Obama Misrepresents the History of Social Security

[Hannah Bell]

In December, arguing on behalf of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he (Obama) said that "it's a big, diverse country and people have a lot of complicated positions, it means that in order to get stuff done, we're going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans." Obama had made the same widows-and-orphans claim earlier to defend compromises in his health care reform law.

Obama has the details of his history wrong -- widows and orphans came later, not first -- but he also has it wrong in general.

In 1935 the House and Senate met to conference the two separate versions of the bill. Neither bill covered every worker... but the most critical difference was over a carve-out that private pension companies had demanded: If a company offered its own pension, they reasoned, they should be exempt from participating in Social Security.

FDR and the House argued that such a carve-out would undermine the universality of the program and encourage companies to offer lousy pensions to get around the law, plans that wouldn't be guaranteed to be around when the retiree needed them and would have little protection against the vicissitudes of the market, as Social Security would.

The Senate also made a straightforward argument that Obama would well recognize: We don't have the votes, the chamber's leaders told the president. It's our way or nothing.

For nearly a month in the summer of 1935, FDR stared the Senate down, refusing to accept its offer. He used every lever at his disposal. The president won; the Senate blinked.

It's a different story than Obama tells...

In the meantime, people are limping across the finish line.

Home values and the retirement security that came with them have plummeted, along with IRAs and 401(k)s. Pension plans are struggling and laid-off, middle-aged workers have pulled hundreds of millions of dollars from retirement savings to pay bills -- often taking brutal tax hits that come along with such withdrawals.

The number of people filing for reduced, early Social Security benefits jumped by 25 percent in 2009. That under such circumstances the political class is leaning toward cutting Social Security is evidence of where its power base resides.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/29/the-poorhouse-aunt-winnie_n_802338.html?page=5

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obama continues to parrot the fringe right lie

That social security was not intended for retirees. Therefore, the thinking goes, we need to "fix it" as it wasn't intended to do what it's currently doing.

[Hannah Bell]

3. +200

[Raejeanowl]

7. Speaking of fringe lies

And I won't pretend to understand the reason for it, although I suspect it had everything to do with an apologia for the general failure and threatened bankruptcy of the pyramid scheme...

I sat through a retirement presentation circa 1994 at which a representative from the Social Security Administration was called up to present her version of why we should give careful consideration to the investment planners who were about to present their wares.

The young woman in question said that "Social Security from its inception was never intended to provide the sole source of retirement income to the average American."

I think my head spun around three times recalling the historical and financial realities of the 1930s, and the likelihood that Social Security was the ONLY means of (mandatory) "saving for retirement" available to most.

[COLGATE4]

73. + Another 200

[Shining Jack]

125. Frankly....

He's so lame and weak that it makes me nauseous when he gives a speech now.

[nckjm]

159. weak, lame, and DANGEROUS

He's gunning for Social Security next. He won't stop until he had completing sold out America. I can't stand to look at him or hear him. He's one of "them".

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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

[Demeter]

153. + A MILLION

If I wanted a right-wing talking point president, I would have voted for one. We was scammed.

[juajen]

170. I wasn't scammed and I did not vote for him. NT

[Raine]

176. Unfortunately I was and I did

in the end in the general election I of course I would've voted for him verses McInsane. What's really galling is actually believing what he said and being enthusiastic in my support of him. :argh:

[midnight]

4. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

5. k&r

[Enthusiast]

6. K&R

Obama's position on social security is clear. It is not good.

[nashville_brook]

8. k and r

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[mix]

10. Obama does not match up well with a president as accomplished as FDR.

The current president also falsely claimed that FDR purposely allowed the depression to worsen during his first six months in office when in fact Roosevelt's "First 100 Days" were one legislative victory after another.

FDR was also a Keynesian while Obama is a neo-liberal, Chicago-style.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. I'd forgotten about the 'FDR waited six months' lie

Another whopper.

I can't understand how people think that Obama has good intentions towards working Americans if he'll blatently distort FDR's good deed the way he does.

[mix]

12. Obama is a market ideologue, which passes for "pragmatism" these days.

He is the child of Reagan, not FDR.

[femrap]

119. And all those 'dems'

that agree with the Catfood Commission....Durbin, Feinstein, Hagan, Nelson, etc. that want to attach this to a must-pass bill.

Hell, with 'dems' like this, who needs repugnants?

I just can't believe it....:wow:

[WCGreen]

31. I think he is referring to the time from election in Novemebr until

innaguration which, back then, was in March...

[MannyGoldstein]

32. That's correct, but there was zero that FDR could do during that time

Hoover invited FDR to approve of FDR's policies during that time rather than asking FDR to work together. Hoover's idea was that FDR's approval of his policies would give confidence to the economy.

FDR had two problems with this:
1. He didn't agree with Hoover' policies
2. The incredible stench from Hoover's failed policies would taint FDR, leaving him wounded before he took office.

[WCGreen]

34. I don't exactly know what people say, but that extra 5 and a half months

between election day and inauguration probably infuriated FDR.

