of those in society. It established a responsibility to the government and an entitlement from the government in return.

The Heath Insurance Bill does no such thing. It creates a reqruirement for you to make an indepdent deal with a private company. Worse that private company will sell you a broken product at a price of their choosing. This creates a government responsibility, with absolutely no entitlement.

There is nothing to "build on" in the Senate bill, as you get same result with it or without it... we still don't have a proper heath CARE system in this country.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. They don't get it now, do they?

Thanks to the health care system, they mostly die off before they get it anyway and that won't change.

WTG Heath Insurance Bill

[MadHound]

19. You're lack of historical knowledge is glaringly obvious

You think that the left wouldn't like Social Security.

Umm, hate to tell you this, but Social Security was plucked directly from the playbook of the left, specifically from the Socialist Party playbook. FDR was looking at a bruising upcoming reelection campaign and saw that the left presented a serious third party challenge in the form of the Socialist Party. Rather than demanding and bullying the left to stay in line, which is the current method used on the left, he went out, went left, and gave us Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, two planks ripped from the Socialist Party platform. This would be equivalent of Obama going out and pulling a couple of planks from the Green Party platform and making them his own.

The left wouldn't have been berating FDR, nor did they back in the day. In fact they cheered him on, and vigorously supported FDR and his campaign. A lesson that Obama needs to learn.

Huge, historical FAIL for you.

[uponit7771]

22. Not in 1935....please just read the post

[MadHound]

33. I read the post, it is historically and sociologically inaccurate

I have not just degrees in this area, but a serious, specialized background in this area. I just went over and plucked the first book that came to mind to show you. It is "Right Wing Populism in America" written by Chip Berlet and Matthew Lyons, serious scholastic researchers and authors. It is published by Guilford Press, an academic press, and is complete with endnotes and bibliography. You can also find the same information confirmed by other historians as well.

Sorry, but the OP is trying to draw a tortured analogy, but the historical reality, the historical premise that it is based upon is simply wrong.

[Blasphemer]

46. Thanks for posting... I appreciate your adding some historical facts to the debate.. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. The post is WRONG.

Even the limited SS bill established a principle which could be expanded on with later legislation.

The equivalent in THIS bill would have been a weak public option, open to a certain few, or expanded Medicare to people 55-65 - those would establish a precedent that could be built upon later.

What THIS establishes is a mandate by the government to buy a product from a private source, and a government penalty for failing to buy said product.

How about the government deciding that people don't invest enough, so it passes a law that everyone must invest 5% of their income in the stock market? Failure to make said purchase is punishable by garinishing wages or collecting that amount from your income tax. SAME FUCKING THING.

There is a term for corporate control of government - fascism.

So, SS - the brainchild of socialists and communists = HCR bill = fascism. Right.

[Blasphemer]

47. Exactly

I recall there being a good deal of support for the public option even after it had been weakened and even more support for the Medicare Buy in. Precisely because they established a precedent and something to build upon. I supported the bill up until both the PO and the Medicare Buy in were taken out. Yes, some were still against it, hoping for something stronger, but I do believe that if the Buy in were still in the bill, there would be far more support for it and from a political point of view, something very attractive to campaign on for the party.

[treestar]

58. 401K while not mandating it

Allows a tax write off and therefore encourages it. Is that equally outrageous? It actually encourages investment in Wall street and rewards taxpayers for doing so.

[KrR]

64. No You are wrong

Huey Long was on FDR's left constantly harrassing. Think of him as a formidable Kucinich.

[zulchzulu]

65. Your lack of reading skills and basic reading comprehension is laughable

Nowhere did the post say anything about the Left not wanting Social Security. The major point was that many would not have accepted the initial SS bill that was signed because it "didn't go far enough".

The Left at the time was more for Huey Long and even Robert LaFollette over FDR. That's not even the point of this post.

[joeybee12]

20. Social security is an entitlement program...HCR is a give-away to the

insurance companies...apples and oranges...social security got better because it was government controlled, HCR gives more control than ever to the insurance companies.

[Gman]

24. I posted pretty much the same thing the other day saying

DU'ers would call FDR a DLC loving corporate hack. Someone posted back about Japanese internment camps so people here really do hate FDR. Amazing. The level of stupidity here often approaches FR levels.

[HuckleB]

25. Yup.

[saracat]

27. This is not 1935 and FDR was criticized for trying to help people not corporations

He was accused of selling outthe elite not the people. Obama is accused of catering to the very corporations FDR sold out. You cannot begin to compare these opposites.

[democracy1st]

63. 2nd FDR was creating regulations and The WH economic team was for deregulation

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Bullshit.

While the original SS bill that passed WAS weak, and stood to be strengthened, it was a completely new direction.

This POS 'healthcare' bill is NOT anything new - it strengthens the private, for-profit insurance industry and stands in the way of REAL reform. Good fucking luck getting anything that resembles single-payer now.