It might be why FDR was able to cobble together his 100 days so that he could implement it ASAP.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. I.m reading a fantastic book on FDR's first 100 days

http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Fear-Hundred-Created-America/dp/159420196X">Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America

for more on Obama's economic policies:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562">Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again

[Art_from_Ark]

172. 4 months

early November 1932- early March 1933

It most likely did infuriate FDR, and that is likely one reason why Inauguration Day was moved up to January 20 during his administration

[mix]

42. You are being too generous.

Here's the quote:

"We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly."

While it's correct that there was nearly a six month period then between the election and inauguration, Obama is implying that FDR once in office played politics with the depression to enact his policies. FDR was thus, in Obama's view, "irresponsible."

Or, as Krugman says, Obama has bought "the right-wing smear" regarding FDR.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/

[WCGreen]

46. I defer...

I just felt that the six months from election to taking office was what they were talking about.

[JDPriestly]

143. Obama doesn't just buy the right-wing smear. He promotes it.

What a sad, sad thing that we supported him for the presidency. What a huge mistake.

Let's be more demanding in 2012.

[ncteechur]

13. Maybe if he put folks in internment camps he could be more like FDR.

[mix]

14. That was inexcusable, but so are the deaths of civilians due to drone attacks in Pakistan.

Obama's drone strikes have killed at least 700 civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/28/us-drone-attacks-no-laughing-matter

"...Andrew Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert and former adviser to General David Petraeus...says that each innocent victim of a drone strike "represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially as drone strikes have increased".

Kilcullen is spot on. The cold-blooded killing of Pakistani civilians in a push-button, PlayStation-style drone war is not just immoral and perhaps illegal, it is futile and self-defeating from a security point of view."

Both presidents have harmed the innocent, but I find Obama's drone strikes more reprehensible than FDR's unjust and inhumane actions towards Japanese-Americans.

[Lorien]

23. If the MSM decided that murding innocent civilians was wrong, it would be a top issue

here on DU. As it is, the people wait to be told what they should be concerned about by the MSM. Recently it was DADT. While equality is deserved by ALL nobody stopped to think that they were fighting to serve openly within a military with an atrocious record that ONLY serves the interests of the wealthy corporate elite. But that wasn't part of the MSM narrative, so there was little discussion about it here. The people-including many here-get lead by the nose by the MSM to the point that when they read what you just posted it registers as a "non-issue" with most of them.

[ooglymoogly]

122. Once again for the record....

The presence of Imperial Japanese spying within the United States is attested to by the case of Velvalee Dickinson, <32> an American who sold intelligence to Japan, as well as the widely reported cases of the Tachibana spy ring and the Niihau Incident. The Tachibana spy ring involved a group of Japanese nationals, <33> whereas the so-called Niihau Incident occurred just after the Pearl Harbor attack, and involved two Japanese Americans on Niihau assisting a downed Japanese pilot there. Despite the latter incident taking place in Hawaii, the Territorial Governor rejected calls for mass internment of the Japanese Americans there. A secret U.S. government estimate said perhaps 3,500 ethnic Japanese in America were active supporters of the Japanese war effort. After the war, Japan said that 1,648 Japanese-American citizens had fought in Japan's Army. Other estimates set the number as high as 7,000. <34>

[WinkyDink]

26. Yes, and Lincoln curtailed Habeas Corpus. Both are two of the greatest Presidents, nonetheless.

[ooglymoogly]

35. And now for some pug sponsored claptrap.

PuleeeeZ!


We were in a real war for our lives, not some trumped up war of greed.

There were indeed Japanese spies in America.

Was it perhaps in hindsight an overreaction, yes. But again we were in a war for our very lives and existence. Any mistake in prosecuting that war might have spelt slavery for this country. Anyone who knows history, knows how ruthless Japan was in that era and it was not pretty. Ask the Chinese.

We have come to realize since, that a large majority of those interned were just as patriotic as any other American and certainly for those it was a mistake. Many of those interned had been born in this country. We have to realize it was a different era. The hate toward japan was at a fever pitch. Many of those interned too were recent arrivals in America.

We have the means since that time to ferret out the good and the bad. Then it was like finding a needle in a haystack. A mistake in the name of humanity, for FDR, was just not an option.

[FedUp_Queer]

112. That's just not true.

Read the various cases surrounding the vindication of Fred Korematsu. In particular, the Northern District of California, in 1983, granted Mr. Korematsu's application for a writ of coram nobis. What the court discovered was that all the information supplied in the case in the 40s (Korematsu v. United States) was false, that there were no spies, etc. and that the military made it up in order to put Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps. Plainly stated, this was nothing but blatant racism. There were numerous groups of Americans of German descent holding rallies in support of Adolf Hitler, yet, somehow, there were not similar concentration camps for Americans of German descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=10005684&MediaId=2745
http://www.usmbooks.com/german_american_bund.html

[ooglymoogly]

116. Au contraire

The presence of Imperial Japanese spying within the United States is attested to by the case of Velvalee Dickinson, <32> an American who sold intelligence to Japan, as well as the widely reported cases of the Tachibana spy ring and the Niihau Incident. The Tachibana spy ring involved a group of Japanese nationals, <33> whereas the so-called Niihau Incident occurred just after the Pearl Harbor attack, and involved two Japanese Americans on Niihau assisting a downed Japanese pilot there. Despite the latter incident taking place in Hawaii, the Territorial Governor rejected calls for mass internment of the Japanese Americans there. A secret U.S. government estimate said perhaps 3,500 ethnic Japanese in America were active supporters of the Japanese war effort. After the war, Japan said that 1,648 Japanese-American citizens had fought in Japan's Army. Other estimates set the number as high as 7,000. <34> wikipedia

[awoke_in_2003]

162. no where in the constitution...

does it say it is okay to suspend the rights of Americans to ensure safety. The internment camps were every bit as wrong as the "Patriot" Act

[ooglymoogly]

178. As it happens, I agree with you, except under circumstances where the US is seriously in danger of

losing its sovereignty and life; and not from some trumped up war that does not condemn the US to annihilation.

The supreme court found the internment to be constitutional.

The bogus wars and actions taken (patriot act) in regard to those bogus wars are not.

From Wikipedia

The presence of Imperial Japanese spying within the United States is attested to by the case of Velvalee Dickinson, <32> an American who sold intelligence to Japan, as well as the widely reported cases of the Tachibana spy ring and the Niihau Incident. The Tachibana spy ring involved a group of Japanese nationals, <33> whereas the so-called Niihau Incident occurred just after the Pearl Harbor attack, and involved two Japanese Americans on Niihau assisting a downed Japanese pilot there. Despite the latter incident taking place in Hawaii, the Territorial Governor rejected calls for mass internment of the Japanese Americans there.

A secret U.S. government estimate said perhaps 3,500 ethnic Japanese in America were active supporters of the Japanese war effort. After the war, Japan said that 1,648 Japanese-American citizens had fought in Japan's Army. Other estimates set the number as high as 7,000. <34> wikipedia

[liberation]

54. You mean like Guantanamo?

[mix]

94. Don't forget Bagram. nt

[frylock]

70. gitmo will suffice for now

[cottonseed]

74. To be fair. The folks in these camps don't belong in the FDR apologist's "Good Ol' Days".

Obama, why can't things be more like they were in FDR's day? You know 1/3 the population, white male working middle class, not a black or mexican for miles... :)

[mix]

79. No progressive or person on the left would want to return to the racial politics of those times.

The comparison being made is between two presidents reacting to the worst economic depression/recession of their generation; an entirely valid historical exercise.

If you can substantiate your claim regarding "FDR's apologists," however, I would be interested in seeing your evidence.

Otherwise, you are being disingenuous.

[bvar22]

99. Times were different,

but FDR was one of the very first to open the door.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.--FDR

The above is an excerpt from FDR State of the Union address, 1944.
I can find no earlier example where the leader of the Democratic Party established as Official Policy the equality of rights and opportunity "regardless of station, race, or creed".

If YOU know of one, please cite it here.

[defendandprotect]

87. That could be happening any time now, the way Obama is going ... !!

[rhett o rick]

128. Good idea. He should start with centrist assholes. nm

[Demeter]

154. Like Gitmo, perhaps?

[Capn Sunshine]

51. ...and yet, even FDR couldn't get Healthcare Reform out of Committee

so there's that. Of course, even though it hasn't kicked in, the fringe still decries this advance as nothing . So it goes.

[mix]

53. You mean health insurance reform?

While 50 million Americans continue to go without insurance, it's hard to see the promised light at the tunnel's end.

[liberation]

56. The "fringe?"

Geez, ever since the Dems got the bigger tent, the late comers neo-liberals act as if they own the place....

[mix]

78. wear it with pride

[defendandprotect]

88. By the "fringe" presume you mean those who didn't want MEDICARE FOR ALL?

Because 76%+ of the public -- and still growing numbers -- wanted single payer/

government run health care.

Obama sold that away in back-room deals with private Health Care industry --

and then Rahm "crowed" about it to business leaders, who he told should be "grateful"

to Obama for 'PRESERVING PRIVATE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY."

[bvar22]

100. If FDR had accepted the Republican version of HCR like Obama did,

he could have passed it easily.

[Bluebear]

114. 'the fringe' - as arrogant as the White House.

[Selatius]

174. That's a cop-out response, and you know it.

FDR died in 1944. The US was pre-occupied with fighting World War 2 at the time. If you'll note, he managed to pass Social Security into law when the US wasn't in a full-scale war. Maybe if FDR had lived long enough to finish his fourth term in office and finish fighting World War 2, he could've spent the remaining time he had fighting for the right to adequate medical care. He outlined what he wanted to do when this nation was finished fighting World War 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EZ5bx9AyI4

Of course, he never lived long enough to fulfill his vision.

[bvar22]

15. The sad/scary part.....he KNOWS he is distorting history.

I am not a member of the "Obama is stupid/naive" group.
He KNOWS what he is doing.

[Horse with no Name]

30. I wholeheartedly agree.

He isn't a stupid man--and he IS playing a high-level chess game. Problem is, WE are the pawns.
He is and always will be willing to sacrifice the pawns and elite to capitulate to the royalty.