The SS bill directly attacked the powers-that-be by giving workers a voice - they could no longer be held as virtual wage-slaves by their employers, who could force them to do whatever they wished by the threat of the loss of employment and pension.

How is that anything like this sorry-assed bill?

[ipaint]

29. Baloney

Some paint the Senate bill as a flawed first step to reform that will be improved over time, citing historical examples such as Social Security. But where Social Security established the nidus of a public institution that grew over time, the Senate bill proscribes any such new public institution. Instead, it channels vast new resources – including funds diverted from Medicare – into the very private insurers who caused today’s health care crisis. Social Security’s first step was not a mandate that payroll taxes which fund pensions be turned over to Goldman Sachs!

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/22/pro-single-payer-physicians-call-for-defeat-of-senate-health-bill/

And true to form goldman sachs is starting up a health ins. company in January.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. NOT THE SAME THING

What would be comparable to the beginnings of Social Security: New regulations opening Medicare to successively lower age groups

What would have been comparable in 1935 to what's happening now: Everyone being required to buy a retirement plan from a Wall Street brokerage firm

It's not the incrementalism that's so bad per se, it's the corporate welfare aspect that we object to, along with the lack of requirements placed on the insurance companies.

And I note that the usual cheerleading squad (aren't your pompoms getting a bit frayed with all that flapping around?) is out in full force, agreeing with the OP without reading the corrections in the other post.

[leftofcool]

35. Not even close

Social Security was designed to help old folks so they would have an income in their old age, however small. Has not one wit to do with a mandate for health care to boost the profits of the insurance companies.

[blueworld]

36. I think it's rather a silly comparison. SS was a public option.

In the depths of the Depression, when employers (i.e. Capitalists) provided nothing for their employees & most couldn't find employment, FDR provided security and created government jobs with the passage of this bill. The only people who had to pay SS taxes were the ones employed, and it was a progressive tax.

I'd be thrilled with an actual government program that would accomplish the same for health care. All I see is a mandate, a fine and a lot of years of raised premiums & reduced benefits. But I'm supposed to be grateful that they can't deny me based on my medical history, only if I ultimately can't afford the premiums.

[Donnachaidh]

39. equating insurance profit protections to Social Security?

Wow -- that's some POTENT koolaid you've been fed. Y'all need to stop sounding so shrill with these analogies.

[ElboRuum]

40. Interesting.

The responses in this thread say "not the same" in bulk. Yet, it is. Oh, not perfectly of course, but analogies seldom are.

You are asking people to have perspective on this when for the past six months they've been a nose-distance away from every detail scrutinizing and deconstructing it on a pore-by-pore level. Good luck with all of that.

[Vinca]

42. I disagree. The deductions from your paycheck for SS weren't going

to a private investment firm. They were going to and were insured by the U.S. government. The health care bill, on the other hand, mandates that you send your money to a private insurance company which, most likely, is known for not paying its customers' (fka "patients") bills when they come in and taking an obscene profit off the proceeds. There really is no comparison.

[Armstead]

45. Social Security -- Public Program / HCR 09 -- Privatized Mandate

Big difference

But you knew that.

[Enrique]

50. FDR is rolling over in his grave n/t

[NYC_SKP]

51. OH HELL NO!!! SMACK DOWN!!!!

:rofl:





:rofl:

[burning rain]

52. Focus. Social Security began as, & has remained, a public program.

If FDR had accepted the values that inform the Senate health care bill, Social Security would not be public, but would involve people having to secure their retirement by investing on Wall Street, as a matter of law. Lefties can and should object to being tethered by law to predatory private concerns.

[apocalypsehow]

54. Excellent post, historically spot-on.

n/t.

[MadHound]

55. Sorry, but this post is horribly wrong from a historical point of view

See my explanation upthread in post 19. See my sourcing upthread in post 33.

[apocalypsehow]

56. Another *kick* for this excellent and historically SPOT-ON post, all phony "refutations"

notwithstanding.

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[HughMoran]

57. Absolutely true

It's as if many DUers post on a political board - knowing absolutely nothing about politics!

[apocalypsehow]

59. Nor history, going by some of the replies upthread. Good post. n/t.

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

60. Unrec for OP's historical ignorance.

This bill is far more equivalent to FDRs Corpratist debacle that was the National Recovery Act.

[Garam_Masala]

61. WRONG! FDR's SS plan did NOT enrich private insurers eom

[eridani]

62. Good thing that FDR didn't try to FORCE us to invest in stock market retirement accounts

According to your logic, what FDR should have done was to mandate that everyone had to invest in the stock market or be fined by the IRS.

Mandates for public gooda are fine. A mandate to pay into single payer would be fine. Being forced to do business with murderers by spreadsheat is not fine.

[goclark]

67. K and R ~

We should have learned from the lesson, thank you FDR

[Puglover]

68. Your point is moot.

It was passed. Let's see what happens now. Hopefully there will be some good amendments in conference. Flamebait and happily unrecced.

And you have a great day too!