[ooglymoogly]

38. He has learned the magic pug trick, proved by Goebels and fux propaganda:

That you can quite easily fool enough of the people enough of the time, that truth really does not matter in the hell-bent race to fascism.

[somone]

52. Exactly

He's executing to plan.

[defendandprotect]

89. Agree -- 1000% -- there can't be any more pretending after two years of this!!

[Little Star]

101. He knows exactly what he is doing. n/t

[Forkboy]

120. Yep!

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[maryf]

16. K&R

[me b zola]

17. One has to ask themselves why he would do that

For those who are still contending that his plan is to strengthen social security I beg you to listen to what he is saying and ask yourselves why.

[blindpig]

18. Sounds a lot like the health care scenario...

with the opposite conclusion.

Here we go again.

[Lorien]

27. The pattern is pretty well established now, isn't it?

Those who refuse to recognize it are just being willfully obtuse.

[stillwaiting]

110. And it's the only way he'll get away with it too.

Those being obtuse are helping to ensure the (at least partial) destruction of Social Security.

If we all banded together now and said NO through sustained pressure they would be much less likely to do what they're probably going to do.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

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

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Hannah Bell.

[Octafish]

20. He's messed up in retelling the history leading up to the Afghanistan war, as well.

Obama repeated Bush line that Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

Must've been an accident, repeating misinformation from the tee vee or a cabinet meeting.

[defendandprotect]

93. Thanks for the reminders ... though continues to be sad to watch Obama do this .....

Couldn't miss either his now referring to Social Security as "entitlement" -- !!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

22. Recommended.

Distortion is necessary for those who have designs on "reforming" it.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

25. "Disheartening" doesn't begin to cover it.

[purrFect]

28. He, and the others do it because the media don't call them out on it, other than a few

They should be laughed at, but they are paid to 'cover' them.

[Cleita]

29. I noticed that when he said it because Social Security

and Medicare are two programs I have studied.

I said to myself, "That's not right."

I think he's getting his information from the wrong staff members. The real history is actually at the Social Security website. Obama needs to go there for his information.

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

Notably under the Social Security Act of 1935 http://www.ssa.gov/history/35actii.html

OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS

SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:
(1) If the total wages (as defined in section 210) determined by the Board to have been paid to him, with respect to employment (as defined in section 210) after December 31, 1936, and before he attained the age of sixty- five, were not more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly rate of one-half of 1 per centum of such total wages;
(2) If such total wages were more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly rate equal to the sum of the following:
(A) One-half of 1 per centum of $3,000; plus
(B) One-twelfth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $3,000 and did not exceed $45,000; plus
(C) One-twenty-fourth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $45,000.
(b) In no case shall the monthly rate computed under subsection (a) exceed $85.
(c) If the Board finds at any time that more or less than the correct amount has theretofore been paid to any individual under this section, then, under regulations made by the Board, proper adjustments shall be made in connection with subsequent payments under this section to the same individual.
(d) Whenever the Board finds that any qualified individual has received wages with respect to regular employment after he attained the age of sixty-five, the old-age benefit payable to such individual shall be reduced, for each calendar month in any part of which such regular employment occurred, by an amount equal to one month's benefit. Such reduction shall be made, under regulations prescribed by the Board, by deductions from one or more payments of old-age benefit to such individual.

Edited to add:

Also under FAQs http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html is this:

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.

[JDPriestly]

144. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

That means that the disability benefits were added under the Eisenhower administration.

[Cleita]

169. Eisenhower cared about

social benefits.

[Desertrose]

33. K&R

He should know better or get different researchers.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Lies and the lying liars that tell them. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. +1000

[sabrina 1]

39. He seems to be very misinformed about SS works

and its history. He made another wrong statement a few weeks ago about how FDR wasted time when he was first in office and waited before acting to fix some of the problems the country faced.

If you don't know the subject you are talking about, you cannot fight very hard to defend it.

[foxfeet]

40. K&R nt

[ProSense]

41. President Obama was talking about incrementalism

Roosevelt historian David Woolner corrects the record, but even they understand what President Obama meant:

<...>

In his news conference on December 7, President Obama defended his recent decision to compromise with the Republicans over the extension of the Bush tax cuts in part by insisting that sometimes compromise is necessary. He reminded his critics on the left that progress often comes a few steps at a time and that to refuse to compromise is to court failure. He then compared the progress that his administration has made in health care reform (imperfect as it may be) with some historical examples, such as FDR’s passage of the Social Security Act, which he noted initially only “affected widows and orphans.”

The president may be correct when he states that a good many of the social-economic reforms we now take for granted were brought into being gradually. But his hasty characterization of Social Security as something that initially only helped “widows and orphans” is incorrect and doesn’t do it justice.

<...>

In other words, FDR saw the establishment of Social Security as a reflection of the recognition that in a modern capitalistic industrial society government can and must become an active instrument of social and economic justice. Given the meager and almost non-existent presence of the State in the management of the economy and in the day-to-day lives of Americans prior to the onset of the New Deal, the establishment of this principle was no incremental step. Rather, it was a huge leap forward — even when one factors in the many short-comings of the original legislation.

President Obama is right. Much of the progress we have made as a nation has come one or two steps at a time. But there are also some compelling examples in our history when bold leadership, combined with bold action, inspired the government and the people to act as one in the best interests of all. The passage of the 1935 Social Security Act is perhaps the best example of this. It marks a fundamental shift in the American people’s attitude about the role of government. Through its provisions, it not only helped establish the belief that government could and should work to advance the general welfare, but also helped restore their faith in a liberal capitalist democracy at a time when the democratic system of government was under siege in much of the rest of the world.

<...>

Still, the OP seems to be more about the President setting up to cut Social Security. Does anyone really believe the President is going to do this and win re-election? Not only that, but what about Senate Democrats who would have to go along?

The President's position on Social Security is clear.

Protecting Social Security

President Obama believes that all seniors should be able to retire with dignity, not just a privileged few. He is committed to protecting Social Security and working in a bipartisan manner to preserve its original purpose as a reliable source of income for American seniors. The President stands firmly opposed to privatization and rejects the notion that the future of hard-working Americans should be left to the fluctuations of financial markets.

link

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Here’s the situation with Social Security. It is actually true that Social Security is not in crisis the way our health care system is in crisis. I mean, when you think about the big entitlement programs, you've got Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. These are the big programs that take up a huge portion of the federal budget. Social Security is in the best shape of any of these, because basically the cost of Social Security will just go up with ordinary inflation, whereas health care costs are going up much faster than inflation.

It is true that if we continue on the current path with Social Security, if we did nothing on Social Security, that at a certain point, in maybe 20 years or so, what would happen is that you start seeing less money coming into the payroll tax, because the population is getting older so you've got fewer workers, and more people are collecting Social Security so more money is going out, and so the trust fund starts dropping.

And if we did nothing, then somewhere around 2040 what would happen would be a lot of the young people who would start collecting Social Security around then would find that they only got 75 cents on every dollar that they thought they were going to get. Everybody with me so far?
All right. So slowly we're running out of money.

But the fixes that are required for Social Security are not huge, the way they are with Medicare. Medicare, that is a real problem. If we don't get a handle on it, it will bankrupt us. With Social Security, we could make adjustments to the payroll tax. For example -- I'll just give you one example -- right now, your Social Security -- your payroll tax is capped at $109,000. So what that means is, is that -- how many people -- I don't mean to pry into your business, but how many people here make less than $109,000 every year? (Laughter.) All right, this is a pretty rich audience -- a lot of people kept their hands down. (Laughter.) I'm impressed. (Laughter.)

No, look, what it means is basically for 95 percent of Americans, they pay -- every dollar you earn, you pay into the payroll tax. But think about that other 5 percent that's making more than $109,000 a year. Warren Buffett, he pays the payroll tax on the first $109,000 he makes, and then for the other $10 billion -- (laughter) -- he doesn't pay payroll tax.

So -- yes, somebody said, "What?" (Laughter.) Yes, that's right. That's the way it works.

So what we've said is, well, don't we -- doesn't it make sense to maybe have that payroll tax cut off at a higher level, or have people -- maybe you hold people harmless till they make $250,000 a year, but between $250,000 and a million or something, they start paying payroll tax again -- just to make sure that the fund overall is solvent.

So that would just be one example. That's not the only way of fixing it, but if you made a slight adjustment like that, then Social Security would be there well into the future and it would be fine. All right? (Applause.)

link

"Social Security is not in crisis," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."

link

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Obama is pretending that there's historical precedent for his 'incrementalism'

Of course, Social Security was decidedly non-incremental - when Congress tried to water it down, FDR refused, leading to a stalemate that FDR won. Medicare was non-incremental, too. I can't think of one great progressive advance that was incremental - can you?

As mentioned upthread, Obama's also pretending that FDR let the economy falter for six months so he could look better when he made the save: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=96277&mesg_id=98012

And Obama's pretending that "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen " so he has an excuse to slash benefits.

[ProSense]

44. "President Obama is right. Much of the progress we have made as a nation has come one or two steps

...at a time" David Woolner.

Yeah, that is how it often happens, which is precedent.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Specific example would be useful, thanks.

Gotta go now - can play more another time.

[ProSense]

47. Social Security

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

link

[MannyGoldstein]

147. Only to the extent that everything ever is 'incremental'

Social Security was 80% baked from the get go. This is far different than Obama's starting-with-10% incrementalism. Different galaxy.

[JDPriestly]

151. The pension coverage began first but did not cover all workers.

This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#1939b

[JDPriestly]

149. Obama's statements about Social Security suggest that rather than

making progress one or two steps at a time, he is planning to undo the progress we made over 50 years ago.

We paid for our Social Security. There is no excuse to cut benefits other than the fact that we have lost our industrial basis and therefore the good jobs to outsourcing and importing.

Social Security is not the problem.

Our trade policy is the problem.

[boppers]

75. Uhm, Social Security didn't just spring out of whole cloth.

Widows and Orphans figured heavily in the existing government programs to help the needy. Different branding on it, though, as it came from war pensioners, rather than the general workforce.

OASDI is a helpful name to keep in mind when thinking about the current branding, and intent, of the plan.

[Hannah Bell]

111. social security did not originate as a plan to help widows & orphans.

but thanks for repeating the same winger crap obama did.

[boppers]

115. So, what did the 1860's-1930's version of it cover, then?

http://www.civilwarhome.com/pensions.htm

It's not like a federal pensions system didn't exist and the New Deal just invented one from scratch.... old age was added long after disability and survivors.

[Hannah Bell]

121. bullshit. but that's no surprise.

[U4ikLefty]

124. I see people are catching on to our "friend"

May pizza be in his 2011.

[bluestate10]

133. Can you refute the assertion with facts? nt.

[WinkyDink]

138. Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

[bluestate10]

141. Your link.

Just shows that a program that was restricted to military veterans and their dependents was more broadly extended by FDR. How does that disprove that a program that later became SS had not exited since the Civil War? In addition, the FDR program covers may be 20% of what modern SS covers. Please don't accuse me of wanting to destroy SS because I point out weakness in your argument and that of another poster, my belief is that SS must remain a government program and not be subjected to the casino environment that is Wall Street.

[MannyGoldstein]

145. The Constitution is actually the Magna Carta

maybe even the Code of Hamurabi.

Got it. Thanks for playing.

[Hannah Bell]

161. you can make up crap until the cows come home. there was no "program that later

became social security".

you can repeat that crap all you want, it's a big fat mendacious right wing falsehood.

if people are determined to spew big fat mendacious right wing falsehoods, that's what they're determined to do and there's no sense talking to them because they do it willingly, knowingly, for reasons of their own.

[WinkyDink]

135. "Social Security," as is commonly understood and of whose benefits we speak,

IS FDR'S.

On June 8, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a message to the Congress, announced his intention to provide a program for Social Security.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Yes, there is a history of "social" and "security." But nothing affected the US as a whole until FDR.

[MannyGoldstein]

148. It was a pension for Civil War Soldiers.

Totally different thing. It was payment for service, not a social safety net for all citizens.

Geez.

[boppers]

152. Hence:

"as it came from war pensioners, rather than the general workforce"

Over the next 120 years, it kept expanding, to cover more and more people.

Also, as Social Security was initially implemented under the New Deal, it was not (and still is not) a social safety net for all citizens.

"Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers."
http://tinyurl.com/pxmzs

Even now, if you're jobless and single (or gay, so no marriage benefit) for much of your life, you're still pretty much fucked.

[MannyGoldstein]

155. Can you show me a single reference to the Civil War Pension

in any Social Security legislation? Or in any text from the days when FDR was creating Social Security? Anything to indicate the two were linked in any way?

If not, why not simply say that Social Security is actually an expansion of Hamurabi's code? They're both laws for the benefit of humanity.

[boppers]

156. Is the official social security website good enough for you?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

You're looking for the section callled:

Civil War Pensions: America's First "Social Security" Program

[MannyGoldstein]

158. No. That's an afterthought that they're both similar in some respect

Again, it's like saying that the Magna Carta was the first Constitution - there's a point to be made, but one is hardly the expansion of the other,

[boppers]

160. Ah, the goalposts:

"Anything to indicate the two were linked in any way?"

If you read the whole page, there are bunches of precursors, different kinds of contributions, increments, before the 1935 act (and many changes afterwards, to get to where we are today).

Oh, and you might want to be careful about Magna Carta references, as the Supreme Court occasionally uses it to determine what the intent of the Constitution was.

[Still a Democrat]

81. A post worthy of it's own thread n/t

[bluestate10]

91. Why even try?

Look at the number of recs. Any Obama slasher post gets dozens of recs, even as the post is completely without merit. This moderate has to wonder how many rightwing lurkers are embedded here as progressives and are using every distortion at their disposal to damage President Obama - all the while getting a joyous reception. I swear, after participating in the debate over the re-elected governor of Massachusetts, I would not want a progressive to cover my back in a political knife fight. If I could not find another moderate, I would choose a conservative, then at least I would know that I would almost certainly get a knife in my back and be prepared to prevent that from happening.

[liberation]

"If I could not find another moderate, I would choose a conservative..."

With "moderates" with such freudian slips... who needs "conservatives?"

[JDPriestly]

146. ProSense, do you have the dates on which Obama made those

statements. The trouble with Obama is that he speechifies beautifully and then always finds some excuse for abandoning the beautiful promises he makes in his speeches. He never, never fights for the ordinary American people. He just compromises on our interests. It's just deplorable.

FDR did not compromise so readily. That is why FDR left such a positive mark on the history of America. That is why FDR is so highly respected, revered as president.

Obama is only doing slightly better than George W. Bush did when it comes to taking care of ordinary Americana' interests.

I proudly wore my Adlai Stevenson button to school as a child, but I would even rate Eisenhower way higher than Obama in terms of caring about the interests of us ordinary folks.

[earcandle]

48. Funded by your tax dollars.. your payroll tax dollars.. not an entitlement. Get your refund plus

interest before we allow them to dismantle anything. 

[Schema Thing]

98. It's an entitlement. Your lack of understanding about the word "entitlement" ...

does not change the definition.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. Lie Lie Lie Yep! He has mastered the art.

[dflprincess]

136. I don't think he'll cut benefits for those already receiving it

what he'll do is go after the benefits for the rest of us by raising the retirement age and cutting what the monthly benefits will be.

He'll lose a lot of Boomer votes doing that as most of us are just at the point where we could almost see retirement on the horizon.

I never thought I'd see a Democratic president sell out Social Security.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[highprincipleswork]

50. What can Obama do?

I love this post for showing what a truly motivated President can do with a recalcitrant Congress. If you want it badly enough, you stare them down and let THEM blink.

Listen, we all know this. Anyone who has done any business in their life at all know this. So then, why do you expect and excuse anything less from the most powerful leader in the world?

[orbitalman]

55. Disenchantment. n/t

[Radical Activist]

57. Your subject line is misleading, again.

Obama never claimed that FDR didn't have to fight to get Social Security. Nowhere does this article show that Obama misrepresented anything.

Was social security as it passed what we have today? No.
Did the original version serve as a foundation for what came later? Yes.
That's all Obama said and the blog you linked doesn't refute that in any way. The authors completely missed the point Obama was making.

[leftstreet]

58. Obama didn't make the incorrect statement about widows and orphans?

I thought he actually did

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

59. Is that detail the focus of the author's criticism?

No. You're avoiding the issue pathetically.

[leftstreet]

60. Misrepresentation appears to be the focus

So, yes

It's not an article arguing the strengths/weaknesses of a particular social program

[Radical Activist]

61. It appears to be a predictable hit-piece pushing the tired meme that Obama is weak

combined with the trendy fear-mongering about Social Security. It doesn't appear to have occurred to the authors that Obama had to fight for HCR just as hard as FDR had to fight for social security. And they missed the point the current HCR will serve as a building block just as SS did. Talk about oblivious.

[leftstreet]

63. The 'trendy fear mongering' about SS is coming from the Administration

meh

You're right though, it doesn't appear the authors set out to describe Obama's fierce battle :eyes: for mandated for-profit health insurance.

But I'm sure there are articles out there that do just that

[Radical Activist]

65. In fact, the site they linked shows that Obama's point was accurate.

They engage in their own revisionist history by claiming that FDR didn't have to compromise. They choose to live in a world of make believe where Presidents can always get what they want by just demanding it. No wonder they're disappointed in Obama. They thought they were electing Santa Claus.

The same source this blog links to show Obama was wrong about an inconsequential detail also confirms that Obama's point was correct.

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/obamas-social-security-stumble/

Obama’s larger point was valid; Social Security was enacted as a compromise. An official treatise on the program’s historical background says: "The Social Security Act did not quite achieve all the aspirations its supporters had hoped." Many workers were not covered at first, including government workers, railroad employees, the self-employed, farm and domestic workers, and employees of nonprofit organizations. According to SSA, only about 60 percent of the workforce was covered by the system’s Old-Age Insurance program.

[leftstreet]

66. His point was accurate? So SS originally WAS only for widows & orphans?

I can find no evidence of that

:shrug:

[Radical Activist]

67. So disingenuous. Are you really claiming to be too stupid to understand Obama's actual point?

Is that what you're going with or do you want to quit the act? Do you understand the difference between a detail in a conversation and the point of a conversation?

[leftstreet]

69. Hey now, I may be disingenuous but I'm not stupid

:-)

Give it up, dude, miss, whatever...

Apparently Obama's speech writers fucked up and put him in a position of lying.

It's not fair and it sucks

End of story

[Radical Activist]

71. The end of the story is that the point Obama was making is correct.

No matter how much you try to avoid it. Social Security, as it first passed, was a smaller program and served as a building block for what came later, just as Obama hopes Health Care Reform and other accomplishments will be. Trying to avoid that reality by chasing an inconsequential detail is a Rush Limbaugh tactic.

[Divernan]

105. Social Security, unlike O's HCR, NEVER profited private businesses.

If Obama had had the decency and integrity to set up at least a pilot public option program, then one could say he'd established the first building block. But he sold out so completely to Big Insurance that he couldn't even put in such a token gesture.

[Rex]

86. HB has the part about the orphans and widows right up front and that is

a main point made, sorry if you want to fight about something else. The point was made, is valid and still stands. You are the one being disingenuous by shifting the meaning of the OP in the first few sentences to Obama's overall meaning. Nice squirm. Nice try.

Obama got something wrong or lied, I'd prefer to think he got it wrong based on some lazy writers. Why people here blow fuses over the truth, I'll never understand. Oh right it is Obama and he is never wrong. :eyes:

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

68. Try reading the post again before you respond this time and not just the subject line.

Take a minute and read the link that shows Obama's broader point was correct.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Radical Activist]

62. The detail is irrelevant to the point Obama was making anyway.

The point is still valid. Social Security was originally smaller and served as a building block.

[leftstreet]

64. It's a lie, not a 'detail'

And I suspect Obama had absolutely NO intention of lying.

Hey his speech writers fucked up, and it's not fair because he has to own it.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[bjobotts]

117. Will people understand that criticism of Obama doesn't equal non-support

[Radical Activist]

123. Will people understand that Limbaugh style tactics are still baloney when liberals do it?

[liberation]

118. Hey, it is not a lie! It is an "enhanced version of an alternative reality"

Duh!

Don't anger him or you will force him to defend the status quo... you know, like "radical activists" are known for doing... LOL

[dflprincess]

137. Yes he did

I heard him make it when Jon Stewart had him on TDS & I believe he has repeated that lie several times.

[JamesA1102]

82. Very well said nt

[Stinky The Clown]

72. K&R

[earth mom]

76. If the faithful don't feel thrown under the bus by Obama yet, they should when they see crap like

this! :grr:

Keep living in denial and you'll be eating cat food for sure!

[Radical Activist]

77. Should I be convinced by the way the blog misrepresents history

or by the way they miss Obama's actual point?

FDR did have to compromise when he passed Social Security. "Staring down the Senate" didn't stop FDR from having to compromise with the Senate. And the authors seem oblivious to Obama's point about how SS served as a building block for what we have today. People who are educated about how progress has always happened in America are not as upset with Obama right now.

[Major Hogwash]

127. Farmers weren't covered in the first version, and I know that for a fact because of my grandfather.

He was a farmer and he was not covered by social security.
He was born in 1902 and worked as a farmer his whole life.
He didn't pay into the program while he was working, so he was not covered by the program.

However, by the time he retired in 1962, he was given the option of "buying into" the program, by paying so much money into the social security program.
Then they set up an account for him to draw on, that he used to live on for the next 25 years.

Considering the fact that he only died in 1987, I don't even have to read a history book to know those facts are true about social security -- he told me the history of how he obtained social security himself!!

And he thought that FDR saved this country from total ruination.
When he was out of work and couldn't find a farm to sharecrop on in the early 1930s, he got a job with the WPA until the economy improved and he could go back to farming.
He thought that FDR was the greatest president of his lifetime, maybe tied only with JFK, for the best president ever!

President Obama has only been in office for 23 months, so we don't know what else he will be able to accomplish during his time in the White House.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[bluestate10]

96. Agree.

DU seems to be split into several camps. There are the avowed leftists, progressives and moderates. Since I have been a member of the site, I see leftists and progressives dismissing moderates' concerns that burning down our house is not going to get us into a mansion. Political progress is incremental. Social Security as enacted by FDR was a stopgap program, in the statistically unlikely event that people lived long enough to collect it. The expectation was that people would pay into the program and fall dead before collecting, with their eligible survivors getting a small stipend until their eligibility ran out. The expected cost of the program was sold as minimal. Fast forward when people are living to the age of 80, even past 100 and are on SS for as many as 35 years before dying, with the later years being expensive ones crammed with frequent healthcare and special services like home care.

[hulka38]

103. Cuz I'm proud to be an American

where at least I know I'm free...

[Hannah Bell]

126. we didn't start the fire. dlc = burning down the neighborhood

[savalez]

108. Well said 'Still a Democrat'

[Bluebear]

175. "Well said" but deleted. Hmm.

[MannyGoldstein]

157. It's a big deal - it's a fringe-right talking point

And Obama's repeated it at least three times - nothing unintentional.

[defendandprotect]

85. K/R -- and thanks for caring enough to keep the records straight ... !!! :)

[Imagevision]

90. However, Bonner isn't into compromise, the isn't in his vocabulary...

no such thing as government working together - have they ever before?

[20score]

92. K&R...

I dig your posts, Hannah Bell.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Overseas]

97. Sad K&R. //nt

[tcaudilllg]

102. Townsend was an instrumental figure in that fight.

SS was from the beginning about old people, who were dying of starvation at the time due to their inability to work and the disappearance of their savings. Obama should apologize, but I don't think he will.

Still this will be a blight on him.

[MannyGoldstein]

150. Indeed.

Little did Dr. Townsend know he know he was just expanding a Civil War pension.

[hulka38]

104. Good post HB n/t

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[slipslidingaway]

109. knr nt

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[lonestarnot]

132. Aye fuckamungo.

:crazy:

[prodigals0n]

134. Obama 2012?

Not so much.

See sig below.

[emilyg]

139. k/r

[somone]

140. Obama will promise to fight for Social Security in 2016

as soon as he's finished 'fixing' the Social Security crisis according to instructions from the cat food commission

[tavalon]

142. 2010 sucked presidentially

May a spine be found and used by all in DC in 2011.

[Bozita]

163. K&R, Bigtime!

[pam4water]

171. K&R He's is clues leaf in the wind. N/T

[earcandle]

173. Happy New Year everyone

[Raine]

177. K & R

:kick: unfortunately too late to officially recommend but I'm giving a personal recommend. :thumbsup: :hi: